Print
E-mail
Ancient Sources Speak Of Jesus
By Neil Altman & David Crowder, For The Bulletin
Can we believe what we read in the New Testament about the life of Christ? The answer is yes.
Proof now comes from ancient sources outside the New Testament. Not that “proof” has anything to do with faith, but some readers still wonder what is true and what might not be.
Ancient, non-biblical sources do corroborate the Gospel of Matthew and refute major arguments by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Gospel.
Long-overlooked texts hold surprising accounts that could revolutionize and clear up common misconceptions. Some of these misconceptions are:
• No ancient text except the Bible mentions Jesus’ birth;
• That Mark was the first gospel, not Matthew;
• That Jews of that time spoke Aramaic and Greek but not Hebrew; and
• That the four gospels were first written in Greek.
An Early Source
The ancient Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to 500 A.D., provides unique insights about New Testament times and a Jewish radical and his followers who changed history. Despite its anti-Jesus bias, the Talmud, among other Jewish writings, is an excellent source for corroborating the events and historicity of New Testament accounts and of Jesus himself.
Much of this information has been censored, and bias on both sides has led to enormous historical losses. In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (135 to 200 A.D.) purged part of the Talmud known as the Mishnah of many references to this new faith and those who adhered to it. During the late medieval period (1200-1500 A.D.), Catholic Church authorities also edited the Talmud, removing more statements about Jesus.
Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson, in his classic work, The History of the Talmud, inadvertently gives this interesting historical admission: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching... the Messianists... [were] many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the [first] two centuries.” This statement confirms New Testament accounts that a huge number of Jews, including Pharisees and “a great company of priests were obedient to the faith,” (Acts 6:7). Historical references such as these should dispel the myth that prominent Jews had rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted Jesus as Messiah.
Familiar Names
One surviving Talmudic text is Sanhedrin 43a that tells “on the eve of pasah [Passover] they [the Romans] hung Jesu ha-Notzri [Jesus of Nazareth].”
According to English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, the Talmud also uses the epithet “Ben Pandira” for Jesus. In Hebrew, “Ben” means “son.”
Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary, said that according to scholars, the name “Pandira” comes from a corruption of the Greek word “Parthenos,” meaning “virgin.” Herford cites rabbinical references to Jesus’ lineage: “Jesus, called ha-Notzri ... or Ben Pandira, was born out of wedlock. His mother Miriam [Mary]… was… descended from princes and rulers….”
The Gospels inform that some of the Pharisees mocked Jesus’ birth and that both Miriam and Joseph came from a long line of Jewish nobility. The Talmudic references add great credence to Gospel accounts of Christ's birth and his ministry with his disciples.
Also escaping censorship is mention in the Talmud of five of Jesus’ disciples who were killed, including one named Matthai. Could this Matthai be the eyewitness Matthew, who, according to all the early church fathers, wrote the first Gospel in Hebrew?
“Yes, Matthai appears to be Matthew,” Mr. Blomberg said. “Thodah appears to be Thaddaeus… and another could be Nicodemus.”
Eyewitness Account
The late William Farmer, New Testament professor at the University of Dallas and author of the book, Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, sees a concerted effort by some scholars to divorce Jesus from his Jewish roots. In an interview, he said, “There is an unconscious attempt to remove Judaism from Christianity by making Mark the first gospel instead of Matthew, which is more Jewish.”
In a March 11, 2009 interview with Abbot Dr. Denis Farkasfalvy, head of the Cistercian Order and professor of theology at the University of Texas, in Dallas, Professor Farkasfalvy saw making Mark the first Gospel from another perspective. He stated that Matthew’s Gospel is historically “recognized as more Jewish and, therefore, more obviously closer to Jesus’ actual time and culture of his disciples.” He stressed that making Mark the first Gospel is “a modern hypothesis…in the sense of [coming from] the 19th century. The tradition of Christian assignment… considered Matthew as the first Gospel and that the Church Fathers only thought that Matthew was.”
Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, in his 1999 book, Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, discloses an important piece of evidence about Matthew's gospel. Yuval writes that Rabbi Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars around 70 A.D., is “considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew.” This obscure tale in the Talmud-dated by some well-respected liberal scholars at 73 A.D. or earlier-quotes not one, but two passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew.
The parody and its dating, according to Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, “would undercut badly [the liberals’] claims of a late [writing] date of 85-90 A.D. or later.” Conservative clergy and scholars date the Gospel of Matthew between 40 and 60 A.D., within Matthew’s lifetime.
“That is very significant and very important,” said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rice Seminary in Georgia, “because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel ... it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did.” An expression used in Gamaliel's parody gives us an important clue. Because the parody uses “the phrase ‘it is written,’…Matthew would had to have been completed before 70 A.D… [which] would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it,” Blomberg said. The apostle Peter said, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
Biblical critics have also said Hebrew was not spoken in Christ’s time.
But the Talmud implies that the two great sages of Judaism in 10 BC, Hillel and Shammai, “spoke Hebrew to one another,” said Talmudic scholar Rabbi Dov Brisman of Philadelphia. Rabbinic Judaism scholar Solomon Zeitlin wrote that in Jesus’ day, “a daithke [will] was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek… At the Conclave of 65-66 [A.D.], it was decreed that the Greek language should not be used by Judaeans.” Furthermore, the New Testament book of Acts tells us that Paul spoke Hebrew to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:40-22:2).
However, there are still some diehards who say the original Gospel of Matthew was not in Hebrew, that Matthew was not its author and that it was written by others long after Matthew's death.
Yet the testimony of the early followers of Jesus reminds us that the Gospels have as much historical as ethical value and that the apostles, eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, did not give their lives for a mere myth.
Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School in Wheaton, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern University in St. Davids. Altman has been published in 150 newspapers and magazines worldwide. David Crowder is an investigative reporter for the El Paso Times in Texas.
Proof now comes from ancient sources outside the New Testament. Not that “proof” has anything to do with faith, but some readers still wonder what is true and what might not be.
Ancient, non-biblical sources do corroborate the Gospel of Matthew and refute major arguments by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Gospel.
Long-overlooked texts hold surprising accounts that could revolutionize and clear up common misconceptions. Some of these misconceptions are:
• No ancient text except the Bible mentions Jesus’ birth;
• That Mark was the first gospel, not Matthew;
• That Jews of that time spoke Aramaic and Greek but not Hebrew; and
• That the four gospels were first written in Greek.
An Early Source
The ancient Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to 500 A.D., provides unique insights about New Testament times and a Jewish radical and his followers who changed history. Despite its anti-Jesus bias, the Talmud, among other Jewish writings, is an excellent source for corroborating the events and historicity of New Testament accounts and of Jesus himself.
Much of this information has been censored, and bias on both sides has led to enormous historical losses. In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (135 to 200 A.D.) purged part of the Talmud known as the Mishnah of many references to this new faith and those who adhered to it. During the late medieval period (1200-1500 A.D.), Catholic Church authorities also edited the Talmud, removing more statements about Jesus.
Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson, in his classic work, The History of the Talmud, inadvertently gives this interesting historical admission: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching... the Messianists... [were] many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the [first] two centuries.” This statement confirms New Testament accounts that a huge number of Jews, including Pharisees and “a great company of priests were obedient to the faith,” (Acts 6:7). Historical references such as these should dispel the myth that prominent Jews had rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted Jesus as Messiah.
Familiar Names
One surviving Talmudic text is Sanhedrin 43a that tells “on the eve of pasah [Passover] they [the Romans] hung Jesu ha-Notzri [Jesus of Nazareth].”
According to English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, the Talmud also uses the epithet “Ben Pandira” for Jesus. In Hebrew, “Ben” means “son.”
Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary, said that according to scholars, the name “Pandira” comes from a corruption of the Greek word “Parthenos,” meaning “virgin.” Herford cites rabbinical references to Jesus’ lineage: “Jesus, called ha-Notzri ... or Ben Pandira, was born out of wedlock. His mother Miriam [Mary]… was… descended from princes and rulers….”
The Gospels inform that some of the Pharisees mocked Jesus’ birth and that both Miriam and Joseph came from a long line of Jewish nobility. The Talmudic references add great credence to Gospel accounts of Christ's birth and his ministry with his disciples.
Also escaping censorship is mention in the Talmud of five of Jesus’ disciples who were killed, including one named Matthai. Could this Matthai be the eyewitness Matthew, who, according to all the early church fathers, wrote the first Gospel in Hebrew?
“Yes, Matthai appears to be Matthew,” Mr. Blomberg said. “Thodah appears to be Thaddaeus… and another could be Nicodemus.”
Eyewitness Account
The late William Farmer, New Testament professor at the University of Dallas and author of the book, Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, sees a concerted effort by some scholars to divorce Jesus from his Jewish roots. In an interview, he said, “There is an unconscious attempt to remove Judaism from Christianity by making Mark the first gospel instead of Matthew, which is more Jewish.”
In a March 11, 2009 interview with Abbot Dr. Denis Farkasfalvy, head of the Cistercian Order and professor of theology at the University of Texas, in Dallas, Professor Farkasfalvy saw making Mark the first Gospel from another perspective. He stated that Matthew’s Gospel is historically “recognized as more Jewish and, therefore, more obviously closer to Jesus’ actual time and culture of his disciples.” He stressed that making Mark the first Gospel is “a modern hypothesis…in the sense of [coming from] the 19th century. The tradition of Christian assignment… considered Matthew as the first Gospel and that the Church Fathers only thought that Matthew was.”
Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, in his 1999 book, Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, discloses an important piece of evidence about Matthew's gospel. Yuval writes that Rabbi Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars around 70 A.D., is “considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew.” This obscure tale in the Talmud-dated by some well-respected liberal scholars at 73 A.D. or earlier-quotes not one, but two passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew.
The parody and its dating, according to Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, “would undercut badly [the liberals’] claims of a late [writing] date of 85-90 A.D. or later.” Conservative clergy and scholars date the Gospel of Matthew between 40 and 60 A.D., within Matthew’s lifetime.
“That is very significant and very important,” said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rice Seminary in Georgia, “because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel ... it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did.” An expression used in Gamaliel's parody gives us an important clue. Because the parody uses “the phrase ‘it is written,’…Matthew would had to have been completed before 70 A.D… [which] would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it,” Blomberg said. The apostle Peter said, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
Biblical critics have also said Hebrew was not spoken in Christ’s time.
But the Talmud implies that the two great sages of Judaism in 10 BC, Hillel and Shammai, “spoke Hebrew to one another,” said Talmudic scholar Rabbi Dov Brisman of Philadelphia. Rabbinic Judaism scholar Solomon Zeitlin wrote that in Jesus’ day, “a daithke [will] was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek… At the Conclave of 65-66 [A.D.], it was decreed that the Greek language should not be used by Judaeans.” Furthermore, the New Testament book of Acts tells us that Paul spoke Hebrew to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:40-22:2).
However, there are still some diehards who say the original Gospel of Matthew was not in Hebrew, that Matthew was not its author and that it was written by others long after Matthew's death.
Yet the testimony of the early followers of Jesus reminds us that the Gospels have as much historical as ethical value and that the apostles, eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, did not give their lives for a mere myth.
Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School in Wheaton, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern University in St. Davids. Altman has been published in 150 newspapers and magazines worldwide. David Crowder is an investigative reporter for the El Paso Times in Texas.
 |
 |
|
| Protect Kids From City Budget Cuts! | Stem Cell Research's Conflicting Promises |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
