December 21, 2003

SUPPORT FROM AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE:

Talmud confirms an early Gospel of Matthew (NEIL ALTMAN AND DAVID CROWDER, Dec. 13, 2003, Toronto Star)

For more than a century, liberal scholars have contended that the Christian gospels are unreliable, second-hand accounts of Jesus' ministry that weren't put on paper until 70 to 135 A.D. or later — generations after those who witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry were dead.

Today's more liberal scholars say the Gospel of Matthew may have been aimed at Jews but it was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

They also believe that the Book of Mark, written in Greek, was the original gospel, despite the traditional order of the gospels in the Bible, putting Matthew first.

But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 A.D. or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. In his 1999 book, Passover And Easter: Origin And History To Modern Times, Israel Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University says that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 A.D., is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."

The Talmud, a text not often touched by New Testament scholars, also contains a number of obvious references to Jesus and his family.

Jesus is called a Nazarene, one of the names given him. Another dubs him Yeshua Ben Pandira, which means Jesus born-of-a-virgin in a combination of Hebrew and Greek. His father was a carpenter, his mother was a hairdresser and Jesus, the Talmud says, was a magician who "led astray Israel."

And, it says, he was "hanged" on the eve of Passover. Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew, though longer than Mark, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 21, 2003 6:25 AM
Comments

Problem here is that the earliest portions of the Talmud (and the authors do not say whether this is taken from the Jerusalem or Babylon edition) cannot be dated before the second century, and the texts that we have are based on fourth and sixth century editions.

The talmuds are compilations of legal material, intersperced with biblical exigesis and legendary material, odd bits of fact are also tossed in. But, Professor Neusner points out that talmudic texts cannot be taken as history. Statements that apear in the mouth of one rabbi in one tractate will appear in the mouth of another in another tractate.

Further there was a tradition of attributing original work to earlier more authortative sources. This continued though the middle ages.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 22, 2003 12:23 AM
« CAN'T LET THE WOGS DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL, WHAT: | Main | WHAT IS REVEALED: »