mydilatrines prostitutes tricksters fiction & fact

Even according to David Flusser, the relevant parallels appear only in the Gospel of Yochanan and thus hardly constitute evidence that such a conversation could actually have taken place between a direct disciple of Yehoshua and a Pharisee.

As Flusser brilliantly remarks, "This formulation testifies apparently to parallel linguistic/conceptual development in the understanding of Christianity on the part of the Sages, on the one hand, and that of the Gospel of John's understanding of the relation of Christianity to Judaism, on the other!"

The group that produced that Gospel might very well have put such a midrash in the mouth of their Yeshu:
'Ben Stara is Ben Pantera' It is obvious, moreover, that this conversation [also] is the
work of the later editor, since it is absent in the earlier Tosefta, and since, moreover, it is consistent with the patterning of stories about Yeshua in later texts, especially in the Babylonian Talmud, that portray JC
as a virtual "Rabbi!"

This is patently the case, because in the earlier Tosefta version, which is otherwise identical in every respect with the version in the babylonian Talmud, the specifics of the conversation between Rabbi Eli'ezer and the Christian are not given, but only that 'he said something heretical to me & I enjoyed it!'

The point that the onlu flaw in Jesus's Torah is its origin [the only thing wrong with Christianity is that it is not Judaism ~ to mime Sander's famous pronouncement on Paul] is exclusive to the later texts and not to the early Palestinian source, {Tosefta Hullin 2:24}! It is not necessarily Babylonian in origin, however,
since it is found in the (relatively) late (fourth-century) Palestinian midrash on Ecclesiastes.

The Torah of the Christian is very similar to rabbinic Torah, and the only thing wrong with it is its origin.

Some go so far as to consider this [also] a possible lost teaching of Jesus.

It demonstrates the "authenticity" of the details of the trial as portrayed in the Tosefta, but nothing that he says would indicate the ascription of any historicality to the midrashic dialogue between Rabbi Eli'ezer and Ya'qov, or to the midrash of Jesus as a "lost saying!"

Nitty gritty details we can leave to all these learned old men discussing their many differences of opinion?

The choice of an interlocution having to do with prostitution and the Temple thus must be laid at the door of the talmudic "author" of this legend, and its significance sought within the context of Jewish culture in general and of this talmudic passage in particular!

Although some scholars have seen in this discussion about latrines and prostitutes that is placed here in the mouth of Jesus an attempt at mockery of Jesus and his followers, I {DB} do not think that such an interpretation is necessary, or even warranted. As the traditional talmudic commentators have pointed out,
the question is a serious one. There was a need for a latrine for the high priest in the Temple as part of the ritual of his preparation for the service on Yom Kippur, and the question of whether the prostitute's hire could be used as alms for this nonholy purpose would be an entirely appropriate question within the canons of halakhic discourse.

Genoeg geharrewar voor dit moment over al die kleine & grote blijde & minder blijde boodschappen her en der in den lande en elders: overal waar mensen zijn zullen we soortgelijke discussies blijven voeren als
't gaat om de vermenging van heilige & onheilige zaken aangaande levensonderhoud & rechtvaardigheid.