 |
|
|
|
Still in Bed with the Wrong Crowd
A Jewish "Anti-Missionary" Site on Alleged NT Inaccuracies
James Patrick Holding
By request we now have a look at claimed inaccuracies in the NT according to the torah.freeyellow Jewish anti-missionary site. As before we might wonder how they'd deal with similar charges of inaccuracy against the OT, and as before we have links to answers were we have given them before and where the AM site provides no new arguments.
On Herod's decree -- see here. Of note is that the AM site tells us, "It is well-known that Herod was loathed during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources." Aside from having no scale to judge (how many children killed? who knew and when that Herod was responsible?) the AM site does not list these "several" historical sources. Only Josephus and perhaps Philo would have the depth of interest required, and two is not "several." The AM site will have to do better than this.
Issues having to do with the birth of Jesus -- all covered here, though alleged misuse of verses like Micah 5:1-2 are covered by the item here and the Lucan census issue is covered here. Of some amusement is this assertion:
Some rejected him on the grounds that the messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, and told him so. When he replied, Jesus did not say "I do!" (John 8.41-42, and 52).
The fudging here is that these verses record discussion among the people -- with no indication that Jesus was in earshot when this was said.
On the trial of Jesus, all is covered here; this is the largest section of the AM site's article. The AM site makes heavy use of Mishnah regulations, which is a particular no-no, as we show in the article, and also makes use of non-expert sources like Remsburg. The AM site is being rather fussy when it says "there are no other historical accounts of this supposed trial." How many other trials of single persons before the Sanhedrin are there left to us? The only "new" idea is this:
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Sanhedrin tried to convict Jesus on the basis of his own testimony. This, of course, could not have been the case, since, according to Jewish law, a court is not allowed to question a prisoner, and no prisoner could incriminate himself. If one was to say to the Sanhedrin "I have blasphemed" or "I have murdered," the court, by law, would have to tell him to remain silent. Only in a case where at least two reliable witnesses testified to the crime, could one be tried on the basis of his own testimony. (See Deuteronomy 17.6, Deuteronomy 19.15, and Mishnah Shavuos 3.8.)
Deut. 17:6 and 19:15 do not say anything against self-incrimination; they simply say that one witness will not convict a man. It is absurd to think that this would exclude self-incrimination or a plea of guilty. But then again, Jesus was not convicted "on the basis of his own testimony" -- he "blasphemed" before innumerable witnesses in the Sanhedrin.
On 2 Thess. 2:15 see here (as well as the trial piece on Jewish co-responsibility for Jesus' death and execution). On Barabbas' name see trial piece. The site also picks up on McKinsey's absurd error of describing the men crucified with Jesus as common theives, based on the KJV translation (they were actually lestes or outlaw bandits). On the idea of Jesus saying, "why hast thou slaughtered me" see here (this too is picked up uncritically from Remsburg). On the use of Irenaeus on Jesus' age see here and here.
And believe it or not, that's it.
Go Home! |
|
|
