Tellurian

I have information that in the Talmud section Sanhedrin 52b the execution of Jesus is described. I have been told it says, "Jesus was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound around his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead."

Does anyone know if this statement is accurate, and does it refer to the biblical Jesus?

Celsus

*Bump* for David Gould and judge.

Peter Kirby

Who decided to make this a news item now? The book in which Yuval wrote was published in 2000, the study this note is based on dates to 1987, the suggestion of an allusion to Christianity goes back to 1864, and the talmudic text has been available continuously for centuries.

Stephen Goranson writes on TC-List (July 2, 2003): "The text Israel J. Yuval refers to is Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 116 a-b. Yuval's footnote refers to Burton Visotzky, 'Overturning the Lamp,' JJS 38 (1987) 72-80. Visotsky's article is more nuanced than the newspaper article. The newspaper article authors have previously urged a medieval dating of Dead Sea Scrolls, so the received Bible text will be unaffected. Their articles are often hodgepodges of quotes which may or may not be relevant or reliable; I could give examples."

Jack Kilmon writes (July 2, 2003): "Gamaliel of Yabneh became nasi of the Yabneh Rabbinate in 80 CE and is reported in the Talmud to have had instituted tha Birkhat ha Minim. . . . If Gamaliel wrote a parody on the canonical Gospel of Matthew, it was during his tenure between 80-110 CE. Also, none of the New Testament works, the earliest by Paul, were written by anyone who knew and heard Jesus."

Stephen Goranson writes further (July 2, 2003): "If I may say more about b. Shabb. 116 a-b and gospel(s) of Matthew. The newspaper article does not defend a date of 'AD 73 or earlier' for the 'parody,' so there's little to evaluate. I, in my dissertation (pp. 92-94), and Visotzky's article, which I commended there, work with a somewhat later date. . . . B. Shabb. 116 a-b is interesting in part because, I think, it refers to Nazarenes and Ebionites, via puns, and compares them, giving the mirror image of what Epiphanius thought. To Epiphanius, Ebionites were the more heretical of the two terms as he used them. (See Anchor Bible Dictionary on how both terms evolved.) In the Talmud, the question is raised: should one save books of minim from a fire. With uncertain vocalization these houses: Be )Abidan and Be Nitsraphi. These are probably puns on Ebionites and Nazarenes, as suggested at least as early as 1864."

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

A couple of questions.
1. in what way is this work a parody of matthew?

2.How on earth is a date of 73 a.d. arrived at?

Peter Kirby

First person to type up the passage from the Soncino Talmud gets a brownie!

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Presumably the parody is that mentioned in this link?



"Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew's gospel, though longer than Mark's, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.
When Matthew's gospel to the Hebrews was written is important to biblical conservatives because an early Matthew would strengthen its credibility by making it possible, if not probable, that the tax collector whom Jesus recruited was the first to write and distribute his account of Jesus' birth, ministry and death.
Most liberal scholars would say Matthew's gospel didn't come along until 90 AD or later and was in Greek, separating the apostle from the Jews as well as book that bears his name.
But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary."

from......

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...3/a06op041.htm

Peter Kirby

Both articles were written by Neil Altman.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

This is the part that is considered a parody (from here

However, the Talmud was not written as history, but as moral instruction; and was not written down until the 6th or seventh century. There is no way to show that this passage has any history at all behind it, or when it was composed.

Jayjay

Resurrecting an old thread...

I recently bumped into this argument about Gamaliel the Elder having written the "parody" of Matthew contained in Talmud, but at last a quick google search didn't provide me with any clues as to why Yuval supposedly concluded it could not have been one of the later Gamaliels. Also I would be interested to know why his critics think that it was Gamaliel II, if they have any reason for it besides the dating of Matthew.

andrewcriddle

IIUC Yuval and his critics are in agreement that the intended Gamaliel is Gamaliel II, Gamaliel I who appears to have died before the destruction of Jerusalem could not have delivered a judgment in c 73 AD.

Yuval may be attributing the story to the early period of Gamaliel II's career before he became the leader at Yavneh c 85 CE.

In any case this is a story in an Aramaic portion of the Gemara to the Babylonian Talmud and is IMO very late maybe after 400 CE.

Andrew Criddle