Apikorus

The problem with Toldot Yeshu, of course, is that we only have medieval copies, and scholars are in universal agreement, so far as I am aware, that the text contains later interpolations. We have no evidence that the Yohanan (NB: not Joseph) material is not medieval. Indeed, since it is not found in the Talmud, there is a good chance that it is of later provenance. It isn't of much help if it was composed in the 13th century.

The notion that Yeshu was regarded as "close to the kingship" as a result of the lineage of the cuckolded husband of his mother is laughable. Indeed, there is no evidence that the story in B. Sanh. 43a knows anything about Yeshu's parentage or lineage.

Every other appearance of karov lemalkhut in the Talmud unambiguously means "associated with the government." There is no reason to suspect otherwise in B. Sanh. 43a, since it makes perfect sense in context.

So once again I find your argument spurious. Had Toldot Yeshu mentioned Yeshu's lineage in the context of his execution, you would have the basis for an argument. But it doesn't.

ynquirer

As Toldot Yeshu does not include the story of Yeshu’s being a disciple to Yehoshua ben Perachiah – B. Sanh. 107b – one can be reasonable sure that any extant additions to Toldot Yeshu are not prior to mid-twelfth century, as attested by Abraham ibn Daud’s Sefer haQabbalah – Notsri dixit. Still, I agree, is too late a date to deem Toldot Yeshu a witness to Babylonian Sanhedrin.

This notwithstanding, I didn’t mention Toldot Yeshu as a witness to Tractate Sanhedrin, but rather as a witness to the oral Jewish tradition, which stretched from the first century onwards. In any case, that at sometime between the sixth and the twelfth century the theory that Yeshu’s mother’s betrothed husband was thought to belong in the Davidic lineage was deemed to be a reasonable theory is proof that interpreting Ulla’s mentioning karov lemalkhut as meaning "close to kingship" is by no means nonsense.

As evidence of what was thought at the moment of writing that detail of Yeshu’s story, it clearly shows: a) that many a Jew thought that Yeshu was of Davidic descend, and b) that Toldot Yeshu attempted defamation of Yeshu by making scorn of his mother’s allegedly being a virgin. Thus, Toldot Yeshu tries a naturalistic explanation of that extraordinary claim. The explanation, which you find laughable, is the smoke, while a more or less extended belief among the Jews, which the explanation tries to thwart, is the fire, as it were. I’m interested in the fire – again, following Neusner’s advice – rather than in the smoke.

This you say because you take for granted that karov lemakhut means “associated with the government,� not “close to the kingship.� That is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

No, it doesn’t. Linguistic evidence is seemingly in favor of your theory, but evidence supplied by later Jewish interpretation of the pericope, as seen in Toldot Yeshu, speaks in favor of my theory. Linguistics is not enough to solve the paradox. One needs analyze the issue from a legal standpoint, since the stuff of the issue is legal.

The formula karov lemalkhut is used in several passages of the Talmud to warrant an exception to a general rule. In B. Sotah 49b, for instance, it is used to justify someone’s privilege to learn and speak Greek, at a time that such learning and usage was forbidden for the Jews, the exception being explained on account of the person’s being “associated with the government.� That’s quite clear. So far so good.

In B. Sanh. 43a Ulla faces an exception to the general rule that an idolater must be put to death immediately after being sentenced. To warrant such an exception he makes use of karov lemalkhut as a formula to warrant exceptions, which formula is, in the Talmud, of proven efficacy. And he slightly changes the extension of the formula to embrace not only “associated with the government� but also “close to the kingship.� And it works, as evidenced by the fact that his argument is added to the gemara. That’s pretty standard pragmatic use of precedent.

I don’t find any reason to yield to such a requisite. Why must Toldot Yeshu mention Yeshu’s lineage in the context of his execution? That B. Sanh. 43a mentions Yeshu’s lineage in Ulla’s remark and therefore in the context of his execution is only too natural on account of the pericope being limited to a depiction of his trial and execution. But Toldot Yeshu is quite a different thing. It is a purported biography of Yeshu, from birth to death. And it is natural that his lineage be mentioned at his birth rather than at his execution, that is, his death.

Apikorus

The reason this fails is that TY (= Toldot Yeshu) is clearly later than the Talmud. Aside from material therein which quotes the Talmud, you can't prove that any of it is pre-medieval.

No, we can't. First of all, TY includes the character of Shimon ben Shitah, who is present in B. Sanh. 107b but absent in B. Sanh. 43a. Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Yehoshua ben Perachiah story is post-Talmudic.

No. It is adducing the Talmud itself for the proper meaning. This is the best possible linguistic evidence.

No, TY in fact works against your case. It says that Yeshu arrogated Davidic lineage, but the Jewish authorities themselves knew that he was the child of Pandera.

In the end, TY is too late to be useful, and it is ludicrous to attempt to draw any first century CE information from such a text. What it does tell us is that the rabbis from the Stammaim onward identified the Talmudic Yeshu with the Christian Jesus.

Here is a better theory than yours. It is well known that the lineage of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. Why is this? If we accept the legitimacy of the rabbinic sources, then it seems likely that the gospel authors, or the NT redactors, knew that Jesus was the child of Pandera. The "smoke" is the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. The "fire" is the fact that Jesus father was clearly Pandera. This makes excellent sense in the context of first century Judaism. Mary, Jesus' mother, was raped by Pandera between the kiddushin and the nisuin. We can now see how the tremendous emotional strain on the gospel authors resulted in the contradiction between the two genealogies.

Apikorus

By the way I found yet another example of karov lemalkhut in the Bavli, this time in Gittin 14b:

If they give the order to arrest, you are arrested; to kill, you are killed. If they had killed Dosethai, who would have given Yannai my father a son like me?' 'Have these men', he asked, 'influence with the government?' (k'rovim lemalkhut) 'Yes', he replied. 'Have they a retinue [mounted on] horses and mules?' 'Yes'. 'If that is so', he said, 'you acted rightly'.

So far as I am aware, there is no instance of the formula karov lemalkhut in the Talmud which means anything other than "association/influence with the government". This meaning fits perfectly well in B. Sanh. 43a -- extra time was provided in announcing Yeshu's impending execution because of his association or influence with the government. When no witnesses came forward, he was stoned and hung, as the Talmud describes. There is no need to invent new meanings when the text makes perfect sense as it stands.

ynquirer

That is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not an interpretation of the Talmud as recorded in TY is a reasonable interpretation, which of course is. And it seems that an interpretation of Yeshu’s being of Davidic descend is all too reasonable; otherwise the TY would not devote so much effort to discredit such interpretation.

In any case, it sounds odd that TY does not mention the story of Yeshu’s being a disciple to Yehoshua ben Perachiah and his purported lustful inclination, as told in B. Sanh. 107b. It would be in full accordance with his alleged origin in TY, and would also contribute to defamation. If TY doesn’t mention the story, it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the writer didn’t know it, whereby the story is a posterior addition to TY.

The argument strikes me as difficult to follow. You mean that because Matthew and Luke knew that Jesus was Pandera’s son they wrote such different accounts of his genealogy? Was there any reason for them not to adopt the same story? You seem to imply that the tremendous emotional strain induced them to choose a suboptimal strategy, which requires some special psychological assumptions – by no means default.

Furthermore, your theory only does if either a Matthean or Lukean priority is assumed. If you assume, with mainstream scholarship, the Markan priority, your theory will not hold, since Mark neither mentions any genealogy of Jesus nor even says that he was born of a virgin.

The argument is telling but does not refute my theory that Ulla in B. Sanh. 43a made a pragmatic use of precedent, by slightly changing the contents of the formula karov lemalkhut to include “close to the kingship� as well. The only assumption necessary for that would be that Ulla’s remark is later than at least another mentioning karov lemalkhut, which is not altogether so unreasonable an assumption. (Ulla’s being mentioned some 232 times in the Talmud while not being a Rabbi deserves a brief mention, too. Due to his skill at use of precedent, as evinced in Yeshu’s case, he would exceedingly qualify as an outstanding lawyer, thus outweighing eventual lack of proficiency in purely religious matters.)

On the other hand, Ulla’s explaining an exception in Yeshu’s trial plus execution with resource to the latter’s closeness to the kingship would render TY’s discrediting of such a theory all the more necessary from a religious point of view. In other words, a legal subterfuge by a lawyer, not a Rabbi (Ulla) would trigger a refreshment of post-Talmudic Rabbis’ religious agenda.

Steven Avery

Yeah, on this one I found Apikorus dipping into the realm of 'psychobabble textual criticism' (not to negate the previous compliment).

What I want to point out is how such arguments can so easily be custom-tailored to fit any side of an argument (a severe weakness that is multitudinous in modern NT textual analysis, even on the serious textcrit lists, to the point of simply laughter being the appropriate response).

Well, if Luke and Matthew agree, that shows a conspiratorial attempt to accomplish... And if they don't agree, that shows their nervous nelliness manifesting in differing genealogies.

This is 'science' akin to what Jesus said when folks attacked both John the Baptist and Himself, one for sitting with publicans and wine-bibbers, the other for being more ascetic.

They will get you coming and get you going ..
... everybody must get stoned.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

No, yours is a fanciful and unwarranted interpretation. You are imposing new meanings on established constructions, imputing dubious psychological motives to authors, adducing medieval literature for evidence of first century oral tradition, and a host of other sins.

This is yet another of your arguments from silence. Not every detail must be mentioned, of course. The fact is that Shimon ben Shetah is associated with Yeshu in B. Sanh. 107b, so your argument fails.

This shows how poor your own "special psychological assumptions" are regarding the author(s) of B. Sanh. 43a.

There is zero linguistic evidence adduced in support of your reading. As I have shown, karov lemalkhut means "association/influence with the government". No other usage is attested in the Talmud.

The account of Yeshu's stoning and hanging in B. Sanh. 43a is completely coherent and requires no fanciful readings based on multiple arguments from silence and "special psychological assumptions." Yeshu's execution was delayed on account of his influence with the government, according to the story. Until you can show that this is untenable, you haven't much to offer.

Incidentally, another thing we learn from the Talmud is that the ben Stada = ben Pandera characters in the Talmud were also identified with Yeshu. Like Yeshu, they were also stoned, according to the Talmud.

Apikorus

P.S. to Steven: I wasn't serious, of course, about the Matthew/Luke stuff. I just wanted to show ynquirer how ludicrous explanations based on such psychobabble can appear. I should conjure up a sock puppet to advance such arguments.

Steven Avery

okdokay.. such absurd argumentation is so common that one will find it almost impossible to parody, as you discovered

ynquirer

We have written quite a lot in this thread, and I would like to summarize the discussion so far. While it evolved I’ve been reading J. Neusner, Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: what we cannot show, we do not know, and though I haven’t yet finished the book I’ve read enough to modify somehow my prior opinions on the issue.

In addition to this, Apikorus' argument on Yeshu’s Davidic lineage is very strong. So much so that I am rather convinced that the theory, that [i]karov lemalkhut[/] means “associated with/influential on the government� wherever in the Talmud, is a very good one to which I cannot react persuasively enough. Apikorus has accomplished a thorough inductive research, as scientifically conducted as possible, and I am fairly proud you’ve done it in a thread opened by me.

The only point I’d still bring here deals with the wording of three passages, all of which we have previously examined yet not in reference to each other – especially passages No.1 and 3. The passages, as quoted in previous posts, are these:

1. B. Sanh. 43a:

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!

2. B. Sanh. 46b:

Our rabbis taught: had it been written, 'If he has sinned, then thou shalt hang him,' I should have said that he is hanged and then put to death, as the state does. Therefore scripture says, And he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him — he is first put to death and afterwards hanged.

3. Toldot Yeshu:

Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city.

We have previously discussed whether or not BS (=Bavli Sanhedrin) 46b is supportive of a theory that BS 43a should be interpreted as meaning that Yeshu was hung alive. Several opinions have been issued to the contrary. All right, I’ll not put forward the issue again.

The main point, to be sure, deals with whether or not TY (=Toldot Yeshu) is supportive of Apikorus’ theory that Yeshu has first stoned and then hung. I am afraid that the word “stoning� is missing from TY as well as from BS 43a. Twice seem too many times for so critical a word to be omitted.

Apikorus reads the first two sentences quoted from TY as meaning “Yeshu was put to death and then hung.� Yet the naked truth is that the sentences do not say that much. They just say: “Yeshu was put to death. He was hung.� Why reading both propositions as sequential – first, he was put to death, later, he was hung? They might with no less strength be read parenthetically: “Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour…: When they tried to hang him ...� – a reading in which “When they tried…� depicts the way in which he was put to death. In other words, TY displays the same lack of precision as to the way Yeshu was put to death as BS 43a. Imprecision, to be sure, is reinforced by TY because this second time it cannot possibly be casual.

Apikorus has opposed such a view on the grounds of three arguments:

a) Yeshu = ben Pandera = ben Stada. As ben Pandera and ben Stada are said in the Talmud to have been stoned and hung, Yeshu may be assumed to have been stoned and hung as well. This argument is a weak one. Nowhere in the Talmud is Yeshu identified with either ben Pandera or ben Stada. Such identification is produced, for the first time, in TY. Therefore, only a later source (TY) supports the theory instead of two, one earlier plus one later (BS 43a + TY), that omit the stoning. If the identification of ben Pandera and ben Stada with Yeshu is waived on lack of positive evidence in the Talmud, the fact that the stoning is expressly mentioned in both former cases is adverse to the theory that also Yeshu was stoned. (See below.)

b) Nowhere is crucifixion mentioned in either BS 43a or TY. This is argument from silence. And silence is far from symmetrical, as regard crucifixion and stoning, in the Talmud. For while there is reason to omit in the Talmud any mention of crucifixion, there is no reason to omit in there a routine mention of stoning, as evidenced in the cases of ben Pandera, ben Stada, and many others. (The reason to omit crucifixion as of the first century was that it was illegal, and therefore embarrassing to mention, at the time of writing the Talmud, provided that the Jewish law presented itself as an immutable, given-once-for-all law.)

c) The main argument says that there were four ways to put someone to death according to the Jewish law, – stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation, – none of them was crucifixion. Yet a legal rule that was enacted in the third through seventh centuries may not be taken for granted as being equally forcible in the first century: “if it is rabbinic, it is not old; if it is old it is not rabbinic� (Neusner).

Accordingly, you ought to produce evidence that crucifixion, being an undesirable way for the Jews to put someone to death though it certainly was, was as illegal in the first century as it would become two centuries afterward. Every lack of definition as regard this, if known or merely suspected, would explain, without resort to psychobabble, the omission of stoning as a matter of fact by the writers of both BS 43a and TY at the time of depicting the way that Yeshu was put to death.