It is commonly claimed (e.g. here) that "Gamaliel" (referred to as "Gamaliel the Elder" or "Rabbi Gamaliel I") was the "first president of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem" during the mid-first century. But the only possible first century reference there is to this figure is Acts 5:34, which never even says who it was written by, or when it was written down! What's more, this Christian source claims that Gamaliel spoke in the defence of Christians - clearly whoever the author of Acts is has written this Jewish figure into the story to give his tribe of Christians some credibility.

Even more amazingly, not only are there no Greco-Roman sources for this Jewish character, there are not even any Jewish sources for him in the first century! Despite alledgedly being a person of great importance, Josephus completely fails to mention his existence. In fact, the first references to him are found in Jewish traditions written hundreds of years after he is said to have lived, and are clearly biased (the traditions are handed down by Jews after all) in favour of "Gamaliel's" supposed life.

What follows from all of this? Clearly "Gamaliel" has been invented, either by Christians with the agenda of Jewish proselytization and then later adopted by Jews in rebuttal of Christian claims, or by Jews attempting to establish their current Rabbis with some kind of authority (it is no coincidence that Gamaliel is claimed to have been the first leader called a "Rabban" in Jewish traditions) and given new life by the author of Acts to lend credibility to his apologetically-floundering Christian clan (though we should notice the rhetorical flourish the author uses by demoting him to simply a "teacher of the law"). "Rabbi Gamaliel I" simply never existed as a real person of history at all.

Neither did jesus, but that's never never stopped the christians either.

Good answer. I think that just about says it all.

Neither did Mohammed, but that's not stopping Muslims.

Forgot to add: I've included a poll - would be interesting to see what people think. If you vote, please post your reasons.

Had never heard the name before. Don't know and am utterly indifferent.

A persuasive argument doesn't need to be a sound or even valid argument: it has to be presented in such a way that someone reads it and believes it to be true and even remembers some of it.

This not being any of the three (I was bored of it by the end of the first paragraph), I vote that it is not persuasive. Or particularly interesting, in my humble opinion.

(May 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: A persuasive argument doesn't need to be a sound or even valid argument: it has to be presented in such a way that someone reads it and believes it to be true and even remembers some of it.

By "persuasive" I really mean "historically convincing" - i.e. the poll is about the merits of the argument, not my poor writing style.

There's nothing wrong with your writing style. As you say, Josephus mentions many men who held the high-priesthood without ever mentioning this guy. The office of high priest went out the window when the temple burned down...as did the whole Sadducee establishment.

I've always found it odd that prior to 70, when Judaism was a temple based religion centered on animal sacrifice that the gospels mentioned the word "rabbi." The whole point of temple judaism was that you had to get your ass to the temple every so often and kick in a few shekels to the priests so they could murder a small animal for you. The people did not need "rabbis;" the priests in the temple knew what needed to be done and the people just needed to do as they were told. It that sense....it was very catholic!

Rabbis begin with "rabbinic judaism" which, not so oddly, begins only after the temple is burned to the ground. Josephus tries to portray that as an accident but he's full of shit on that one. Rabbinic judaism thus only gets started after 70....and probably not really until the 2d century which is when they started to compile the talmud. But this brings up an anachronism. Why would anyone call jesus a 'rabbi?' He was supposed to be dead long before the idea of a rabbi got going. But, if the gospels were second century writings then the only jews they would have come in contact with would have been post-temple judaism survivors and the term 'rabbi' might have been in general usage.

Anyway, just something to consider. Besides, you have a point when you say ""Gamaliel" has been invented, either by Christians with the agenda of Jewish proselytization and then later adopted by Jews in rebuttal of Christian claims," because lots of people in the passion story seem to know that jesus is going on to bigger and better things even while they nailed his ass to a cross. Pilate seems upset...his wife is really pissed ( no nookie for the prefect that night!) the centurion gets it....the thieves get it ( Romans did not crucify "thieves" ) there is even a suggestion in later xtian mythology that Caiaphas was really sorry about his part in the little drama so, yes...it does seem that the xtians were trying to work a little ex-post facto magic for their boy.

Of course, if there was no Gamaliel then who was "Paul's" teacher? At what point does the whole house of cards start to come down?

---

Oh, and while we're on the subject of jews, take a look at this:

http://www.biblelandpictures.com/gallery...=&shownew=


A 5th century synagogue in Tiberias ( Galilee ) with a mosaic floor and a representation of the Greek sun god, Helios.

Now that's not very "jewish" ( as we understand the term now ) is it?

See? The above post is an example of persuasive writing. How to get me to read every post you write? Write them as if you are Minimalist

But I agree that your post is 'historically convincing'.