Bowen-Hinman Debate: Answer to Bowen no 1 (Talmud)

This is not finished needs proofing but i have computer problem so I'm,postimng early;



Worthy opponent, fellow people, let's start!


Bowen:
Here is how I would summarize Joe Hinman’s first argument:
1. There are MANY references to Jesus in the Talmud that were censored but that were preserved in some texts.
2. There are A FEW references to Jesus in the Talmud that were not censored.
3. ALL of the references to Jesus in the Talmud speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure.
4. IF (1), (2), and (3) are true, THEN the external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.
THEREFORE:
5. The external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.


Hinman: I don't Object to that understanding of the argument.

Bowen:

In order to show that premise (1) is true, I would expect Hinman to produce at least five or six quotations from the Talmud that have references to Jesus that can be shown to have been censored.  In order to show that premise (2) is true, I would expect Hinman to produce at least three or four quotations from the Talmud that have references to Jesus that were not censored.

Hinman: I have several responses to that.


(1)There is a Cambridge scholar Instone-Brewer who shows the censoring of a passage. More on that below

(2) we know some passages are censored because they  are not in the Talmud or their form in it is different they are copies that were written before the censoring which was 1500s.

(3) We know they were censored because they mentioned Jesus and feared this would anger Christians, and it did actually.


(4) the rabbis admit to the censoring and they admit Jesus is in the Talmud, at least some do. it's not secret and both back then and now Rabbis admit Jesus was discussion in the Talmud. I quoted several rabbis saying this on the long page I linked to for the Talmud argument.

(5) Celsus proves it: he says he went to Jews and asked for the dirt on Jesus they gave him what they thought was historical truth about Jesus,and the things he said are exactly what is said in the Talmud.Even the part about his mother named Mary being a hairdresser. What he wrote he wrote in second century but the Jews did not put it in the Talmud into fourth century (Shafer, Op cit., 20). Thus we know it;s oral tradition and probability is they had it well before Celsus asked for it.

Bowen mentions I should use 10 references. There are many more. I will focus on four but there are well over 10 (I would not usually use Wiki but It's a good list)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Specific_references

Specific references[edit]Sanhedrin 43a^[68] relates the trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus ("Yeshu" in Hebrew) and his five disciples.

The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.^[69]Sanhedrin 107^[70] tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to the inn-keeper's wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but [his rabbi] was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick [idol] and worshipped it."^[71]In Gittin 56b, 57a^[72] a story is mentioned in which Onkelos summons up the spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement.^[73][74]Some scholars claim that the Hebrew name Yeshu is not a short form of the name Yeshua, but rather an acrostic for the Hebrew phrase "may his name and memory be blotted out" created by taking the first letter of the Hebrew words.^[75]In addition, at the 1240 Disputation of Paris, Donin presented the allegation that the Talmud was blasphemous towards Mary, the mother of Jesus, ("Miriam" in Hebrew) and this criticism has been repeated by many Christian sources.^[76] The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a,^[77] Sanhedrin 106a,^[78] and Shabbath 104b.^[79] However, the references to Mary are not specific, and some assert that they do not refer to Jesus' mother, or perhaps refer to Mary Magdalen.^[80]Summary[edit]Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:^[81]

• Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)

• Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)

• As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)

• As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)

• As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)

• Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)

• Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)

• Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

not full list (see my major four below in addition to these)

Bowen:

 (3) I would expect Hinman to show that in each one of those references, Jesus was spoken of in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure.  If, however, there were dozens of references to Jesus in the Talmud, I would not expect Hinman to walk through each and every such reference, but I would expect that he would discuss a significant sample of those references (perhaps a dozen passages) that included a number of passages from various areas of the Talmud, and that included both censored passages and non-censored passages.

Hinman:
no I don;t think so. I've made known the examples I'm willing to defend, they are there they can't be denied and the Rabbis admit to them. Celsus backed it up. I did give examples and I can give more on my pages. three pages on this link where I deal with many examples.


Bowen:

Looking over the evidence that Hinman presents about the alleged references to Jesus in the Talmud,  it seems to me that his evidence is too skimpy to adequately support his factual premises (1), (2), and (3).  I also think that premise

Hinman: Debate's just starting I never said that page  was all my evidence. But the four major examples are really enough to prove my point. I haven't demonstrated them yet. A further example of several passages and a major "stand -in" for Jesus will also be listed.

In the opinion of many modern rabbinical scholars, "Balaam" was often used by the Sages as an alias or code word for Jesus of Nazareth. For example, consider this statement about Balaam from the prestigious Jewish Encyclopedia:

Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practices (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot. v. 19). The name 'Nicolaitanes,' given to the Christian heretics 'holding the doctrine of Balaam' (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, [Hebr. char.] = [Greek char.], and hence also the pseudonym given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Git. 57a.
[ The Jewish Encyclopedia (1) in Carol A. Valentine.. "Censoring the Talmud 2: Jesus Membrum in Talud,' Come and Hear, onm line URL:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html accessed 6/20/16]

here is the Jesus page encyclopedia Judaica. cited above

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html


Bowen:

 (4) is false or dubious, at least as it stands.  The principle stated in premise (4) will, I believe, need to be modified to be made plausible, and if it is modified to make it plausible, there may be some additional claims or premises required to make this argument work.  I suspect that repairing premise (4) will reveal a gap in Hinman’s first argument, and that he will have more work to do to fill in that gap.  We shall see.

Hinman: Actually he reconstructed my argument to produce p4 and the other p's from which it derives.I think that is not a good practice to remake the argument then attack your remake.  I would call it a straw man argument except I think Bowen is above straw men, and I don't disagree in principle with the remake. I do disagree with the argument here.



Bowen: [snip the description of Talmud]

 Hinman needs to provide about a dozen quotations from the Talmud that refer to Jesus, at least five or six passages that can be shown to have been censored, and at least three or four passages that were not censored, and a total of about twelve passages (if there are that many) that are ALL shown to speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person.

Hinman: I don't think so. (1) where is he getting this number? There's no rule book of historiography that says you have to have 12 examples. 

(2) I have more than 12 but four major examples are \quite enough.He wants 12 examples and he wants then to be long and for me to do a close reading I', going to be witting a dissertation.

(3) why should i provide examples of one's not censored? If I document that a given passage was censored and what the original version was that should be enough.

(4) the underlying assumption in his argument is that earlier is better, that is a fallacy. That is the first thing i learned about textual criticism.

where does he get the number a dozen? why ? Arbitrary.

Bradley keeps implying that it is always so long between the doing and the writing that this may be an argument he;s planing to make.,If so I can prove the Jews had an oral culture they knew how to preserve oral tradition.

Bowen:
Ideally, all of the quoted passages would be from the Mishna, which is the oldest part of the Talmud that was written down early in the early third century.  But if there are not that many references to Jesus from the Mishna, then as many as possible should be from the Mishna, and the remainder of the quoted passages would be from the commentaries on the Mishna that make up the Gemara.

Hinman: there's the fallacy. a lot of people think older is always better. The fact is that;s  latter MS can have earlier readings. That is born out by Danker's Diatesseron which is written late second century gut has pre Mark redaction Reading.

Bowen:

So how many passages does Joe Hinman quote from the Talmud? How many of those passages are from the Mishna? There are zero quotes from the  Talmud on Hinman’s initial (overview) web page.  If you click the link for his details about references to Jesus in the Talmud, you will go to a lengthy blog post that contains numerous quotations, but only a few quotations in that post are from the Talmud.  More specifically, only FOUR passages are quoted from the Talmud by Hinman.  Hinman fails to provide the dozen or more quotations that are needed to do an adequate job of supporting the factual premises of his argument.

Hinman: We had no agreement about putting the major evidence on the first post. I didn't want that first page to be as long as a phone book so I chose to make it a kind of portal to the real evidence.


Bowen:

Furthermore, TWO of the quotations from the Talmud consist of a single brief sentence that is (apparently) found in two different sections of the Bablylonian Talmud.  Hinman provides a block quote from Encyclopaedia Hebraica that contains the one-sentence quotation from the Talmud. Here is the relevant portion of that block quote:

Hinman:  He had no counter evidence for that so he;s going to make my presentation suspect by demanding multiplying of examples.

I have four major passages. how long must a passage  be before a historian says this proves something? I contend there is  no set length; Josephus saying "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" just as significant as a five page statement, Is it the case that there are a lot of one sentence passages or is it that a sentence is all that's quoted? my four passages are longer than a sentence anyone who follows the links can see that. I will deal with the  fallacy of Mishna below.
my four passages: HERE ARE THE FOUR PASSAGES:

(1)Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a Rabbi busted for quoting Jesus
a paragraph long with quote supposedly by Jesus

Constantin Brunner, "appendix on Criticism.."Info online resource
http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm  accessed 6/15/16

Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, 'How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?' He replied, 'I acknowledge the Judge as right.' The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, 'Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.' When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, 'Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?' He replied, 'Say it.' 'Master,' said he, 'perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?' He exclaimed: 'Akiba thou hast reminded me.' I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene, For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return. They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her— which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.—Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a  [7] [8]

[7] Constantin Brunner, "appendix on Criticism.."Info online resource
http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm  accessed 6/15/16

[8] Peter Shafer, Jesus's in the Talmud: Princeton Township:Princeton University Press, 2007,

And here is Constantin Brunner's comment on this passage from his essay against the Christ myth theory:

The passage in Avodah zavah 16a deserves special attention: it is the most remarkable reference to Jeshua in the talmudic tractates, ascribing to him as it does a certain spiritual significance. It speaks of him as one who taught; things learned from him had come down, through his disciple Jacob of the village of Zechania, to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who adopted this tradition. In fact, Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was one of the most distinguished Tannaim, the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II.; he was also called Eliezer the Great. And so this Rabbi Eliezer, who lived in the first Christian century, speaks of an opinion of Christ which had come down to him from a disciple of Christ (and some identified this Jacob with  Christ's brother). This seems to me to be an important fact, particularly as it touches Christ's historical reality, and I find it astonishing that the critics have thus far paid no attention to it. Moreover, it is more than probable that important, really important sayings of Christ (not under his own name, of course) are contained in Talmud and Midrash. There are plenty of sayings and parables of great clarity, beauty and dignity which could have come from his mouth.[
Constantin Brunner,info, Website, accessed 6/20/16 URL: see above] 

For those having difficulty understanding all this, a famous rabbi was called to account for repeating an opinion of Jesus of Nazareth that a whore's donation to the temple should be used for the priests' toilets, from filth to filth.

that establishes it as early possibly first century. It also establishes historicity because it ties to James, supporter Gospels AMD Josephus brother passage.

(2)Instone-Brewer and b. Sanh. 43a

the Instone-Brewer passage. Not from the Mishna but in this case there are markers that denote it as early as Mishna time and perhaps originating in the Mishna tradition .Peter Kirby explains: "who has undertaken to analyze the talmudic traditions generally for their date of origin with an eye to seeing which may predate A.D. 70, the introductory formula is: normally used for traditions originating with Tannaim – ie rabbis of Mishnaic times before 200 CE – though the presence of such a formula is not an infallible marker of an early origin. However in this case, it is likely that these formulae are accurate because this helps to explain why the rabbis regarded this Jesus tradition as if it had comparable authority to Mishnah. Further, he notes, an independent attestation in Justin Martyr brings the most likely date before 150:"(on my evidence page)

On his video Instone-Brewer shows the censored text and the original uncensored and demonstrate they name Jesus by name list charges says he will be hanged before Passover. hanged is crucified. He shows they changed it to stoning rather than Crucifixion to change the facts of The Romans executing him.[Tyndale house, "Expert's Evidence for Jesus Crucifiction," You Tube, URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw accessed 6/20/16]

(3)Shab 104b Mary the Hairdresser,, 

 "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." This is just a snkipit to show what it's about.This is the one Celsus said the Jews provided him and said it was real dirt on Jesus.


(4)Jewish tractate of Talmud: Jesus Genealogy (Lightfoot). 


That is Mishna and documented by the great schlar Lighfoot

(John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55) 'Azzai said: "I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." there's more that;'s just an indication ofwhat it'sabout."

There is a lot more material we could go into

a couple of real good sources to look at:

a list and analysis of all the censored passages
'Jesus of Nazareth: a magician and false prophet who deceived God's people?' by Graham Stanton; in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: essays on the historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. by Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1994): pp.164-180. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, Eng: Paternoster Pr, 1994). A detailed discussion of the charges against Jesus in other literature.

Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Pess, 2007) by Peter Schäfer
- an up-to-date discussion of the historicity of all the censored passages



*Other passages: Balaam

Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practices (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot. v. 19). The name 'Nicolaitanes,' given to the Christian heretics 'holding the doctrine of Balaam' (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, [Hebr. char.] = [Greek char.], and hence also the pseudonym given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Git. 57a.[7]

In Tractate Sanhedrin 106a and 106b, the Sages discuss Balaam and his mother. We get another clue about Balaam's identity with the hint that Balaam's mother "played the harlot with carpenters."

 *The scholars who suggest that Balaam refers to Jesus were not a "small group." They include:

• the Soncino editor Rabbi Dr. Epstein of Jews' College, London
• Rabbi Dr. Freedman and Jacob Shachter, the renowned Talmud scholars who translated Tractate Sanhedrin for Dr. Epstein and the Soncino Press
• the writers and editors of The Jewish Encyclopedia
• the Rev. Dr. Robert Travers Herford, author of Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash, a renowned Jewish studies scholar of his day.[9]

*"The Soncino translation of the Talmud and the scholarship behind it were endorsed by two Chief Rabbis of the British Empire and the Dayan of the London Beth Din. Ironically, ADL rejects the Soncino Balaam scholarship, at the same time in the same position paper it recommends the Soncino Talmud." (18)[10] (8,9,10 = Censoring The Talmud: Jesus Membrum in The Talmud," Come and Hear: An Educational Forum for The Examination of Religious 
truth and Religious Tolerance.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html)

*In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman promotes scholar Rev. Dr. Herford's view that the "harlot" is a reference to Mary, mother of Jesus. (Ibid)



Bowen:

From the stories about Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, it is evident that he was regarded as a rabbinical student who strayed into evil ways: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself like Jesus the Nazarene” (Ber. 17b; Sanh. 103a; cf. Dik. Sof. ad loc.).
I’m generously counting this as TWO quotations, since it appears to be a sentence found in TWO different parts of the Babylonian Talmud.

Hinman: not to disparage the work of my worthy opponent but it seems that his argument works out to a red herring in a sense, He can present all the passages he likes but, I am making the argument if he finds a million passage he shows don't meet the burden that doesn't mean the ones I pick don't either. So we have to look at my four passages and they are the one's upon which decision ought to be made. Not that they are the best but they the one's I have the one's of which I know the most. 


Bowen:

Since the Bablyonian Talmud was produced in the 5th century, these two passages were produced hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.  So, there is an OBVIOUS issue of historical relevance here, and an OBVIOUS issue of independence.  First, how do we know that these passages reflect the views of rabbis from the first or second century (as opposed to the third, fourth, or fifth century), in order for the passage to be of historical relevance?

Hinman Now there's that fallacy again. I call it the early is better fallacy--this was one of the fisrt things I learned about Textual criticism. Case in point is the Pre Mark Passin Narratiove (PMPN). Jurgen Dancker found it in the Diatesseron. That work is late second century but it commotions readings from pre Mark redaction. See Helmutt Koster, Ancient Christian Gospels c.1992. 

Such is the case with the Instone-Brewer b. Sanh. 43a Yeshua hanged eve Passover where a limguistic marker \tags it as early. We also see it with the folio (Rabbi busted for quoting Jesus).


*we might also take also take note of the fact that he has produced no scholars saying my passages are inadequate that is all based upon his assumptions and questions.




Bowen:

Second, even if it could be shown somehow that these two passages accurately reflect the views of rabbis back in the 2nd century or even near the end of the first century, since the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 CE, how can we know that this view of those rabbis was not indirectly based on Christian beliefs and traditions that were in turn based on the Gospel of Mark (or one of the other 1st century writings contained in the NT)?

Hinman I assume he means the Eliazer (rabbi busted) passage. That absolutely is good evidence for historical Jesus. in it Jesus is quoted as a n actual teacher or rabbi with authority although who misused his authority, He is also linked in the passage to James head of the church (see Brunner above),That means they are regarding a historical figure. They also quote him and in such a way that he is seen as cleaver and powerful. That does not help their cause so it is probably a real historical trace of the actual man

Bowen is also missing the boat on the idea of Rabbis quoting NT,  because the fact that they did react against the Gospels is clear. The stories they spun about Jesus are obviously polemics that are bounced off of the Gospels. rather than born of a virgin he's born of a whore. Rather than working miracles he works black magic. none of this means their works are not evidence of historicity. They are still accepting Jesus as a man in history They have no inkling of him being mythical.



Bowen:

There is no argument provided by Hinman on these obvious issues, so these two passages cannot be taken seriously as historically relevant and independent information that supports the claim that there was a flesh-and-blood historical Jesus.

Hinman Just answered it

Bowen:
Thus, if we set aside this initial dubious set of two meager one-sentence passages from the Babylonian Talmud, we are left with ONLY TWO substantial quotations from the Talmud in Hinman’s lengthy blog post.

Hinman: again they are not one sentence passages, they are passages of which I only quoted one sentence,


Bowen: [i just zapped his statement by mistake,but he said again we need a dozen passages]

Hinman: Again, where did he get a dozen passages? that's his dogmatic assertion it's arbitrary no law or rule of  historiography says this. But moreover, I gave a dozen and more, see the first link at the top. He cant answer passages i've given. the four, he can't answer  the four! Look it's unreasonable to say I have to quote the passage. I've documented their existence he has no counter evidence,

Bowen:

Before I proceed to examine the two substantial quotations from the Talmud that Hinman provides, let’s consider the views of some well-informed N.T. scholars about references to Jesus in the Talmud.
First, here is what Bart Ehrman has to say about the external evidence from the Talmud:
In order to complete my tally of early references to Jesus, I need to say a few words about the Jewish Talmud.  This is not because it is relevant but because when talking about historical references to Jesus, many people assume it is relevant.  (Did Jesus Exist? p.66)

For a long time scholars treated the Talmud as if it presented historically accurate information about Jewish life, law and custom from a much earlier period, all the way back to the first century.  Few critical scholars take that view today. In both its iterations, it is a product of its own time, even though it is based on earlier oral reports.

Jesus is never mentioned in the oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, but appears only in the later commentaries of the Gemara. … (Did Jesus Exist?, p.67)

Hinman: that is Nonsense on 4 counts 

(1) the situation is just the opposite. historians have ignored the Talmid as though it has no value now they beginning to see it as a great sore. That;s what is happening all over scholarship. Documemted by Robert Shafer in Jesus in the Talmud Princetom U.l Press 2007) and agreed with by the review in first things,(Benjamine Bailent "Talmudic Jesus,"  first things, June 2007
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/06/001-talmudic-jesus

 (2) Famous Historian of the Talmud speaks of Jesus in the Mishna and revels that the Mishna was purged when it was written so JESUS PASSAGES WERE TAKEN OUT (2nd century)

In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.

In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries."
(Neil Altman Kansas City Star Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003 to KansasCity.com )

(3) The reason scholars say there are no passages of Jesus in the Mishna is only because they refuse to count the stand-ins (such as "such-a-one, or Pandira,) as Jesus.. They have Plausible deniability; in calling him "such a one," as opposed to Jesus they can say there are no passages about Jesus Many scholars see Jesus stand-ins in the mishna. Above I  gave a list from Encyclopedia Judaica listing several major Rabbis who agree Balaam is Jesus.

(4) Jesus is in the Mishna there are passages.

a.The Morey book is called Jesus in the Mishna and Talmud

 b Mishna passage MISHNAH.[104b]

 If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)

these phrases such as Pandira and Satada these are terms used to cover the name Jesus in the censored version, When we see the we names we know they probably are about Jesus.("stand-ins").

c. Passage with stand in Such a one. 

"They asked Rabbi Eliazer as regards such a one in the world hat is to come. He said "you have only asked me about such a one...what of a bastard as touching inheritance? What of himj as touching the Levite Duties?" Dr. Klausner speaks f this ealry  Tannaictic [assave (Mishna) as saying it does refer to Jesus. He also says the passage previously quoted about Mary the Hairdresser is also early.
[ Josh McDowell, Bill Wilson,Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims, Eugene Pregam Harvest Hill Puiblioshing 1964, 66]

d, Many passages using code names for Jesus are in the Mishna: Ben Stada and Panthera

\"And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] (Morey, p. 6)

e Schaffer in Jesus in The  Talmud disagrees and argues for Jesus in sources from first and second century.(,pp6-7) He does admit that the major passages are Babylonian but he argues that early and late are not issue. Shaffer, Jesus in Talmud:  "I agree that much of the Jesus material is relatively late...the most explicit passages appear i the Babylonian Talmud...it is only here that our real inquiry begins..."(8).

f. Encyclopedia Judaica (op, cit) says some do come at least from second century (Bowen says 2nd century is acceptable see above: "even if it could be shown somehow that these two passages accurately reflect the views of rabbis back in the 2nd century or even near the end of the first century,") Caution. that article's author does not accept stand-iomjs as Jesus.


g, a random list of bits of information from first century supplied by the Talmud passages, this doesn't mean the Talmud is historically accurate but it does mean it provides connections to first century Judaism even if not from the Mishna

*Jesus' age given accurately and connected with Jesus stand in

A certain min said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.' (11) [come and hear]

*R Eliaser lived in first century (busted for quoting Jesus)

*Lots of evidence for Insone-Brewer quote including a tag marker indicating time of the Mishna

*Panthiera and Stada passages are in Mishna

* Genealogy might Correlate with Luke, even if not  at least indicates they thought of him as real
(from the genealogy passage)
* Hairdreser passage from second century but that/'s the time of it;'s writing.probably goes back before that

*Mothyernamedev Mary

*associated with Mary Magdalene (although confused her with his mother)

*Pantheria is authentic name for Joseph's father according to many church fathers, that implies a Jewish take on his genealogy because Christian more readily identified him with his place of residence Prof Goldstine:

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...
"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmudpermitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (Maurice Godlstoine in McDowell & Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims,Eugene Or.  Harvert House.1977 ,64) [same Godlstine?vdofferent passage]

*Passageom Rabbi Elizser (busted rabbi) refers to jesus' brotyer James(first centiry knowledge) even if Borwen ays he fgot it grom Jo or from Gospels it's still first century

*also p 20 Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century but the Talmudic passage from which his information comes  is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral traditionalism before they wrote it down. How could Celsus get the information before they wrote it unless unless the7 possessed it first in oral form? So it's older than the wrtkng of it.

*Shafer also backs Panthera as name of Jesus Grandfather based uponmany passages indouiding mishna (20)

j. list of poimts used by Klausner to argue for sch a one as Jesus (op cit 67)
*Such a one's mother being named Mary

*Jesus genealogy passage says her father was Heli which some think is nickname or Eli that accord's with  Luke's genealogy.
* Named Yeshu of Nazarath
*Performed Miracles (billed as "black magic")teacher and Expounded Scroipture
*said he's not come to take away from the law but to fulfill it.
* Hanged (crucified) on the Eve of passover
*Disciples healed the sick in his name.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* name has healing power.
*teaching impressed omne rabbi



Bowen:
These Talmudic references to Jesus were written hundreds of years after he would have lived and so are of very little use for us in our quest.  By the time they were set down, Christianity was a major force in the Roman Empire, and every single Christian telling stories about Jesus naturally assumed that he had really existed as a historical person.  If we want evidence to support the claim that he did in fact once exist, we therefore have to turn to other sources.  (Did Jesus Exist?, p.68)

Hinman: Crosson says he does find the fact that Christians believe Jesus was real is a good enough reason to believe he was I quoted that on the argument V. That's especially the case not one single example in 1900 years of anyone arguing otherwise but that Jesus was a man in history. the claim understanding of that goes all the way back to the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived.

I don't have to prove that Jesus did exist.IO have to prove only there's a good reason to assume he did. The mythers are chaining the Sataus quo so they must overturn presumption.Belief in Jesus historicity has presumption. It is the accepted verdict of history.

Bowen:
Ehrman firmly believes that Jesus did exist as a flesh-and-blood historical person, and he argues strenously for this conclusion in his book Did Jesus Exist?.   So, Ehrman is not rejecting the Talmudic evidence on the basis of prejudice against the conclusion that Jesus existed.  He is rejecting this evidence because his believes it is too late and of dubious independence.

Hinman: I don't find that impressive. He's a good scholar but he is not an expert on the Talmud.I just refereed to some major scholars who were Rabbis and who accepted that Balaam was Jesus. here they are again:

• the Soncino editor Rabbi Dr. Epstein of Jews' College, London
• Rabbi Dr. Freedman and Jacob Shachter, the renowned Talmud scholars who translated Tractate Sanhedrin for Dr. Epstein and the Soncino Press
• the writers and editors of The Jewish Encyclopedia
• the Rev. Dr. Robert Travers Herford, author of Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash, a renowned Jewish studies scholar of his day.[9]

I quoted several rabbis saying Jesus is in the Talmud. The people come and hear site include Rabbis.
Shafer disagrees with Ehrman. I quoted McDowell and Wilson quoting Rabbinical souirces saying the Jesus stand is are in the early writings.

Bowen:
Another N.T. scholar who has studied this issue closely is Robert Van Voorst, who wrote a widely-used book on the external historical evidence about Jesus.  Van Voorst also has significant doubts concerning the evidence about Jesus from the Talmud:
All this raises the issue of how the rabbis gained this information about Jesus.  Did they have independent chains of tradition on Jesus, passed from rabbinic master to rabbinic disciples, reaching back into the first century?  The evidence points to a negative answer.  While we cannot be sure, given the paucity and difficulty of the evidence, the third-century rabbis seem to have had no traditions about Jesus that originated in the first century. 

Hinman:
(1) again amature mistake to think earlier is always more accurate and latter is always less so. That;s they first I learned about Textual criticism.
(2) Shaffer argues specifically that in the case of this topic earlier and latter is not the issue, he says: he puts greater emphasis on weather it's Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud than earlier or latter, and he says Babylonian is better because they were freer to criticize Christianity.(7-10).
"I agree that much of the Jesus material is relatively late...the most explicit passages appear i the Babylonian Talmud...it is only here that our real inquiry begins..."(8). Like me in this debate he is not concerned with historical accuracy,(I am only arguing for Jesus existence that can be understood from the fact that they talked about him and only as a man kin history),



Bowen:

 Besides the rabbis typical disinterest in history and confused knowledge of the first century, what the rabbis say about Jesus appears to be the product of at least the second century.  (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.120)
All the general information that the rabbis have on Jesus could have been derived from Christian preaching. …

Hinman: 
that does not mean they made it up in the second century, it means it was written in the second century, The fact that the Jews told Celsus in about 175 means not that they made i \t up in 174 it means they probably had been circulating us ideas for some time. No reason to think it doesn't come from first century. Talmud is not history the rabbis were not concerned with history but with law. that doesn't mean there aren't historical influences all over it. Eherman has no special knowledge of the Jews who wrote the Talmud he's just going by climate of opinion.

Bowen:

The more specific information given by the rabbis that diverges from the New Testament shows no sign of being from the first century.  They proceed instead from creative imagination, which ran free in rabbinic storytelling.  (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.121)

Hinman: 
what would be a sign of being from the fist century? Does he even know enough about the Talmud and Jewish studies to know if they rest of the Mishna looks first century? Two major markers I would look for would be type of  language and events of the day or lack of events. I don't know how Eherman is fixed for Hebrew studies but I know the Rabbis were not interested in history so they weren't into current events. Christianity would not have become a major issue to them until around 64 when the  fight was about to start over Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple was soon to follow. Those little matters would have been just a bit distracted, kept them from dealing with the Jesus issue right away.

Bowen:

Perhaps the most telling indication that the rabbis had no independent, early traditions about Jesus is their failure to place him in the right century.  A chain of tradition from the first century would have set this error straight.  The better explanation of all the rabbinic information on Jesus is that it originated in the second and third centuries.  (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.121-122)
Like Ehrman, Van Voorst firmly believes that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure, and he argues against the mythicist position (see Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.6-16), so Van Voorst does not reject the evidence about Jesus from the Talmud out of prejudice against the historicity of Jesus.  He has serious doubts about the Talmudic evidence because in his scholarly judgement this evidence is too late and of dubious independence to be of historical significance.

Hinman: Originating in second centenary is not a problem but two answers: (1) He's ignoring the passages that are there, the ben satda amd Pantheria passages because they have deniability since they don't say "Jesus." (2) They weren't writing until the end of the second century anyway. Before that it was oral. There no say to tell what the oral tradition included before it was written down. They are just assuming that because the Mishna doesn't have overt Jesus passages that it has none. He does not know what they knew or when they knew it, it's not reasonable to assume they knew nothing prior to writing it down. as for subject markers I already dealt with that. they wrote oral tradition so it stands to reason it as part of that so thus noised about before the second century was that old,We have living memories of the apostles up to mid century, it is entirely possible that they had living memories from just the generation after Jesus.

Bowen:

Finally,  John Meier, one of the leading Jesus scholars of the 21st century, has carefully reviewed the various alleged Talmudic references to Jesus and found them to be of dubious historical significance:
In my opinion, apart from the texts of Josephus we have already seen, this vast literature [i.e. ancient Jewish literature from around the time when Jesus allegedly existed] contains no independent reference to or information about Jesus of Nazareth.  (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.93)

Hinman: he's just repeating the same idea with Meier.

Bowen:

…scholars of rabbinic literature do not agree among themselves on whether even a single text from the Mishna, Tosefta, or Talmud really refers to Jesus of Nazareth.  (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95)
In my opinion, Maier’s arguments are especially convincing for the Mishna and other early rabbinic material: no text cited from that period really refers to Jesus. … Jesus of Nazareth is simply absent from the Mishna and other early rabbinic traditions.  (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95)
The Talmud does not record even one talmudic teacher who lived at the time of Jesus or in the first half century of the Christian era as mentioning Jesus by name.  As for the rabbis of the 2nd century A.D., they were reacting to the Christ proclaimed by Christianity, not the historical Jesus.   (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95-96)

Hinman: This whole debate thing started because he was saying what an assshole Maier how bad his arguments are. Ehrman is a find scholar with big name Maier might be even better, and might have a better rep or at at least comparable. Neither of them, however, are Hebrew scholars or Talmudists.
Those i quote are major Rabbis and a couple of good accompisyed Christian scholars.


Bowen:

I tend to the view of Morris Goldstein, who finds no certain reference to Jesus in this passage [a passage from the Mishna cited by Joseph Klausner], and indeed in the Mishna and the tannaitic midrashim in general. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.97)

Hinman: I Documented Morris Goldstimne agreement with Klausner that the panthera [assages are Jesus stand ins that is documented by McDowell.

So Goldstine mistrusts one passage that's not the whole ball game.

Indications of first century knowledge in Talmud:

*R Eliaser lived in first century (busted for quoting Jesus)

*Lots of evidence for Insone-Brewer quote including a tag marker indicating time of the Mishna

*Panthiera and Stada passages are in Mishna  (Goldstine says Panther was Jesus' grandfather)

* Genealogy might Correlate with Luke, even if not  at least indicates they thought of him as real
(from the genealogy passage)
* Hairdresser passage from second century but that/'s the time of it;'s writing.probably goes back before that

*associated with Mary Magdalene (although confused her with his mother)

*Pantheria is authentic name for Joseph's father according to many church fathers, that implies a Jewish take on his genealogy because Christian more readily identified him with his place of residence Prof Goldstine:

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...

"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmudpermitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (Morris Godlstoine in McDowell & Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims,Eugene Or.  Harvert House.1977 ,64) [same Godlstine?vdofferent passage]

*Passageom Rabbi Elizser (busted rabbi) refers to jesus' brotyer James(first centiry knowledge) even if Borwen ays he fgot it grom Jo or from Gospels it's still first century

*also p 20 Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century but the Talmudic passage from which his information comes  is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral traditionalism before they wrote it down. How could Celsus get the information before they wrote it unless unless the7 possessed it first in oral form? So it's older than the wrtkng of it.

*Shafer also backs Panthera as name of Jesus Grandfather (20)

Bowen:
…in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth.  Furthermore, I favor the view that, when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written.  Hence, apart from Josephus, Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent source for inquiry into the historical Jesus.   (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.98)

Hinman: He';s not counting the references with Plausible deniability



Two new arguments supporting the Talmud argument (Tie breakers?)
I. New Information argumemt

(1) We have good reasoms to accept stand=ins like Pamthera as Jesus Marked by so may coincidences it;s dead giveaway (see list above--especially the one about not come to destroy the law but fulfill it, obviously him they are quoting Jesus to mark who it is).)

(3) Skeptic will say they just based upon the Gospels.

(4) same figure shows some aspects that imply new information

(5) it is highly likely Jesus, if he existed, would exhibit these characteristics

a. charged with sorcery, if he was thought to heal he might be accussed of magkic

 b. Mother said to be hairdresser. That's like calling her a whore but Gsospels say Jesus was classed among sinners.

c. quoted the Elizaer story (busted) in a way that makes him seem cleaver it doesn't help the Jews so it's not polemical.

d, Panthera/Panderia and other varients all function tye same as im c, they are new informatiom but offer nothing to the cause ofdefamngJesus.

(6)  doesn't prove it but there is a likelihood these are historical fragments.

(7) therefore belief in Jesus' as historical figure is warranted.


Argument II

Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century the Talmudic passage he parallels is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral tradition before the passage was written.. It's not likely that they just made it up right before Celsus asked for information on Jesus. So  good reason to think it as circulating for some time.

even if this entire argument is not enough for warrant, taken together the preponderance of the five will warrant

Bowen:
So, one of the leading Jesus scholars of the 21st century is on my side concerning this issue about alleged references to Jesus in the Talmud.  Joe Hinman has a serious uphill battle to fight here.


Hinman: Naw I'm halfway there I;'m already figuring up ways to spend the book royalties. I think I'll buy comic books.


========================
This post is still in work.  I plan to add more material here to respond to the TWO substantial quotes from the Talmud that Hinman provided in his essay on evidence for the existence of Jesus from the Talmud.
========================
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/21/debate-the-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-1/#disqus_thread