Asha'man

How about a book?

You should take a look at The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler.

While I'm sure you may disagree with some of his points, it is, at the very least, a fairly complete examination of how Jesus is or isn't mentioned within Jewish writings.

For example, many point to Sanhedrin 43a as a clear reference to Jesus of Nazareth. This Jesus is reported to have been killed on the eve of passover for practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray. However, this passage flat out contradicts the Gospel stories on several points. The Jesus mentioned therein is stoned and hanged according to Jewish law, and he only had 5 disciples (and their names don't appear to match all that well). You can either decide that this is a reference to Jesus that disputes the Gospel account, or you can decide that this is a reference to some other Jesus and no conflict is present.

Zindler argues that this is a different Jesus, and he argues it well. He examines each supposed reference to Jesus of Nazareth, and none of the early accounts hold up under scrutiny. Later references, beginning around the 4th and 5th century, are clearly directed towards Jesus of Nazareth, and even mistakenly assume that earlier references were as well. But, by that date, the Christian story had spread far and wide, and little historical value remains.

TedM

Sounds like a good book. According to the following website Talmud used to have clear references to Jesus but that due to persecutions many were taken out or disguised. That seems to be the opposite of what you have said.. Would you care to comment on any of this?:
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...Talmud_JC.html

Here are some of his opening comments:


ted

Mountain Man

What is needed here is a complete, or preliminary, review of ALL the literature from CONTEMPORARIES of jesus that mention jesus. What CONTEMPORARY liturature is there? Historians writing hundreds to thousands of years after are worthless since they are just going on heresay, not facts. Those writing a few years after the alleged happenings aren't of much use either since they trying to promote a religion and have no problem with coloring the facts with a little magic.

andrewcriddle

There is an interesting (though old) discussion of the problems about Jusus of Tiberias at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=738&letter=J

(Not specifically his non-mention of Christ but the general nature of his historical work(s).

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

Hi Asha'man .. personally, I feel the major Talmud sections we are discussing are definitely negative apologetic against Yeshua of Nazareth. The Gil Student stuff is probably a better attempt than Zindler to deflect the rather obvious, however one major fly in all the ointments is the large amount of synchronicity between the Talmud disparaging accounts (to put it nicely) and the Toldet Yeshu accounts, which really nobody denies is a Jewish negative apologetic about Jesus of Nazareth.

Much as I appreciate Gil Student's scholarship and integrity, the 'other Jesus' type of case simply has no wheels. Personally I doubt that Zindler adds much substantive to the discussion from his atheist perspective and scholarship, but if you can point me to any excerpts on the web I would be happy to read. And I might even search out the book in a libarary or cheepo used.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Asha'man

Hiya Ted,

See, that's the problem. We can't see that, it's really clear as mud. As I just pointed out, the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud has certain similarities to Jesus of Nazareth, but also some important differences.

Where did this idea of 'concealing' Jesus in the Talmud come from? It's just more apologetics, created by Christians frustrated that their beloved Jesus isn't mentioned.

Christians, desperate to support their failing faith with real evidence, make the obvious misinterpretation. Jewish Rabbis, confused that their own works seem to make no mention of Jesus either, and afraid of persecution, don't object very loudly. After a while, the Rabbis even write additional commentary that makes this same mistake, and later Christians use that to support their views. As long as everybody assumed that a historical Jesus existed, the scheme kept moving forward getting deeper and deeper in it's assumption.

But, if you go back to the earliest writings and look at what they actually say, the simplest explanation is the obvious one: it's not the same Jesus. Nobody concealed anything, since there was nothing around to conceal.

As for the website, I don't give much credence to Metacrock. He bases his conclusions on faith and wishful thinking, like most apologists.

Mountain Man

I'm still waiting for some contemporary writings about jesus. I'm honest and serious! I'd like to see some.

Asha'man

Right, there is no question that the Toldoth Yeshu is a negative response to Christianity. However, the earliest evidence of it's existence is actually from the middle ages. It probably pre-dates that, but we don't really know by how much. Certainly, it draws on arguments and ideas that had been circulating for a while.

When it was written, the authors made the same assumption that you did: that the references in the Talmud were 'concealed' references to Jesus. The authors drew upon the Talmud, and anything negative they extrapolate, to construct the Toldoth. However, there is no good reason to assume that they knew any better then than we do now. It was an assumption at the time, and it's an assumption now.

Honestly, the data fits both explanations. Both a historical Jesus and a mythical one could potentially produce the type of writings that we have now. Therefore, trying to use the Talmud as evidence for a historical Jesus, and against a mythical one, is probably a flawed argument. Conversely, it's probably not fair to say the Talmud strongly supports a mythical Jesus, though it certainly doesn't contradict it.

TedM

What is your opinion about his points regarding Celcus? Do you think Origen or Celsus misunderstood who the person in the Talmud was at that fairly early time? I have only read through metacrock's page on this quickly, but thought that this was a pretty decent point.

ted

Steven Avery

Hi MountainMan. You are mixing two issues. Let me splain. The (a) ALL early literature aspect (although apparently deliberately excluding what can be considered Christian literature of any type) is handled in the thread where Roger Pearse responds to the Iasion website. We know about that discussion. Then we have a discussion of (b) Jewish historicity in general, and then a sub-set of that of (c) more official-type Jewish views. My point in the little chart above is about (b) and (c), not (a). One discussion does not preclude the other.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic