Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle;4848645[/QUOTE

The Tosefta Hullin passages do not mention Ben Stada.

The first one you quoted mentions:
".... to cure him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira".

Some commentators group together Ben Stada
and Ben Pandira. That is why I group it here.

Quote:

IMO the identification of Ben Stada with Jesus is late and unhistorical.

Rabbi Ishmael (from the first story) and Rabbi Eliezer (from the second) were both active in the early part of the 2nd century CE (Rabbi Eliezer also being active in the very late 1st century and Rabbi Ishmael probably in the mid 2nd century.

Hence the accounts purport to be of events happening between c 80 and 150 CE and probably between 100 and 130 CE.

The Tosefta in which they occur was compiled c 300 CE on the basis of older traditions.

Thanks Andrew. I agree: late and unhistorical.

There is on first approximation nothing that is
immediate and unambiguous which would lend
support from the Talmud Corpus for either the
historicity of Jesus, or the historicity of the
gospels, or the historicity of the Christian religion,
as far as I am able to determine.

andrewcriddle · 10-09-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks Andrew. I agree: late and unhistorical.

There is on first approximation nothing that is
immediate and unambiguous which would lend
support from the Talmud Corpus for either the
historicity of Jesus, or the historicity of the
gospels, or the historicity of the Christian religion,
as far as I am able to determine.

It would at least seem to provide evidence of knowledge of Christianity in Rabbinic sources from well before 300 CE.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 10-09-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks Andrew. I agree: late and unhistorical.

There is on first approximation nothing that is
immediate and unambiguous which would lend
support from the Talmud Corpus for either the
historicity of Jesus, or the historicity of the
gospels, or the historicity of the Christian religion,
as far as I am able to determine.

It would at least seem to provide evidence of knowledge of Christianity in Rabbinic sources from well before 300 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,

The entire exercise to my mind demonstrates that
people will see in the data those certain possibilities
which resonate with their own hypotheses. Some
reviewers see nothing, some see the legs, others
the trunk, others the ears, or the tail of the elephant.

But thanks for the exercise.

Pete

mountainman · 10-23-2007, 10:52 PM

Here is another reasonably comprehensive review.

Quote:

Christian apologists have long used the references in the Talmud to certian figures, some named "Yeshua" and others called by deogatory nick names, to prove the Jews wrote about Jesus. But modern Jewish scholars have given up that pasttime and now deny that any of these references pertian to Jesus.

and ...

Quote:

Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:"

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared:

‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’"

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)

and the two page article then concludes with:

Quote:

What is clear is that Celsus had easy access to the Talmudic Mishna materials of his day, and he clearly understood them to be speaking of Jesus the leader of the Christians.

Celsus was a busy lad in antiquity.

Did Celsus read Hebrew?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.