Peter Kirby's Straw man "Best Case for Jesus:" Talmudic Evidence.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Peter Kirby is a talented armature,Fine researcher (a skeptic) and well known to the apologetic community for many years, He makes a straw man argument saying this is the best he can do to argue for belief the tearing it down. U pick up where he leaves off and make it into an honest argument.
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:
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 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 f0r the unusual date, the charges reflect 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 o prove is the deniability od 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 copies of the pre-censored texts. In some cases they used epithets to talk about him, such as "such a one."
When we e see these names we know it's probably Jesus of whom they speak. It does give then plausible deniability but there are a couple of reasons why we can know it's him. One of themajor 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 o censoring. hat are they censoring? If it's not to Jesus out? Then (2) that specific example of the charge sheets, (3) Celsus.
The geneology 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 quotion above:
So geneological connections tie the figure of Pantera to Jesus of Nazerath. Of course mythological figures would not have geneological 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 leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible 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 went back to the early second, late frist century.
Origin quoting Celsus:
Celsus was obviously reading the Talmudic sources, he has the same materi9al they do and he as much as says so:
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.
The religious a priori
For more on Jesus in Talmud see my age 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
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.
- 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
[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:
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).
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
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 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 f0r the unusual date, the charges reflect 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 o prove is the deniability od 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 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 e see these names we know it's probably Jesus of whom they speak. It does give then plausible deniability but there are a couple of reasons why we can know it's him. One of themajor 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 o censoring. hat are they censoring? If it's not to Jesus out? Then (2) that specific example of the charge sheets, (3) Celsus.
The geneology 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 quotion 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 geneological connections tie the figure of Pantera to Jesus of Nazerath. Of course mythological figures would not have geneological 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 leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible 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 went back to the early second, late frist 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 materi9al 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.
The religious a priori
For more on Jesus in Talmud see my age 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[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
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
And yet Pantera certainly was a mythological figure!
Joe: Celsus was obviously reading the Talmudic sources, he has the same materi9al they do and he as much as says so:
But what is that source, and more importantly, where does that source gets its information?
Your second reference is a paper by David Instone-Brewer, which says:
"The passage about Jesus’ trial at b.San.43a is unique among them because it appears to
contain a tradition which dates back to the time of Jesus."
What this states unequivocally is that the passage about the trial is the only one ("is unique among them") that originates from the time of Jesus. The implication is that every other mention of Jesus does not date back to that time. So what of the other passages? The start of the paragraph makes this clear:
"The censored passages are almost all late anti-Christian polemics."
That is, in all other cases the text is relatively late, and is a response to Christian claims.
This very much supports what I said in the last discussion. The passages about Jesus being the son of Pantera, for instance, were not based on traditions from the time, but originated later, and were devised in response to what Christians were saying, in this case the claims of a Virgin Birth.
And yet Pantera certainly was a mythological figure!
Not if it's a code name for Jesus
Joe: Celsus was obviously reading the Talmudic sources, he has the same material they do and he as much as says so:
But what is that source, and more importantly, where does that source gets its information?
Celsus. see ny bib
Your second reference is a paper by David Instone-Brewer, which says:
"The passage about Jesus’ trial at b.San.43a is unique among them because it appears to
contain a tradition which dates back to the time of Jesus."
What this states unequivocally is that the passage about the trial is the only one ("is unique among them") that originates from the time of Jesus. The implication is that every other mention of Jesus does not date back to that time. So what of the other passages? The start of the paragraph makes this clear:
I think he means the passages in that document you are trig to stretch it to mean all other mentions of Jesus in the Talmud that is not his meaning. Even if he did mean this one is the oldest or the most historically reliable so what?
"The censored passages are almost all late anti-Christian polemics."
That is, in all other cases the text is relatively late, and is a response to Christian claims.
I have not had access to all.
This very much supports what I said in the last discussion. The passages about Jesus being the son of Pantera, for instance, were not based on traditions from the time, but originated later, and were devised in response to what Christians were saying, in this case the claims of a Virgin Birth.
That is not the major. Talmudic evidence, You need to deal with Brewer's claim about charge sheets because that's really the best stuff,
1/27/2020 02:37:00 AM
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).
Jews self censored the Talmud to remove mentions of Jesus, thus modern Jews deny that it is talking about him, while ancient rabbis used examples supposedly speaking of him for centuries. But what cannot be denied is that the Talmud gives evidence of Christians believing in Jesus as a flesh and blood rabbi from the late first century, which contradicts the Jesus myth theory.
Encyclopaedia Hebraica:
Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), those passages in which Jesus was mentioned, as well as other statements alluding to Christianity, were deleted from most editions of the Babylonian Talmud by the Christian censors or even by internal Jewish censorship. These deletions were later collected in special compilations and in manuscripts (cf. R.N.N. Rabbinowicz, Ma'amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud (1952), 28n.26). From the stories about Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, it is evident that he was regarded as a rabbinical student who had 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.). The rabbis were not certain of his time or his activities. Thus he is described as a pupil of *Joshua b. Peraḥyah (Sanh. 107b; see Dik. Sof. ad loc.).[3]
Dr. Robert Morey continues:
"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts any more... While the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a censored text, the editors usually give the uncensored original readings in a footnote. We have put the statements about Jesus back into the text where they originally belonged and have indicated this by [4]
So you think Celsus got his information from the Talmud, and the source of information for the Tulmud was... Celsus!
Brilliant. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the question.
Joe: I think he means the passages in that document you are trig to stretch it to mean all other mentions of Jesus in the Talmud that is not his meaning....
Here is some context:
"The censored passages are almost all late anti-Christian polemics. They have been collected and analysed by Herford and more recently in great detail by Schaefer. The passage about Jesus’ trial at b.San.43a is unique among them because it appears to contain a tradition which dates back to the time of Jesus."
As far as I can see this is about all the passage in the Talmud that have been censored at some point or another. That is not quite all mentions of Jesus, but the vast majority.
Joe: ... Even if he did mean this one is the oldest or the most historically reliable so what?
It implies the rest are derived from other sources, most likely as responses to the claims of the Christians. E.g., the Christians made up the Virgin Birth, between Mark and Matthew, and so the Jews made up Pantera.
Joe: That is not the major. Talmudic evidence, ...
Instone-Brewer says it is.
Joe: ... You need to deal with Brewer's claim about charge sheets because that's really the best stuff,
Instone-Brewer's claim about charge sheets is the bit we are discussing, the only bit he says is authentic.
I think Jesus was executed, so maybe Instone-Brewer is right here. That does present problems with the gospel accounts, in particular why the Sanhedrin would meet at night, just before Passover. Was the Last Supper actually a couple of weeks before Passover, and the early Christians compressed the time?
I do not think any of your later comments add to the discussion.
Joe: Celsus. see ny bib
So you think Celsus got his information from the Talmud, and the source of information for the Tulmud was... Celsus!
Brilliant. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the question.
He claimed to have gotten his info from Jews, so thy must have read it themselves and told him
Joe: I think he means the passages in that document you are trig to stretch it to mean all other mentions of Jesus in the Talmud that is not his meaning....
Here is some context:
"The censored passages are almost all late anti-Christian polemics. They have been collected and analysed by Herford and more recently in great detail by Schaefer. The passage about Jesus’ trial at b.San.43a is unique among them because it appears to contain a tradition which dates back to the time of Jesus."
even polemics could debased upon historical information obvious they heard things about him he was known to them
As far as I can see this is about all the passage in the Talmud that have been censored at some point or another. That is not quite all mentions of Jesus, but the vast majority.
let's just deal with what we have
Joe: ... Even if he did mean this one is the oldest or the most historically reliable so what?
It implies the rest are derived from other sources, most likely as responses to the claims of the Christians. E.g., the Christians made up the Virgin Birth, between Mark and Matthew, and so the Jews made up Pantera.
no it doesn't necessarily mean that .
are you actually questioning the existence of Jesus? are you a myther?
Joe: That is not the major. Talmudic evidence, ...
Instone-Brewer says it is.
Joe: ... You need to deal with Brewer's claim about charge sheets because that's really the best stuff,
Instone-Brewer's claim about charge sheets is the bit we are discussing, the only bit he says is authentic.
there could be other stuff it doesn't matter
I think Jesus was executed, so maybe Instone-Brewer is right here. That does present problems with the gospel accounts, in particular why the Sanhedrin would meet at night, just before Passover. Was the Last Supper actually a couple of weeks before Passover, and the early Christians compressed the time?
It was on the eve of Passover they were in Jerusalem for Passover.
I do not think any of your later comments add to the discussion.
I don't think any of your evasions add to it either
And last time you said the source the Jews got the story from was Celsus. Round and round we go.
Joe: even polemics could debased upon historical information obvious they heard things about him he was known to them
The salient word is "late", not "polemics".
Joe: no it doesn't necessarily mean that .
Only because you have missed the word "late".
Joe: are you actually questioning the existence of Jesus? are you a myther?
No.
Joe: there could be other stuff it doesn't matter
Sure there might be. But what Instone-Brewer says is that of all the censored passages in the Talmud that are about Jesus, all but one is "late", i.e., from sources other than the Jews of Jesus' time. The only one that is not "late" is bit about the charge sheet, which gives support to Jesus existing and being executed, but no more than that.
Joe: It was on the eve of Passover they were in Jerusalem for Passover.
That does not fit the evidence you have presented that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin prior to the passover. There is no time for the events.
And last time you said the source the Jews got the story from was Celsus. Round and round we go.
Of course not, you misunderstood. Here is what I said: "He claimed to have gotten his info from Jews, so thy must have read it themselves and told him" read it in the Taluidic sources is what I was gettig at.
Joe: even polemics could debased upon historical information obvious they heard things about him he was known to them
The salient word is "late", not "polemics".
Joe: no it doesn't necessarily mean that .
Only because you have missed the word "late".
Joe: are you actually questioning the existence of Jesus? are you a myther?
No.
good man, didn't think you would be
Joe: there could be other stuff it doesn't matter
Sure there might be. But what Instone-Brewer says is that of all the censored passages in the Talmud that are about Jesus, all but one is "late", i.e., from sources other than the Jews of Jesus' time. The only one that is not "late" is bit about the charge sheet, which gives support to Jesus existing and being executed, but no more than that.
i'm not sure if that is what he;s saying but I don;t know any other passages so this is the only one I will defend,
Joe: It was on the eve of Passover they were in Jerusalem for Passover.
That does not fit the evidence you have presented that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin prior to the passover. There is no time for the events.
Yes it does The Instone-Brewer evidence says "Eve of Passover" and that is before passover.
I can only go on what you write. I asked what the Jews source was, and you clearly stated "Celsus. see ny bib". I then pointed out this was circular, and suggested you re-read my question. Did you do that?
Of course not! Heaven forbid!
Joe: Here is what I said: "He claimed to have gotten his info from Jews, so thy must have read it themselves and told him" read it in the Taluidic sources is what I was gettig at.
Again, not addressing the question I asked. Again,I suggest you go back and see what that was.
Joe: Yes it does The Instone-Brewer evidence says "Eve of Passover" and that is before passover.
What exactly was on the "Eve of Passover"? And indeed how long is the eve in their reckoning?
If there was a good chance that the outcome was Jesus crucified, then the Sanhedrin would want to avoid that just before Passover, because it would be deeply offensive to them to have the body up there during that period. If the gospels are right, then they were very lucky Jesus died so quickly, and they could take the body down. Imagine if he had lived three more hours, it would be the sabbath, and it would be impossible to do anything with the body that day, and possibly until after the Passover.
It just makes no sense to arrange for Jesus to be crucified just hours before Passover; far better - if time was short - to keep him imprisoned until afterwards and do it then.
One alternative is that "Eve of Passover" refers to the few days proceeding Passover, when Jesus was on the cross, with the trial a couple of days earlier. A capital trial had to be conducted over two days so the judges could sleep of it, and no trial could be conducted at night, so the Last Supper might have been the Saturday before (in the evening, so after Sabbath), trial Sunday and Monday, crucified Tuesdays, dead by Friday, intime for Passover.
The other alternative is that this was driven by the Romans. If the Sanhedrin did meet, it was informally, not an actual trial (hence at night, quick, before Passover started). The Romans tried and sentenced Jesus. Given it was crucifixion, this seems most likely to me (remember that James was stoned to death; the Sanhedrin had the power to sentence to death and that was prescribed sentence for the crimes Jesus was accused of). The statements in the Talmud perhaps represent what the Sanhedrin intended to charge Jesus with.
I can only go on what you write. I asked what the Jews source was, and you clearly stated "Celsus. see ny bib". I then pointed out this was circular, and suggested you re-read my question. Did you do that?
Of course not! Heaven forbid!
Joe: Here is what I said: "He claimed to have gotten his info from Jews, so thy must have read it themselves and told him" read it in the Taluidic sources is what I was gettig at.
Again, not addressing the question I asked. Again,I suggest you go back and see what that was.
Joe: Yes it does The Instone-Brewer evidence says "Eve of Passover" and that is before passover.
What exactly was on the "Eve of Passover"? And indeed how long is the eve in their reckoning?
when he was crucified
If there was a good chance that the outcome was Jesus crucified, then the Sanhedrin would want to avoid that just before Passover, because it would be deeply offensive to them to have the body up there during that period. If the gospels are right, then they were very lucky Jesus died so quickly, and they could take the body down. Imagine if he had lived three more hours, it would be the sabbath, and it would be impossible to do anything with the body that day, and possibly until after the Passover.
One reason to get the Romans to kill him
It just makes no sense to arrange for Jesus to be crucified just hours before Passover; far better - if time was short - to keep him imprisoned until afterwards and do it then.
It makes more sense than doling it on Passover,and getting the Romans to do it they were off the hook
One alternative is that "Eve of Passover" refers to the few days proceeding Passover, when Jesus was on the cross, with the trial a couple of days earlier. A capital trial had to be conducted over two days so the judges could sleep of it, and no trial could be conducted at night, so the Last Supper might have been the Saturday before (in the evening, so after Sabbath), trial Sunday and Monday, crucified Tuesdays, dead by Friday, intime for Passover.
The other alternative is that this was driven by the Romans. If the Sanhedrin did meet, it was informally, not an actual trial (hence at night, quick, before Passover started). The Romans tried and sentenced Jesus. Given it was crucifixion, this seems most likely to me (remember that James was stoned to death; the Sanhedrin had the power to sentence to death and that was prescribed sentence for the crimes Jesus was accused of). The statements in the Talmud perhaps represent what the Sanhedrin intended to charge Jesus with.
1/28/2020 07:24:00 AM
the Gospels don't say the sanhedrin had a trial,They say Pilot had hin cricified
Why would they crucify him hours before Passover was due to start, given it usually took about three days for a victim to die?
Joe: One reason to get the Romans to kill him
Explain.
How does that make it easier to get a victim down off the cross during Passover? Or do you think they were happy with a corpse hanging up there during the holy week?
Joe: It makes more sense than doling it on Passover,and getting the Romans to do it they were off the hook
I proposed three alternatives that make sense, so you conjure up something else altogether. A straw man, basically.
Joe: the Gospels don't say the sanhedrin had a trial,They say Pilot had hin cricified
It often gets described as a trial, but I agree with you that it was not. Jesus was tried and sentenced by the Romans, not the Jews.
Pix
Joe: when he was crucified
Why would they crucify him hours before Passover was due to start, given it usually took about three days for a victim to die?
Joe: One reason to get the Romans to kill him
Explain.
they wanted the Romans to kill him so the people would blame them. That's when the Romans wanted to do it. Maybe they thought it would keep people in line so the holy day would not work up rationalistic passions.
How does that make it easier to get a victim down off the cross during Passover? Or do you think they were happy with a corpse hanging up there during the holy week?
they Romans did not have to worry about Passover.
Joe: It makes more sense than doling it on Passover,and getting the Romans to do it they were off the hook
I proposed three alternatives that make sense, so you conjure up something else altogether. A straw man, basically.
I am just trying to explain the events given
Joe: the Gospels don't say the sanhedrin had a trial,They say Pilot had him crucified
It often gets described as a trial, but I agree with you that it was not. Jesus was tried and sentenced by the Romans, not the Jews.
check
Pix
Okay, I can agree with that. The Sanhedrin met informally, it was not a trial, and they handed Jesus to the Romans to deal with.
How does that fit with the Talmud, which says that Jesus was charged with sorcery and leading astray by the Sanhedrin? Remember the point of your post?
Joe: I am just trying to explain the events given
Sure. If you could stick to one, that would be great.
Did the Romans - and not the Jews - try Jesus as you say here? Or did the Jews, as the Talmud states and you were claiming in the original post, put Jesus on trial?
Okay, I can agree with that. The Sanhedrin met informally, it was not a trial, and they handed Jesus to the Romans to deal with.
How does that fit with the Talmud, which says that Jesus was charged with sorcery and leading astray by the Sanhedrin? Remember the point of your post?
they changed the facts. Gospels say nothing about sorcery
Joe: I am just trying to explain the events given
Sure. If you could stick to one, that would be great.
He was crucified
Did the Romans - and not the Jews - try Jesus as you say here? Or did the Jews, as the Talmud states and you were claiming in the original post, put Jesus on trial?
why are you harping on minor points like this? We should expect the Talmud to change the facts since it's a polemic.
Sure they do. They call them miracles, but it is just a different label.
Joe: He was crucified
Joe: why are you harping on minor points like this? We should expect the Talmud to change the facts since it's a polemic.
Something happened. There was a real sequence of events - with details. And what actually happened ultimately gave rise to all the evidence we have today; what we read in the Talmud, in the gospels, in Paul, in Josephus, etc.
We would indeed expect the Talmud to change facts - and the gospels too. Both are polemic. But at the same time, both give us clues as to what actually happened.
And here is the thing; what did happen will make sense. I am not ruling out miracles, but I am saying that what the Sanhedrin did will make sense from their perspective (so no trial right before Passover). What the Romans did will make sense from their perspective (so no honourable burial).
If we are to work out what really happened, the details are important.
Joe: they changed the facts. Gospels say nothing about sorcery
Sure they do. They call them miracles, but it is just a different label.
I was referring to the trials.
Joe: He was crucified
Joe: why are you harping on minor points like this? We should expect the Talmud to change the facts since it's a polemic.
Joe:Something happened. There was a real sequence of events - with details. And what actually happened ultimately gave rise to all the evidence we have today; what we read in the Talmud, in the gospels, in Paul, in Josephus, etc.
PixWe would indeed expect the Talmud to change facts - and the gospels too. Both are polemic. But at the same time, both give us clues as to what actually happened.
I am willing to think benign new info might be historical, such as Mary being a hair dresser (though that might have negative connotations) but since the Gospels were so much closer to the original events the Talmudic evidence is more like an attempt to put their own gloss on the events, I accept the Gospels as the more historical source,
PixAnd here is the thing; what did happen will make sense. I am not ruling out miracles, but I am saying that what the Sanhedrin did will make sense from their perspective (so no trial right before Passover). What the Romans did will make sense from their perspective (so no honourable burial).
U have already proven that Brown disproves that. We do have examples of crucifixion victims who were burred in their own tombs so they didn't always see as their interest.
PixIf we are to work out what really happened, the details are important.
Pervaded you are willing to stick to them and don't just tailor them to fit your ideology.
Which of the disciples were at the trials? How would they know?
Joe: I am willing to think benign new info might be historical, such as Mary being a hair dresser (though that might have negative connotations) but since the Gospels were so much closer to the original events the Talmudic evidence is more like an attempt to put their own gloss on the events, I accept the Gospels as the more historical source,
That has been my main point across our last two discussion! The references i the Talmud are in response to the gospels, i.e., the Jews putting their own gloss n the events told in the gospels.
Joe: U have already proven that Brown disproves that. We do have examples of crucifixion victims who were burred in their own tombs so they didn't always see as their interest.
Were they tried for potentially leading a revolt against Rome? If not, then the situation is not equivalent.
Joe: Pervaded you are willing to stick to them and don't just tailor them to fit your ideology.
Which is certainly what YOU seem to do, proposing one hypothesis to suit one argument and then a contradictory hypothesis to suit another. Was Jesus tried and condemned by the Sanhedrin or the Romans?
Which of the disciples were at the trials? How would they know?
There was a tradition that Pilate got saved and became a Christian at the end of his life. Of course even if that was reliable, which it's not, he would probably exaggerate his own role.So the dialogue in those exchanges is no doubt literary licence.
Joe: I am willing to think benign new info might be historical, such as Mary being a hair dresser (though that might have negative connotations) but since the Gospels were so much closer to the original events the Talmudic evidence is more like an attempt to put their own gloss on the events, I accept the Gospels as the more historical source,
That has been my main point across our last two discussion! The references i the Talmud are in response to the gospels, i.e., the Jews putting their own gloss n the events told in the gospels.
That doesn't mean they are not corroborative.
Joe: I have already proven that Brown disproves that. We do have examples of crucifixion victims who were burred in their own tombs so they didn't always see as their interest.
Were they tried for potentially leading a revolt against Rome? If not, then the situation is not equivalent.
Pilate knew he was heeling the Sanhedrin he didn't think Jesus was really a danger. Let them bury Jesus kept them from profaining the holy day. we have already argued that out
Joe: Pervaded you are willing to stick to them and don't just tailor them to fit your ideology.
Which is certainly what YOU seem to do, proposing one hypothesis to suit one argument and then a contradictory hypothesis to suit another. Was Jesus tried and condemned by the Sanhedrin or the Romans?
I never did that. I already answered that I said the Sanhedrin did not give him a trial they took him to Harod and the Romans
1/29/2020 11:33:00 PM
Whereas it is at least plausible that the information in the Talmud came from members of the Sanhedrin who were there.
And the tradition the Pilate converted is NOT plausible.
Joe: That doesn't mean they are not corroborative.
It means they come from the same source, so the Talmud cannot be considered an independent source. With regards to the virgin birth, for example, we still have nothing to suggest this was invented prior to AD 70 - the comments in the Talmud are a reaction to comments in the later gospels.
Joe: Pilate knew he was heeling the Sanhedrin he didn't think Jesus was really a danger. Let them bury Jesus kept them from profaining the holy day. we have already argued that out
Jesus was being proclaimed as the messiah, that is the guy appointed by God to lead the Jews to victory over their oppressors as they new King. If the gospels are right, the Jews lined the streets to cheer when Jesus arrived. Whether Jesus planned revolt or not, he would have been perceived as a threat to Roman rule - and potentially that continued after his death. We know the Jews venerated their dead; in death Jesus could have been a symbol for the Jews, someone still inciting revolution.
The Romans had to deal with Jesus quickly to stop sedition, particularly a problem at that time of year. They had to thoroughly dishonour him in life and in death to show the superiority of Rome. No honourable burial allowed.
Nor was honourable burial required by the Jews. They only insisted the body was in the ground, and given the Sanhedrin apparently considered him guilty of wizardry and leading Israel astray, they certainly had no reason to want to give him an honourable burial.
Yes, we have argued this before, numerous times. You lost every time.
Joe: I never did that. I already answered that I said the Sanhedrin did not give him a trial they took him to Harod and the Romans
So then what is the point of your post? You have now conceded that the Talmud got it wrong about the trial - which is the only statement about Jesus we would expect the Talmud to know better than the gospels. The conclusion is that even this statement is ultimately derived from what it says in the gospels.
Whereas it is at least plausible that the information in the Talmud came from members of the Sanhedrin who were there.
sure. The Mishna was supposed to go back to first century
And the tradition the Pilate converted is NOT plausible.
It's not likley
Joe: That doesn't mean they are not corroborative.
It means they come from the same source, so the Talmud cannot be considered an independent source.
That is ridiculous treating guesses like they were facts. But the sources of Gopels and Talmud are two different sources.
With regards to the virgin birth, for example, we still have nothing to suggest this was invented prior to AD 70 - the comments in the Talmud are a reaction to comments in the later gospels.
Non of the things in the gospel were made up by the people who wrote them. NT Scholar really discourage that.they were all distilling things from the communities that had been going around for decades
Joe: Pilate knew he was heeling the Sanhedrin he didn't think Jesus was really a danger. Let them bury Jesus kept them from profaining the holy day. we have already argued that out
Jesus was being proclaimed as the messiah, that is the guy appointed by God to lead the Jews to victory over their oppressors as they new King. If the gospels are right, the Jews lined the streets to cheer when Jesus arrived. Whether Jesus planned revolt or not, he would have been perceived as a threat to Roman rule - and potentially that continued after his death. We know the Jews venerated their dead; in death Jesus could have been a symbol for the Jews, someone still inciting revolution.
the Romans may not have read the situation they way you want then to, you assume they had one standard idea of messiah that is not necessarily true.
The Romans had to deal with Jesus quickly to stop sedition, particularly a problem at that time of year. They had to thoroughly dishonour him in life and in death to show the superiority of Rome. No honourable burial allowed.
yes it was, I;ve established that a year ago
Yes, we have argued this before, numerous times. You lost every time.
I've never lost, you are brain washed,
Joe: I never did that. I already answered that I said the Sanhedrin did not give him a trial they took him to Harod and the Romans
So then what is the point of your post? You have now conceded that the Talmud got it wrong about the trial - which is the only statement about Jesus we would expect the Talmud to know better than the gospels. The conclusion is that even this statement is ultimately derived from what it says in the gospels.
we know the Talmud got it wrong because it said he was stoned, you are not reading what i say carefully. There's a difference in the Talmud being 100% right in what it say sand corroborating the testimony
You call them guesses because you disagree with them. I call them inferences. I fully accept we cannot be sure, but it is what the evidence points to.
Joe: Non of the things in the gospel were made up by the people who wrote them. NT Scholar really discourage that.they were all distilling things from the communities that had been going around for decades
I never said they were. The virgin birth, given it appears in Matthew and Luke, was almost certainly invented before either of them - but after Mark.
What I said was the comments in the Talmud were a reaction to Matthew and Luke.
Joe: the Romans may not have read the situation they way you want then to, you assume they had one standard idea of messiah that is not necessarily true.
According to Mark:
1. Jesus was hailed as the messiah when he entered Jerusalem
2. Jesus was executed by the Romans on the charge "King of the Jews"
If we accept both of those as true - and I see no reason not to - then it is hard to see any explanation other than the Romans executed Jesus because he was a threat to Roman rule, a leader or at least a symbol for rebellion. Therefore it was in their interests to deny honourable burial
Joe: yes it was, I;ve established that a year ago
Wrong. You have asserted it, but all your arguments indicated that burial was likely, not that honourable burial was.
Joe: we know the Talmud got it wrong because it said he was stoned, you are not reading what i say carefully. There's a difference in the Talmud being 100% right in what it say sand corroborating the testimony
So what does it corroborate, if not the crucifixion?
Joe: That is ridiculous treating guesses like they were facts. But the sources of Gopels and Talmud are two different sources.
You call them guesses because you disagree with them. I call them inferences. I fully accept we cannot be sure, but it is what the evidence points to.
Yes inferences is probably a better term. But there is a certain amount of guesswork.
Joe: Non of the things in the gospel were made up by the people who wrote them. NT Scholar really discourage that.they were all distilling things from the communities that had been going around for decades
Px: never said they were. The virgin birth, given it appears in Matthew and Luke, was almost certainly invented before either of them - but after Mark.
Of course based upon the assertion that it could not be true,you can;'t use it to back unbelief because it;s predicated upon unbelief. Not being mentioned is not proof it didn't exist.
What I said was the comments in the Talmud were a reaction to Matthew and Luke.
Joe: the Romans may not have read the situation they way you want then to, you assume they had one standard idea of messiah that is not necessarily true.
Px: According to Mark:
1. Jesus was hailed as the messiah when he entered Jerusalem
2. Jesus was executed by the Romans on the charge "King of the Jews"
If we accept both of those as true - and I see no reason not to - then it is hard to see any explanation other than the Romans executed Jesus because he was a threat to Roman rule, a leader or at least a symbol for rebellion. Therefore it was in their interests to deny honourable burial
they excited him as a favor to the high priest. Pilot even said I find no fault in this man. Because they needed a charge they took the claim of Kingship as an excuse.
Joe: yes it was, I;ve established that a year ago
Wrong. You have asserted it, but all your arguments indicated that burial was likely, not that honourable burial was.
It would profane the holiday. they could not have that,it may be part of the reaso the High priest went to the Romans.
Joe: we know the Talmud got it wrong because it said he was stoned, you are not reading what i say carefully. There's a difference in the Talmud being 100% right in what it say sand corroborating the testimony
So what does it corroborate, if not the crucifixion?
(1) He existed
(2)claimed to be messiah
(3)criticized
(4) on eve of passover
Pix
There is no evidence for anything you say, just speculative ideas and theories.
So what if these claims were all proved? There is no evidence for miracles, nothing.
"(1) He existed (2)claimed to be messiah (3)criticized (4) on eve of passover"
So what if these claims were all proved? There is no evidence for miracles, nothing.
Anonymous said...
"(1) He existed (2)claimed to be messiah (3)criticized (4) on eve of passover"
So what if these claims were all proved? There is no evidence for miracles, nothing.
1/31/2020 06:40:00 PM Delete
My answer:
there's a lot of evidence for miracles.
(1) your toothsome to miracles is ideological not factual
(2) if miracles happen now there is no reason to doubt that they happened 1st century.
(3)there is a lot of evidence miracles happen now, therefore,there is good reason to think miracles happened then.
Okay, prove it. I also bet my bottom dollar that stupid fundamentalist blogger you partnered with is no match for me.
I am ashamed of you man! That is beneath you! unprofessional.O expect better things out of you. He's not stupid. he's not my partner he's a member of the group.Also Insults are a violation of board rules.
1/31/2020 06:37:00 PM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"we know the Talmud got it wrong because it said he was stoned, you are not reading what i say carefully. There's a difference in the Talmud being 100% right in what it say sand corroborating the testimony"
There is no evidence for anything you say, just speculative ideas and theories.
"proof" is a kindof mythology, et's talk about "good evidence," There is good evidence Jesus was crucifried.
(1) No one in historyidsagrees
(2) Josepus coroborates
(3)instone-Brwer's Talmudic evince corroborates