Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-09-2003, 11:23 AM

Has anyone heard of this?

Dating of Matthew?

Quote:

In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.

Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."

The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier.

The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late date of A.D. 85-90 or later," said Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.

"That is very significant and very important," said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in Georgia, because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did."

Blomberg said a close study of the parody's wording indicates it was based on an existing text. If that text was Matthew, the Gospel existed much earlier than some scholars believe.

Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.

"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it," Blomberg said.

Apart from the apologetic nonsense, this seems a bit unlikely. I was under the impression that the Talmud references to Jesus could not be dated very accurately.

yummyfur · 06-09-2003, 01:25 PM

So which one is it attributed to? The first Gamaliel(and most famous, grandson of Hillel) died at about 52 CE.

The other famous ones are Gamaliel II and III. It is unlikely this is sourced to Gamaliel I, as Acts portrays him in a positive light and by other more dubious traditions, is supposed to have converted to Christianity. Gamaliel II (Gamaliel of Jabneh, grandson of first Gamaliel) wrote some anti-sectarian tracts, so he would be most likely.

He succeded Johanan ben Zakkai at Jabneh, but I thought his stuff was dated starting around 90 CE and on. There were a total of I believe 6 Gamaliels, with the rest coming well after the first century.

I've never heard of the parody, but I remeber vaguely something about Gamaliel II using a supposed qoute from Matthew in a court case with a Christian in Rome or something (Gamaliel II was in Rome for some time, at about 95 CE or so, at about the very end of Domitians reign, this was to have taken place then, I think).

Patrick Schoeb

godfry n. glad · 06-09-2003, 01:59 PM

The Talmud compilation was not even begun until late in the second century or early in the third. There are reputedly several references to Jesus (the "Toldat Yeshu" being amongst the most notable), but several reputable scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have dismissed these references as the result of an expanding polemic exchange between Judaism and the nascent Christian church.

A sophisticated parody of Matthew from the third century CE would not be any big deal.

I'd be interested to see the claimant's evidence. How did they fix a date of authority on the parody?

godfry

Haran · 06-09-2003, 07:20 PM

I would like to know exactly what story they are talking about as well.

For more info on Jesus in the Talmud, I found an excellent website dealing with the issue (even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions):

Jesus in the Talmud

Tellurian · 06-18-2003, 11:25 AM

I have read the Babylonian Talmud section Sanhedrin 43 which tells of Jesus (Yeshu), a man who was arrested, tried, and convicted by the Sanhedrin for sorcery and leading the Jews astray. The Sanhedrin sentenced him to death by stoning and then held him a prisoner for 40 days while they searched for anyone who would come forward to speak on his behalf.

After 40 days they took him out and hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Because the text claims that the Sanhedrin killed him it would not have been by crucifying him, because that was a Roman form of punishment. In 33 CE the Roman authorities took the power of capital punishment away from the Sanhedrin.

Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?

Does anyone know if this record refers to the biblical Jesus or to someone else named Jesus who was executed on the Passover?

Tellurian · 06-23-2003, 11:42 AM

Does no one know the answers to my questions? Or have my questions already been answered before I came into this forum? If so, could someone tell me where I can read those answers?

Toto · 06-23-2003, 01:07 PM

Reading and interpreting the Talmud is not for the casual amateur such as myself. The Talmud is not a straight history, but is full of moralistic tales that might or might not have any connection to anything that ever happened.

Quote:

Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?

It's not clear that the Sanhedrin ever told people that the Romans had crucified Jesus. In fact, it's not clear how the story of the Romans crucifying Jesus ever got started, but for some educated guesses you could look for some threads a while back on the Passion Narrative (the server is too busy for me to search right now.)

I can recommend this on-line book that is fascinating and may throw some light on the subject, even if you don't agree with the conclusion:

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? By G. R. S. Mead (1903)

"An Enquiry into the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius�Being a Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins."

In addition, after I posted this, someone put the same question on the Jesus Mysteries list. You need to join the list to view the answers, but they would help:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

The thread is titled "Matthew's Gospel, Eyewitnesses, & the Talmud". The inital post is here.

Paul Baxter · 06-23-2003, 06:32 PM

FWIW,

I haven't heard of this particular story, but on a related note, there was a fragment of Matthew found several years ago which some scholars had dated in the 60's. I don't know anything more than that about it. There were, of course, other scholars who disputed the dating. This was from one of those Time or Newsweek Easter editions from about 1994 or 1995.

Anyone else heard of this fragment?

Asha'man · 06-23-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tellurian
Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?

Does anyone know if this record refers to the biblical Jesus or to someone else named Jesus who was executed on the Passover?

Does anybody know for sure? Nope. But the Talmud story is generally accepted to be a reference to the xian Jesus. The real question is: does it predate the xian story and contain a grain of truth, or was it written later to discredit the spreading xian story?

My hypothosis is that the original story was exactly what the Talmud says: Jesus was killed by the Sanhedrin according to Jewish law (which means stoned to death, and the corpse hung from a tree as a visible warning to others). I can think of no motivation for the Jews to take the blame from the Romans.

But the original story just doesn't sell well among non-Jews. Imagine the reaction from the crowd when the story was improved, and the villians were the all-powerful Roman empire, whom everyone feared. I think an early xian preacher edited the story to refer to crucifixion by the Romans.

Peter Kirby · 06-23-2003, 07:42 PM

Paul,

See here:

Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments

And here:

Review: Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel

best,
Peter Kirby

06-09-2003, 01:25 PM	#2
yummyfur Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 351	Many Gamaliel's So which one is it attributed to? The first Gamaliel(and most famous, grandson of Hillel) died at about 52 CE. The other famous ones are Gamaliel II and III. It is unlikely this is sourced to Gamaliel I, as Acts portrays him in a positive light and by other more dubious traditions, is supposed to have converted to Christianity. Gamaliel II (Gamaliel of Jabneh, grandson of first Gamaliel) wrote some anti-sectarian tracts, so he would be most likely. He succeded Johanan ben Zakkai at Jabneh, but I thought his stuff was dated starting around 90 CE and on. There were a total of I believe 6 Gamaliels, with the rest coming well after the first century. I've never heard of the parody, but I remeber vaguely something about Gamaliel II using a supposed qoute from Matthew in a court case with a Christian in Rome or something (Gamaliel II was in Rome for some time, at about 95 CE or so, at about the very end of Domitians reign, this was to have taken place then, I think). Patrick Schoeb

06-18-2003, 11:25 AM	#5
Tellurian Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 93	Jesus in the Talmud I have read the Babylonian Talmud section Sanhedrin 43 which tells of Jesus (Yeshu), a man who was arrested, tried, and convicted by the Sanhedrin for sorcery and leading the Jews astray. The Sanhedrin sentenced him to death by stoning and then held him a prisoner for 40 days while they searched for anyone who would come forward to speak on his behalf. After 40 days they took him out and hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Because the text claims that the Sanhedrin killed him it would not have been by crucifying him, because that was a Roman form of punishment. In 33 CE the Roman authorities took the power of capital punishment away from the Sanhedrin. Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him? Does anyone know if this record refers to the biblical Jesus or to someone else named Jesus who was executed on the Passover?

06-23-2003, 11:42 AM	#6
Tellurian Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 93	Jesus in the Talmud Does no one know the answers to my questions? Or have my questions already been answered before I came into this forum? If so, could someone tell me where I can read those answers?

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

06-09-2003, 01:59 PM	#3
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	The Talmud compilation was not even begun until late in the second century or early in the third. There are reputedly several references to Jesus (the "Toldat Yeshu" being amongst the most notable), but several reputable scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have dismissed these references as the result of an expanding polemic exchange between Judaism and the nascent Christian church. A sophisticated parody of Matthew from the third century CE would not be any big deal. I'd be interested to see the claimant's evidence. How did they fix a date of authority on the parody? godfry

06-09-2003, 07:20 PM	#4
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	I would like to know exactly what story they are talking about as well. For more info on Jesus in the Talmud, I found an excellent website dealing with the issue (even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions): Jesus in the Talmud

06-23-2003, 06:32 PM	#8
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	FWIW, I haven't heard of this particular story, but on a related note, there was a fragment of Matthew found several years ago which some scholars had dated in the 60's. I don't know anything more than that about it. There were, of course, other scholars who disputed the dating. This was from one of those Time or Newsweek Easter editions from about 1994 or 1995. Anyone else heard of this fragment?

06-23-2003, 07:42 PM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Paul, See here: Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments And here: Review: Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.