Comments on: Jesus in the Talmud: Reviewing a Review

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:42:38 +0000

I wouldn’t call my assumption (anti-)religious, although it is a tacit assumption and one for which I’ve not seen much that would sway my mind. It does not only go for the New Testament, you understand, but pretty much for any piece of writing that intends to put forward a point of view. By necessity, that same piece of writing is going to need to either assimilate, debate or ignore opposing positions. The authors of the gospels do this, as do the Rabbis who authored the Mishna, the Midrash, and both Talmuds. My point is merely that somebody who believes in the literal nature of a text is hardly a candidate to respond to that text in an unprejudiced manner. I do not think that Mr Gale’s review was an academic one so much as it was a polemic one.

You have a very nicely set-out blog, by the way; thanks for taking the time to comment on mine.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:26:01 +0000

I understand that you presuppose the modern, rather than pre-modern or post-modern, world view in which human reason is the measure of everything, so it is a waste of time for me to try to argue you out of it into a belief that the Creator God is actually active in the world. But before you accuse Gale of “a religious motivation for perceiving the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion literally” (rather than perhaps being naive), perhaps you should look at the log in your own eye, whether you have any religious or anti-religious motivation for referring to “the highly tendentious nature of the New Testament gospels”.

By: Iyov

Iyov — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:10:09 +0000

Simon: Thanks for your insightful remarks. I've highlighted a link to this entry on my blog.