Minimalist

Okay, so back to the engineering question.

Conventional wisdom has been that Herod built the retaining wall ( the technique for taking a hill, building a retaining wall around it, and filling it in to create a platform goes back to the 8th century BC , at least) and then built the temple on top of the newly-created platform.

If the western wall was not even begun until Valerius Gratus' term it seems like the man-made hill would have been far too unstable to have been building any sort of monumental architecture on top.

So, just speculating here, either the Western Wall was not an intrinsic part of the original retaining wall ( perhaps a later expansion? ) or, the temple was begun in the reign of Herod the Great but finished much later, or, the Western Wall has nothing to do with the temple and was some Roman construction project, or __________________________________. (Feel free to fill in the blank!)

It does seem odd that foundation stones would be laid during the reign of a Roman Prefect at one of the few times in the first century when there was not a Herodian ruling in Jerusalem, though.

semiopen

You may be right, but my reply was simply to point out that the matter is far from clear. I'm envious of your ability to be so certain of these things.

For example,

Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (or via: amazon.co.uk)

doesn't seem to support your view.

Duvduv

With regard to Schaefer, what specific issue are you referring to??

stephan huller

The doctrines and history of Christianity are not discussed in the Talmud

That's not exactly true. The familiar doctrines of Christianity, its “ethics” are unknown to Jewish sources because these likely developed later in the Gentile Church. Perhaps earliest Christianity was principally concerned with flesh-cutting and magic

semiopen

I've asked you to clarify your views; you seem to be saying that Yoshke doesn't appear in the Talmud, but hedge that with Apostles, theology, etc.

You don't define Talmud, perhaps so you can play a game over what the Talmud is. Schafer uses this term broadly -

The entire corpus of rabbinic literature between the first and seventh centuries CE. -

The advantage of your leeway is that you can do a song and dance if your assertions are in jeopardy.

Regarding the apostles, Schafer claims that Sanhedrin 43a and b

is speaking about Yoshke.

Your position seems to be that this refers to Jake the Fake or some shit like that. Maybe your position is extremely deep and correct, but it seems unlikely to me (and Schafer).

My simple question from before is simply what your point is.

Duvduv

Yes, Sanhedrin 43a concerns Yeshu ben Pandera. The Talmudic stories do not refer to the person of the NT. The followers may be the origin for the NT names and persons who followed him: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. But this does include any reference to a Paul or to a Peter, who probably did not exist.

The only Yeshu who was considered a heretic and had some followers was Yeshu ben Pandera. I believe that the Babylonian Talmud is not giving us the whole extent of what he did and who he is, but apparently he was very pursuasive, or at least pursuasive enough to acquire followers among some people with gnostic ideas and "magic" he acquired in Egypt.

However, I am sure that in following generations the few Jews who believed in him, such as Jacob (James?) of Sachanya, rejected the entire rabbinic narrative of who Yeshu was. Why he got transposed into the 1st century CE I don't know.Of course the narrative of the gospels doesn't REQUIRE specifically an anchor in the 1st century, and my hunch is that it was anchored then because of the John the Baptist narrative, who I should note, is never mentioned in any Jewish rabbinic texts.

semiopen

Thanks for this.

Jesus_in_the_Talmud

My impression is that the Maximalist position discussed above makes more sense. The only issue seems to to be whether the rabbis were capable of making this little disguise and it seems like a no brainer that they were. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm reading a few books on this stuff and hope to be borderline competent in this area in a few years. Was relieved to see that Shafer is listed as a maximalist.

Toto

2 BCH and 1 ABR thread are merged here