Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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?

Shabbat 116 demonstrates that the gospel was used as the new Law of Israel in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the temple.

This is at last a sound interpretation of an ancient text amidst so much pointless and pompous posturing!!

SSH, can you develop your assertion into a demonstration? Thanks.

I assume I am SSH. I am not asserting anything. I am just going by the plain meaning of the text. Mommy and Gamaliel go into a court. The judge is judging by the gospel. The context suggests 'that's the way it was' in that age - c. first half of the second century. They offer him a bribe. That fact that the judge accepted the bribe (itself a play on words on the gospel passage) proves somehow that the gospel was crap. That couldn't possibly happen if the judge was judging by the Torah. That's the story.

Yes, I meant to write SHH. My apologies! As to BT Shabbat 116a-b:
-- it's Gamaliel's sister, not mother, correct?
-- 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. Such a date would be a fairly early terminus ante quem for a gospel text. On the other hand, do we have good reason to believe the facticity of this story, recorded centuries after it is purported to have occurred? For example, the fact that the sectarian arbitrator is reputed to be unbribeable and then immediately accepts two bribes, with jokes thrown in, makes this look more like anti-Christian legend than factual report.

I had thought when I encountered the Wikepedia article on Gamaliel II that perhaps this talmudic passage gives evidence to support a first century date for some form of gospels. Stephan, in your first reply you seemed to take the passage that way. In your second reply you are dating the story later, in the second century.

Anyway, now I do not think this passage can stand up as evidence about the first or second century. It seems to tell us rather about the polemics of later centuries, and prob. in Mesopotamia or Persia.

Rebuttals invited.

But Imma means 'mommy.' Maybe she was called Mama like 'Mama Bravo.' Who knows. I don't know if we can be certain what date this stuff actually occurred. It's like the gospel. It might be based on an actual court case like the gospel is based on an actual crucifixion. But who knows where or when as the song says. The story seems to be set sometime 90 - 120 CE? I guess.

I think it does stand up as evidence of the use of the gospel as a legal text. The Marcionites suggest the same thing with their ISU. See Eznik of Kolb. The Marcionite gospel wasn't just antinomian. It was another law developed from mercy rather than 'justice.'

stephan happy huller wrote:I think it does stand up as evidence of the use of the gospel as a legal text.

I think your suggestion is attractive. My problem: use of it when, and by whom? I'm not convinced that the Talmud's disparagement of the Torah's textual rival, and of the arbitrator who sets the Torah aside in favor of that rival, tells us about second or first century Palestine. It is memorializing attitudes of rabbis under Persian govt in, say, the 5th cent. CE.

What I don't know in general is the factual accuracy of Talmudic stories that are set in 1st or 2nd cent Palestine -- esp. as found in the Bavli -- nor do I know that in this particular case. I am hoping that someone here is knowledgeable about critical approaches to the Talmud as source material for the history of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

I guess the question would be why the rabbinic authorities would want to make up a story like this. The claim is sometimes made it is the fourth century projected back in the past. But I don't buy it. It's a strange piece of evidence and it can't be easily dismissed. I don't think we just ignore pieces of evidence just because they are strange.