Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-24-2011, 11:03 AM

“Someone else” or “someone” was actually the other way Jesus is referenced in Jewish sources. FYI

Duvduv · 11-24-2011, 12:57 PM

Are you referring to the term OTO HA'ISH ("that man")? In any case the Talmud never refers to the man of the New Testament of the 1st Century. Only to Yeshu ben Pandera.
The Mishnaic rabbis were the leaders until the end of the second century, followed by the Amoraim who are the commentators on the Mishna until the fifth or sixth century. No one ever mentioned any of the figures of the NT believed to be in the 1st century. Not to John the Baptist, any followers or Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

“Someone else” or “someone” was actually the other way Jesus is referenced in Jewish sources. FYI

stephan huller · 11-24-2011, 03:26 PM

The rabbinic tradition never heard of John the Baptist period

Duvduv · 11-24-2011, 03:38 PM

Quite true, but of course rabbinic tradition never heard of Paul, Peter, etc. Which leads one to wonder what exactly was the nature of a Jewish affiliation with a Jesus sect in the first century BCE or CE before or after the destruction of the Temple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The rabbinic tradition never heard of John the Baptist period

stephan huller · 11-24-2011, 03:39 PM

And I was referring to the term peloni (M Yeb 4, 13; B Yeb 49b; T Yeb 3:3, 4 etc)

stephan huller · 11-24-2011, 03:41 PM

Paul and Peter are combined into the figure of Simon in the Toledoth Yeshu

Duvduv · 11-24-2011, 04:59 PM

Right, but I didn't include that because it isn't considered rabbinic literature. Anyway it was obviously a much later addition into the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Paul and Peter are combined into the figure of Simon in the Toledoth Yeshu

Duvduv · 11-24-2011, 05:02 PM

I am not sure that that is even a reference to Yeshu because ploni can be used as a generic "so-and-so" as someone whose name is unknown and irrelevant in terms of the point being made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And I was referring to the term peloni (M Yeb 4, 13; B Yeb 49b; T Yeb 3:3, 4 etc)

semiopen · 11-24-2011, 06:52 PM

Duvduv, tt seems to me that the presence of the apostles and Jesus in the Talmud is quite possible. The best you can say about your total denial is that it is not totally clear.

In fact, the rabbis were aware of Christianity and your contention that they ignored this seems peculiar.

Parts of Toldeot Jeshu quite possibly were written at the same time as the Talmud.

Also, for example

Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud
Author(s): Harris Hirschberg
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Jun., 1943), pp. 73-87

goes into

Quote:

The Mishnah Yoma III, 6 mentions a room in the Temple which was called mnnrinm,r "the chamber of Parvah." In the Gemara of the Babyl. Talmud which deals with that passage someone inquires after the meaning of the strange word mnD and receives the answer: 'W1tDmm 1n "Parvah was a Magus."4 According to an old tradition this Parvah, wishing to observe
the service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, dug a subterranean tunnel leading to the innermost sanctuary, but was discovered in a room which from this incident received the name "Chamber of Parvah."5

The discussion is above me but the article concludes -

Quote:

the fact remains that according to Talmudic records the secession of the Minim started from an ideology which is closely akin to that of Hebrews. It is interesting to note that the two records differ in regard to the verb
which expresses the fact of secession. One of them has iwnD which means "they separated themselves" (from the Jewish community),67 whereas the other report has lips which verb has frequently the special meaning of "withdrawing oneself from the supremacy of the Law."6 As we have proven, the Minim were Paul's adherents, and since only Jewish Minim could renounce their allegiance to the Law, the following conclusion offers itself:
Paul's conception of Christianity gained entrance into Jewish circles by means of a propaganda which was basically the same as that of Hebrews.

I doubt that Hirschberg's analysis is totally correct, but if the rabbis talk about Yoshke, why wouldn't they discuss the apostles, and why should we care enough to exclude this possibility?

Duvduv · 11-25-2011, 07:25 AM

The doctrines and history of Christianity are not discussed in the Talmud. In a couple of cases a marginal gloss was incorporated in the Rashi commentary. The only discussions refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, including mention of Jacob of Sachanya who healed people using the name of Yeshu ben Pandera. The minim etc. were Saduccees and a number of unnamed groups, as well as the Samaritans. I have my own personal doubts that there were ever any significant number of Jewish followers of the NT Jesus at all in the first two centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Duvduv, tt seems to me that the presence of the apostles and Jesus in the Talmud is quite possible. The best you can say about your total denial is that it is not totally clear.

In fact, the rabbis were aware of Christianity and your contention that they ignored this seems peculiar.

Parts of Toldeot Jeshu quite possibly were written at the same time as the Talmud.

Also, for example

Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud
Author(s): Harris Hirschberg
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Jun., 1943), pp. 73-87

goes into

Quote:

The Mishnah Yoma III, 6 mentions a room in the Temple which was called mnnrinm,r "the chamber of Parvah." In the Gemara of the Babyl. Talmud which deals with that passage someone inquires after the meaning of the strange word mnD and receives the answer: 'W1tDmm 1n "Parvah was a Magus."4 According to an old tradition this Parvah, wishing to observe
the service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, dug a subterranean tunnel leading to the innermost sanctuary, but was discovered in a room which from this incident received the name "Chamber of Parvah."5

The discussion is above me but the article concludes -

Quote:

the fact remains that according to Talmudic records the secession of the Minim started from an ideology which is closely akin to that of Hebrews. It is interesting to note that the two records differ in regard to the verb
which expresses the fact of secession. One of them has iwnD which means "they separated themselves" (from the Jewish community),67 whereas the other report has lips which verb has frequently the special meaning of "withdrawing oneself from the supremacy of the Law."6 As we have proven, the Minim were Paul's adherents, and since only Jewish Minim could renounce their allegiance to the Law, the following conclusion offers itself:
Paul's conception of Christianity gained entrance into Jewish circles by means of a propaganda which was basically the same as that of Hebrews.

I doubt that Hirschberg's analysis is totally correct, but if the rabbis talk about Yoshke, why wouldn't they discuss the apostles, and why should we care enough to exclude this possibility?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-24-2011, 11:03 AM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	“Someone else” or “someone” was actually the other way Jesus is referenced in Jewish sources. FYI

11-24-2011, 03:26 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The rabbinic tradition never heard of John the Baptist period

11-24-2011, 03:39 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And I was referring to the term peloni (M Yeb 4, 13; B Yeb 49b; T Yeb 3:3, 4 etc)

11-24-2011, 03:41 PM	#26
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Paul and Peter are combined into the figure of Simon in the Toledoth Yeshu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.