Chris Weimer

Er, noah, I think you missed my point.

noah

I was commenting on those things you found compelling about JC in the Talmud. I know you do not think much of that apologetic now. If that's what you're refering to.

Chris Weimer

I never found it compelling it that way. Quite the opposite. What I found compelling was that the Talmud may portray the real Jesus, the historical Jesus, that the Jesus of the gospels was nothing more than a magician who was hung (I will not bow down to that senseless word hanged) on the eve of Passover and he had 5 disciples and that the gospels are merely largely exaggerated tales of this Yeshu. But now I doubt even this.

noah

Yes. I see. That's all very fascinating.

ynquirer

Congratulations, Joe Wallack. It seems clear to me that you have read the article you link to, learnt it, and perhaps managed to live by it. Yet, what you have obviously failed to do is checking the quotations of the Talmud in there. Otherwise, you would have taken notice of its main unwarranted claim as regard the case in hand, wouldn’t you?

ynquirer

That could likewise be said of Jews and Atheists and other non-Christians standing outside the complex of Christianity and involved tradition that you don’t understand and etcetera, who would accordingly be no less dishonest. Right, noah?

This is more serious. Look. Sanhedrin 43a here uses the word Malkut. It can mean either “government� or “royalty.� Therefore, what the Talmud says is that Yeshu was close to either the government or the royalty. But what was being close to the government? Being close to the Romans? Being close to Herod Antipas? Neither of these makes much sense. Therefore, it meant that Yeshu was close to the royal bloodline, or at least that the people believed that. What ‘Ulla’s remark discloses is that the Sanhedrin was cautious because of such a belief.

Thank you for this question. It is a good one, actually the best you have asked.

As you know better than I, the Talmud is composed of many books, which although fairly similar in general outlook are rather different in purpose and inner structure. We are talking of Tractate Sanhedrin, which is nothing other than a sizeable collection of judicial processes tried before the Sanhedrin as supreme Jewish court.

Bearing this in mind, the answer to your question is this. Jesus did not have 12 disciples – these were the so-called Twelve, or sometimes the apostles. The NT speaks of seventy disciples of the first generation, and many more of the second and subsequent generations. Yet, what the Talmud here says is that five of them, not more, were tried before the Sanhedrin as well as convicted and sentenced to capital punishment by the supreme Jewish court.

Asha'man

Since when was Jesus stoned and hanged?

This is an important point. If you accept the accuracy of this passage, and insist that it refers to the Christian Jesus, then you have just shot a big hole in the accuracy of the gospels.

Stoning and Hanging were exactly what Jewish law required as punishment for blasphemy. You stone them to death, then display the corpse from a tree for a day. (Deut 21:22-23). Any suggestion that hanging is a euphemism for crucifixion is weak, given that literal hanging is plainly the best meaning.

Honestly, I lean towards the opinion of Chris Wermer here, this passage is more likely an accurate portrayal of a potential historical Jesus, a sorcerer who was stoned for blasphemy and never had more than 5 disciples. The gospels are nothing but a later exaggeration of that story.

noah

How about buttin' out of Judaic tradition ynquirer? I don't see Jews cherry picking from Christian texts to legitimize their beliefs. Do you?

-
Actually wrong ynquirer, you're the one cherry picking from Judaic tradition. Period. You don't understand Judaic tradition. Period. It's not yours. Period. It , Judaic tradtion, contradicts every major tenet of Christian tradition. Care to discuss all the passages in Talmud and Torah that disqualify JC from being the Jewish messiah? Let's start with the Torah shall we? Torah takes precedence over Talmud.
This "complexities of Christianity" is just your smokescreen. It won't work. Spare me the sanctimony. You have no respect for Jewish oral tradition. You don't think the Talmud is inspired. Only the bible is inspired. Remember? If this hijacked passage in Talmud is such a powerful proof text, tell me why it's not in the bible.
Points to consider:
JC boils in a vat of excrement for his sins. Talmud tells us so.
The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
The Gospels make no mention of a herald going forth for forty days before Yeshu was executed.
-Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
-Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. As far as I know, under Roman occupation only the Romans had authority to execute criminals.
And, as Asha'man (and others) points out, since when was JC stoned and hanged?
Also,It says Yeshu, not Jesus.
Dennis Mckinsey makes the point that:
I really recommend you spend some time honestly studying Jewish tradition. As I suggested before, consider attending a non-christian educational institution and taking some basic courses in Judaism.
There are a lot of Jewish websites that offer online courses in Judaism. Some of them are pretty good. I will be happy to point you in the direction of some of these sites if you are interested. Also, post your questions and comments in Jewish forums. There's always a Rabbi or two and some well educated Jews around to help you learn.

BTW, you're right about JC having more than 12 apostles But the innermost, the ones closest to him were the twelve. Historically and theologically they are the only ones who matter and they would be the only ones discussed in Talmud and are, for all intents and purposes the only ones discussed in the bible.

Chris Weimer

Eh, that used to be my opinion. I no longer hold that to be valid.

ynquirer

To acknowledge that a source is anti-Christian is not sufficient reason to dismiss it entirely as a source of information, that is, as a historical source. If one dismisses pro-Christian sources and anti-Christians all together, one is bound to bank on neutral – pagan, in this case – sources to know about a person or a fact. Yet, neutral sources will probably be quite inattentive to the fact or person until it becomes of huge import. This is tantamount to renouncing to know the origins of every fact and person of historical dimensions.

For one reason the story of Yeshu in the Talmud deserves some attention as history. Tractate Sanhedrin is a collection of legal suits. It, of course, shows apologetic overtones, but these must be kept within their proper limits according to the main purpose of the book. The writers were Rabbis, to be sure, but professional judges as well, and this is something one ought always to bear in mind. Judges are primarily interested in precedent as a jurisprudential source of the law. No serious judge would change a precedent to serve apologetic purposes.

The fact that for a long time – centuries, actually – the record was transmitted orally must not make one forget that such transmission was very careful, and in all likelihood, quite faithful as to what every generation of judges had received from their predecessors.

What the story of Yeshu and his five disciples tells is that there was a case against one Yeshu, which case was used as a precedent in a subsequent case, tried perhaps a hundred years later, against five of his disciples. My question is, Do you really believe that anyone might have forged the precedent so as to serve apologetic purposes? If so, the very notion of justice would have been defiled – what is worse: with unexpected legal consequences in the long term – and this is too hard an assumption for one to make. And please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t mean that the writers of Tractate Sanhedrin were honest – which I think they probably were, though this is immaterial for the issue I am discussing. I mean that they, in all likelihood, were professional. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been there.

This implies that apology was top priority in the agenda of the writers of Tractate Sanhedrin, an assumption I have rejected above. Yet, there is another misleading point in this paragraph. You seem further to imply that the Jews have ever been concerned with engaging in theological debates with Gentiles, which I think they have never been. Thus, you mean that a professional judge, nay, a generation of professional judges would have forged a precedent only because they wished to entertain such a Platonic dialogue with non Jews? That doesn’t add up.

I think you rank a little too high the type of debates we engage in at this forum. They are interesting, of course, and this is why we are here. But not all of the participants would do anything, however base, – and forging a precedent is rather base, believe me, – in order to win a debate. Why do you think the judges of the Sanhedrin would?