From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:45:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.020311.1270@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov9.181421.11697@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> >
> >Actually, several Talmudic passages, as well as other sources in the
> >Rabbinical literature, state that Jesus WAS stoned to death, then
> >hanged on a tree (as prescribed in Deut. 21:22-23). 
> >
> >It is only the Gospel accounts of the trial - that you and I, at least, 
> >can agree were fictions composed to promote somebody's political aims -
> >that claim Jesus was crucified.
> 
> Well, not being an expert in Talmudic passages, I am very curious
> if you could quote the passages in question that you are referring
> to.  However, this does not change the fact that the most people
> agree that Jesus Christ was crucified somewhere around 27 AD.  If
> you think that it's only my Christian religion making me biased
> and unaccepting of your truth, then let me leave you with the
> following observation.  Just for grins, I looked up "Jesus" in my
> copy of the "Random House Dictionary" (hardly a Chrisitian
> publication).  It's definition is as follows:
> 
> Jesus : born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29?, the source of the Christian religion.
> Also called Jesus Christ.
> 
> As a control :) the definition of "Lincoln" is:
> 
> Lincoln: 1. Abraham 1809-65, 16th president of the US, 1861-65.
> 
> While not definitive proof that Jesus was crucified, it certainly bears out
> the contention that it is the historically accepted version which is in
> complete agreement with all four Gospels.  It would appear that the onus is
> on you to make the opposite case.

Well, while I'm sure Bob Scheaffer won't be convinced by John's dictionary proof, I
must admit that I don't find the Talmud evidence entirely convincing here for two 
reasons:
(i) The gospel-fictions tie themselves into bizarre knots to get the Romans off the hook
and put the blame for Yeshua's execution on the jews. The one point that they couldn't
deny was that Yeshua was crucified, so they came up with this elaborate story about
how the jews couldn't execute him themselves so they presurred poor weak little
Pilate into doing it, a story which is demonstrable nonsense on several grounds.
If, as the Talmud claims, Yeshua *was* executed by the Jews using a jewish method
(ie stoning) then they would not have had to go to such lengths to make it look like
the jews were responsible for his execution by a Roman method. Indeed, they wouldn't
have mentioned crucifixion at all.

(ii) The gospel version of the story was written far closer to the time of the events
narrated than the Talmud. By the time the Talmud was written Christianity was
considered a dangerous heresy by the jews and 'Yeshua ben Pantera' was a wicked
and blasphemous magician. I find it difficult to believe that the Talmud's account,
biased and remote in time as it is, can be relied on in this instance.

As for extra-biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, isn't it mentioned by Tacitus?
I'll have to check this afternoon.
Cheers,

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic