Replies

Marshall left out part of the quote to make it say something he wanted it to and I gave you the full text showing just what he did. You, who said the Talmud had historical value, should examine it. Here is an example of some of its "history":

Shabbath 104b HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS FLESH, [etc.] It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches18 [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?19 He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.20

19.Which proves that scratches are important. and so one should be liable therefore. In the uncensored text this passage follows: Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' — satath da) her husband. — On the identity of Ben Stada v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 456, n. 5."

www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath

And who is this son of Stada or Ben Stada?

"BEN SṬADA Jewish Virtual Library

While the Babylonian tradition clearly seems to identify Ben Sṭada with Ben Pantira (Jesus), it is highly unlikely that this reflects any historical tradition deriving from the tannaitic period. On the contrary, it is almost certainly a classic example of the Babylonian Talmud's "creative historiography" which seeks to identify obscure and unknown figures (like Ben Sṭada) with significant and well known figures (like Ben Pantira = Jesus). The Babylonian Talmud here as elsewhere reworks early sources (Tosefta and TJ) in order to achieve its own literary and polemical ends. It is therefore not surprising that inconsistencies remain between the older, more original elements, and the more recent trends and interpretations which coexist in the Babylonian Talmud's final retelling of these stories. Attempts to relate all of these various elements to a particular concrete historical figure will therefore almost always result in contradiction."

You can and could have read more at either source but what I've researched for you makes more than evident that the Talmud is full of nonsensical tales even when misquoted. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who translates it or misquotes it.

Marshall left out the fact that the houses from which the virgins came were paid for the virgins' labor. This fact has nothing to do with the main thesis, that these virgins existed and had specific tasks at the temple, and he replaced it with ellipses. What remained, does not match textually: "women who made the veils for the Temple" is in the translation you posted "women who wove the curtains", but the meaning fits.

There is a difference between conflicting interpretations of facts and facts themselves. Your example, shows that the Talmud is filled with conflicting opinions about some characters. If I, or Dr. Marshall were to take Rabbi Eliezer's side or Rabbi Hisda's side about the romantic triangle involving Stada and Pandira, it would be right to point out that neither of the rabbis' opinions was without controversy. But if we were to use the passage to assert that, for example, some women were hairdressers in those days, we would be correct in our assertion, regardless of anything else that passage says.