03-06-2009, 11:07 PM
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
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