TerryDucDaul

Hello,

Who here is familiar with material from the Talmud regarding Jesus? Does anyone know of any good books or articles on the subject? This is a subject that I see come up every now and then.

Jesus is supposed to be referred to by certain names in the Talmud. One of those is "ben Panteri." I've heard of others also. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thank you.

Terry

PS: Any idea WHY Jesus would be mentioned or referred to in the Talmud?

Anat

There are several people mentioned in the Talmud whose biographies show some similarity to that of Jesus of the Greek Scriptures. See Yeshu

Toto

Frank Zindler has written a book on it.

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Book Review By Earl Doherty of Zindler's New Book

I would guess that Jesus or a Jesus-like character is mentioned in the Talmud because the Jews debated with and interracted with Christians.

Another source is Did Jesus Live 100 BC? by Mead, which has some interesting comments on the Talmud.

Notsri

Probably two of the better books that address the subject, are Rabbi Morris Goldstein's Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, and Joseph Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth. The former is unfortunately now out of print, though you might be able to find it second-hand online. Both authors are Jewish, and both of course work with the rabbinic material quite ably. I would not recommend reading Zindler's book, unless you plan to consult other works as well, such as the above two. Frankly (no pun intended), Zindler is only out to further his anti-Christian agenda (so we can just about forget objective scholarship), and he's not the most competent of scholars to deal with rabbinic literature (which fact is evident not a few times in the book).

Vorkosigan

Anti-Christian agenda is irrelevant, given the pro-Christian agenda among so many NT scholars, it's only fair ; but it would be nice to see some specific errors pointed out.

Vorkosigan

Notsri

Sure. I just have a few things to get done at the moment, and then I'll see what I can't dig up for your reading pleasure.

Regards,
Notsri

Notsri

Okay, Vorkosigan; this is specially for you. On pp. 137-47 of Zindler's book, he addresses the "Jesus references" in the Tosefta, Tractate Hullin 2:22-24. If I'm not mistaken, you have Zindler's book, so I won't quote the somewhat lengthy passages from the Tosefta; but just to recap.: basically in 2:22-23 there's a very brief story about a man named Eleazar ben Damah, who gets bitten by a snake. Another man, by the name of Jacob (or James), comes from the village of Sama, to cure him in the name of Yeshu ben Pantera. Unfortunately the famed Rabbi Ishmael forbids it, and so the man dies. Then, in 2:24, there's a story about the also famous Rabbi Eliezer, and his arrest on charges of heresy. His disciples come to console him after his release, at which point R. Eliezer recalls that he'd once heard an agreeable teaching while in the city of Sepphoris, from Jacob of the village of Sichnin, given in the name of the heretic Yeshu ben "Pantiri".

And so then Zindler writes on pp. 141-2: So he makes three important points:
1. 2:22-24 has no particular relevance to Tractate Hullin in general in the Tosefta;
2. 2:22-24 is relevant to only the two prior sections (20-21), but not the third (19);
3. 2:22-24 likewise has no logical relevance to the sections following, secs. 25ff.

His conclusion, of course: 2:20-24 is likely an interpolation(s), or at best a very late addition(s) to the final redaction.

The problem is that none of these three points, however accurate they may be, warrants the conclusion, not to mention that at least one is simply untrue.

#1 betrays a fundamental lack of understanding or appreciation for the style of this sort of tannaitic literature. To quote a leading talmudic scholar, Rabbi Eliyahu Krupnick: Rabbi Krupnick's insights are just as pertinent to the Tosefta, since the Tosefta is essentially a supplemental commentary to the Mishnah (Tosefta means "supplement"). It in fact follows the Mishnaic material, and mimics its style. #1 is therefore without merit.

# 2 is false. Before I can address the passage from the Tosefta, though, it's important to turn first to the Mishnah. In Tractate Hullin from the Mishnah, mishnah 2:9 closes with: "he must not [slaughter] in the street in order not to appear to imitate the heretics." It's this passage that serves as the basis for part of the Tosefta's discussion in 2:19 - the section whose authenticity Zindler accepts. "In the market one may not [perform an act of slaughter], because he carries out the rules of the heretics" (2:19). Now, this is where Zindler goes wrong. He rejects the sections that follow, 20-24, but seems to overlook the fact that they all pertain to heretics - the subject now of interest! The tanna is simply building on the theme of 2:19 (and Mishnah, Hullin 2:9).

2:20: "the act of slaughter of a heretic [is deemed to be for the purposes of] idolatry."
2:21: people are not to sell anything to heretics, etc.; they cannot seek medical assistance from heretics.
2:22: a particularly relevant anecdote: Ben Damah was bitten by a snake, he sought medical assistance from a heretic, R. Ishmael forbade it on the basis of the rule given in 2:21.
2:23: more of R. Ishmael's speech.
2:24: with heresy and "Yeshu ben Pantera" on the brain, the tanna includes another pertinent story about R. Eliezer and his arrest for heresy (wherein Yeshu is mentioned a second time).

In short, Zindler's argument here is undermined by the obvious connective between the supposedly spurious sections and the authentic one (and the Mishnah).

Concerning #3: keeping in mind now that 2:19-24 supplements Mishnah, Hullin 2:9, the Tosefta in 2:25 turns once again to the Mishnah: 2:25 quotes Mishnah, Hullin 2:10. The tanna has completed his expansion of mishnah 2:9, now it's on to 2:10. This is why there is such a sudden shift in focus between 2:24 and 2:25, not because 24 and its previous sections were interpolated. And such stark transitions are (as Krupnick implied) typical. Jacob Neusner comments more explicitly: Regards,
Notsri

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Nostri!

Unfortunately, this is a logical error. I have no doubt that things are inserted in the way Krupnick suggests. But logically, a general trend cannot serve to reject an individual claim. It's a bit like arguing that since there are many drug related killings in Dade County, the dead body on my doorstep there must be a drug related killing. Your follow-on point is actually the key one:

• It in fact follows the Mishnaic material, and mimics its style. #1 is therefore without merit.

If it actually does reflect material extent in the Mishnah...

But Nostri, Zindler uses that connective to establish how the thing got interpolated. On p142 he connects them through a chain of association to show how the interpolator thought about the interpolation. That won't work either. Like I said, the really devastating argument is this one:

Thanks! Again...so would you say that there are authentic mentions of Jesus in the Talmud? And how do they relate to the historical Jesus?

Vorkosigan