Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 12-03-2007, 04:23 PM

"It is generally agreed that before the Jewish War the Jews had the full practice of their own laws, to a quite remarkable degree. This was a tradition of respect passed down since Julius Caesar decreed it.[4] After the Jewish War, this was no longer the case, although the mere fact that Jews continued to pass down, write down, and interpret their laws for centuries more shows that they were never outright deprived of them"

From an essay by Richard Carrier in the SEc WEb library.
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?act...ewAsset&id=125

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You wouldn't question a number you found in a telephone directory, so your appeal to simple consistency....

Yes, simply was a typo on my part. Here is one on your part:

Quote:

Obviously know something about genre is useful.

Quote:

...is plainly misplaced.

Not at all. My simple appeal was regarding the burden of proof, not the actual arguments used to displace it; insofar as you have shouldered the burden, my appeal was plainly not misplaced. IOW, the very fact that you go on to mount an argument proves that my appeal was not misplaced. Slick, eh?

Quote:

You don't know the genre of the gospels (we've debated around the issue often enough without any conclusions)....

I think we do know the genre of the gospel, obfuscations notwithstanding. I find Talbert most convincing on the issue.

Quote:

M.Sanhedrin is, I'm sure you'll agree, a legal text. The aim of a legal text is to explain the state of the law along with any amendments and clarifications. Amendments and clarifications are, as you can observe throughout the Mishna, supplied by sages. The first sage to comment on the section (4) was r. Judah (b. Ilai), giving a terminus ad quem of the mid 2nd c., though this is a very minor comment on the scribes for verdicts, so the body of the rulings on the structure of trials were already securely in place.

Let me grant all of this for the sake of argument. How do you know that a law that is firmly established in the middle of century II was also firmly established before 70? Is it only because of the following?

Quote:

However, the text gives the people eligible for hearing capital cases as "priests, Levites, and Israelites who are suitable to marry into the priesthood", 4.2. This supplies a status quo ante the fall of the temple.

So the mention of priests places the text before 70? (According to various sources, the temple was destroyed; not all the priests were.)

Quote:

Laws by their nature are conservative.

Sure, but laws also by their nature are altered.

Ben.

PS: For those of you out there who worry that certain principles of HJ research are not based on sound methodology, the nature of my present inquiry is entirely methodological. That is, it is possible to agree with spin completely on the original provenance of these laws and still question the method by which he arrived at his conclusions.

spin · 12-03-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You wouldn't question a number you found in a telephone directory, so your appeal to simple consistency....

Yes, simply was a typo on my part.

Shit Ben C, you certainly missed the point. Zoooooom. Gone.

I was complaining about your naive notion of simple consistency. That's why I mentioned the telephone directory. You have expectations about texts from knowledge about them, so your reductionist simple consistency has no value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Not at all. My simple appeal was regarding the burden of proof, not the actual arguments used to displace it; insofar as you have shouldered the burden, my appeal was plainly not misplaced. IOW, the very fact that you go on to mount an argument proves that my appeal was not misplaced. Slick, eh?

I had already pointed you in my earlier statement towards the information. You merely were asking for more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think we do know the genre of the gospel, obfuscations notwithstanding. I find Talbert most convincing on the issue.

I don't think you do know the genre of the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Let me grant all of this for the sake of argument. How do you know that a law that is firmly established in the middle of century II was also firmly established before 70? Is it only because of the following? [..]

So the mention of priests places the text before 70? (According to various sources, the temple was destroyed; not all the priests were.)

No, not just priests, Ben C. It was also the reference to the Israelites who were eligible for marriage into the priesthood, the relevance being only to the temple. This stipulates the status quo ante. Along with the fact that the list doesn't include tannaim. Again, clearly status quo ante.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Laws by their nature are conservative.

Sure, but laws also by their nature are altered.

And changed in rabbinical times means that you get recorded oral change of law, the debate for the change and the sage's ruling.

spin

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I had already pointed you in my earlier statement towards the information.

Which statement?

Quote:

I don't think you do know the genre of the gospel.

And you say this based on...?

Quote:

No, not just priests, Ben C. It was also the reference to the Israelites who were eligible for marriage into the priesthood, the relevance being only to the temple.

Forgive my denseness, but why would the eligibility rules of marriage into the priesthood have changed when the temple was destroyed? Would those rules have become more lax or more strict? Why?

Ben.

spin · 12-03-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I had already pointed you in my earlier statement towards the information.

Which statement?

What followed the bit you quoted of me when you first commented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

I don't think you do know the genre of the gospel.

And you say this based on...?

Your lack of knowledge regarding the context in which the text was written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

No, not just priests, Ben C. It was also the reference to the Israelites who were eligible for marriage into the priesthood, the relevance being only to the temple.

Forgive my denseness, but why would the eligibility rules of marriage into the priesthood have changed when the temple was destroyed? Would those rules have become more lax or more strict? Why?

Their relevance is to maintaining the purity of those who entered the temple. Purity is about temple and approaching the home of god on earth. No temple renders it irrelevant; however, as it is recorded with the legal material, it indicates that it came from when it was relevant.

spin

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your lack of knowledge regarding the context in which the text was written.

IOW, you have not read Talbert, have no intention of reading Talbert, and have not the foggiest notion what Talbert argues.

Quote:

Their relevance is to maintaining the purity of those who entered the temple. Purity is about temple and approaching the home of god on earth. No temple renders it irrelevant; however, as it is recorded with the legal material, it indicates that it came from when it was relevant.

The parts of the Mishnah that you cited are just two of many differences listed between civil and criminal proceedings; the part about those eligible for marriage to priestly families comes from yet another of the differences. How do you know that all the differences on the list come from the same timeframe?

Even if I agree that this law on marriage (all are qualified to judge civil cases, but not every one is qualified to judge criminal cases; as to the latter, only priests, Levites, and Israelites who may legally marry daughters of priests) came from when it was relevant to the temple duties, it would seem that your argument requires that it changed soon after 70; if this marriage law did not change, then its presence here may simply reflect current practice (that is, from century II, even if that practice originated much earlier), and then your argument falls apart.

Now, there is not necessarily anything wrong with this requirement (namely that the marriage law had to have changed)... except that you have just argued that laws are inherently conservative. If laws are by nature conservative, why must this one have changed in 70?

Ben.

proudliberal · 12-05-2007, 01:57 AM

The question I have is was jesus a criminal by their law?

Malachi151 · 12-05-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

I'm having a discussion with someone who made the statement that the Sanhedrin could not have executed Jesus, because the Roman's reserved this right for themselves. They cited this line from the GJohn as evidence.

Quote:

31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

I have always seen the next verse...

Quote:

32 This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

... as indicating that the Jews could not crucify someone, but stoning was allowed according to their law. Stephen was apparently stoned by the Sanhedrin under the Romans, for example. I seem to remember reading in Antiquities that the Sanhedrin stoned people, but can't put my finger on the reference.

Is this a correct analysis?

See: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#5

Malachi151 · 12-05-2007, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not sure of your purpose. Do you think that the gospels represent a version of history, and you can find a rational basis for the events? If the Jews had made these charges, and believed them, they would have stoned Jesus as James the Just was stoned, or Stephen. Jesus would not have been turned over to the Romans for a torturous, shameful death.

I guess I should back up a bit. I'm having a discussion with a Christian apologist about how the gospels show how Jesus knowingly incriminated himself, thereby giving the Sanhedrin no choice but to execute him. He did this by threatening the temple..."Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days..." and also claiming to be above the Torah. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

If Jesus was convicted by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, why was he not stoned? It seems odd that a hand-off to the Romans would have needed to happen at all. A Christian that I'm discussing this with responded by saying "Well, that's because the Romans would not let them execute anyone."

Could you not argue that the author of GJohn, knowing that this apparent contradiction might be viewed as odd by his readers who had an understanding of how the Sanhedrin operated, then adds the line about "This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled." as a sort of cover up?

In a nutshell, it doesn't seem that the gospel accounts jibe with what we know of how things would have worked back then. Does that make sense? I have little to know experience on this topic, so I'm just throwing my ideas out there to get some feedback.

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

andrewcriddle · 12-05-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You wouldn't question a number you found in a telephone directory, so your appeal to simple consistency is plainly misplaced. Obviously know something about genre is useful. You don't know the genre of the gospels (we've debated around the issue often enough without any conclusions), so you can't depend on that information to help you read the text. We do know something about the genre of the Mishnah tractates, and of those in the section of damages, specifically, where Sanhedrin is located. M.Sanhedrin is, I'm sure you'll agree, a legal text. The aim of a legal text is to explain the state of the law along with any amendments and clarifications. Amendments and clarifications are, as you can observe throughout the Mishna, supplied by sages. The first sage to comment on the section (4) was r. Judah (b. Ilai), giving a terminus ad quem of the mid 2nd c., though this is a very minor comment on the scribes for verdicts, so the body of the rulings on the structure of trials were already securely in place. However, the text gives the people eligible for hearing capital cases as "priests, Levites, and Israelites who are suitable to marry into the priesthood", 4.2. This supplies a status quo ante the fall of the temple. Laws by their nature are conservative.

There are sayings in Tosefta Sanhedrin that may be relevant to dating.
T Sanhedrin 7:1 A Said Rabban Simeon b Gamaliel "At first only priests Levites or Israelites suitable for marriage into the priesthood would sign as witnesses on the marriage contracts of women"
T Sanhedrin 7:5 A-B The Eunuch and on who has never had children are suitable for judging property cases but are not suitable for judging capital cases. R. Judah adds also the one who is too harsh or too forgiving.
These are particularly relevant to the dating of M Sanhedrin 4:2 and are both from the mid 2nd century CE. The other assigned sayings in T Sanhedrin 7 are also from this period (Judah, Yose, Joshua b Qorha, Meir and Eleazar b R Sadoq)

This seems to indicate that this section was formed in the early to middle 2nd century. (You could argue that the section was much older than the earliest assigned sayings but I'm not sure how you could establish this.)

Andrew Criddle

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

12-03-2007, 04:23 PM	#11
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	"It is generally agreed that before the Jewish War the Jews had the full practice of their own laws, to a quite remarkable degree. This was a tradition of respect passed down since Julius Caesar decreed it.[4] After the Jewish War, this was no longer the case, although the mere fact that Jews continued to pass down, write down, and interpret their laws for centuries more shows that they were never outright deprived of them" From an essay by Richard Carrier in the SEc WEb library. http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?act...ewAsset&id=125

12-05-2007, 01:57 AM	#17
proudliberal Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: midwest Posts: 3,827	The question I have is was jesus a criminal by their law?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.