Richard Carrier and the Talmud

In Dr. Kipp Davis' YouTube video "Reviewing Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus", part 1", He brings up some very good points concerning Carrier's lack of scholarship when it comes to using Rabbinical literature. It's clear, as Dr. Davis states, that Carrier doesn't know Aramaic and relies on translated Talmudic texts. Moreover, I suggest that Carrier might have used misleading explanations from Evangelical writers like Michael Brown.

I want to talk about two points Dr. Davis raised as problematic when used by Carrier. There are some basics that those who haven't studied the text for years might not know.

First, the Babylonian Talmud, specifically in tractate Sanhedrin (pages 90a-113b), is called "Chelek." It's about "All of Israel has a SHARE in the World to Come." It's one of the least grounded chapters in the Babylonian Talmud, often referred to as "the Bavli."

There's a common way to break down an argument:

1. Rabbi 1 says a
2. Rabbi 2 says b
3. Rabbi 3 says c
4. Rabbi 4 (or "Rabbis") refutes the claims of 1-3.

Here's an often-misquoted example from Tractate Makkot (paraphrased):

1. Tanna Kamma - Executing a person every 7 years is a bloody court.
2. Rabbi Elezar ben Azariah - Executing every 70 years is a bloody court.
3. Rabbi Akiva - No one should ever be executed.
4. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Nonsense! Executions are necessary.

Now, let's look at the argument in Sanhedrin 98b. Remember, "what is his name" in Rabbinical writings often means "what are his characteristics?" Rabbis were held in high esteem, blessed by God. So, here's a simplified version:

1. Students of Rabbi Shilo said "Shilo"
2. Students of Rabbi Yannai said "Yinnon"
3. Students of Rabbi Chanina said "Chanina"
4. Rabbis dismiss it.

Note that these names rhyme with the teachers' names and are unique, found only once in the Tanach, showing specialness. The Rabbis counter by saying he could be cursed by God (illness was a curse), of lowly stature (a servant of Rebbi), and use Isaiah 53:4 to challenge the elitists.

There's a lot to unpack here. To claim that a 6th-century writing about views of a messiah shows they believed he'd suffer is questionable. Isaiah 53 was used as a teaching tool, not necessarily to express a belief.

Now, the Messiah ben Joseph claim Carrier used. You can find the text in the Bavli, tractate Sukkot, page 52a.

Note that for centuries, scribes added anti-Christian inserts, later redacted. "Messiah ben Yosef" appears once, negatively connected to evil inclination. Centuries later, it meant a prophet or precursor to Messiah ben David.

In the Talmud, he's a deceiver mourned at the end because followers feel absurd. Another view is that followers mourn him as their one and only. Carrier says Jews anticipated their messiah's death, but ignores later sentences. Messiah ben David asks if he'll suffer, and God says "Nah!"

Messiah ben David wasn't expected to die, only the pretender, the deceiver. By the Talmud's time, failed messiahs existed, so God's statement might nod to them. A possible polemic against Yeshu HaNotzri.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers!