Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 12-06-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The reference to Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel as having made the ruling ostensibly places the ruling to prior to the fall of the temple, which is consistent.
..............................

I don't follow your conclusion, andrewcriddle. I would have thought we had dated the what rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel had said to his own period.

There are two Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliels. One active before the fall of the temple one active after the Bar Kochba revolt. (IIUC they are grandfather and grandson.)

The one cited in Sanhedrin seems to be the later one on the basis of the rabbis with whom he is associated. Eg in M Sanhedrin 1:2 he is expanding on material attributed to Meir, and in T Sanhedrin 2:13 he and Eleazar b R Sadoq are quoted together.

Andrew Criddle

ETA

See also M Makkot 1:10 where Simeon b Gamaliel disagrees with Tarfon and Aqiba.

Quote:

R Tarfon and R Aqiba say "If we were on a Sanhedrin no one would ever be put to death"
Rabban Simeon b Gamaliel says "So they would multiply the number of murderers in Israel"

douglas · 12-06-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I remember researching Neusner a while back on this issue. Unfortunately I cannot recall in which of his innumerable works he says this, but I believe he thinks that the legal opinions expressed in the Mishna are those that should be applied in a revived Jewish state...

Thank you. That was helpful information.

By the way, I grew up in Canfield. Go Penguins!

spin · 12-08-2007, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The reference to Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel as having made the ruling ostensibly places the ruling to prior to the fall of the temple, which is consistent.
..............................

I don't follow your conclusion, andrewcriddle. I would have thought we had dated the what rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel had said to his own period.

There are two Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliels. One active before the fall of the temple one active after the Bar Kochba revolt. (IIUC they are grandfather and grandson.)

There was only one Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel! As Zeitlin (JQR, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Oct., 1968) pointed out, the post of rabban was a first century manifestation. It replaced the abolished ab Bet Din. There were four rabbans, Gamaliel I, Simeon ben Gamaliel I, Johanan ben Zakkai and Gamaliel II.

spin

reniaa · 12-08-2007, 04:10 AM

I found this info for another thread which may be applicable for this one :-

http://www.formerthings.com/caiaphas.htm

Quote:

Caiaphas
Matthew 26:3 Unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Inscribed on the ossuary were the words "Yehosef bar Kayafa," translated as " Joseph, son of Caiaphas. Israel Musem.

A frontal view of the ossuary. Israel Museum.

The Pontius Pilate inscription found at Caesarea. Israel Museum.

History
Caiaphas was the high priest of the Jews under Tiberius. The Procurator Valerius Gratas appointed him to the dignity. He was son-in-law of Annas and was the Jewish high priest who ruled over the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court, from 18 - 36 AD. This made him second in power only to the Roman governor.

The Caiaphas Ossuary
In December of 1990, an exciting discovery rocked the world of archaeology! In the Peace Forset section of Jerusalem, a first century Ossuary, or "bone box," was discovered. Inscribed on the ossuary were the words "Yehosef bar Kayafa," translated as "Joseph, son of Caiaphas." Excavator Zvi Greenhut of the Israeli Antiquities Authority recovered the artifact, which is now on display at the Isael Museum in Jerusalem.

Matthew, Luke and John each identify Caiaphas as the high priest that presided over the arrest and trial of Jesus. The historian Josephus also identifies “Joseph Caiaphas” as the Jewish high priest from 18 to 36 AD (Jewish Antiquities 18:35). Josephus also refers to him as “Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood” (Jewish Antiquities 18:95).

Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate
Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, and therefore Jesus was sent to Pilate, the Roman governor, that he might duly pronounce the sentence against Jesus. At a later period Caiaphas's hostility to the gospel is still manifest even after the resurrection - ( Acts 4:6).

The Caiaphas Ossuary, Pontius Pilate's Caesarea inscription, evidence of crucifixion, and historians also naming Pilate and Caiaphas confirm that the story of Christ's crucifixion is by no means a fairy tale.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Scriptures
Matthew 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests

Matthew 26:57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Huon · 12-08-2007, 05:12 AM

... of course, everybody knows that the great priest Kayafa had a son, Yehosef. Who says that Caïphas did not exist ? And is this a proof that the writer of the gospel according to (kata) Matthew wrote ONLY THE true truth ? (There are contradictions between the 4 official gospels, and still more with the apocryphal, which present other traditions).

andrewcriddle · 12-08-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There was only one Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel! As Zeitlin (JQR, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Oct., 1968) pointed out, the post of rabban was a first century manifestation. It replaced the abolished ab Bet Din. There were four rabbans, Gamaliel I, Simeon ben Gamaliel I, Johanan ben Zakkai and Gamaliel II.

Are yoiu sure Zeitlin didn't mean that Rabban was introduced in the 1st century ?

According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...id=27&letter=R

Quote:

The first person to be called by this title was the patriarch Gamaliel I., ha-Zaken. The title was handed down from him to all succeeding patriarchs

Certainly Stemberger in Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash uses Rabban for 2nd and 3rd century Patriarchs with no indication of controversy and quotes recent scholarly literature which does the same.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 12-08-2007, 09:34 AM

Ah, Canfield. We'd be living there if we could afford it.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I remember researching Neusner a while back on this issue. Unfortunately I cannot recall in which of his innumerable works he says this, but I believe he thinks that the legal opinions expressed in the Mishna are those that should be applied in a revived Jewish state...

Thank you. That was helpful information.

By the way, I grew up in Canfield. Go Penguins!

andrewcriddle · 12-10-2007, 10:26 AM

Tractate Abot 2:2 calls Gamaliel son of R Judah the Patriarch Rabban. This is certainly a 3rd century CE figure.

Andrew Criddle

renassault · 12-11-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

There is only one Gospel account that needs to be dealt with, and that's the Gospel of Mark. It is clear that the intent of the author of that Gospel was to portray the trial and execution of Jesus as an injustice and against the law. The intent was to portray the Jewish priesthood as hypocrites and unjust lawbreakers.

Read the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Mark 12, that's the foreshadowing of the execution.

The whole account is simply made up. Its good fiction.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Are you still going around citing that article despite everything that has been said regarding its conclusions? Besides, the parable has to do with the rejection of Jesus by Israel, and not with anybody's death.

renassault · 12-11-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the Mishnah book Sanhedrin 4:1(8), we read that "[i]n capital cases they come to a final decision for acquittal on the same day,but on the following day for conviction." A previous comment in the same text says, "[i]n capital cases they try the case by day and complete it {by} day." These are two points that don't agree with the gospel indications.

How so? Nothing is said regarding execution, unless you're referring to some other aspect of the gospels (or Acts).

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

12-08-2007, 05:12 AM	#35
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	... of course, everybody knows that the great priest Kayafa had a son, Yehosef. Who says that Caïphas did not exist ? And is this a proof that the writer of the gospel according to (kata) Matthew wrote ONLY THE true truth ? (There are contradictions between the 4 official gospels, and still more with the apocryphal, which present other traditions).

12-10-2007, 10:26 AM	#38
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Tractate Abot 2:2 calls Gamaliel son of R Judah the Patriarch Rabban. This is certainly a 3rd century CE figure. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.