Apikorus

Enrique, I am beginning to find all this tiresome.

You are apparently unaware that there is not just a single version of Toldot Yeshu but rather many. The most extensive collection is still found in S. Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Juedischen Quellen (1902; reprinted in 1977). In the most extensively translated version of TY, the Wagenseil version, the text explicitly states that Yeshu was stoned:

With the aid of Judas, the sages of the synagogue succeeding in capturing Yeshu, who was then led before the Great and Small Sanhedrin, by whom he was condemned to be stoned and finally hanged.

Moreover, I can adduce an early Christian author who was witness to the Jewish tradition that Jesus was stoned. This is from Tertullian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200 CE), Adversus Judaeaos (ch. 9):

...inasmuch as ye used to say that it was not on account of the works that ye stoned him, but because he did them on the Sabbath.

The connection of ben Pandera with Jesus is the earliest of all. It comes from Celsus, quoted by Origen, who refers to a written source (anagegraptai) which says that Jesus' mother was seduced by a Roman soldier named Panthera. B. Sanh. 67a transmits the tradition that "her lover was Pandera". This identification persists in the Toldot literature. So the connection Jesus=Yeshu=ben Pandera is quite solid.

Surely the historicity of the Talmud is dubious. We have ample evidence that the Talmud retrojects rabbinic themes into the Second Temple and even biblical periods. Apparently I've managed to teach you something. My point of view is that the Talmud describes the execution of Yeshu from its own perspective, which means that the seducer was stoned first and then hung. This must be what the author of this passage wished to convey in B. Sanh. 43a, from a literary perspective. This is what is written in the Mishnah; this is what is written in the gemara. We do not know what actually was the practice in first century Palestine -- it is doubtful that the rabbinic courts had any authority to impose capital punishment during the procuratorship of Pilate. But apparently you now finally agree that the Talmud is not necessarily transmitting first century details, so the point is moot. Your position now is even more awkward than before.

To recapitulate, I have shown that there is a solid connection between ben Pandera and Yeshu. Celsus, during the second century CE, knew of a tradition that Jesus' mother was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera, in agreement with the Talmudic account in B. Sanh. 67a. The Talmud also identifies ben Stada and ben Pandera, and says that both were stoned. Tertullian, writing in the 2nd - 3rd century CE, records a Jewish tradition that Jesus was stoned. The Talmud in B. Sanh. 43a says that a herald announced that Yeshu was to be stoned; it also records that Yeshu was hung. Three pages later, the Talmud describes in detail how hanging was to follow stoning. Indeed, the Mishnah, which is the subject matter of the Talmud and which is explained and illustrated in the gemara, has no provision for death by hanging. Unless the Talmud explicitly states that a deviation from Mishnaic law occurred, there is no warrant to assume otherwise. Finally, the medieval toldot literature also attests to the fact that within Jewish tradition, Yeshu was stoned by rabbinic decree.

On the interpretation of karov lemalkhut, I have adduced three additional passages in the Talmud (B. Bava Qamma 83a, B. Sotah 49b, B. Gittin 14b), all of which use this construction, and wherein the unambiguous meaning is "association/influence with the government." The same meaning makes perfect sense in context within B. Sanh. 43a. There is therefore no warrant to pursue any other meaning for this construction.

Roger Pearse

Tertullian was a layman (the 'Bishop of Carthage' idea seems to derive from Joseph Wheless' curious volume), or, at best, held no office higher than presbyter.

[31] Quae operatum Christum nec vos diffitemini, utpote qui dicebatis, quod non propter opera eum lapidaretis, sed quoniam ista sabbatis faciebat. (Traenkle's Latin text of 9:31).

[31] which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, "on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths." (189) (Thelwall translation of 9:31).

Footnote: See John v. 17, 18, compared with x. 31-33.

Note that Adversus Judaeos is preserved in a limited manuscript tradition as compared to the New Testament. But I see no reason to exclude its testimony: it's a lot better off than many classical texts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Apikorus

Thank you, Roger. The Thelwall translation, "on account of the works ye stoned him not, but because he did them on Sabbaths," is a bit archaic. A more colloquial (and more accurate, in terms of word order) translation of the Latin would be, "...it was not on account of the works that you stoned him, but because he did them on the Sabbath." I can just imagine Enrique will read into Thewall's translation that the Jews "stoned him not" (!)

By the way, here is Origen, in Book I of Contra Celsus:

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera, and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost...

Apikorus

This is false. Although the Jewish identification of Jesus and ben Pandera is attested by Celsus (quoted by Origen), there are also strong elements linking ben Stada, ben Pandera, and Yeshu within the Talmud itself. The following analysis follows that of Herford (pp. 344-346):

• T. Sanh. 10 says that ben Stada was stoned in Lydda by order of the beit din (rabbinic court).
• B. Sanh. 67a says that ben Stada was stoned and then hung in Lydda by order of the beit din.
• B. Shab. 104b says that ben Stada brought magic spells (kspyM) back from Egypt.
• B. Sanh. 43a says that Yeshu haNotzri was paraded forth to be stoned, by rabbinic decree, because he practised magic (kysP) and deceived and led astray Israel.

Herford concludes, and I concur, that there can be no reasonable doubt that ben Stada is to be identified with Yeshu haNotzri.

Regarding ben Pandera / ben Pantiri,

R. Eliezer said, "Once I was walking in the street of Sepphoris; I found Jacob of Chephar Sichnin, and he said a word of minuth in the name of Yeshu ben Pantiri." (T. Chullin 2.24)

R. Eliezer said, "Once I was walking in the upper street of Sepphoris, and I found a man, one of the disciples of Yeshu haNotzri, and Jacob of Chephar Sechanya was his name...and he said to me, `thus hath Yeshu haNotzri taught me'." (b. Avod. Zar. 16b-17a)

We also have the equivalence "ben Stada is ben Pandira" in b. Sanh. 67a and b. Shab. 104b.

The evidence linking ben Stada, ben Pandira, and Yeshu haNotzri seems quite strong. To be sure, the time frames are different, but all this tells me is that the character of Jesus was inserted into different stories. The Talmud shows little concern with historical precision. It is homiletic, as noah properly described. It records the diverse views of dozens of rabbinic figures and recasts them in the form of a colloquy or synthetic debate.

Amaleq13

This appears to be further evidence that this information cannot be considered independent of the Gospel stories and, therefore, provides us nothing that can be reliably identified as history. It seems to be a reaction to the nativity in Matthew which, in turn, appears to be a retelling of Moses rather than a historical record.

ynquirer

I don’t think this is any just a final assessment of my position in this debate, and it makes me think you haven’t caught me at all. I’m not interested in picky remarks however untenable. Common sense is for me the utmost praiseworthy, and I have repeatedly proven to be able to yield to reasonable contentions by the other party – which, by the way, I haven’t seen you do just for once, though perhaps this is due to the fact that I haven’t say just one interesting, reasonable thing in this thread.

I’ll make a last try, and if I fail I shall immediately yield to your apparent desire to discontinue a tiresome thread.

I of course wouldn’t interpret Tertullian as meaning that the Jews “stoned Yeshu not,� although it is clear that Tertullian, as a Christian, believed that Jesus was crucified, not stoned. Yet here the issue is different from Tertullian’s belief. Here he is interpreting the Jews’ apologetic position; to be sure, he is a witness to the Jews’ apologetic position that the Jews’ had Jesus killed and discusses why was the reason for them to have him so. In particular, he denies that he was put to death on account of Jesus’ doing miracles – “magic� – and claims that he was executed because he transgressed the Sabbath. Circa 200 CE Tertullian therefore is a witness to a controversy in which the Jews contended that Yeshu/Jesus was put to death because of his doing magic – much like the Talmud will later say – while the Christians contended that he was so on account of his transgressing the Sabbath – much like the gospels say. Accordingly, this is a very old controversy, which proves that there was an oral tradition as regard Yeshu/Jesus’ death, prior to the writing of the Talmud, which is the hypothesis I’ve been contending for throughout this thread – a hypothesis unreservedly rejected by Apikorus. Just read the posts.

But the point you rise in reference to Tertullian is not that. It rather is whether or not Tertullian, being a witness to the Jewish tradition as he is, is a reliable witness altogether. Roger Pearse says he is. I would qualify the affirmative: what is he a reliable witness to? If you say that he is a reliable witness as regard the above controversy, I would concur he is, because it is the theological stuff that is at the stake, in which he was extremely careful. Yet, if you say that he is a reliable witness as regard the way Yeshu/Jesus was actually put to death – stoning – I would say he is not of necessity so. For he is not discussing the issue. He quite clearly grants the rabbinic law of stoning while he of course believes Jesus was put to death according to the Roman law of crucifixion. This is a rhetoric concession, something that one does whenever not interested in discussing the issue in detail. Therefore, he does not want to forward any polemic point as regard this, and he just says what a rabbi would find more reassuring, namely, that Jesus was stoned.

Apikorus

This is possible, but I tend to doubt it, for the following reasons. Earlier in this thread, I remarked,The story of Jesus in Egypt from Matthew 2 seems an unlikely source for material to be found in early Jewish-Christian exchanges. True, Christians might adduce Hosea 11:1 in support of this tradition, but it hardly seems as compelling as the points I identified above.

Furthermore, the notional connection to the gospels through the mention of Egypt is another example of reading the Talmud from the point of view of the New Testament. In fact, Egypt is mentioned several times in the Talmud and in rabbinic literature, as one might suspect. Egypt is traditionally associated with witchcraft:

Ten measures of witchcraft descended to the world; nine were taken by Egypt. (b. Qiddushin 49b)

It seems more likely to me that the rabbis knew about Christian claims of Jesus' miraculous deeds and responded by identifying Jesus as a magician. Since magic was associated with Egypt in Jewish tradition, it seems quite plausible that the tradition of ben Stada bringing spells from Egypt is independent of the narrative from Matthew.

I wrote a longer response to this but I am deleting it. I apologize if I have appeared arrogant and cranky. I must say, however, that I have not found any of your arguments to be sound.

As I said, the quote from Tertullian proves that he was witness to a Jewish tradition that Jesus was stoned by the Jews, presumably by rabbinic decree. Of course I would think that Tertullian himself accepted the Christian version of events.

If one "just reads the posts" one will quickly see that I myself have adduced material, such as the Tosefta, Celsus, and now Tertullian, to show that Jews had concocted responses to Christian claims about Jesus from a relatively early stage (c. mid-2nd century CE). Alas, this does not help us in identifying the provenance of B. Sanh. 43a. The crux of the matter is this, Enrique. You believe that the Talmud corroborates historical details found in the New Testament. I claim that the Talmud records only Jewish responses to Christian claims, and moreover that in the entire vastness of the rabbinic literature there is not a single independent historical datum bearing on the life of Jesus. One needn't even be as skeptical as Neusner to come to such a conclusion.

Amaleq13

Yes, if that was a place normally associated with where one learned to perform magic, no necessary connection to the Gospel story is indicated.

Apikorus

I would say that the medieval toldot literature clearly demonstrates more extensive familiarity with the gospels. Indeed, it remains an unproven (and, many believe, implausible) hypothesis that the Toldot Yeshu was composed as a parody of an unknown Christian gospel. But I see no evidence that the Talmudic authors themselves were familiar with the text of the New Testament.

Steven Avery

Most of this conversation apparently goes around me. Since I view the historicity discussion as mostly just humorous, this being probably the one forum in the world where it is hashed out in some earnestness while being considered a worthwhile discussion. (an observation, not a criticism).

Most Messianics have a far greater interest in the Talmudic/TodetYeshu/Celsus type of material precisely as "Jewish responses" to the Messiah movement than as an element in a supposed historicity dialog. We don't expect independent historicity from the various Jewish responsa sources, only a hodge-podge of smears and denigration mixed with enough truth to recognize some principle characters. In fact, considering the depth of historical material in the NT, it would be surprising to find any real additional historical material, and if were there it would be almost impossible to discern in the negativizing anyway. The closest I can think of is the complex of ideas around Heli as Miriam's dad, all rather obscure at best.

Probably not. The rabbinic literature is essentially reactionary in this regard. And it is especially hard to imagine the later rabbinics, Rambam et al, having some real consequential source material other than what we know about today.

I just decided to post here because I'm not sure some of the posters might be like good ol wrong-way Corrigan, riding a good horse, albeit in the wrong direction.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic