As we see in my comment above, the Old Testament writers were sometimes inventing stories for ulterior motives. Is it that much of a stretch to think the New Testament writers were doing the same thing? The noble lie or pious fiction holds an interesting place in antiquity. The ancients believed that the future was too important to be left up to chance!

No, it’s the other way around. We have the example of the Jerusalem Talmud which tells one of the stories assigned to Jesus the Nazorian of a different person. Exemplifying the actual problem: even if the authors of the Talmud said a story was about Jesus the Nazorian, it does not mean it was actually a story about Jesus the Nazorian. It may have been a story about another Jesus, whom the authors of the Talmud mistook as Jesus the Nazorian. Only the stories that have internal content unmistakably about Jesus the Nazorian can confidently be known to have originated as stories about that Jesus and not some other.

Meanwhile, it is Van Voorst who says many passages in the Talmud do not say Nazorian, when in fact they do in some manuscripts, a fact Van Voorst evidently wasn’t aware of. And that’s, as I said, a world’s leading authority and a standard reference in the field. So his error is evidently easy to make even for a top expert. By contrast, Lataster conspicuously does not say what Van Voorst did. Lataster read my book meticulously, and my book explicitly identifies this error in Van Voorst. So Lataster is certainly aware of the fact. Hence his wording reflects that.

Verse 25 likewise refutes that theory. Thomas said he wouldn’t believe unless he verified the wounds. Not just touched them, but saw them, and actually put his finger into the nail holes and his hand into the side wound. The authors of John unmistakably meant the body Jesus was wearing retained its wounds.

later on john has his jesus say to thomas to “bale ees” him

βάλε εἰς

some apologists want to reconcile paul’s transformed jesus with johns jesus and say that jesus did not have any holes in his hands or side, he was simply telling them “to feel” not “to poke”

apologist:
“They, the disciples are telling Thomas we have seen him physically, so believe, because we have seen him. There is no mention in the text that the disciples saw wounds, so he must believe based purely on what they are testifying .”

“When Jesus says, “Put your hand into my side” Jesus isn’t saying stick your hand into my internal organs, he Is saying touch me and feel.”

but doesn’t the text say that they saw “hands and side”
doesn’t the text say that jesus himself requests thomas to “baale ees” him?

if “bale” means “thrust”
why did thomas want to “βάλλω” his lord if all he was doing was to feel /handle jesus?

“…and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

the greek βάλω
and βάλε

seem to be conveying a picture of throwing/thrusting hand into jesus’ side.

what are your thoughts on this?

OK, granted, sometimes he’s called Jesus ben Pandera or Ploni. In the most relevant passages (incl. the execution narrative) he is explicitly named as Jesus the Nazarene, so my point stands.

“By contrast, Lataster is saying something different: that the authors of the Talmud may have confused stories about other men, as being stories about Jesus the Nazorian. Even if Nazorian is in the text.
That’s a much more sensible position than Van Voorst’s. And is immune to your criticism.”

Um, no, that’s not at all what he states. He thinks it is plausible that the Talmud doesn’t refer to our Jesus at all. He is clearly unaware that Yeshu is designated “ha Notsri” in the relevant passages. Hence he is pointing out that “Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua/Yeshu is a very common Jewish/Aramaic name, found often in the Talmud”. Which is pretty irrelevant if he knew that the Talmud is also explicity about the Jesus being the “Nazarene”. He also writes: “One factor that may support the Talmud’s use is an unflattering portrayal of Jesus, rather than no Jesus at all; though that would depend on knowing that these are indeed references to Jesus of Nazareth.” The Talmud does contain references to Jesus of Nazareth, whether the Talmudic authors confused him with someone else or not. So you’re wrong.

Not in every case. The Naz. term is not in all of the references scholars think are about that Jesus, even in the unedited manuscripts.

Van Voorst covers this, yet Van Voorst is the one unaware of the edits. And that’s the standard reference in the field! So your point is actually true of even the world’s leading experts.

By contrast, Lataster is saying something different: that the authors of the Talmud may have confused stories about other men, as being stories about Jesus the Nazorian. Even if Nazorian is in the text.

That’s a much more sensible position than Van Voorst’s. And is immune to your criticism.

Those are indeed very suspicious problems.

I discuss this specifically in Chapter 9.2 and 9.4 of OHJ.

Good luck in your talk about “Why They Invented Jesus” in So Cal later this year!

The Roman view of Paul’s position

23:25-30 – He further wrote a letter to Felix of which this is a copy: “Claudius Lysias sends greeting to his excellency the governor Felix. “This man had been seized by the Jews and was on the point of being murdered by them when I arrived with my troops and rescued him, since I had discovered that he was a Roman citizen. Wishing to find out what the accusation was that they were making against him, I had him brought down to their Sanhedrin. There I discovered he was being accused over questions of their laws, and that there was no charge against him which deserved either death or imprisonment. Now, however, that I have received private information of a plot against his life, I have sent him to you without delay. At the same time I have notified his accusers that they must make their charges against him in your presence.”

what is going on here? if paul was being persecuted because he was worshipping a convicted criminal who paul thought was leading his movement , why didn’t the jews inform about this? this is the “king of the jews” man
and paul is charged with nothing serious?

if a group is marked for death and members in it recant they will still be persecuted because they are marked for death.