Duvduv

And what, PRAY TELL, is the *sin* to assert that the idea came from Jews? After all, didn't Christianity claim it was BASED on Judaism and a FULFILLMENT and REPLACEMENT of Judaism?

Semiopen must think that other people's standard MO that Christianity borrowed from Greek myths or Mithraism is no big deal, but if a poster points to Jewish origins, perish the thought. After all *everyone* knows that Judaism borrowed from everyone else but could not have possibly been the source for other peoples.

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't whether it made any difference of any kind to Gentile readers any where, but what John was up to in using the name.

It could also have been used -- as Pilate's name was by John -- because there was a man named Nicodemus who was interested in Jesus teaching. Moreover, if Gentile readers didn't know who Nicodemus was, how could the insertion of N's name add authenticity to GJohn? And what is the nature of the authenticity it would it have added? And what about Jews who did know of Nicodemus? What air of authenticity would adding N's name have given to GJohn if they knew that N had not been someone who was interested in, let alone never met, Jesus? Wouldn't John's use of the name have laid him open to the charge of adding inauthenticity to his Gospel?

Sorry, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

You certainly don't when you claim that your sources for who Nicodemus was tell us that Nicodemus was also known by the same name that according to the Talmud one of Jesus' disciples had and that Buni was Nicodemus's nickname.

And there's still that little matter of when you date the Babylonian Talmud.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure how the argument that a learned Pharisee accepted Jesus gives weight to the idea that John's claims about Jesus being superior to Moses are not true -which is what is generally meant by "proving opposite conclusions".

A circular argument is one that assumes what it needs to prove, not one that can also be used as evidence of the truth of entirely different claims. This one doesn't do what a circular argument does. (are you sure you know what a circular argument is?).

One may not accept this argument as weighty, or that it actually proves the truth of John's claims any more than one who points to how a Christian who converts to Islam is evidence for and proves the truth of Muslim claims about Muhammed, but it ain't circular.


Jeffrey

Toto

When you have a name like Nicodemus, meaning "Ruler of the People" - isn't that a big hint that the person is a symbolic representation of something rather than an actual person?

You might as well assume that the characters in Pilgrim's Progress are real people.

Duvduv

Jeffrey, the Jewish rich man called Nakdimon of the first century gives an air of first century authentication to the Jesus story, as does the name of Gamliel in Acts (the gentile writer of Acts wants to impress the Jews that his Paul was familiar with the teachings of rabbis going back into time despite nothing in the writings attributed to Paul that suggest such familiarity), or the genealogies of Jesus.

The Talmud of over 2000 pages was not WRITTEN in the late 5th century. It was COMPILED. The Mishnah and Gemara, as well as other rabbinical writings of that period were compilations and arrangements of what had existed as personal notes in previous generations, now granted public access.

Jeffrey Gibson

It actually means "conquerer of the people" (Nikos is from Nike meaning "victory" not ruler -- see the Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:1105). Its Semitic equivalent was “Naqdimon,” sometimes shortened to “Naqai.”

It's possible evidence that it might be. But it's hardly conclusive evidence that it was.

It was not an unknown name. You'll find it, for instance, in Josephus and Plutarch and Isaeus and Aeschines and Galen. e.g.,

Flavius Josephus Hist., Antiquitates Judaicae
Book 14, chapter 37, line 2

Μετ' οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἧκον πάλιν πρέσβεις πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἀντί-
πατρος μὲν ὑπὲρ Ὑρκανοῦ, Νικόδημος δὲ ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοβούλου, ὃς
δὴ καὶ κατηγόρει τῶν λαβόντων χρήματα Γαβινίου μὲν πρότερον
Σκαύρου δὲ ὕστερον, τοῦ μὲν τριακόσια τοῦ δὲ τετρακόσια τάλαντα,
πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ τούτους ἐχθροὺς αὐτῷ κατασκευάζων.

Plutarchus Biogr., Phil., Themistocles
Chapter 32, section 3, line 1

θυγατέρας
δὲ πλείους ἔσχεν, ὧν Μνησιπτολέμαν μὲν ἐκ τῆς ἐπι-
γαμηθείσης γενομένην Ἀρχέπτολις ὁ ἀδελφὸς οὐκ ὢν
ὁμομήτριος ἔγημεν, Ἰταλίαν δὲ Πανθοίδης ὁ Χῖος, Σύ-
βαριν δὲ Νικόδημος ὁ Ἀθηναῖος.


Isaeus Orat., De Pyrrho
Section 7, line 4

Ὡς μὲν ἔδοξε παραχρῆμα εὐθὺς τότε <πᾶσι> τὰ ψευδῆ
μαρτυρῆσαι Νικόδημος, ἐπιδέδεικται [τότε πᾶσι]· προς-
ήκει δὲ καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου τὴν δίκην
μέλλουσι ψηφιεῖσθαι ἐξελεγχθῆναι τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν.



Leaving aside the fact that Pilgrims progress is self consciously and professedly allegorical, and that the character's names there -- e.g. Obstinate, Pliable, Help, Worldly Wiseman, Formalist, Hypocrisy - are patently ciphers, I note that my name means "God's Peace/God's Friend, but that we have n reason to believe that when anyone here speaks of me by my name, they are actually speaking of a fictional/symbolic charater.

Jeffrey

semiopen

There still has to be doubt about Nakdimon's existence.

Seems like an interesting issue because Yonathon ben Zakkai is said to have officiated at his daughter's wedding. I spent some time discussing Yonathon's claim to actual existence in Spin's Pharisee thread. I think the odds of an actual character behind the Nakdimon name are about 50-50 without going into deep research mode.

The question, I thought, is whether Nicodemus and Nakdimon are the same person, which is a well known issue.

Harvey Falk

Goes into the Hillel Shammai disputes.

Needless to say, I don't know shit about this. The rap I get from Chabad is that Hillel and Shammai were two good guys who had some different opinions, like Hillel would light the Hanukkah candles starting with one on the first night and add one each night, and Shammai would start with eight and take one away on each night.

However, it seems, as Spin suggests in the Pharisee thread, this was more of a war between Pharisees.

Anyway, Harvey is discussing his book

Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

where, as he states on the Jstor thing he wanted to

I guess because Yoshke was a Hillel guy just like the later Pharisees, and not an asshole like the Shammai guys like the mean Pharisees who were supposedly prevalent during Yoshke's ministry - despite whatever the bizzare Chabad rap means.

This is a middle of the road opinion - both Jews and Christians should be happy.

Now I might be wrong, but Duvi's opinion is probably that these two guys are the same, but that somehow proves the superiority of Judaism over Christianity. His opinion is the opposite of the guy in the other thread I quoted who says Christianity wins.

Personally, I take the view that both Jews and Christians should be pissed off that they care about this shit. However, it raises some interesting academic issues.

Jeffrey Gibson

Why?

Why should we trust your estimation?

Yes, see the BDAG entry:


As well as article by Jon Paulien in the ABD which notes:

See, too,

Duvduv

Leaving aside Semiopen's use of vulgarities I would be willing to discuss all these issues, though as I said before, I don't think this Forum is the place for it, even if Semiopen wants to drag me into it here.

Suffice it to say for now that Hillel and Shammai served together as the leaders of the Sanhedrin during a 40+ year period. And Jewish sources say that Hillel died first, and that between them there were only 3 subjects of law in disagreement. Shammai died about 20 years later (having continued to serve together with Hillel's son R. Gamliel the Elder), and the disagreements among certain disciples (i.e. the major 20 students who were actually followers of both, such as R. Yonatan ben Uziel and R. Yohanan ben Zakkai, and their own students) probably started a generation after that and lasted for about 40 years until about 15 years after the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin headed by R. Yohanan ben Zakkai established all halacha in dispute between the two camps according to the disciples of Hillel.

semiopen

I don't know why your problem is with me. I simply quoted Rabbi Falks who has dealt with this issue.

Ironically, I accepted the Chabad explanation and was totally unaware of a wider dispute until Spin mentioned it in passing.

I can see how the constant abuse you have to put with can get annoying, but how do you think I feel when my esteemed religious leaders finally say something that sounds close to plausible, only to discover later that it has just as much bullshit in it as everything else they say.

I also can't imagine why this is not the place to discuss it. Isn't my post totally on topic? In fact if there was a contest to pick a post that was totally on topic in this forum, my post would probably be a solid candidate for at least an honorable mention.

Since I have just been introduced to this concept, why do you think I want to debate it? I haven't even constructed an opinion.

However, if there is merit in the Zealots favoring Shammai and the normal people favoring Hillel, that is a very attractive concept. This directly relates to your buddy Nakdimon being one of the three big shots in Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple where the Talmud has him opposing the Zealots. True, untangling the bullshit is a formidable task.

Your view of Hillel/Shammai seems dubious on general principles. Your position (and the Rabbis I suppose) is similar to

Chief Clancy Wiggum - Nothing to see here

God forbid these clowns would have a substantial disagreement, what would the old ladies say?

Paul and the Torah

Also Shammai

Who knows how true all this is, but you're the one who opened the door.

BTW your offer to debate reminds me of Shmuley Boteach's debates with Christopher Hitchens.

God Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs Shmuley Boteach

Hitchens is virtually dead in their final one and still probably wins.