Can we discuss Judaism without the politics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rabbi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, no actually, I don’t KNOW that. What I do know is that a number of extra-Biblical sources exist that corroborate Jesus’ crucifixion by Pilate.
They don’t corroborate the crucifixion (and I believe Jesus was crucified) so much as report that some Jews were speaking of a man named Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem. This is analogous to people saying newspapers reported the crash of a spaceship in Roswell and the presence of small aliens. Reporting that some people talked of such a thing isn’t the best corroboration.

Just for the record, I do believe Jesus existed and was crucified. Resurrected, no. Is the messiah, no. But I’m not challenging your beliefs or trying to convert you to mine. Only to show you that because Josephus, et al., reported that some Jews spoke of Jesus is not the greatest corroboration.

I can make an accurate “prophecy” about the destruction of the twin towers in NYC or the election of the first African American president, but that won’t make me anything other than the ordinary woman I am.
 
Last edited:
Here is what Josephus had to say about Jesus:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Josephus didn’t know Jesus. He is reporting what some people said about him. That is quite different from non-Christian corroboration of an eyewitness.
 
They don’t corroborate the crucifixion (and I believe Jesus was crucified) so much as report that some Jews were speaking of a man named Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem. This is analogous to people saying newspapers reported the crash of a spaceship in Roswell and the presence of small aliens. Reporting that some people talked of such a thing isn’t the best corroboration.
Yeah, no. We can imagine all kinds of things here, but that isn’t how history is sorted out. Tacitus isn’t reporting what some Jews said about Jesus, he is reporting what the Romans did to Jesus.
Christus, … suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Tacitus was a boy of about 8 (~64 AD) when Nero went into overdrive with his persecution of Christians. The Jews had been expelled from Rome years before that ~49 or 50 AD, because of tensions between Christians and Jews. Tacitus studied in Rome for a relatively long period during his formative years, so his version of the events had much more to do with Roman actions relative to Jesus and not second hand from what some Jews had said about Jesus, primarily because there wouldn’t have been many Jews in Rome at the time, and because Tacitus wouldn’t have relied on them, in any case.

Tacitus was known to have been a careful and scrupulous historian who made judicious use of the official sources from the Roman state: the acta senatus, the minutes of the Senate and the acta diurna populi Romani, a collection of documents outlining acts of the government and news of the court. He also read available collections of speeches, and is generally known to have been a careful historian who paid close attention to choosing reliable sources. He didn’t rely on hearsay.

So your thesis that Tacitus merely repeated what had been reported by Jews isn’t tenable. He was a careful historian who used official Roman source material, not hearsay or rumors about what an expelled and distrusted people had very likely dreamed up.
 
So your thesis that Tacitus merely repeated what had been reported by Jews isn’t tenable. He was a careful historian who used official Roman source material, not hearsay or rumors about what an expelled and distrusted people had very likely dreamed up.
Tacitus wrote ABOUT Jesus in Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44 in the year 116 CE. He was reporting what people said, what he heard. It is definitely NOT eyewitness testimony.

Again, it is analogous to me writing about the Roswell crash and men stationed there who said alien bodies were recovered. I did not witness the Roswell crash just as Tacitus did not witness the crucifixion or ever see Jesus. And NO ONE witnessed the resurrection.

As I said, I do believe Jesus existed, preached, and was crucified. I do not, however, believe he was resurrected or that he was the messiah. But I’m not trying to change your belief that he did and was.
 
Last edited:
This is what Tacitus wrote:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Hardly probative of the resurrection or messiahship, but indicating that Yeshua was an itinerant preacher and was crucified.
 
Josephus didn’t know Jesus. He is reporting what some people said about him. That is quite different from non-Christian corroboration of an eyewitness.
Except that Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD. That was only a handful of years after Jesus’ crucifixion in 33. Given that he grew up in the milieu where the controversy between the early Christian church and Judaism had reached the boiling point by the time James was martyred, Josephus would have had access to individuals on both sides of the aisle who had themselves witnessed the events. So it isn’t that he merely reported hearsay about Jesus, but he could have recorded what actual eyewitnesses had said about him.

It is plausible that when Josephus says about Jesus, that he was “a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ,” that Josephus was reporting what those who had witnessed Jesus teaching and “surprising deeds” themselves.

So, merely because Josephus didn’t know Jesus himself, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have direct access to those who did know Jesus personally. That could very well amount to "corroboration of … eyewitness[es]… depending upon who Josephus used as his sources.

It certainly doesn’t lead to a conclusion that Josephus could not have had access to eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, words and works.
 
It certainly doesn’t lead to a conclusion that Josephus could not have had access to eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, words and works.
It leads me to that conclusion because he did not SAY he knew or had met eyewitnesses. One who is impartial would certainly believe he would have mentioned that fact. He seems to be reporting “things he heard.”
 
Last edited:
Tacitus wrote ABOUT Jesus in Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44 in the year 116 CE. He was reporting what people said, what he heard. It is definitely NOT eyewitness testimony.

Again, it is analogous to me writing about the Roswell crash and men stationed there who said alien bodies were recovered. I did not witness the Roswell crash just as Tacitus did not witness the crucifixion or ever see Jesus. And NO ONE witnessed the resurrection.
You can certainly continue to make those assertions, but the fact that Tacitus is known to have predominantly used official sources means that his recording of Jesus’ crucifixion was a matter of public record and not hearsay.
 
You can certainly continue to make those assertions, but the fact that Tacitus is known to have predominantly used official sources means that his recording of Jesus’ crucifixion was a matter of public record and not hearsay.
I’ve said I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified just outside of Jerusalem. What I don’t believe is that he was resurrected or that he was and is the messiah.
 
You can certainly continue to make those assertions, but the fact that Tacitus is known to have predominantly used official sources means that his recording of Jesus’ crucifixion was a matter of public record and not hearsay.
Tacitus wasn’t even BORN until about 23 years AFTER Jesus’s crucifixion. It’s highly unlikely he knew anyone who knew Jesus. And that would still be secondhand knowledge. Again, it would be like a person believing someone who said, “Oh, yes. I know a person who said he saw the aliens who crashed in Roswell.”

We don’t judge history on hearsay. If I wanted to write an account of the day the twin towers fell, I would seek out someone WHO WAS THERE, a first responder, maybe, or at least an eyewitness. I wouldn’t seek out someone who knew someone, etc. And Tacitus wasn’t writing about Yeshua. Not primarily. About Yeshua, he was reporting WHAT OTHERS SAID, i.e., hearsay.
 
Last edited:
You can certainly continue to make those assertions, but the fact that Tacitus is known to have predominantly used official sources means that his recording of Jesus’ crucifixion was a matter of public record and not hearsay.
So, it was third source, at best. That is the very essence of hearsay. But, as I said, Tacitus wasn’t seeking to write a history of Yeshua. Christians had a presence in Rome. He was writing what they believed, what they said. It’s historical, but it doesn’t make what the people said, who probably never saw Yeshua from a distance, either, accurate. Again, it’s like Roswell. I did not see the crash of a supposed spaceship. I wasn’t even born. I don’t believe those who say there were aliens, and I cannot prove there were or weren’t. All I could report is what people said and leave it to readers to determine the true facts. That is what Tacitus did regarding Yeshua.
 
Last edited:
but there are many who instead blaspheme God, accusing Him of exiling them without cause.
Lol, no. Please look up Leviticus 26:39 through the end of the chapter and you’ll learn some Jewish exile theology.

Your whole response makes no sense. I have neither the time nor the desire at this moment to argue point by point.

Peace.
 
It’s so painfully obvious if you read it in context of the surrounding paragraphs that the Josephus piece is a later Christian interpolation.
 
As a non-Jew you don’t have to observe kashrut, if you insist, however, please go right ahead. All you have to do is not eat bacon, no milk or meat together for about 2 hours, and don’t eat any fish which don’t have both scales and fins.
Of course, I agree that no non-Jew has to observe kashrut. Most Jews don’t even adhere to kashrut strictly today. However, if one wants to adhere to kashrut, he or she is going to have to use two sets of pots and pans, two sets of flatware, and two sets of dinnerware (I have three sets since I have a special set for Pesach). If meat touches any of the things you use for dairy, that particular thing, if not kashered, renders the food placed on it non-kosher. For example, if I inadvertently allow some dairy to drip into a pan I use for meat, that pan, is then non-kosher and renders all food that touches it, both meat and dairy, non-kosher.

Meat and dairy cannot come into contact with one another, not even molecules. (“Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is repeated three times in the Torah.) We can’t use the same pots and pans, dinnerware, flatware, etc. for dairy that we use for meat and vice versa. (Of course there is kashering, but that’s a LOT of trouble!) You can’t wash dairy pots and pans and flatware and dishes in water used for meat things, and vice versa. I actually have two sinks. This is not required, but it makes things easier.

People who want to keep kashrut must also be careful to buy only foods that are certified kosher. The certifications can mean different things, so it’s best to read the ingredients label thoroughly until you get used to brands, etc. Jews do not eat blood, so any meat must be slaughtered in a way to remove all the blood, etc. (Don’t want to go into that any further, except to say that Jews always slaughter animals in a way that causes them the least pain and suffering.)

And, there’s the problem of eating out. It can be very, very difficult to find a kosher restaurant. “Kosher style” is NOT kosher! It just means it tastes like “Jewish food” or food one would find in a kosher deli.

Keeping kashrut is very valuable to some Jews, and I am one, but keeping kashrut can be very difficult simply because the rest of the world does not!

PS You can combine fish with dairy, and the prohibition of meat with dairy extends to things like cake for dessert, if the cake is made with dairy, and most cakes are. If you’ve eaten meat for dinner, you can’t have cake or pie, etc., made with dairy for dessert, or even coffee with cream unless you wait the specified time between.

Honestly, I don’t know why any non-Jew would want to keep kashrut, but anyone is welcome to do so.

Non-Jews are also welcome at Jewish synagogues, though you might have to obtain a ticket for the major festivals since so many Jews are present then. If you decide to attend a Shabbat service, there will usually be a supply of yarmulke and prayer shawls available outside the sanctuary. If you don’t see them, ask someone.
 
Last edited:
Also, there will be a Chumash and a Siddur in the pews. If you own either, I would advise leaving them at home since Jews are forbidden to carry things about on Shabbat, and that includes our prayer books, etc. If you ever elect to attend morning prayer services, expect to see the men in tefillin. Weekdays only, and no festivals. This is something most Christians have never seen, but Jewish men are commanded to wear tefillin to remind them of our release from slavery in Egypt and to bind the intellect to the emotions. They are rather elaborate, and most non-Jews are very puzzled by them. You won’t see them at Shabbat services, though, because the holiness of Shabbat is greater than the importance of tefillin.

Don’t feel self-conscious. People are concentrating on the services, but naturally, people are interested to know who the good looking newcomer is and will he or she be back? 🙂 Depending on the synagogue, there will be a lot of music. Just stand when the others stand and sit when they sit.

Expect Shabbat services to last longer than Christian services. And if there’s a luncheon afterwards, you are welcome to attend that as well. Please introduce yourself to the rabbi. He’ll be happy to see you. And if you’re in Los Angeles, I hope you come to the synagogue I attend!
 
Last edited:
It’s so painfully obvious if you read it in context of the surrounding paragraphs that the Josephus piece is a later Christian interpolation.
I suppose you don’t realize that a translation of Josephus through Jewish and Muslim sources has been discovered relatively recently, and it is fairly close to the one preserved through Christian copyists. You are likely also unfamiliar with the most recent historical scholarship and surveys done on the views of a majority of leading scholars who generally accept Josephus as only minimally interpolated.
 
So, it was third source, at best. That is the very essence of hearsay.
I am not seeing this conclusion.

Tacitus predominantly used official state documents. Let me repeat…

Tacitus made use of official sources from the Roman state: the acta senatus, the minutes of the Senate and the acta diurna populi Romani, a collection of documents outlining acts of the government and news of the court.

These were not hearsay but official reports from the various jurisdictions. This could have included Pilate’s own report of why Jesus was crucified. That isn’t third source, nor is it hearsay. It could very well have been Pilate’s own words as official transcript.

You have a very odd notion of what constitutes hearsay.
 
I suppose you don’t realize that a translation of Josephus through Jewish and Muslim sources has been discovered relatively recently, and it is fairly close to the one preserved through Christian copyists. You are likely also unfamiliar with the most recent historical scholarship and surveys done on the views of a majority of leading scholars who generally accept Josephus as only minimally interpolated.
It doesn’t matter. Josephus still was only writing what he was told, probably by Christians themselves. He had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus.
 
Tacitus made use of official sources from the Roman state: the acta senatus , the minutes of the Senate and the acta diurna populi Romani , a collection of documents outlining acts of the government and news of the court.
I’ve said many times that I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified outside of Jerusalem. No “official sources” state Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Sure, official reports “could” have included Jesus crucifixion, but they don’t. At least they have not yet been discovered. So Tacitus was probably not using them regarding Jesus’ crucifixion, and more important, his resurrection. Certainly not the resurrection, and that is what is so crucial.
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t matter. Josephus still was only writing what he was told, probably by Christians themselves. He had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus.
Well, that is also quite a claim. Unfortunately, we have the other reference to Jesus, and his brother James, in another section of Josephus’ works. This reference, is accepted as genuine by virtually all historians of the period:
“When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah (τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου), 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. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.” ~Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX.200-203
Continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top