Apikorus

Absolutely so. We can't even be reasonably sure of the provenance of Toldot Yeshu. The terminus a quo is probably ca. 650 CE, but it may have accreted much afterward.

At any rate, my point is simply that the author of Toldot Yeshu is repeating a tradition (from Jewish "counter-history" as you say) regarding Yeshu's death. He is killed, then hung, as in B. Sanh. 43a.

mens_sana

Perhaps because I don't think Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin or any other judicial body in Palestine, Jewish or Roman. Your account may refer to another person — or it may just be the result of the enmity that had arisen between Judaism and early Christianity.

ynquirer

Good point, most relevant and one that challenges my working hypothesis. It is clear now that mid-thirteenth century is untenable.

In any case, the fact that uncensored B. Sot 47a tells a story of R. Yehoshua ben Perachiah and an unnamed disciple, while uncensored B. Sanh. 107b tells the same story with the disciple being named [Yeshu] – bracketed – quite strongly suggests a series of later interpolations in the original Talmud. First, the story of the Rabbi and the unnamed disciple was introduced, then in a second layer the disciple was given a convenient name.

There is also evidence why those pericopes are excluded from censored editions. They are deemed to be likely interpolations under Christian influence. Epiphanius of Salamis, in a list of eighty Christian heresies, listed one according to which Jesus lived in the first century BCE instead of the first century CE. Bearing in mind the time of Epiphanius’ writing (4th century CE), that heresy was hardly influenced by the story of Yeshu ha-Notzri in B. Sanh. 107b. In all likelihood it was the other way around.

On the other hand, I was, and still am, convinced that the cloning of Yeshu occurred in the Talmud as a reaction to the persecution of the Cathars. One of the arguments against them was afforded by two alleged witness, namely, Pierre des Vaux de Cernay (a Cistercian monk) and Prevostin of Cremona (a Dominican) in the early thirteenth century. They claimed that the Cathars believed Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife. It seemed to me that whoever changed the orthodox biography of Jesus, as expounded in the gospels, might have felt themselves to be in a dangerous position, liable to be tried before the Inquisition. And one such a change of the biography is implied in B. Sanh. 43a. The cloning was therefore attempted as a plausible way-out.

In any event, the first Cathars were burned in 1022 in Orleans, thus inaugurating the era of religious persecution in Europe. That would be my terminus post quem. Whatever evidence of Yeshu ha-Notzri in B. Sanh. 107b before that date would seriously belie my working hypothesis.

Thank you for your contribution, anyway.

ynquirer

Here you are a little confused. The post you respond to does not deal with whether or not Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, but simply wonders how you could compare Tractate Sanhedrin – a book written by judges of the Great Sanhedrin – with a polemic website. It is as if the records of the Supreme Court of the United States were compared with The Lives of Saints by Iacopus de Voragine. Nonsense.

Apikorus

On what basis do you say that Tractate Sanhedrin was "written by judges of the Great Sanhedrin"?

ynquirer

Why untenable? The notion that the gemara cannot contradict itself is pre-critical, akin to the idea that it is G-d inspired.

Who else could have written a book on cases tried before the Sanhedrin?

Apikorus

No, it certainly isn't divinely inspired. But neither is it completely incoherent.

This is your evidence?

ynquirer

Who says that it is completely incoherent? My position is that it is rather coherent, but not the way you say it is – “this� cannot be in contradiction with “that.� There of course may be some contradictions, as in every human work. Yet, there is a long way from some contradictions to being completely incoherent. So, your answer is the straw man.

Let me summarize the point. There is a text in B. Sanh. 43a, which is open to two different readings. The text is this:

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 apostasy. 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.

The reading you propose is, simply stated, that though the text doesn’t mention explicitly that the convict was stoned, one can presume he was so on account of both the Jewish law – the convict must be dead when he is hung – and the actuation of the herald, who quite clearly announced he was going to be stoned. So far so good. This is what I call an easy reading of the text.

The reading I propose is based on some oddities of the text. First, the text never says that Yeshu was stoned, although it gives some clues for the reader to have an easy reading and think he was. Yet, wouldn’t it have been much clearer simply to say that he was stoned? This is especially noteworthy as regard the last sentence of the above quotation: “since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged…�If anything had been brought forward, perhaps he would have been spared death, but since nothing was brought forward – his corpse was publicly exhibited? On the other hand, there are no other examples in the Talmud of “hanged� or “hanging� being used as a short formula for “stoned and hanged� or “first stoning and then hanging.� Therefore, there is something odd in this paragraph.

I am quite aware that mine is a difficult reading. How could it possibly be that Yeshu was hung alive, provided that the Jewish law prescribed the convict being put to death, first, and then hung? Another text of the Talmud came surprisingly in my rescue, namely, B. Sanh. 46b. The text is as follows:

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.

This text is an extraordinary one. It unmistakably says that, in a sequence in which sin and the hanging are presented with exclusion of the stoning, the reader should understand that “he is hanged and then put to death.� And it adds: “as the State does� – which in my opinion, and it seems that also yours, is a reference to Roman crucifixion. This text I deem to be internal evidence in favour of my reading.

Yet, this does not fully suppress the difficulty of such a reading for B. Sanh. 43a. For just below my internal evidence, there is another text in the gemara, this one:

Therefore Scripture says, And he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him — he is first put to death and afterwards hanged.

Thus, there seems that, according to my reading, Yeshu was put to death in an illegal way. And at this point you, Apikorus, said it was untenable that the gemara at B. Sanh. 43a contradicted the gemara at B. Sanh. 46b. And at this point, too, I asked you whether you thought the Talmud be contradiction-free, as if G-d inspired.

Fortunately, you have acknowledged that it can bear contradictions, though not be totally incoherent. I don’t think it is incoherent.

I interpret the contradiction between B. Sanh. 43a and B. Sanh. 46b as being the outcome of extreme intellectual pressure upon the writer, as a byproduct of a desire to reconcile two irreconcilable feelings. These being a commitment to be the utmost faithful to the Jewish law and tradition, on the one hand, and – I would say – a love of truth, or – if you prefer it that way – an insurmountable superstition that precluded the writer to tell a story that he beyond a reasonable knew to be false, on the other.

My evidence is common sense, but I’m ready to grant it, most of the times, is not enough.

Apikorus

There is no evidence that Yeshu was "put to death in an illegal way." The gemara says nothing about state involvement in Yeshu's death. Indeed, the extra time allotted for the herald's announcement was attributed to the fact that Yeshu was close to the government. T. Sanh. 10:11, Y. Sanh. 7:16, and B. Sanh. 67a all state that the deceiver ben Stada, who is also to be identified with Jesus, was stoned.

This is mere psychobabble. There is no evidence of any "intellectual pressure" on the authors/redactors of the Bavli, sitting comfortably in their academies in Pumbedita, vis-a-vis the Jesus story.

This is yet more of your speculation regarding the Talmud, which I have shown to be faulty at virtually every turn. Either you can adduce real evidence for your case or you cannot.

Ecrasez L'infame

Ynquirer, why read

straight, and not as a counterfactual? My understanding of the meaning and implication of that sentence in English is "If it were written that sinners should be hanged, then I would agree with the State's method of execution. But it isn't so written, and so the State's method is not legitimate." The following sentence backs that up, giving the correct order of punishment - repeating it to make it perfectly clear.