Apikorus

Metacrock, unfortunately you are so ignorant of the rabbinic literature (you can't read Hebrew or Aramaic, for starters) that you don't know enough to question your secondary (tertiary or worse, really) sources. Your source in this case appears to be an on-line dictionary (of all things!).

You can settle this matter by citing the order, tractate, and verse in the Mishnah where this reference to Jesus appears. Many of us are well-aware of Talmudic references to Jesus, but the Talmuds, as I explained, were compiled hundreds of years after the Mishnah. So, please, do provide us with an actual reference to the Mishnah - not a quote from Bruce, not an excerpt from an on-line dictionary, not a footnote from Edersheim, not a rant from Glenn Miller, but an actual citation to the Mishnah.

I'll make this easy for you, Metacrock, by giving you the answer up front. There's a famous passage in M. Yev. 4:13 in which Shimon ben Azzai refers to ploni (= rabbinic Hebrew for "so and so", sometimes used in the Talmud to refer obliquely to Jesus, but alas neither universally nor exclusively). Here's the reference for you -- I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding the pereq in question! : Mishnah Yevamot. That's it, buckeroo! No references to yeshu, none to ben stada, none to pandera - zilch.

Many Christian apologists are so gifted at hermeneutics that they are able to derive from this single mention of "so and so" (in the entire Mishnaic corpus) a detailed reference to Jesus of Nazareth, his birth, ministry, crucifixion, etc. Of course, these are often the same people who insist that Jesus is prefigured in the Hebrew Bible. Regarding Metacrock, in the words of my zeide, "A meshuggener zol men oyshraibn, un im arainshraibn."

Edited to add: Peter Kirby has also cited M. Yev. 4:13 as the sole candidate for even so much as an allusion to Jesus in the Mishnah.

andrewcriddle

You are of course right that the passage is not in the Mishnah

I think the confusion arises because the initial reference to
Yeshu is given as a baraita ie material supposedly going back to
Mishnaic times though not included in the Mishnah.

Hence the first part of the passage is prima facie Tannaitic
(from the Mishnaic period) though not in the Mishnah.

(IMHO Babylonian baraita with no parallel in Tosefta or the
Palestinian Talmud are unlikely to be genuinely Tannaitic but that
is another matter)

Andrew Criddle

Apikorus

So Andrew, what is your assessment of baraitot which have no parallel among the mishnayot??

It is hardly a slam-dunk case that every baraita is authentically Tannaitic - particularly those with no mishnaic parallel. It's a bit uncritical (pre-Neusnerian). The rabbis had an agenda, and the fact that they often retrojected rabbinic themes into the late 2nd Temple - or even biblical - periods is well-documented. It could easily be that the baraita from Sanh. 43a is presented as such to lend it more authority.

More importantly, the rabbinic enterprise did not proceed in a vacuum. There is ample evidence that the rabbis were aware of -- and in some instances borrowed from -- Greek expository techniques. Jewish art (in early synagogues, e.g. Duro Europas) also shows Greek influence (e.g. zodiacs). And of course the rabbis were aware of Christian claims about Jesus.

Personally, I believe Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. I also think it difficult to argue that references to Jesus in the rabbinic literature are anything more than reactions to Christian dogma. Even if the mishna in Yev. 4:13 is accepted as referring to Jesus, does that allow us to say anything with confidence regarding early Jewish documentation of Jesus? My suspicion is that all the rabbinic references or allusions to Jesus are reactions to Christian claims, and there is not a single independent historical datum on Jesus to be gleaned from the entire rabbinic corpus.

At any rate, one thing is quite certain: the Mishnah is utterly silent on the matter of Jesus, with the sole possible exception of an allusive reference in M. Yev. 4:13.

lpetrich

Furthermore, the references to Jesus Christ in the Talmud are extremely unflattering and sarcastic, and may easily be interpreted as something like this body of literature:

"Jesus Christ was the son of a virgin! [parthenos]"
"Sure, sure. He was the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera."

andrewcriddle

As I implied in my post some Babylonian baraitot can be
legitimised by parallels in other rabbinic works eg the Tosefta
or the Palestinian Talmud. This is not one of them.

It may well be not much older than Ulla who discusses it,
which would put it in the late 3rd century.

FWIW I think it is likely too old to be a response to
Constantine becoming a supporter of Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

Apikorus

I think the larger question here is this: To what extent can the rabbinic literature be regarded as providing independent witness to the historicity of Jesus?

I believe that the rabbinic references to Jesus are an exceedingly weak reed to lean upon. First of all, the rabbinic literature is notoriously difficult to date reliably. Second, the rabbis are known to have retrojected their own themes into the earlier periods about which they wrote. Finally, there is no reason to believe that any rabbinic references or allusions to Jesus is anything more than a reaction to contemporary Christian dogma.

The best evidence for the historicity of Jesus is contained in the NT gospels themselves. That they are tendentious and hardly unswervingly historical is also true. I accept the party line that Jesus is referred to in Josephus, even if the Ant. 18.3.3 citation has been partially interpolated by a later Christian tradent. In a nutshell: beyond the fact that Jesus was a Jew from Galilee who preached about the kingdom of heaven, had disciples, and was crucified under Pilate, I think there's very little we can say with confidence about the man.

Notsri

The rabbinic reference to Jesus generally regarded as the earliest is from Tosefta, Hullin 2:22-24.

There's also the aforementioned Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, although there's a second that follows almost immediately after as well.

There's another reference in a Baraitha from Avodah Zarah 16b-17a (which parallel's the text from the Tosefta, Hullin 2:24, as well as Koheleth Rabbah to Ecc. 1:8, and Yalkut Shim'oni to Micah 1 & Proverbs 5:8).

From the Amoraic period there's the Gemara on both Baraithot in Sanhedrin 43a.

Also in the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 14d.

Gittin 56b-57a from the Bab. Talmud is another.

Berakhoth 17a is possibly another, paralleled by Sanhedrin 103a.

One very late one, probably from the Geonic period, is Targum Sheni 7:9.

regards,
Notsri

andrewcriddle

I think we can say a little more about the historical Jesus
than that.

However I agree with you that the rabbinic material is of
very little help.

The only exception may be rabbinic records of debates with
early followers of Jesus and that is probably more relevant to
early Christianity than to the historical Jesus.

I mean material like Tosefta Hullin 2:22 to 2:24 with later
parallels. (Is it lawful to be healed in the name of Jesus ben
Pantera ? and is it legitimate to pay heed to halakhah given
in his name ? Answer NO in both cases.)

Neusner in 'Rabbinic literature and the New Testament'
criticises both the relevances of rabbinics to the New
Testament and the profitability of 'Historical Jesus' research.

Andrew Criddle