Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[XTalk] Re: Hanged on a tree, BCE?

Expand Messages
  • Nathan McGovern
    ... The source used to date Yeshu to 100 BC is Sanhedrin 107b: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/san107b.html The source used to identify this
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 6, 1999
      Jeff Gibson wrote:

      >Nathan McGovern wrote:
      >
      >> There are several non-mainstream commentators on the HJ who believe that
      >> Jesus actually lived about 100 years before he was supposed to have lived.
      >> This theory is derived from accounts on Yeshu ha'Notzri / Yeshu ben Pandera
      >> / censored no-name in the Baraitha and other Jewish sources. Now, I do not
      >> personally agree with this theory, but I am a firm believer in one having
      >> some support for one's theories. Those who believe Jesus lived 100 years
      >> earlier than supposed do have support for their theory, however tenuous it
      >> may be. My question, then, is this: If Jesus lived in the first century
      >> and died under Pontius Pilate, as most believe, then why do certain Jewish
      >> sources say otherwise? In other words, why did the authors of the
      >> Baraitha, etc. think or say that Jesus lived 100 years before he did if he
      >> didn't?
      >>
      >
      >It seems to me that this simply begs the question. What you should really be
      >asking is:
      >Do the references to Jesus in Talmud and Midrash actually say what the
      >"pre-Jesus
      >Jesus" claimants seem to think they say?
      >
      >Would you care to cite -- and even perhaps produce -- these references?

      The source used to date Yeshu to 100 BC is Sanhedrin 107b:
      http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/san107b.html

      The source used to identify this Yeshu with Jesus is Baraitha Babylon
      Sanhedrin 43a:
      http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/b_san43a.html

      Thanks, I think you've helped me answer my own question. As far as I can
      tell, there is no compelling reason to identify the Yeshu in the former
      with the Yeshu in the latter. At some point, the tradition began
      identifying the two with one another; but that does not mean that that was
      the original intent. Only the Sanhedrin 107b places a man named Yeshu in
      the 100 BC time period, but that Yeshu does not have any connection with
      Jesus other than his name. The second Yeshu, in Sanhedrin 43a, does have
      more connections to Jesus than just his name; but his life is not placed
      (as far as I can tell) in 100 BC. I'm beginning to suspect that I've
      fallen victim to misrepresentation of the evidence by supporters of the
      pre-Jesus Jesus theory. If any list members know of any other evidence
      that supports their claim, please, let me know.

      So, now, I suppose the question is this: Should the Sanhedrin 43a Yeshu be
      identified with Jesus?

      Shalom,

      Nathan

      Nathan McGovern
      Franklin and Marshall College
      nm_mcgovern@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.