ynquirer

Sanhedrin 43a offers a narrative of one Yeshu that was put to death, as follows:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!

(A footnote provides additional information: one of the MSS calls Yeshu “the Nasarean� – the Nazarene.)

A few lines below, the text gives notice that five disciples of Yeshu were also tried and put to death.

I find the following concordances with Jesus:

1) Yeshu is the same name as Jesus.

2) He was reported to be from Nazareth.

3) He was reputed to be a sorcerer, that is, a miracle-worker with the aid of demons – a charge of which he is accused in the gospels – and to have committed apostasy (to preach a religion different from Judaism).

4) He was tried before the Sanhedrin and put to death on the eve of Passover.

5) He had disciples.

6) He was forsaken by his disciples, who didn’t come to testify in his behalf, much as the gospel of Mark says it happened.

Amora ‘Ulla, a disciple of R. Yochanan that lived in Palestine at the end of the third century, added the following remark:

'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

The Hebraic word Malkut means either “royalty� or “kingship� rather than “government.� This adds a seventh concordance with Jesus:

7) Both Yeshu and Jesus were connected with the royalty – Jesus descended from King David, according to Paul, and the Sanhedrin knew it.

Jeffery Jay Lowder, in this article (link courtesy of Toto) says, “It is unclear whether this passage refers to Jesus,� and endorses Goldstein’s opinion that, “the possibility of the Jesus named in the Talmud being someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, and identified as such only because of confusion, cannot be entirely dismissed.� As historical argument, the possibility of confusion sounds exceedingly weak. “Cannot be entirely dismissed,� sounds like, “Well, we cannot be a hundred percent sure.� Who on earth can?

Aside from the fact that the Talmud almost never dates the facts it narrates, its general reliability as a source for history is rather high. There are many instances for that. It is based on oral tradition, quite independent from other sources, although seldom at odds with them. According to it, the execution of Yeshu may be dated by 30 CE; this is a terminus ante quem. It might have happened during the first part of Pilate’s prefecture (26-37 CE).

As regard Yeshu’s disciples, five names are given. J.J. Lowder backs Klausner’s opinion that, “although the names are those of real disciples, they include some who were not disciples of Jesus himself, but disciples of the second generation.� “In other words,� Lowder adds, “the list of names is simply a list of Christians, not a list of contemporaries of Jesus.� I would say that this is strong evidence that Yeshu and Jesus are the same person.

Another author, Laible, also quoted in the article, suggests that “the story refers to the prosecution of Christians under Bar Cocheva.� This would explain that Yeshu’s story and the disciples’ story might have happened within a hundred-year time-span, bearing in mind the terminus ante quem for Yeshu’s death. The Talmud never says that both stories were close in time to each other; only that they were connected by the type of judicial process they involved, and the legal rule deployed to issue a decision.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oy. Here is a link to Jesus and the Talmud ynquirer:

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

In the Words of Judge Reingold in the classic, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High", "Read it, learn it, live by it".

Chris Weimer, I find it hard to Believe that someone fluent in Aramaic would write the above. Is ynquirer fluent in Aramaic or not?



Joseph

"Jesus saves but Moses invests" - Anonymously scribbled in Temple Restroom

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

noah

Christian cherry picking yet again.
I really recommend that you Christians take up some serious study of Judaism outside of a Christian institution. If not then at least spend some time in Jewish forums where you can ask any question you like and get honest, educated and sholarly answers. It's dishonest to stand on the outside of a complex and involved tradition that you don't understand and go window shopping for verses and passages that you happen to like.
Remember, Christians don't have any respect for Jewish oral tradition nor do they believe that any Jewish text is inspired by god. Furthermore, the Judaic traditions Christians from which like to cherry pick all contradict Christian doctrine in crucial areas like salvation, the trinity, jesus, death, heaven, hell, grace and miracles. All Judaic text and tradition has a context. It's not like Christianity where each Christian gets to decide at whim on the meaning of a verse or passage.
Since tradition is that jesus is boiling in excrement, for his life of sin and for his responsibility in every sin after him that he set in motion, there are definitely no other verses telling us he is the Messiah. They must mean something else.

noah

Paul is and was wrong about JC being descended from King David. JC was not descended from David. Mary, as a woman, could not pass on rights of kingship to JC. Furthermore she was an Aaronite. Second, Joseph could not pass on rights of Kingship to JC since Joseph's line was cursed. Joseph was also unrelated physically to JC which is another disqualifier.

From Sanhedrin 43a:

Where in the New Testament does it say that JC was close o the government?


and

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't JC have 12 disciples?

Ben C Smith

But if Jesus had 12 disciples then he had to have 5, right?

Ben.

noah

Actually he had to have five becuase means that what he had, five disciples. Not twelve or ten or six..
makes no mention of any other disciples at any other time unless of course you choose to leave the text and extrapolate on your own with no reference to the text itself.

Ben C Smith

I was kidding, Noah. Using an old apologetics trick (if Jesus healed two blind men then he must have healed at least one, right?).

Ben.

noah

I hear you ben.

I was going to add that in the New Testament "it is taught" that JC had 12 disciples. Not 5 or 10 or 2.

Best,

noah

Chris Weimer

No, I don't believe ynquirer knows Aramaic, especially arguing with him earlier about the Cry of Dereliction. But I don't see how that is in any way related to what he wrote.:huh:

The problem with working with any Talmud passage is ultimately its unreliability. For all we know, this could be contra-Christ but with no bearing to the actual historical Christ as he may be.

For a while, I found the Jesus of the Talmud being the actual Jesus to be appealing. Not only is this a Jewish preserved work, but the story lines are similar, and the even get one of the disciples names right. Maththaios is merely the Greek rendering of Mattai. However, further evaluation of the Talmud found the stories to be late, unreliable, and probably influenced at least by polemics against early Christians. A very likely scenario is that the main Christian story was heard by Jews, and they decided to rebut it. Merely claiming that someone didn't exist didn't work too well, especially since those arguments could backfire. (Jew: "Jesus? Oh, he didn't exist. The Christians made him up." Gentile: "Oh really? And I suppose your careful methodology in evaluating this claim also led you to believe that Moses did exist, right?" Jew: "Um, Torah was written...by God?" Gentile: "But isn't that what the Christians say about the Gospel?" Jew: "I hope God strikes you down.")

You get the point.

noah

Wouldn't matter anyway since the Torah takes precedence over the Talmud. Judaism views the Torah as the literal word of G-d and the Torah is about God's laws and not about faith in a human blood sacrifice (Jesus) as the only path to salvation. Torah laws are more important than rabbinic laws. (Talmud Shabbat 128b )
The Torah also warns specifiacally against the very type of "god" that JC is said to be. For example, the Torah warns Jews against worshipping a concept of G-d that thier ancestors didn’t know (Deuteronomy 13:3,7,14) and their ancestors had no concept of a Jesus style Trinitarian Deity.
Moreover, the Torah warns Jews that G-d does not have human features. (Numbers 23:19) And also that G-d of Israel will not lie nor change His mind; for he is not a man, that He should change His mind. (I Samuel 15:29) Do not put your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation! (Psalm 146:3)
And while we're on the subject of the "son of man", let's not forget this little gem from Job 25:6,
And, as I said before, it is hardly likely that JC could be the Messiah and at the same time boiling in a vat of excrement for his sins