Instone-Brewer evidence on Historicity of Jesus

Image result for church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
Church of Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem


This essay was originally written as an answer to Peter Kirby's straw man argument where he set up his best case for Jesus' historicity then knocked  it down.



I am not going to deal with any of the Pagan historians who document Jesus existence, such as Tacitus. Tacitus is defensible but it's not really the best evidence. Going by the best I've done Kirby's attempt at making the case on Josephus, Here I will deal with his straw man on the Talmud.[1] Then on NT and Church "fathers." Remember Kirby is doing a straw man argument, making the alleged "best case" for Jesus historicity so he can tear it down and say "I made the case and it doesn't stand up to my fierce onslaught." That's what I expect from a coward who is so threatened by better scholars that he chases them off his message board with the flimsy excuse that they have too many posts on the bard. So here we have the section where he makes his straw man version of the Talmudic Evidence for Jesus' Historicity.

Kirby writes:

This is the Jewish tradition regarding the trial of Jesus, found in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanh. 43a. While this text was finalized sometime in the fifth or sixth century, by its nature it incorporates many traditions that are very old, as it collects and quotes traditional commentary of the rabbis.
It was taught:
On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying]: “Yeshu the Notzarine will go out to be stoned for sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows [anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.”
 But no-one came to his defence so they hung him on the Eve of Passover....According to David Instone-Brewer, 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:
Outside the Talmud, two charges are recorded by Justin Martyr who said that as a result of Jesus’ miracles, the Jews “dared to call him a magician and an enticer of the people.” (Dial. 69)[Btw hanging was a euphemism for crucifixion]

Kirby then draws again upon Instone-Brewer [2] in discussing the date of this writing. He argues that the date of the trial and excision being so close to Passover and the charges (sorcery not in the NT) would not be brought by a Rabbi or Pharisees since: (1) Rabbis and Pharisees would seek to discourage activity so near the Passover, (2) they would want the charges to be reflective of Torah and rabbinic halakha (teaching on the law). The account is not coming from new testament and not made up by Rabbis since they would make up time and charges they wanted. This implies a real event recorded in the memory of the common people and echoed in Rabbinic literature. Kirby makes the point that the event would have been remembered for the unusual date, the charges reflected would not have been interpolated by Christians. So this is good historical evidence for Jesus' existence.

That's ok for a beginning but that's the end of his argument. That is pathetic. There is a far more devastating case to be made. I will not go into great detail but just list a few points he could have raised that would strengthen the case tremendously. The first point involves his own source for documentation. One thing that makes the case for Jesus from the Talmud so hard to prove is the deniability of the rabbis. They will argue that is is not Jesus of whom the text speaks. They were afraid of being persecuted by Christians, Not without good reason, so they censored the literature themselves to take Jesus out of it. We know they did because we have copies of the pre-censored texts. In some cases they used epithets to talk about him, such as "such a one."
*Such-an-one
*Pantera
*Ben Stada
*Yeshu
*Ben Pantira [3]

When we  see these names we know it's probably Jesus of whom they speak. It does give them plausible deniability but there are a couple of reasons why we can know it's him. One of the major reasons is we have some of those documents and two of the scholar who are major in making this argument include Dr Peter Williams and Dr David Instone-Brewer "look at the Munich Talmud, which contains traditional Jewish teaching, and discover how even the deleted text provides evidence for Jesus' crucifixion!" [4]  Kirby researched this guy  why didn't he know that?

On the video seen below (fn 4) Instone-Brewer shows that from one of these pre-censored documents they can show that the text is derived from the original charge sheets read against Jesus. They can show this because the term hanged in the pre-censored document was changed to "stoned" in the censored version. Hanged means crucified. So they changed it because (he thinks) as not to reflect the Roman method of execution. I think it was to distance it from the Jesus story. If they are right that is direct proof Jesus existed in history. I am counting that as two points. (1) the basic fact of censoring. what are they censoring? If it's not to take Jesus out? Then (2) that specific example of the charge sheets, (3) Celsus.


The genealogy of Jesus was known to the Jews, is mentioned in the Talmud and shows up in the use of the name "panteria." This is duscussed above where it is said that the use of that name is the jewish preference for a geneological connection. Another quotation above:

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69) [see fn4]

So genealogical connections tie the figure of Pantera to Jesus of Nazareth. Of course mythological figures would not have genealogical connections. Jesus Mother, brother, and family are mentioned throughout many sources.

II. Celsus


Celsus demonstrates a connection to the material of the Talmud, indicating that that material about Jesus was around in a least the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been readily available to Celsus it seems reasonable to assume that this information had been floating around for some time, and easier to obtain. Therefore, we can at least assume it goes back to the early second, late first century.


Origin quoting Celsus:
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." [5]


Celsus was obviously reading the Talmudic sources, he has the same material they do and he as much as says so:
Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" ....
I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts).  [6]


These three reasons in addition to Kirby's point.  (1) the charge sheets, although that is an expansion of the point Kirby made. (2) the fact of the censored documents, (3) the evidence of Celsus. That is really the nail in the coffin of mytherism.


For more on Jesus in Talmud see my page on Religious  A Priori

Sources

[1] Peter Kirby," Best Case for Jesus:(d) Babylonian Talmud (and Justin Martyr)"Peter Kirby (blog)
Jan. 22, 2015, Online resource, URL:http://peterkirby.com/the-best-case-for-jesus.html accessed 1/18/16

[2] David Instone-Brewer, "Jesus of Nazareth's Trail in Sanhedrin 43a," PDF, pre publication copy
URL: 
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf



[3] Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us Here's Life Publishers (1988)


[4 ] Expert Evidence on the Crucifiction of Jesus.Be Thinking blog
Dr David Instone-Brewer Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament, Tyndale House, Cambridge
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/expert-evidence-on-the-crucifixion-of-jesus

the Be Thinking Blog reflects a much bigger body of literature demonstrating Jesus in the Talmud, something else Kirby didn't want to talk about.

For more information see:

“Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a” (Jerusalem Perspective, 2011) by Dr David Instone-Brewer
- a detailed discussion of the dating of the different layers in this tradition. (Pre-publication version)
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
Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London: Williams & Norgate, 1903; New York, KTAV, 1975) by R. Travers Herford
- 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.


[5] Origin quoting Celsus, On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, 59


Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and in savoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" (57). "I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62). "The men who fabricated this genealogy [of Jesus] were insistent on on the point that Jesus was descended from the first man and from the king of the Jews [David]. The poor carpenter's wife seems not to have known she had such a distinguished bunch of ancestors." (64). "What an absurdity! Clearly the Christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth." (57). "After all, the old myths of the Greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind- and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers." (59).







[6] McDwell and Wilson, op. cit. 57, 62


The mention of this particular pair of charges, in this order, is hardly likely to be a coincidence.
To resolve the internal difficulties of the text and its parallels elsewhere in the Talmud, Instone-Brewer proposes that the original form of this tradition was simple: “On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine for sorcery and enticing Israel.” The proposed expansions before and after the charges explain the unusual date of the execution, in that an especially lenient period allowed people to come to his defense and that his execution occurred at the last possible time, while still occurring publicly while crowds were there for the holiday.
Since the New Testament account gives no account at all of a charge of sorcery at the trial of Jesus, instead emphasizing charges of blasphemy and treason, it is difficult to see this account as deriving from the Gospel story. Moreover, Instone-Brewer argues:
The origin of this tradition is also unlikely to be rabbinic or Pharisaic. Although it has been preserved in rabbinic literature, there are two reasons why it was unlikely to be authored within this movement. First, a rabbinic author or their Pharisee predecessors would want the order of the charges to mirror Torah and rabbinic halakha. Second, rabbinic traditions and the major Pharisaic schools tried to dissuade people from working on Passover Eve, so they would not have invented a tradition which said that they decided to try Jesus on this date.
Because the Jewish leaders of the first century were in a position to know the circumstances of such an execution, which would have been remembered for taking place on an unusual date, it is plausible to see this rabbinic tradition, late as its written record may be, as stemming from the historical Jewish memory of the execution of Jesus on Passover Eve with charges of sorcery and leading Israel astray.
You could even say that it’s more probable than not, in which case what we have right here is an argument for the historicity of Jesus. I value it more highly than both Josephus and Tacitus, as it certainly did not come from a Christian interpolator (unlike Josephus) and actually has a decent argument to the effect that it did not derive from the Christian tradition about Jesus (unlike Tacitus).
Summing Up the Argument from Non-Christian Sources

The absence of an ancient tradition questioning the existence of Jesus isn’t exactly telling, positive evidence for us today. While Josephus could be devastating evidence for the historicity of Jesus, it seems more fair either to regard the text as moderate evidence against on account of silence regarding Jesus or simply as too difficult a textual question to hang your hat on. Tacitus likewise is only faint as direct evidence but does raise a good question: with references like these, does doubt have anything to recommend it? Finally, even though its late date of compilation makes it impossible to rule out the possibility of a Christian source to the tradition with certainty, the Jewish tradition (recorded in the Talmud and with an echo in Justin Martyr) provides actual evidence for a historical Jesus. This tradition says that Yeshu the Notzarine was hung on the Eve of Passover, accused of sorcery and enticing Israel to idolatry.
(Sidenote: Some might not find the Talmudic tradition to be enough evidence to fill in a picture that meets their minimum definition of the historicity of Jesus. For example, without more information, he might have lived “one hundred years before Christ,” as proposed by G.R.S. Mead and Alvar Ellegard.)
(2) The Best Case: The Gospels and Related Traditions
Continuing my attempt at a best case for the historicity of Jesus, I’d proceed directly to the Gospel texts and related traditions. They are the most extensive source of details regarding the life of Jesus, so our estimation of them is an essential part of the process of evaluating the evidence.
(2) (a) The Gospel of Mark
The genre and purpose of Mark is a vexing question in New Testament studies. There’s still a plausible argument to be made that the author is a fairly unsophisticated writer, who has padded out his narrative of the ministry of Jesus with little stories here and there that he has heard (alongside some of his own inventions), and the best case for a historical Jesus might capitalize on such an argument. The incorporation of Aramaic material, by an author that seems more likely to know only Greek and Latin; the inclusion of obscure Palestinian geography, by an author that gets the basics wrong; the references to the family of Jesus, by an author that has no use for them; all of this suggests an author that has taken up bits and pieces of prior tradition while creating his story.
Richard Carrier makes a valiant effort to show that Mark 15:21 is “just as likely on minimal mythicism and on minimal historicity,” offering that the passage here may be intended as a symbolic reference to Alexander the Great and Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher (On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 446-451).
They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. (Mark 15:21)
Only the Gospel of Mark contains this reference to Simon as “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” Right away we can then form two objections to Carrier’s tentative hypothesis. First, the other example of a symbolic message in the Gospel of Mark (“the number of loaves and baskets in Mk 8.19-21”) had no trouble getting copied in Matthew and Luke, proving that the evangelists were capable of copying these symbolic messages. The omission from the other synoptic Gospels suggests that, even at the early date of the writing of Matthew and Luke, this reference in Mark was not understood as symbolic. Second, it’s just a bit of a stretch to suggest that two names centuries apart, who could not actually be sons of Simon of Cyrene, are just as likely an interpretive option as, say, two names of people that were known to the audience and that were sons of Simon of Cyrene, just as Mark 15:21 actually says.
Carrier asks that we should always look for “strong external corroborating evidence (such as we have for the existence, at least, of Peter and Pilate), in the absence of which, for any detail in Mark, we should assume a symbolical meaning is always more likely” because of all the known examples in which Mark tells stories with “some esoteric allegorical or symbolical purpose” (On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 451).
We should distinguish between allegorical fiction and false tales, in that the author of Mark may have been a fabulist who wanted his stories to be believed and thus authenticate the good news of Jesus as the Messiah. Thus the evidence regarding stories constructed out of the Septuagint is evidence of falsehood of some kind but not necessarily evidence of allegory. As popular literature with the purpose of promoting belief in Jesus Christ, with a near-contemporary setting, the Gospel of Mark could even be argued to make more sense as unabashed invention, meant for belief, rather than as a sophisticated symbolic tale.
(Sidenote: Why don’t we have more people simply positing that an author was, to put it plainly, a liar? There is a real danger of overuse of the “allegory card,” which can be played to avoid making pointed “accusations.” This is history. All claims are equally worthy of proposal, in the pursuit of an accurate account of events.)
But there is a trace of evidence that could help us to place Alexander and Rufus in history, or at least the latter person. In the letter of recommendation for Phoebe, also known as Romans 16, we find the words of Paul: “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also.” Here we learn that there was a Christian named Rufus known to Paul. We also hear about his mother but not his father, which might suggest that she was a widow. While it is impossible to prove, it is plausible that this Rufus and his brother Alexander were sons of Simon of Cyrene. This in turn means that the author of the Gospel of Mark, by drawing attention to Alexander and Rufus, who were known to Mark’s audience, could easily be exposed as a liar if they had never heard of their father carrying the cross for Jesus. This suggests the existence of a very early tradition which, like an early tradition that Jesus had a brother named James, would lead most people to suspect that there was a historical Jesus.
- See more at: http://peterkirby.com/the-best-case-for-jesus.html#sthash.NdPMbJZ9.dpuf

Comments

im-skeptical said…
Hanged means crucified.
- It seems that' not really the case. The words have distinctly different meanings. See this.
Joe Hinman said…
wow your misconceptions are Trumpeque in nature. That is sheer stupidity, it doesn't matter what word is used for hang,the Greeks did not have a special word for hanged that is used when baking a metaphor you just say hanged,

Greek does not have special metaphor forms of words. the Roman did not hang by the neck until dead,
Joe Hinman said…
Co notations are not determined by the special form of a word they are determined by context, the word hanged is the word hanged but in some context it means crucified. Especially when they didn't hang like we do.

I was actually quoting a scholar,it was in the quote by scholar that it said that.
the arithmetic you quote from is not by a scholar.

im-skeptical said…
You were quoting someone who is desperate to justify the apparent discrepancy. Hanged, crucified - what's the difference? But the Greek language does distinguish between them, as the article I linked points out. They wouldn't have used the word for 'hanged' if he was fixed in position with nails. It doesn't make sense in the language, and you can't just write this discrepancy off by claiming that they have the same meaning.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
You were quoting someone who is desperate to justify the apparent discrepancy. Hanged, crucified - what's the difference? But the Greek language does distinguish between them, as the article I linked points out. They wouldn't have used the word for 'hanged' if he was fixed in position with nails. It doesn't make sense in the language, and you can't just write this discrepancy off by claiming that they have the same meaning.

That is nonsense, in fact it is cretinous. It is Puerile. Don't you know what euphemisms are? Concentrate here,I said this before, we don't have special words that we use use for literary devices,we make euphemisms we have to use regular words so of course they use a word and context decimeters meaning. BTW that article you quoted might not be by a native speaker.

Jews did not use a rope around the neck as execution. In the context of execution,which this is, it means crucifixion,(given first century Palestine) Yew it is the word hang it not a special word the context determines what it meaning.

euphemism: "a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"“downsizing” as a euphemism for cuts""


https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ViH0W9-kHO2k_QbglrmoDA&q=what+is+a+euphemism&btnK=Google+Search&oq=what+is+a+euphemism&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l7j0i22i30l3.991822.999327..999976...1.0..0.257.3202.0j19j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0i131.Gmu4metk5zc
Joe Hinman said…
I put the phrase in brackets but the information was from the Instone-Brewer article It is his authority that documents the phrase. He is the scholar from Cambridge. The source Skepie qpotes is an apologist for Islam my accouter not a scholar.
Joe Hinman said…
Jesus in the Talmud - Page 168 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0691143188
Peter Schäfer - 2009 - ‎Religion
That the hanging is performed on a tree is evident from Deut. ... “blessed” (a euphemism for “cursed”). 23. ... is obviously influenced by the New Testament narrative and identifies hanging with “hanging on the tree = cross” = being crucified.
im-skeptical said…
Like I said: "desperate to justify the apparent discrepancy." And the source I cited is someone who obviously knows Greek much better than you, but he doesn't have an ideological reason to believe the Cristian spin. He reads those words for what they say, not what his religion dictates about how he is supposed to interpret them.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
Like I said: "desperate to justify the apparent discrepancy." And the source I cited is someone who obviously knows Greek much better than you, but he doesn't have an ideological reason to believe the Cristian spin. He reads those words for what they say, not what his religion dictates about how he is supposed to interpret them.

you still missing the point man. You do not get the concept., The word meaning is not important,this is not about denotation but connotation! Do you not get that? you have a seventh grade education?

I see no evidence that your Islamic blogger knows any Greek. He knows how to use a lexicon Since the denotative meaning of the word is not at issues it's pointless to disagree with his analysis of the word meaning; it means hanged. So what? It's the connotative meaning we need to know.

I quoted two real scrollbars you quote none. 2 to 0, win.
Joe Hinman said…
btw Skepers if you thin the tern hanged is really hanged does that mean you dispute Jesus being crucified? How does that prove He didn't exit? The people saying he was hanged say he was a real guy and that is the actual issue.

say you are right we need to change crucifix to little hangman's nouses and we need to say Jesus was hanged by the neck until dead for our sins, Ok so you still need to give your life to Christ and trust his hanging by the neck until dead for your salvation,have you done that?
im-skeptical said…
I quoted two real scrollbars you quote none. 2 to 0, win.
- You quoted people who agree with your beliefs. And that's what really matters to you. I quotes someone who actually knows Greek.

if you thin the tern hanged is really hanged does that mean you dispute Jesus being crucified? How does that prove He didn't exit?
- I didn't claim it proves he doesn't exist. I'm saying it belies your argument that there are all these historical reports of Jesus. It shows that the stories are inconsistent, and probably don't refer to the same person. Or if they are talking about the same person, they show that the Christian narrative has substantially changed from the original.

say you are right we need to change crucifix to little hangman's nouses and we need to say Jesus was hanged by the neck until dead for our sins, Ok so you still need to give your life to Christ and trust his hanging by the neck until dead for your salvation,have you done that?
- The point is that the story has changed. Not just how he died, but WHY he died, and everything else you believe about him. Jesus isn't the guy you think he was.

Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
I quoted two real scholars you quote none. 2 to 0, win.



- You quoted people who agree with your beliefs. And that's what really matters to you. I quotes someone who actually knows Greek.

they have advanced degrees in biblical studies,teach at major universities contribute to academic publishing. I really do believe you do not know the difference in an apologist and a scholar. I believe in scholarship you don't know what it is,



if you thin the tern hanged is really hanged does that mean you dispute Jesus being crucified? How does that prove He didn't exit?


- I didn't claim it proves he doesn't exist. I'm saying it belies your argument that there are all these historical reports of Jesus. It shows that the stories are inconsistent, and probably don't refer to the same person. Or if they are talking about the same person, they show that the Christian narrative has substantially changed from the original.


they don;t refer to the same person because one person used euphemism,? how does that follow? Do you understand you are basing your argument on being very legalistic about the use of word in one source? Baht because because you don't know how euphemisms work.

say you are right we need to change crucifix to little hangman's nouses and we need to say Jesus was hanged by the neck until dead for our sins, Ok so you still need to give your life to Christ and trust his hanging by the neck until dead for your salvation,have you done that?

- The point is that the story has changed. Not just how he died, but WHY he died, and everything else you believe about him. Jesus isn't the guy you think he was.


the story changed because one source used a slang term instead of a formal phrase?
I produced two scholars that agree I've seen references to many more. It is common knowledge, you can't even produce one guy who supports your pinon accept a Muslim who has no advanced degree and may never have studied anything outside his own faith,
Joe Hinman said…
you want to foment the lie that we can't trust any Christian scholar,but we can't trust an atheist or a Muslim by that same logic. You can;t prove the second guy I quote--Peter Schäfer -- is a Christian,
The Pixie said…
im-skeptical: The point is that the story has changed. Not just how he died, but WHY he died, and everything else you believe about him. Jesus isn't the guy you think he was.

This is a good point. On the one hand we have the claim the Jesus was executed by the Jews for blasphemy:

On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying]: “Yeshu the Notzarine will go out to be stoned for sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows [anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.”

On the other, we have Mark, the earliest account available, saying Jesus was executed by the Romans for claiming to be King of the Jews, i.e., a rebel leader:

Mark 15:2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
...
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
...
17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!”
...
25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

Two very different claims, illustrating how much the story changed (or two different people).
Joe Hinman said…

Hi Pix. you don;t do thanksgiving but happy thanksgiving anyway,

Blogger The Pixie said...
im-skeptical: The point is that the story has changed. Not just how he died, but WHY he died, and everything else you believe about him. Jesus isn't the guy you think he was.

This is a good point. On the one hand we have the claim the Jesus was executed by the Jews for blasphemy:

On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying]: “Yeshu the Notzarine will go out to be stoned for sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows [anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.”

That is not the gospels telling us this its the moieties of the gospel So you can;t clam the story has changed just because the enemies tell it wrong,

more after breakers


Joe Hinman said…
the enemie's re-telling doesn't count as changing the story, because they change it as a polemic.


On the other, we have Mark, the earliest account available, saying Jesus was executed by the Romans for claiming to be King of the Jews, i.e., a rebel leader:

Mark 15:2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

Mark does reflect the fact that the Roman course was instigated by Sanhedrin enemies of Jesus,
...
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
...
17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!”
...
25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

Two very different claims, illustrating how much the story changed (or two different people).

One by his followers the other by the people who had him killed, which would be more believable?? you would chose the police account of a mascara of black revolutionaries over the black panther account? right? you would choose the underworld rendition over the people they had murderer?

Also observe the uncensored version has a different story then the censored version, they changed it to stoning. So what does this tell us? the Talmudists changed the facts to avoid persecution, since the original account was their polemic it is not a different form of the story but a parody of the story,
im-skeptical said…
they have advanced degrees in biblical studies,teach at major universities contribute to academic publishing.
- I don't know what degrees Karim has, but the question was about the meaning of a Greek word, and it was answered by someone who obviously is much more qualified than you. But if you wish to contend that we should only trust people with advanced degrees, then we shouldn't trust anything YOU say. My own academic achievement is greater than yours, by the way.

they don;t refer to the same person because one person used euphemism,?
- It's not a euphemism. We're talking about a word with a distinctly different meaning.

you are basing your argument on being very legalistic about the use of word in one source
- And your sources don't include ANY linguistic analysis. Who should I trust? The Christian spin, or the linguistic analysis?

the story changed because one source used a slang term instead of a formal phrase?
- No. The whole story is different. It's not at all clear that it even refers to the same guy.

One by his followers the other by the people who had him killed, which would be more believable??
- I wouldn't believe the followers. They are ideologically motivated, and are amenable to twisting the truth to fit their ideological bias.

Also observe the uncensored version has a different story then the censored version, they changed it to stoning. So what does this tell us?
- It tells us the the story is NOT consistent. It has changed substantially, which is what I've been saying.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Methey have advanced degrees in biblical studies,teach at major universities contribute to academic publishing.

- I don't know what degrees Karim has, but the question was about the meaning of a Greek word,

No it was not, it was about the connotation evoked by the use of the word in this context, that's what I argued,I never argued that the word itself doesn't mean hanged. that's the magic concept you don't get,


and it was answered by someone who obviously is much more qualified than you.

By two instone-Brewer and Sahfer, you did not quote anyone with credentials.I studied Greek for four years it was my undergrad langue,I have a masters in theological studies,


But if you wish to contend that we should only trust people with advanced degrees, then we shouldn't trust anything YOU say. My own academic achievement is greater than yours, by the way.

As stated I have an advanced degree in theological studes,

they don;t refer to the same person because one person used euphemism,?


- It's not a euphemism. We're talking about a word with a distinctly different meaning.

Apparently you have no idea what a euphemism is. Euphemism is not made euphemism by being made from special words,they are regular words and the context determines their meaning as euphemisms. the context here is Crucifixion.

you are basing your argument on being very legalistic about the use of word in one source


- And your sources don't include ANY linguistic analysis. Who should I trust? The Christian spin, or the linguistic analysis?

It's not a matter of linguistics,there are no linguistic markers that make something euphemism,it's entirely context. The context is clearly crucifixion because there is no other tradition abut Jesus's death. You can't use the passage in question to prove it because that's what we are arguing about. You have to find other passages to back it up, there are no other passage anywhere saying Jesus was killed in any other way. It is well known that hanged up was a euphemism for Crucifixion because it is found on other places.Look Trump imposing your play time on reality will not change the facts



the story changed because one source used a slang term instead of a formal phrase?

- No. The whole story is different. It's not at all clear that it even refers to the same guy.

story told by enemies for polemical reasons is not the story., like the Jews said Jesus' mother was a whore who worked as hairdresser (a cover for whores) you can't seriously assert that Mary was really a whore it's obvious it was said as an insult to Jesus, so not historical proof.

One by his followers the other by the people who had him killed, which would be more believable??

- I wouldn't believe the followers. They are ideologically motivated, and are amenable to twisting the truth to fit their ideological bias.

but you can;t accept that his murderers where ideological or that they changed the facts to justify murdering him?



Also observe the uncensored version has a different story then the censored version, they changed it to stoning. So what does this tell us?



- It tells us the the story is NOT consistent. It has changed substantially, which is what I've been saying.


how does it reflect upon the story when it'n not the stoery but the made up version by his enemies?

that really tells me you so biased against Christianity it;s waste of my time trying to talk to you,no matter what the facts you will always deny them,discussion is pointless.

this is closed

again atheists cannot think or reason
Joe Hinman said…
I do not need linguistically because he has given no evidence at all that anyone ever claimed Jesus was killed in some way other than Crucifixion. We now hanged on a tree was used as a euphemism for Crucifixion, no reason to think that is a literal statement.


so what was he trying to do? He was trying to take notice away from the fact that the fist century Jews admitted Jesus existed as a man in history. that is why they made up a bogus history for him,instead of just saying he didn't exist.
Joe Hinman said…
not closed, didn't men to close so soon. sorry about saying atheists can't think or reason it just kid of rhetorical fart.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
No it was not, it was about the connotation evoked by the use of the word in this context, that's what I argued,I never argued that the word itself doesn't mean hanged. that's the magic concept you don't get
- Joe, if you want to take context into account, then why don't you admit that this text was about a guy who was hanged for sorcery - not about a guy who was crucified for claiming to be the king of the Jews? That's what the story tells us. That's the context.

By two instone-Brewer and Sahfer, you did not quote anyone with credentials.I studied Greek for four years it was my undergrad langue,I have a masters in theological studies
- You didn't learn much about textual and linguistic analysis. There's more to it than trying to force-fit everything into your inflexible belief system. The fact is that a lot of material you cite makes better sense if understood for what it actually says.

As stated I have an advanced degree in theological studes
- You have a master's degree from a bible college. You failed to get your PhD.

It's not a matter of linguistics,there are no linguistic markers that make something euphemism,it's entirely context. The context is clearly crucifixion because there is no other tradition abut Jesus's death.
- The story is about a guy who was hanged for sorcery. And if there are no linguistic markers for euphemism, then how can you be so sure it is euphemism? You have nothing but your faith to base this claim upon.

You have to find other passages to back it up, there are no other passage anywhere saying Jesus was killed in any other way.
- But by your own admission, there is the revised text that says he was stoned. There is the gospel of Barnabas, that says Judas took the place of Jesus. The Quran explicitly says that Jesus was not crucified. Gnostics believed that Jesus was not crucified. Christian theologian Gunnar Samuelsson reminds us that the New testament is the ONLY place where you can find any reference to Jesus being nailed to a cross. So by all means, take the full historical context into account. Thae available evidence does NOT tell us with any certainty that Jesus was crucified.

how does it reflect upon the story when it'n not the stoery but the made up version by his enemies?
- The people who made up the story were the followers of Jesus. His cultists. And the story changed over and over again. That is perfectly clear from the historical evidence. Even the bible itself doesn't contain a single consistent version of it.

Joe Hinman said…
MeNo it was not, it was about the connotation evoked by the use of the word in this context, that's what I argued,I never argued that the word itself doesn't mean hanged. that's the magic concept you don't get


- Joe, if you want to take context into account, then why don't you admit that this text was about a guy who was hanged for sorcery - not about a guy who was crucified for claiming to be the king of the Jews? That's what the story tells us. That's the context.

Because we know the censoring was to take Jesus out of the Talmud, we knew he was there,admitted by the Rabbis he was there., So even rabbis who hate him as a blasphemer know he exists no one claims he did not,. We know this passage is about him because it fits the traces,


MeBy two instone-Brewer and Sahfer, you did not quote anyone with credentials.I studied Greek for four years it was my undergrad langue,I have a masters in theological studies


- You didn't learn much about textual and linguistic analysis. There's more to it than trying to force-fit everything into your inflexible belief system. The fact is that a lot of material you cite makes better sense if understood for what it actually says.

You keep making this same stupid mistake you assuming you know what i have studied what i believe but you don't know shit. you don;t know what Perkins is, it;s liberal,its not a bible college not conservative not Evangelical its liberals. you do not know,

you don't know shit about context rhetoric, hermeneutics or anything else



MeAs stated I have an advanced degree in theological studies



- You have a master's degree from a bible college. You failed to get your PhD.

Not a Bible college dumbass it's the top liberal sen airy in the country for the UMC, it;s a far more intellectual institution than you have been too,Southern Methodist University. I didn't work on my Ph.Dk there or In ethology I stopped wth Masters you don't even have BA in that field,



MeIt's not a matter of linguistics,there are no linguistic markers that make something euphemism,it's entirely context. The context is clearly crucifixion because there is no other tradition abut Jesus's death.


- The story is about a guy who was hanged for sorcery. And if there are no linguistic markers for euphemism, then how can you be so sure it is euphemism? You have nothing but your faith to base this claim upon.

Istone-Brown expolaimns why that doesn't wash,for one thing that charge means he was healing people,they are clearly talking about Jesus. Rabbis of the Talmud admitt he existed.



MeYou have to find other passages to back it up, there are no other passage anywhere saying Jesus was killed in any other way.






11/23/2018 07:04:00 AM
Joe Hinman said…
- But by your own admission, there is the revised text that says he was stoned.

This is another bonehead play by the dumb ass.the censored version dunbdumb, so it;s not historical it's been redone, dumbdubm.

There is the gospel of Barnabas, that says Judas took the place of Jesus.

Nothing in Barabas implies Jesus didn't exist, it does not say Jesus took Jesus place and it was second century,tw still not a difference in execution mode


The Quran explicitly says that Jesus was not crucified.

that really constitutes another version of the story, It violates two major criteria it has to be a version of the story advanced by the church not by enemies and it has to be within 200 years of the events,

Gnostics believed that Jesus was not crucified.

wrong they did not change the mode

Christian theologian Gunnar Samuelsson reminds us that the New testament is the ONLY place where you can find any reference to Jesus being nailed to a cross. So by all means, take the full historical context into account. Thae available evidence does NOT tell us with any certainty that Jesus was crucified.

wrong naive bs it;s in the PMR; besides that doesn;t invalidate it, gospels are historical.

how does it reflect upon the story when it'n not the stoery but the made up version by his enemies?
- The people who made up the story were the followers of Jesus. His cultists. And the story changed over and over again. That is perfectly clear from the historical evidence. Even the bible itself doesn't contain a single consistent version of it.


stop asserting stupid things, I;m not over this again, stories concocted polemics against Christianity do not count as versions of the story, that should be-totally obvious why

the reality is you really do not understand the original argument,

Joe Hinman said…
if skeie is not going to understand the argument by now he's not going to get it,

now it;s closed,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Early Church Mythers, told you they were coming.

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity