Peshitta Forum
Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Targum and Sermon on the Mount (/showthread.php?tid=2054)



Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-05-2009

Shlama all--

I was studying the Jerusalem and Pseudo Jonathan Targums for Genesis 38 and found something interesting. The Gospels read:

???for by the judgment that you judge, you will be judged. And by the measure you measure it will be measured to you,??? (Matthew 7:2).

???for it is better than one of your members should perish and not all your body be thrown into Gehenna,??? (Matthew 5:30).

Now look at the Targum:

And Judah recognized the three witnesses, and arose upon his feet and said, I pray you, my brothers, and you men of the house of my fathers, to hear me. With the measure that a man measures shall it be measured to him; whether good measure or evil; and blessed is every man who confesses his works. Because I took the coat of Joseph my brother and dipped it into the blood of a goat, and brought it before the feet of my father and said to him, Know now whether this be your son's coat or not, the measure is according to the measure, and the rule to the rule. Better is it for me blush in this world than to blush in the world to come; better to burn with a fire that goes out, than to burn in the fire devouring fire. Let Tamar my daughter-in law be spared. She has not conceived a child by fornication, but because I did not give to her Shelah my son. The Bath kol came forth from heaven , and said, Both of you are acquitted in the judgment. The thing was from YHWH.

Like the Talmud, this work is supposed to be an apologetic against the Nazarenes and Christians in some cases. At a minimum, it is a reinforcement of Rabbinic interpretation and practice. But as I also demonstrated in my first book "Signs", the Talmud also takes large portions of Y'shua's teachings and incorporates them almost completely. The same is now happening in the Jerusalem and Psuedo Jonathan Targums, perhaps an underground movement a la Acts 6:7?

In the Targum's case, this reference puts the phrase of Y'shua somewhat close to Scripture. Granted Onkelos is the "authorized" version here and Onkelos does not have this reference, but these other two Targums did enjoy rabbinic support too, and not only are they quoting two lines from the Sermon on the Mount, they are putting it in the mouth of Y'shua's ancestor Judah, forefather of David. And yes, there are instances in Tanakh where SOME of these concepts Y'shua relates are touched upon, but I would argue this reading is so close and put together in such a way that they had to have read a copy of Matthew.

What's more the Aramaic is telling. The Targum uses mekela kebel mekela (measure that you measure). The Peshitta reads nearly the same way, but in plural form of "you", whereas Judah is talking in the singular of the third person. Other than that, it is the same phrase.

Something is definitely going on here...


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Christina - 03-05-2009

This is fascinating! <!-- s:wow: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wow.gif" alt=":wow:" title="Wow" /><!-- s:wow: -->


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Kara - 03-06-2009

Here's the breakdown of your argument:

Conclusion: The Targumists plaguarized passages from Matthew

Reasons:

1) The Talmud takes large portions of Y'shua's teachings and incorporates them almost completely
2) The targums that "enjoy[ed] rabbinic support" are "quoting two lines from the Sermon on the Mount [and].... putting it in the mouth of Y'shua's ancestor Judah, forefather of David."
3) The Targum uses mekela kebel mekela (measure that you measure). The Peshitta reads nearly the same way, but in plural form of "you", whereas Judah is talking in the singular of the third person.

I have problems with this argument. First, the unstated ideas that connect reasons 1-3 to the conclusion are "because Matthew was published first, any resemblences thereof in the Talmud is the direct result of plagiarism," "The Orthodox Jewish community, although being somewhat hostile to the Christian faith, would borrow from a man condemned as a heretic" and "the Peshitta, descending directly from the Apostles themselves, has remained free from interpolation."

As for the first assumption, it's possible, but not necessarily true; there are rival causes. For example, it could be that Jesus, being an Aramaic-speaking Jew in an Aramaic speaking Jewish community, incorporated a conventional, commonplace proverb/saying into his sermon. After all, did he not receive a Jewish education, being found "in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions?"* It does not follow that since his followers popularized it, he originated it (i.e. the Pythagorean Theorem). It could be that Christianity, starting off as a Jewish sect, was heavily influenced by Pharisaic Judaism & later incorporated some of its teachings. This is not improbable, considering the Church's borrowing from different traditions. As for the second and third assumptions, they're possible, but unlikely, given the lack of unbiased, publicly verifiable evidence; thus, they are at best assertions.

Finally, I will assume that you absolutely proved reasons 1) and 2) in your book or elsewhere, otherwise, you'd be begging the question. What do you mean by "large portions?" How do you incorporate something "almost completely?"

Thus based on these shaky unstated ideas, I reject your argument.

Kara


*Luke 2:46


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-07-2009

Shlama to you Kara,

I don't like your tone. I never said "plagiarized. How do you "plagiarize" without copyright? But one source was co-opted by the other, and I wasn't suggesting anything deceptive either--but that there was more influence between early Jews, Nazarenes and Christians than has previously been supposed. Such is the nature of some fairly recent Talmudic scholarship. One such work that I looked at for my research about 5years ago was called "Christianity the Talmud and Midrash", <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Midrash-AUGMENTED-TRAVERS-HERFORD/dp/0881259306/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236396718&sr=1-1">http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Midr ... 718&sr=1-1</a><!-- m -->. You can also find a related article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 7, 2004 by Neal Altman called "Support for the authenticity of Matthew comes from an unlikely place".

In any case, the earliest forms of these statements are in the Gospels, and then they show up in Rabbinic literature.

The Talmud does in fact though incorporate large portions of Y'shua's teachings. That is a fact. I have the citations in my first book. The Talmud was compiled about the year 200 CE,with other sections of course reaching finished form in the Middle Ages. Either way, this is long past the time of the Gospels.

Oh, and here is what I mean by LARGE PORTIONS:

"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."
Matthew 10:26

Hillel says, " . . . do not say anything which cannot be heard, for in the end, it will be heard."
Mishnah, Pirke Avot 2:4

Now a man came up to Yeshua and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Yeshua replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
Matthew 19:16-17

[Hillel] would say, ". . . [If] he has gotten teachings of Torah, he has gotten for himself life eternal.]
Mishnah, Pirke Avot 2:7

"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
Matthew 6:7-8

R. Simeon says, "Be meticulous in the recitation of the shema and the Prayer. And when you pray, don't treat your praying as a matter of routine. But let it be a [plea for] mercy and supplication before the Omnipresent, blessed be he."
Mishnah, Pirke Avot 2:13

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Matthew 18:20

R. Hananiah b. Teradion says, "[If] two sit together and between them do not pass teachings of Torah, lo, this is a seat of the scornful (Ps. 1:1). But two who are sitting, and words of Torah do pass between them - the Presence is with them, as it is said. Then they that feared the LORD spoke with one another, and the LORD hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the LORD and gave thought to His name (Mal. 3:16). I know that this applies to two.
Mishnah, Pirke Avot 3:2

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Matthew 11:28-30

R. Nehunya b. Haqqaneh says, "From whomever accepts upon himself the yoke of the Torah do they remove the yoke of the state and the yoke of hard labor."
Mishnah, Pirke Avot, 3:5

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27
R. Jonathan b. Joseph said: . . .[the Sabbath] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.
Yoma 85b
The Sabbath is given over to you, and not you to the Sabbath
Mekilta on Exodus 31:13 (109b), cited in The New Testament Background, C.K. Barret
"Which is lawful to do on the Sabbath, to do good or to do evil, to save life, or to kill?
Mark 3:4

R. Ishmael, R. Akiba and R. Eleazar b. Azariah were once on a journey, with Levi ha-Saddar and R. Ishmael son of R. Eleazar b. Azariah following them. Then this question was asked of them: Whence do we know that in the case of danger to human life the laws of the Sabbath are suspended? ??? R. Ishmael answered and said: If a thief be found breaking in. Now if in the case of this one it is doubtful whether he has come to take money or life; and although the shedding of blood pollutes the land, so that the Shechinah departs from Israel, yet it is lawful to save oneself at the cost of his life ??? how much more may one suspend the laws of the Sabbath to save human life! R. Akiba answered and said: If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour etc. thou shalt take him from My altar, that he may die.22 I.e., only off the altar, but not down from the altar.23 And in connection therewith Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: That was taught only when one's life is to be forfeited,but to save life one may take one down even from the altar. Now if in the case of this one, where it is doubtful whether there is any substance in his words or not, yet [he interrupts] the service in the Temple [which is important enough to] suspend the Sabbath, how much more should the saving of human life suspend the Sabbath laws!
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 85a-b
Yeshua said to them, "I did one miracle and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging be mere appearances and make a right judgement."
John 7:21-24
R. Eleazar answered and said: If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath!
Yoma 85b

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
Matthew 7:24-27

R. Eleazar ben Azariah: "One whose wisdom exceeds his deeds unto what is he compared? Unto a tree [which] the branches thereof are many and the roots few, so that when the wind comes, it uproots it and overturns it upon its face, as it is said, for he shall be like a tamarisk in the desert and shall not see when good comes, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, a salt land and not inhabited. But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, unto what is he compared? Unto a tree the branches therefore are few, and the roots many, so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow upon it, they do not move it from its place, as it is said, for he shall be as a tree planted by the waters and that spreads its roots by the river, and shall not see when heat comes, but its foliage shall be luxuriant, and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Mishnah, Pirke Avot 3:17

"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. . . " Matthew 22:2
And:
"What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?"
Mark 4:30, Cf. Luke 13:18, 20
R. Judah ha-Nasi: "To what may this be likened? To a king who made a banquet..."

"He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come . . ."
Matthew 22:3

R. Judah ha-Nasi: " . . . a king . . . made a banquet to which he invited guests. . . "

"He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come . . ."
Matthew 22:3
R. Judah ha-Nasi: "He said to them, ???Go, wash yourselves, brush up your clothes, anoint yourselves with oil, wash your garments, and prepare yourselves for the banquet . . ."

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."
Matthew 25:13
R. Judah ha-Nasi: "[The king] fixed no time when they were to come to [the banquet]. . ."
"The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps."
Matthew 25:4
R. Judah ha-Nasi: "The wise among them walked about by the entrance of the king's palace, saying, ' Does the king's palace lack anything????

"Then [the king] sent some more servants and said, `Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
Matthew 22:4
R. Judah ha-Nasi: "The foolish among them paid no regard or attention to the king's command. They said, ???We will in due course notice when the king's banquet is to take place, because can there be a banquet without labour [to prepare it] and company????
"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business."
Matthew 22:5
R. Judah ha-Nasi: The foolish among them paid no regard or attention to the king's command. So the plasterer went to his plaster, the potter to his clay, the smith to his charcoal, the washer to his laundry.

???The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. "At midnight the cry rang out: `Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' "`No,' they replied, `there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.???

Matthew 25:5-10

R. Judah ha-Nasi: "Suddenly the king ordered, ' Let them all come to the banquet.??? They hurried the guests, so that some came in their splendid attire and others came in their dirty garments. "

"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. . . "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. `Friend,' he asked, `how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. "Then the king told the attendants, `Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Matthew 22:5-14
R. Judah ha Nasi: The king was pleased with the wise ones who had obeyed his command, and also because they had shown honour to the king's palace. He was angry with the fools who had neglected his command and disgraced his palace. The king said, ' Let those who have prepared themselves for the banquet come and eat of the king's meal, but those who have not prepared themselves shall not partake of it.???


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-07-2009

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

I don't pretend to know the full history of this. I just noticed the passage. As for the Talmud, it is far more of a concordance than just Judah the Prince, although that is an obvious example I use in the other post. There are other later rabbis who did this too. And it is also possible that earlier rabbis, like Hilel, had influence on Y'shua too. Y'shua seems to get very close to quoting Hillel's dictum, "the sabbath is given into your hands, not you into it's hands".

It is well known that the first two centuries of the common era had many materials expunged from the Talmud that might have shown a Christian or Nazarene influence. I quoted Acts 6:7 as proof of this kind of movement generally. In more recent years, previously obscured materials have come to light, as was the point of the book and article I mentioned.

Finally, no I don't believe Gamaliel was ever converted. If he had, that would have also been recorded on the Jewish side. They would have declared him MINNIM. I find it on the level of the legends that Josephus was bishop of Jerusalem in an almost Catholic manner--kind of doubt that. Gamaliel wrote a parody on Matthew's gospel that may have been the inspiration for the Toldot Yeshu.


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Kara - 03-08-2009

Andrew,

First, I question your source. What qualifies the author to confirm his hypothesis? How much expertise does he have pertaining to the subject? Was he free from distorting influences, such as church loyalty, promotion, fame, and etc? Was he selective with his sources, one perhaps with a dissenting view? Are there more experts in the revelent field who agree with him? Are they the minority among scholars? Until you answer these questions, I cannot entirely accept your source.

Secondly, would Pharisaic Jews really "co-opt" their wisdom literature with Christians, followers of a man, who according to Princeton scholar Peter Sch??fer's Jesus in the Talmud, is seen as:


"Balaam," "that man," "the carpenter," "ben Pandera" (son of Pandera).....[a] "mamzer" (bastard) conceived adulterously in "niddah" (menstrual filth) by a Roman soldier named Pandera [Kallah 51a] of a whore [Sanhedrin 106a].... [who] is now in Hell, boiling in excrement. In some renderings Jesus is portrayed as boiling in semen as punishment for sexual perversion [Gittin 57a].

.... the Talmud claim that the Sanhedrin justly executed Jesus because he was an idolater [Sanhedrin 43a] who worshipped a brick [Sanhedrin 67a], even boasting that the Sanhedrin overcame Roman opposition to the execution of Jesus [Sanhedrin 43a].(<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/jesus-in-talmud.html">http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/ ... almud.html</a><!-- m -->)

Not likely.

A more plausible cause is that the followers of Paul or Paul himself, who was educated in the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel), interpolated the Gospel of Matthew, if not composing it entirely.

Considering that the

"canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council" (Catholic Encyclopedia under "Canon of the New Testament")

Whose views do you think were more prevalent and widespread, thus better represented, during this canonical fluidity: Paul's or, say, the Apostle James?


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-08-2009

Shlama to you Kara,

You are not making any sense. It is very hard to dialogue with you. What source do you question? You disagree with the book? You don't think the Talmud quotes are genuine? What is your point? I'm not psychic. That's forbidden by Torah remember? If you don't have the patience to explain your views, I assure you I have no patience to divine them through tea leaves or ask what your sign is.

You seem to think a source like Talmud is an all or nothing affair. That one needs to 100% endorse or 100% condemn it. The Talmud is not something like say "Huckleberry Finn" written by one man in one place in one time. It is a collection of hundreds of rabbis over a period of more than a thousand years and a dozen countries, carefully edited over an extremely long period of time. Some of it is great. Some of it is junk. Some of it is simply it being the product of its day.

If you knew my beliefs, you would know that I certainly don't support Rabbinic polemics against Y'shua. And if you knew how history works, that it is huge, messy and sometimes turns round about on itself, you would not paint with such broad and absolute strokes.

The other frustrating part is that you don't acknowledge a main point and act as if it wasn't made. Two examples. First, I showed you the Talmud quotes that unquestionably prove they are co-opting Gospel quotes. Even the rabbis tell us plainly the compilation of the Mishnah began at leat 150 years later. So do you acknowledge that since there is no doubt of the content or the timeline, that these parallels are not easily explained in another fashion? Or do you just say "no" and move on? I think everyone here knows exactly what you chose. Bad decision on your part.

Second example of your lack of proper exchange/response: I keep bringing you back to Acts 6:7 and you ignore it. So let's quote it so my intentions are clear:

"And the Word of Elohim spread and increased the number of disciples in Jerusalem greatly, and many people of the Judeans were obedient to the faith."

Do you think somehow this is not accurate? Or do you imagine that only fishermen and tax collectors followed him, when we know he had at least two members of the Sanhedrin in his corner as secret followers? The Gospels are full of this information with respect to Nicodemus, Joseph of Ramtha, members of the high priest's own entourage arguing in Y'shua's favor.

I view Acts as accurate history. And I know my Talmud and Targum sources are accurate. if you don't, frankly, that's not my problem. All I was trying to do was show these two sources and suggest an interesting parallel.

If you have a question, you should learn how to ask it rather than just promulgate "rejections" that are in and of themselves not based on your direct knowledge of the sources you have a problem with. I've researched this stuff for 30 years--if you would refute me do so from knowledge and not from a place that just says it's all fake. All that does is prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

Keep this up and the dialogue is over.


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Kara - 03-08-2009

Andrew

Most of your recent post employs the ad hominem fallacy, thus I will only reply to your points that require clarity on my part.

1) You asked "What source do you question? You disagree with the book? You don't think the Talmud quotes are genuine? What is your point? I'm not psychic. That's forbidden by Torah remember? If you don't have the patience to explain your views, I assure you I have no patience to divine them through tea leaves or ask what your sign is."

The source in question is the one you "looked at for my research about 5years ago was called "Christianity the Talmud and Midrash", <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Midr">http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Midr</a><!-- m --> ... 718&sr=1-1.

If you're going to use a source to support your conclusion, the aforementioned questions, such as "what is the quality of your source?" is necessarily asked by any critical thinker, requiring dependable evidence. Since you used "Christianity, the Talmud and Midrash" to support your thesis, I thought you could answer my questions thereof. Apparently not.

2) You said "First, I showed you the Talmud quotes that unquestionably prove they are co-opting Gospel quotes.

You've showed me similarities between Matthew and the Talmud, all of which can be explained by more than one cause, some of which are more plausible than others. You haven't proven anything "unquestionably."

"Even the rabbis tell us plainly the compilation of the Mishnah began at leat 150 years later."

Your unstated idea must be "since Matthew surfaced first, any parallelisms between Matthew and the Talmud must have necessarily been taken from Matthew, or in other words, what came later borrowed from what came before. That's possible, but again, you have not "unquestionably" proven that to be the case. Consider the following:

" From Moses the Mishna was transmitted by oral tradition through forty "Receivers," until the time of Rabbi Judah the Holy. These Receivers were qualified by ordination to hand it on from generation to generation. Abarbanel and Maimonides disagree as to the names of these Receivers. While the temple still stood as a centre of unity to the nation, it was considered unlawful to reduce these traditions to writing. But when the Temple was burned, and the Jews were dispersed amongst other peoples, it was considered politic to form them into a written code, which should serve as a bond of union, and keep alive the spirit of patriotism. The Jewish leaders saw the effect of Constitutions and Pandects in consolidating nations???the advantage of written laws over arbitrary decisions. Numberless precedents of case law, answering to our common law, were already recorded: and the teachings of the Hebrew jurisconsults, or "Responsa prudentium," which were held to be binding on the people, had been preserved from former ages. All these traditions Rabbi Judah the Holy undertook to reduce into one digest. And this laborious work he completed about A.D. 190, or more than a century after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Rabbi Judah was born on the day that Rabbi Akibah died. Solomon is said to have foretold the event: "One sun ariseth, and one sun goeth down" (The Talmud, Joseph Barclay)

If teachings were indeed passed on from generation to generation, father to son, from the time of Moses to the Oral Law's final codification, then it is possible that neither Talmudists nor Christians "co-opted" their literature, considering that

"the Talmud arose during the epoch when Christianity began its secession from Judaism, and when the Christians were looked upon as dissident Jews. Against that background there must have been extensive controversy between the adherents of traditional Judaism and the advocates of the new doctrine. The Talmud generally avoids polemics; but some echoes of that controversy survived in the Talmud, principally a prayer against sectarianism, the prayer Velamalshinim, as it is known in the present Jewish liturgy. This now became a cause of serious charges against Judaism, above all against its revered classic, the Talmud" (The Wisdom of the Talmud, Ben Zion Bokser)

It's likely that Jesus studied parts of the Oral Law. Was he not found in the synagogue reading, teaching therein, as was his custom (Luke 4:15-17); this could explain the parallelisms in his sermon and these Rabbis' teachings--all of which were in consistency with the Oral Law. In other words, it's plausible that both Jesus and the Talmudists worked with a common source before them.

3) You said: "You seem to think a source like Talmud is an all or nothing affair. That one needs to 100% endorse or 100% condemn it. The Talmud is not something like say "Huckleberry Finn" written by one man in one place in one time. It is a collection of hundreds of rabbis over a period of more than a thousand years and a dozen countries, carefully edited over an extremely long period of time. Some of it is great. Some of it is junk. Some of it is simply it being the product of its day."

No, I'm not convinced that given the historically recorded tension between Pharisaic Jews and early Christians, Jews would in one place condemn Jesus to live in boiling semen and in other places rip pieces off his famous sermon. That's huge inconsistency in a legal document. I deserve solid evidence before accepting your conclusion.

4) You said: "I view Acts as accurate history. And I know my Talmud and Targum sources are accurate."

Begging the Question


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-09-2009

Shlama to you Kara,

You've not really clarified anything except to prove that you can cut and paste other people's opinions. I don't understand your problem. The Talmud is a very organic thing, and the last thing it is is monolothic. They copy, edit, interpret, re-interpret. Again, Acts 6:7. Again, learn to focus and really give me an answer instead of pontificating rejections. At the very least, learn to ask a question.

And you have some nerve to call what I do ad-hominem? Exactly what do you think you have been doing? You are very disrespectful and you started that way without any provocation. Then obviously when such is pointed out to you, you don't care. That's fine, but just understand: I don't need to waste my time with people who insult me. I have many good intentioned folks of all faiths who actually value what I have to say, so if you want MY TIME, you better change your act. You don't, at best I will ignore you and at worst I will delete your posts if they continue in nastiness. Go ahead man, try my resolve. See what happens.

Yes there was hostility between Christians, Jews and Nazarenes but there was also a lot of dialogue and cross-pollenization going on. Yes we know the Gospels are before the Talmud. I suggest you read Mas Shabbath 116a before trying to "prove" otherwise. If you really think the earliest Greek or Aramaic NT goes back is close to the end of the second century then I really can't help you. I guess I was wrong to assume you were literate enough of the research here that points in the direction of late first century NT formation. You can disagree with that of course, but spare me the diatribe as if most scholars don't think this. And distinguish between mss and chain of evidence while you look at the matter.

Both the NT and the Talmud are in fact reactions to Messianic controversies and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Talmud and other rabbinic polemics developed later from this time, about 200-600 CE. Oh and in case you missed it: Y'shua, his followers and almost every NT writer save perhaps Luke were are JEWISH, and JEWS disagreed and held a wide variety of opinions about Y'shua. I am a Jewish follower of Y'shua and I am not alone, so that should demonstrate to you that not all Jews hated Messiah. By the way I was baptized by a COE priest of Jewish descent too. Chew on that.

FOR THE RECORD IT IS FINE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME. DO SO ALL YOU WANT. IT IS THE WAY YOU DISAGREE THAT BOTHERS ME. YOUR TONE IS HORRIBLE AND YOUR MANNER ABRASIVE. IF YOU WERE NICER, NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVED, YOU WOULD FIND ME MUCH NICER TOO. I AM IF NOTHING ELSE CONSISTENT.

Finally, you also seem to think I only used one source, that book. I have documented my source materials extensively in my books and try to take something from each while doing my own research, translations, etc. No one source is the linchpin of my conclusions. I also use the Mishnah by Jacob Neusber and the many Talmudic resources like Rodkinson that are public domain and on the web. I have a pretty good home library too.

If you have a problem with the full sweep of that one book, I suggest you go and talk to that author. My use of a book doesn't mean I 100% agree with it or speak as a representative for the author or use the argument therein from soup to nuts. Again, this goes to your pattern of all or nothing, black or white. It is is a clear sign that you are not open to really exploring things. I don't know what your hiding, but I know that you are. It might be helpful, for example, if you simply said what it is you believe and why rather than just say you are against what I believe. Then perhaps I could respond in kind.

As for the rest, I know the culture and history of my own people. I am done with you, and I warn you strongly not to push me. You've been warned.


Re: Targum and Sermon on the Mount - Kara - 03-09-2009

Andrew,

I'm not attacking you. I'm simply critical of your sources and your conclusions; I'm questioning the validity of your argument. As for you, as I thought you knew, I have always admired you. Yet, you've persistently overreacted.

To be fair, let the other moderators, including Paul Younan, judge if I've strayed from attacking your premises to attacking you. If the majority rules in your favor, I will wholeheartedly apologize for disrespecting you. If they rule in my favor, then acknowledge that you've violated the forum rules by attacking my person and delete your recent posts. I request proof that condemns either of us from the tribunal before it rules.

Or you can be the judge. List one thing I said that is "threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory information of any kind" or "nastiness" towards you as a person, and I will not only apologize to you and the forum, but I will delete my posts myself. I'll even get baptized. If you can't, then I ask that you follow the aforementioned prescription.