I’m afraid I have to correct Cecil’s comments about various mentions of Jesus. Firstly, it is simply not true that Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud. The first is a fleeting reference to a man named ‘Yeshu’ - this was a very common name at that time. But this man could not be ‘the’ Jesus, because he lived a century earlier!
Jesus is not mentioned either in the Talmuds (there are two) or indeed in any other Jewish text either.
In addition, Cecil refers to the reference in Josephus to ‘the christ’. Most contemporary theologians and historians confidently state that this is a later addition to the work of Josephus and an out and out forgery - the writing style does not match that of Josephus and he would never have used the title ‘christ’, which means ‘anointed’, in referring to Jesus.
Finally: Cecil mentions Tacitus. Tacitus, though, did not live at the same time as Jesus and the best he can offer us is the heresay of another person. Thus this is not remotely credible ‘proof’ that Jesus ever existed.
I’m surprised Cecil refers to Talmudic references to Jesus. Even if Jesus is the man referred to as Yeshu the passages have no real evidentiary worth as the first Talmudic writings only appeared 200 years after Christ’s death.
I think Cecil’s point is that such writings (Josephus possibly, Tacitus, and the Talmud) are all later but not many centuries later. They are certainly not evidence of existence in the way that Jesus’ name on a tax list might be. And, of course, we wouldn’t expect to find the name of a poor person on a tax list. However, they are indicative: in the first century or two, no one raises the question of whether Jesus really existed.
In fact, we have very little evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate, and he was a governor! So, it’s not surprising that there would be no evidence of the existence of some impoverished nobody (in Roman eyes.)
As for Cecil’s column, it’s a particular poor one. We’ve had this debate in a zillion threads since. Yes, there are a couple of later references to a Christ. They are all post-Gospels, so they easily could have been second-hand references to literature that was already being spread around. They do not show, as Cecil said, that non-Christians did not doubt. All they do show is the existence of Christianity from an early time.
Whether you find this lack of evidence compelling or not is obviously a totally different debate.
As for mentions of Christ in the Talmud, the best reference is probably found in this footnote from the ADL .pdf in The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics:
I haven’t been able to find the Essays online. However, this is probably the passage most refer to:
Paul is Jewish.
Paul wrote most of the New Testament.
(Writings by a particular group of people can be identified by nationality of that group.)
Therefore, the New Testament can be considered largely Jewish.
That argument is about as logical as it gets, and, thus, a good argument. Unless your idea of a good argument is one that goes back and forth forever…
Now you’re going to have to argue the distinction between Judaism as a religion and Jewishness as an ethnicity.
Christianity’s identity was in flux for much of the early years. Was it a Jewish sect, trying to purify Judaism, or was it an offshoot religion for everyone? Paul pushed the latter and that is ultimately the thinking that won out. But there certainly were elements in early Christianity that thought of it as Jewish.
Cecil stated in the column:
That’s a weak argument. For much of that time, doubting the historiocity of Jesus could get you burned at the stake. There isn’t much upside in doubting the historiocity of Jesus until the time of the Enlightenment.
In fact, there is currently a new scholarly group trying to get to bottom of exactly that question - was there ever a real “Jesus”?
One is in the Testimonium *" Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.". *
There seems little doubt by most scholars that the text may have mentioned something about Jesus, but was later edited to include extra wonders by later 'editors". You can call this a “forgery” if you like, it’s certainly not fully authentic.
Then there’s Antiquities with an almost throw-way offhand mention*:" Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. *"
Few scholars doubt this is authentic. Admittedly it’s pretty small potatoes, mostly being about James.
The Romans, even while trying to stamp out early Christianity- seemed to have no doubts. Although there is very little material, none of it expresses any doubt there once was a real man by that name. They also had much to gain and nothing to lose by making the claim there never was a Jesus… well except that dudes might have laughed at them for making what was clearly such a specious claim.
"*Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[74]
Celsus wrote, about 180CE, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen’s refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being a child and a sorcerer[75] and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a “mere man”.[76]"*
Note in both cases the Romans scoff at the Christians worshiping a “mere man”- not at the Christians worshiping a made up fantasy.
There’s no indication that Jesus intended to do anything but speak his interpretation of Judaism for the sake of the Jewish people. I doubt he minded bringing others into the fold, but I didn’t get the impression that this was his primary objective.
Good point, as is the known fact that the Romans regularly “erased” anyone and anything that displeased them in pretty much any way.
I had a friend who said that the fact there are no half-hippo, half horse fossils is proof that evolution isn’t true. Of course, he has no idea how fantastically unlikely it is for a fossil to be formed, then preserved for millions of years, then unearthed at just the right time under just the right conditions, so we can study it.
Same with the whole “Jesus” question. Religion handles this nicely. It’s a matter of faith, not to be questioned. Kinda like Gore and his Church of AGW Alarmism, perhaps better known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism - figuring the acronym is your job. Only heretics dare ask questions - you’re required to just keep singing “Pie jesu dominae” and then whack yourself on the head with a large wooden board, and for Gore’s sake, you’d better not ask why the warming predicted by the IPCC isn’t occurring despite ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 output.
Moderator speaketh: Gregor, you’re new here, so welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards. How about if we keep this thread limited to the existence of Jesus. If you want to discuss evolution, global warming, abortion, taxes, terrorism, gun control, or any similar topic, I suggest you go to the forum called “Great Debates” where you will find (many!) threads devoted to any of these.
These are moderated boards, and you might want to look around please, and not try to derail or sidetrack a focused conversation. No big deal this time, you’re new and we’re glad to have you with us, but please pay attention to our rules and policies in future. Right?
Or Sephadic Jews or Arabian Jews or Chinese Jews or the many other non-Eastern European non-Ashkenazi branches of Judaism that have nothing cultural in common with “ethnic” Judaism as it’s known in this country.
If you assume the reality of a historical Jesus, don’t you also have to assume that he wasn’t around when any of the New Testament was written? I don’t see how you can assume one but not the other. Later writers were clearly interested in proselytizing a new religion.
Judaism is not a thing that can speak for itself. It is a worldwide religion with a number of internal sects, for lack of better word to describe the differences between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and the several other branches, comprising millions of people from all ethnic backgrounds, including converts.
Saying “Judaism regards itself” is a meaningless phrase, as meaningless as “Christianity regards itself” or “Islam regards itself.”
There certainly are people who are willing to speak in the name of all Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but the rest of us ignore those people.
That ultimately resolves to saying that “Judaism” has no meaning at all.
There may be exceptions. Considering human perversity, there almost certainly are. But I do not know of a single educated adult Jew who would categorically say, “Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity,” although I have, in fact, heard Jewish atheists say the reverse.
Going back to the original point, of course, it is certainly true that “Jewish” does not mean Ashkenazic. (On the other hand, the lie beloved by neo-Nazis that claims that Ashkenizim are not really Jews is to be equally rejected.)
One of the most fascinating works on Jesus that Cecil might have mentioned is The True Word by Celsus, a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Christianity. We don’t have the original but much of the text is preserved in Origen’s Contra Celsus, a Christian counter-attack.
The interesting thing is that Celsus never casts doubt on the existence of a real Jesus, and if there were any such notions going around he’d certainly be the man to dig them up. Instead, he states that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera.
I didn’t say it isn’t a religion. I said there is a Jewish religion and a Jewish ethnicity.
All that proves is that the mapping is not 1 to 1.
As I said, that’s the group that won, but if Christianity is first and foremost built upon Jesus’s ideas, then it is appropriate to look at how he perceived things, and he considered himself a reformer of Judaism, not an originator of some new religion.
