Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 07-10-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Just to clarify, it's my understanding that this reference in the Talmud is Yeshu ben Stada, (ben Pandira). Not Jesus of Nazareth. About 100 years too early to be the Jesus of the gospels. Whether it's part of the underlying tradition, who knows?

There are no specific references in the Talmud to the Jesus of the gospel traditions.

I understand there is an opinion that dates the ben Stada/ben Pandira character at 100 BC. It is clear on the other hand that a) the Talmud itself originates much, much later (Mishna 130 - 200 CE, Gemara 200- 500 CE),
b) the early Church Fathers were answering charges against ben Stada/ben Pandira which were later recorded in the Talmud, as calumnies against the Lord, i.e. that he was an illegitimate child and that he learned magic in Egypt.

JS

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

In The Bacche, for example, a play about Dionysus written in 404 BCE, Dionysus claims that he is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, but that people don't believe it, he travels throughout Greece and there are dispelievers, some people can't witnesss his mericles, and he says it is becuase they do not have enough faith, a powerful disbeliever captures him, tortures him, and kills him, then he is resurrected.

In the Bacchae Dionysus is imprisoned and ill-treated by Pentheus a disbeliever.

He escapes by calling upon an earthquake and shows Pentheus his mysteries. Pentheus does not survive the experience.

Dionysus does not experience death and resurrection in this play.

Andrew Criddle

Mythra · 07-10-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I understand there is an opinion that dates the ben Stada/ben Pandira character at 100 BC. It is clear on the other hand that a) the Talmud itself originates much, much later (Mishna 130 - 200 CE, Gemara 200- 500 CE),
b) the early Church Fathers were answering charges against ben Stada/ben Pandira which were later recorded in the Talmud, as calumnies against the Lord, i.e. that he was an illegitimate child and that he learned magic in Egypt.
JS

So, I guess the question arises, whether or not the ben Stada passage in the Talmud is genuine (and ben Stada actually existed), or whether it was placed there in order to provide a jewish version and jewish explanation of the Jesus stories.

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to that.

Seems like the more you find out, the less you know.

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is it not out of copyright?

The English Translation of the expanded edition of Quest of the Historical Jesus (the one with the discussion of mythicism) was only made recently and is certainly still in copyright whatever the precise status of the original German.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 07-10-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

So, I guess the question arises, whether or not the ben Stada passage in the Talmud is genuine (and ben Stada actually existed), or whether it was placed there in order to provide a jewish version and jewish explanation of the Jesus stories.

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to that.

Seems like the more you find out, the less you know.

I think we are going in circles. I responded to Clivedurdle who asserted that on "logical" grounds the mythical shoe fits better. I said to him that there is really no precedent in myth for a god (or supernatural power) to be molested by mere mortals, or for miracles to have an alternative explanation within a myth. I said:

Quote:

So logically speaking, one would have to admit that there were parallel myths about Jesus: one as a miracle worker and great power of God on earth, who nonetheless suffered an ignominius crucifixion, and the other as a sorcerer and fraud who therefore suffered ignominius crucifixion.

From where I am sitting, the parallel myth theory seems just too clumsy. It appears that a historical troublemaker explains much better:

1) the event of crucifixion,
2) the fact that the historical existence of Jesus was not challenged by (near-) contemporary Jewish culture,
3) the derogation of Jesus as God, the view of him as demon possessed,
4) his failure to work miracles among non-believers,
5) Paul's politics around the skandalon of the cross,
6) Paul's refusal to underwrite Jesus' earthly career and his undeniable opposition to some of the (gospel) Jesus' teachings, beliefs and attitudes.

JS

Clivedurdle · 07-10-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is it not out of copyright?

What happened to the list of neo mythicist writers we had on another thread that brought things much more up to date?

If Bible Unearthed has concluded myth about Abraham et al is there a problem with using similar arguments about Jesus?

Is the myth historicist argument really a post enlightenment one - HJ was invented by xians post 1500 as a response to the slow dissapearance of things that go bump in the night?

Any comments anyone on the rest of my post - (not the copyright question!)?

Clivedurdle · 07-10-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto
Catholicism has always preached that Jesus Christ is supernatural (as well as human). The idea that a rational, human Jesus can be separated out from Christ, and the mystery removed from the religion, is a post-enlightenment Protestant-type heresy.

Associated fairly strongly with Germany in the 19th century, if I understand correctly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Let us get this absolutely clear,

Is it clear catholic doctrine that Jesus is both human and supernatural?

Is a de supernaturalised Jesus a recent invention?

Therefore do catholics really believe in an HJ?

If Toto is correct they believe in both an HJ and an MJ!

But that is the problem - if catholics must not amputate the MJ bit they also DO NOT NEED AN HJ!

Toto · 07-10-2006, 04:39 PM

I don't want to speak for Catholics. That is the impression I got from Charlotte Allen. Bede seems adamant about the historical Jesus, but I don't know if that is based on doctrine or internet advocacy.

Malachi151 · 07-10-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

In the Bacchae Dionysus is imprisoned and ill-treated by Pentheus a disbeliever.

He escapes by calling upon an earthquake and shows Pentheus his mysteries. Pentheus does not survive the experience.

Dionysus does not experience death and resurrection in this play.

Andrew Criddle

Yes, true, I realied that later. He get's killed and resurrected in later traditions.

Still many elements similar to the Jesus story are already present in the Bacchae, and the story of Dionysus only becomes more like that of the later Jesus as time goes on.

Malachi151 · 07-10-2006, 07:07 PM

To get back on topic, what I'm lookin for is not aguments about the historicity of Jesus, but information on the history of Biblical criticism and the history of investigation into the claims made by Christiasn, not the criticism itself, but the history of it.

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

07-10-2006, 04:39 PM	#28
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't want to speak for Catholics. That is the impression I got from Charlotte Allen. Bede seems adamant about the historical Jesus, but I don't know if that is based on doctrine or internet advocacy.

07-10-2006, 07:07 PM	#30
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	To get back on topic, what I'm lookin for is not aguments about the historicity of Jesus, but information on the history of Biblical criticism and the history of investigation into the claims made by Christiasn, not the criticism itself, but the history of it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.