Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Yeah, even to say it's "evidence" seems a bit tricky to me - i.e. "of what?"


If we grant that "the rabbinic mind," or whatever we call it, is prone to express theological or legal points in story form, then -
this account reads to me like a story told for a polemical purpose. I think you already identified that purpose, viz. to show the rival holy book, and its devotees, as fraudulent. As the supposedly unbribeable arbitrator is actually corrupt, so the scripture he adduces falls short of the Torah. The latter conclusion is not made explicit but is pretty easy to draw.

As I said earlier, points of suspicion about the facticity of this story:
--immediate plunge of the arbitrator into accepting bribes, immediately belying his reputation
--jokes, incl. the punchline, the ass kicked over the lamp (not that the real Gamaliel could not have joked around, but the outcome is a punchline that reinforces a polemical lesson)
--bizarre form of text used by the arbitrator:
---- verse not existing in any gospel, i.e. about inheritance
---- non-standard form of Matt 5:17
-- earlier context, BT Shabbat 116a, talking about saving scriptures of sectarians (Christians?) and about whether to enter their houses of worship

From the latter emerges a suggested motive for making up such a story, i.e. contests between Jews and (Nestorian?) Christians in the milieu in which the Bavli was put together. The wider context is the question, should we Jews save holy books from fire on the Sabbath? What about books of sectarians, which may contain the Torah vel sim? The story helps show that the gospels don't count as sacred scripture.

I certainly don't claim to prove that the story could not have a factual core. I just hesitate to tilt toward facticity because too much of it rings of story-telling with a moral. But I know almost nothing about what work has been done on the problem of the Talmud as a historical source for 1st-2nd cent. Palestine. And there is no way I can start studying that; I'm already feeling guilty for not working on an article I should be writing!

ficino wrote: -- Steiner in the lecture I linked above transmits arguments that the story is supposed to have happened not long after the death of Gamaliel I, i.e. in the 70s CE. That's because Gamaliel II is arguing over inheritance, as though his father recently died.

It might not affect the overall argument, but Gamaliel II was the grandson, not son, of Gamaliel I.

Also raising suspicion: the story is an instance of the common topos of the clever, ostensibly lower-status person/s exploding the pretensions of the ostensibly higher-status person.

@ tenorikuma: thanks, good catch. His father was Simeon ben Gamaliel who supposedly died around 70:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_ben_Gamaliel

But I still don't see why the story is 'suspicious.' Incredible perhaps. But wholly invented? Unlikely. It fits the basic supposition of the ברכת המינים. Elisha ben Abuyah was once the top dog. His tradition was orthodoxy otherwise Meir wouldn't have had authority. For some reason I always think of Morton Smith and Shaye Cohen as the modern equivalent.

stephan happy huller wrote:But Imma means 'mommy.' Maybe she was called Mama like 'Mama Bravo.' Who knows.

I like your sense of humor.

ficino wrote:Does anyone know about the story in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 116a-b, that rabbi Gamaliel II (died perhaps in time of Trajan, maybe a bit later) appeared in a case at law before a Christian judge? The judge or Gamaliel -- versions seem to differ -- alludes to Matt. 5:17.

The Wikipedia article on Gamaliel II includes this statement: "In an anecdote regarding a suit which Gamaliel was prosecuting before a Christian judge, a converted Jew, an appeal to the Gospel and to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is made, with one possible reading of the story indicating that it was Gamaliel making this reference."

This story has been kicking around for a long time among people who maintain that the Jesus cult began in the first century CE. Even Rudolf Steiner referred to it in 1910:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fMJyZD ... 17&f=false

On the other hand, what I've come across so far suggests that this and other references to the NT in the Babylonian Talmud are late, anti-Christian parodies by rabbis. Cf. e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ7rAQ ... 6a&f=false


So one would think, if the Gamaliel story is a parody of the NT to serve anti-Christian polemic, that it cannot be used as evidence of an actual encounter between that rabbi and a Christian judge in the later 1st century, as Steiner et al. thought it was.

Anyone know more about this?

Well I can see that a single interpolation could be invented. But the Talmud has tons of detailed accounts of 1st c. Judaism and their rabbis take it seriously. It's like it's their authoritative tradition about the past.
And it's not just one story about 1st c. Christians, but numerous ones like the story of Yeshua Ha Notzri getting hanged at passover in Gemarra 43. And how else should we translate Yeshua Ha Notzri besides Jesus the Nazarene?