noah

For some reason Christians sometimes try to rewrite the bible using extrabiblical Judaic teachings as evidence that JC is the Jewish messiah that Christians want to believe he is.
The problem for these Christians is that Torah makes clear that JC is not and was not the Jewish messiah. Torah takes precedence over any other Jewish teachings. In addition, the Talmud (discussed later) has JC boiling in a vat of excrement as punishment for his sins. Based on these two facts alone, any analysis of Jewish tradition must begin with the assumption that any verses which may be judged to be proof of JCs messiah status must mean something else. Christians are making the mistake of trying to make the passages fit their beliefs rather than allowing the passages to shape their beliefs.

Now, with reference to Sanhedrin 43a and keeping in mind the two points I mentioned above which elimanate JC as a potential Jewish messiah, let's take a look at the problems with trying to turn this Talmudic tract into a pro JC testimony.

1) Sanhedrin 43a says that the five disciples were brought to trial. Is there any such claim in the GT? Answer? No.

2) Yeshua is a pretty common name (as is Mary and Joseph).

3) No herald went forth forty days before the execution.

3) JC was not stoned and hanged. He was crucified.

4) In the Synoptic Gospels is on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.

5) As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
see http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html

6) Jesus had no connection with the government. The word Malkut means kingdom or royalty. On another thread, a Christian tried to associate this word with JC as a way of proving that Sanhedrin 43a refers to JC. The Christian argued:

The problem here is that the Sanhedrin did not "know it", that is if we are talking about JC. JC was not desended from king David. He couldn't be. Mary was an Aaronite and women could not pass on rights of kingship. Inheritance through Joseph was impossible since
a) His line was cursed and
b) Adoption was not a legal means of passing on rights of kingship and establishing lineal continuity.

7) Nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus charged with sorcery or leading Israel astray.

andrewcriddle

I have doubts myself about the value of Talmudic material for HJ research.

However one must distinguish between the Talmudic passage in its present form and the Baraitas on which it is based.

At face value the Talmud claims that the passage originally existed independently of the rest of the section.

This passage is in all probability referring to the Christian Jesus, and it claims (as a Baraita) to go back to Tannaitic times ie 200 CE or before.

I'm not saying that it is a particularly strong case but the interesting discussion is about the meaning historical value etc of this Baraita not the historical value of the Talmudic passage in its present form.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Andrew - did you read the other thread? Personally, I had found it very plausible that the passage was an actual attestation for the HJ. I do not think that any more.

andrewcriddle

I agree that it is probably a response to Christian claims and doesn't really provide independent attestation of the HJ.

Do you agree that it is at least referring to the Christian Jesus and that the core of it (the Baraita) probably originated around 200 CE ?

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

I'm not positive on the first one. It definitely evolved to refer to the Christian Jesus, placing its initial phase of its current form around 200 CE... There's the slight possibility from the disimilarities in the story that this Yeshua was confused with Jesus Christ and voila, you have the baraita. However, it could very well be what you said also.

Chris

Ben C Smith

I seriously doubt that the Sanhedrin passage offers any independent attestation to an historical Jesus; nevertheless, I like to separate the stronger arguments from the weaker ones, and I see the following as weak:

The passage does not actually say that Jesus was stoned; it says that the herald said he was to be stoned, probably based on the OT punishment for sorcery in Deuteronomy 13.10. But in the end, according to the passage, he was really hanged.

Many scholars prefer the Johannine chronology to the synoptic, and this passage matches the Johannine.

Ben.

Apikorus

Andrew, we've been through this argument before. It is rather uncritical to presume that every baraita is authentically of Tannaitic provenance -- particularly one such as this which has no mishnaic parallel. I stand by my previous remarks on the subject: here and here. I see no reason to believe that the rabbinic references to Jesus were anything other than reactions to Christian claims.

In the earlier thread, you conceded, "... I agree with you that the rabbinic material is of very little help." Have your views changed?

Chris Weimer

I thought this is what Andrew said?

Apikorus

Yes, but he seems to be pushing a date of ca. 200 CE or earlier for the baraita, which I think is without foundation:

noah

I asked a Jewish associate of mine about the Christian penchant for citing Sanhedrin 43a. This is what he said:

Interesting. No?