Apikorus

Steven I have little interest in "historical Jesus" discussions. My aim in this thread has not been to challenge the historicity of Jesus but rather to challenge some incorrect views on the Talmud. I have read a fair amount on the subject of early Christianity but still I would not consider myself to be even a competent enthusiast, so I generally stay out of such discussions.

While I consider the mythicist position extreme and improbable, I also think the gospel hagiographies contain a substantial amount of fabricated material (but certainly historical material too), and that beyond the fact that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher from Galilee who taught about the kingdom of heaven, had disciples, visited Jerusalem, and was executed under Pilate, I believe there is very little we can say with confidence about him. I find Paul more interesting and substantial than Jesus.

Truth be told, I find the New Testament to be somewhat boring. Its focus is narrow, its literary content is restricted. True, Revelation is quite interesting, but as for the rest I can't get terribly excited. Homer is a much better read. The Hebrew Bible, by contrast, is far broader in scope, diverse in literary content, reflective of different worldviews, historically interesting, etc.

The rabbinic literature in general, and the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmuds in particular, are entirely different kinds of literature than either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. The narrative, prophetic, wisdom, and poetic books of the HB were likely material for public recitation, intended for fairly broad dissemination. From the Tanakh itself we read about prophets proclaiming their messages, of Ezra reading the Torah. Many of the psalms apparently were sung (hence instructions such as lam'natzeach). Even Deuteronomy is cast as an extensive valedictory speech by Moshe to the Israelites. The New Testament gospels had an evangelical purpose beside whatever historical value one assigns to them. Paul's letters were directed toward entire communities.

The Talmud, on the other hand, was written by and for experts. There is nothing casual about it. It requires a great deal of its readers. Its primary purpose was to provide a record, in the form of a vast synthetic debate, of rabbinic viewpoints applied to an astonishingly broad variety of issues, so as to bequeath a dialectic to future generations. One can't simply open to a daf of Talmud and read it like one might read, say, the Book of Jonah or the Gospel of Luke. (It is telling that it was not until the late 19th century that the Talmud was first translated into another language.)

ynquirer

Well, not exactly. Perhaps the somewhat provocative manner in which I started this thread has confused you a little; if so, my apologies. I did start the thread because one single fact struck me as odd, nay, as extremely odd. B. Sanh. 43a, which is supposed to be a narrative of the Christian Jesus’ trial and execution – you yourself have granted this – purports to imply that he was stoned but without actually saying he was put to death that way. And everything else you have contributed in this thread – thank you very much, by the way – has reinforce my suspicion that nowhere in the rabbinic literature it is said that Jesus was stoned. Thus far, your sole evidence that the Jews believed he was stoned is – that’s striking, too – Tertullian, a Christian apologist. And that only after turning a theological controversy upside down to have it transformed into a dubious historical narrative.

Certainly, there are a number of passages in the Talmud and other rabbinic literature in which, likewise in B. Sanh. 43a, Yeshu is purportedly implied to have been stoned. Such, for instance, as your last text from Toldot Yeshu:

Yeshu, who was then led before the Great and Small Sanhedrin, by whom he was condemned to be stoned and finally hanged.

This text is not better than previous ones. It is liable to two different readings, and one of them is conducive, likewise B. Sanh. 43a, to uncertainty as regard the way Yeshu was executed, while the other straightforwardly supports my contention. The first is this: “by whom he was condemned [both] to be stoned and finally hanged,� whichever opinion about what happened after condemnation being merely speculative. The second is this: “by whom he was condemned to be stoned and finally [was] hanged,� the implication being that though initially condemned to be stoned, he was finally hung (from a cross). The last seems to me less awkward a reading of the English translation. In either case, no water for you to hold.

In addition to those convoluted statements in which the writers want to purport by way of pseudo implication that Yeshu was stoned – while the true implication is that nothing, at best, may follow from them – there are several stories of bizarre characters such like ben Pandera, ben Stada and a disciple of Yehoshua ben Perachiah that sometimes is called Yeshu ha-Notsri – but be careful: this does not really mean “Jesus of Nazareth� but “Yeshu the Nazarene,� that is, Yeshu either the follower or the founder of a religious sect called “the Nazarenes,� who are not to be confused with the Christians, right?

Forgive me, Apikorus, but your efforts to conflate these three characters’ stories and identify all of them with Yeshu who was put to death on the Eve of the Passover, remind me of those by some Christian apologists that strive to harmonize the four gospels. If I don’t endorse theirs, am I to bow before yours?

All in all, the Talmud and other rabbinic literature – and even people like you nowadays, who look like a living aftermath of the rabbinic literature – on this issue resemble an oyster, that on suffering a little wound, produces protective layers of pearl stuff one after another, until the old sore ends totally covered up and – for the oyster itself – absolutely forgotten.

Apikorus

I apologize but I failed to give the reference to this quote, which was from an English summary of the Wagenseil version, and not a direct translation of the text. I do not have access to the Hebrew version, but in a scholarly article by Martin Lockshin in a festschrift for Nahum Sarna (appropriately entitled Minhah le-Nahum; JSOT Press, 1993), Lockshin states that in the Wagenseil version Yeshu was stoned until death.

I can, however, produce the Hebrew of the Leiden fragment of Toldot Yeshu which says, in its very first line that Jesus was taken to the beit ha-sekelah, which is Mishnaic for "house of stoning", and then stoned to death. (See also this version.)

Is is the Tosefta itself which conflates them, referring to Yeshu ben Pantiri. You have never come to grips with the fact that Celsus in the 2nd century related that Jews claimed Jesus' father was Panthera, which would make Jesus ben Pandera as he is in the Talmud. The Talmud also reports the tradition that ben Stada was ben Pandera. It seems hard to believe that there were two figures known for using magic who were both stoned and hung on the eve of Passover. Then of course we have Tertullian. Oh well, I can't lead you by the hand.

noah

Apikorus, do you plan to actually start making reference to the text of Sanhedrin anytime soon? It sure would be a nice change from these endless assumptions, nameless scholars and peripheral "proofs" you keep mentioning. The text itself is the issue.

Yeshu is not a Hebrew name. It is either a Hellenized name (for example, the assimilated King Yonaton became King Alexander Yannai), or it could represent something bad (the fact that the character in the story went to idolotry and salvation was cut off might be represented by a name for "salvation" that is truncated as well).

As far as the name "Jesus" goes, well, we don't know what his name was because there was no Hebrew text to tell us. In face, in the History of the Church (Esubius) the auther tells us that at that time, they had a tradition that it began with an Aleph and some held that it began with a Yud, and there are some who held it was spelled the same as Hosea.

Now it is interesting to note that the part of the "Aleinu" that some people don't say because it ticked off the church, was the hebrew word for "nothingness/something-discarded" which has the same Gematria as "Yeshu" And Rashi also calls Jesus "Yeshu". But again, this is more of a name of insult than of a name representing the person for which there is no historical evidence that he even existed.

And these texts are hundreds of years after the character was even supposed to have lived, and are therefore not valid "witnesses" to support his existance.

No it is not clear. This entire passage is nowhere in the New Testament. Here is some more from that text none of which is evidence of the HJ:
Does this sound like anything from the New Testament?

So? Let's stick to the text shall we. We're working with Sanhedrin 43a as proof of the HJ. And to determine the validity of this claim we are matching it against the only text we have of JC's life, the New Testament.

Again this has nothing to do with the text of Sanhedrin 43a nor any part of the NT. It's just more assumptions based on the assumption that the Rabbis didn't know much about JC. Lack of knowledge of someone can hardly be adduced as evidence for knowledge of someone.

Uh, Apikorus did I say let's ask the man himself? Or are you operating under the mistaken asumption that one can only consult scholars themselves and not their writings? It should be quite easy for you to tell me what the man said since you have quoted him here. Either substantiate this argument or abandon it.

Quotes?
Stilll waiting for you to embrace the text of Sanhedrin 43a Apikorus and stop running from it.

Well then I have absolutley no idea what is driving you here Apikorus because it sure can't be the text.

Just to refresh readers' minds here, I am posting the reasons why Sanhedrin 43a can not be proof of the historical Jesus:

1) The text says Yeshu, not Jesus.

2) Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words the name was common not by any stretch unique.

3) Despite ynquire's contortions and distortions JC was crucified, not hanged. The dictionary does make a distinction between the two words.

4) JC was not stoned

5) The NT makes no mention of a herald going forth 40 days before the execution.

6) JC had no connenction with the government. ynquirer tried this argument to make it seem that he was:
Quote:
The Hebraic word Malkut means either “royalty� or “kingship� rather than “government.� This adds another concordance with Jesus: Both Yeshu and Jesus were connected with the royalty – Jesus descended from King David, according to Paul, and the Sanhedrin knew it.
Round peg meet square hole.
There is a well known phrase, "dina d'malchusa dina", i.e. the law of the land is the law. (i.e. its a mandate that Jews must be law abiding citizens in addition to their loyalty to Torah law.) Literraly, it means the law of the government is the law. So, what would these people say it means? Only "royal edits" are law thus any other law is non binding?

It is clear, especially for anyone familiar with Talmudic and Mishnaic phasiology, that the Hebrew "Malchus" or Aramaic "Malchusa" is used widely to refer to "government" in general not just "royalty" (primarily because originaly governments were monarchies).

In addition, the phrase of Ulla says "Karov L'Malchus" "close to Malchus". If it wanted to say that he was descended from royalty it would use different phrases, not the word "close". Thus, it is clear that it means "someone who has close connections to government".

7) JC was not charged with sorcery or leading Israel astray. He was, in fact, charged with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God, and assuming the role of King of the Jews.

8)The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.

9) Yeshu lived at least a century before Jesus.

10) From The Truth about Talmud: Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.

11) The Christian Jesus was not captured 40 days before his execution.

12) JC had at least twelve disicples, not five. JC's disciples did not have the same names as these five disiples of Yeshu. These disciples of Yeshu went by the following names:
Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Beni, and Todah. These are the Hebrew words for "when", "innocent", "branch", "my son", and "thanks", and are not proper Hebrew names.

Any time you want to respond to these points, to the actual text, Apikorus, you just let me know.

andrewcriddle

This claim may be based on book 1 chapter 3 Andrew Criddle

Apikorus

noah, if you don't even accept that the Toldot Yeshu is a derogatory parody of the Christian Jesus, there's really no sense in arguing.

What you don't understand is that the rabbis concocted stories to respond to Christian claims. This is why the details often differ from the New Testament accounts. But the Talmud is not history, and it is naive to read it so narrowly.

Incidentally, have you never heard of midrashic expansion? What do you think will happen, noah, if we examine some of the various aggadic sections of the Talmud which refer to the Torah? Will we be forced to conclude that it is talking about a different Moses because the details aren't exactly the same?

The Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Hebraica and virtually every non-Orthodox Jewish source agree that Yeshu is the Christian Jesus. The Orthodox sources are stuck in the 12th century. From the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Jesus of Nazareth":

The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus ("Toledot Yeshu'") that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death...

It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard Jesus as the "son of Pandera", although it is noteworthy that he is called also "Ben Stada" (Shab. 104b; Sanh. 67a)...

The references to Yannai, Salome Alexandra, and Joshua b. Peraḥyah indicate that according to the Jewish legends the advent of Jesus took place just one century before the actual historical date; and some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Naḥmanides and Salman Ẓebi, based on this fact their assertion that the "Yeshu'" mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge.

I've addressed the text of the Talmud repeatedly in this thread. I'm content to let people review my arguments and decide for themselves.

ynquirer

Are you pulling someone's leg? Do you really mean that a text including the words Toldot Yeshu is nowhere to be found in the New Testament? Or else that sayings like "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" and "thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" are nowhere to be found in the NT either?

What do you mean, if you ever mean anything intelligible at all?

noah

Apikorus wrote:
This is a side issue. The issue is whether Sanhedrin 43a is proof of the HJ. I have shown that it is not. I have shown that you are taking liberties with the text and your historical readings and assumptions that are far greater than normal deductive reasoning allows. If there were one or two areas in which Sanhedrin 43a were to be inconsistent with the NT then yes I think you would have a point. But when you go down a list of 10 inconsistencies and conflicts between the two texts then you have to say it's time to look elsewhere for the HJ. It's just rational deduction.
Yes. It was a polemic that was mocking Christianity (much in the same way as the prevailing "Superstitions of the Jews") and, of course, Jesus. There were polemical essays that got added to the Talmud before it was "fixed" to the format that we know today.
The problem is that there are two versions of the story about a student of Rabbi Perachiah. In the Sotah version, his student is just called "student", while in the Sanhedrin he is called "Yeshu". There is a theory that the Sanhedrin version had "student" replaced with "Yeshu" as a slap against Christians at some point while the Sotah version remained unchanged.
Yeshu was, in any case, born 200 years before JC.
Apikorus, if it is not history then you can hardly adduce it an support of your historical assertion especially when we know Talmud is for teaching. It was polemical. It was homily. It was never intended to be a proof of any historical assertion yet here you are using it for just that purpose. Hello?
Yeshu HaNotzri (or the wayward one who was cut off from salvation, as one interpretation) is actually mentioned in the following places in the Talmud:

(Gemara)
Sanhedrin 103a
Sanhedrin 107b
Berachos 17b
Sanheidrin 43a
Sotah 47a, which is nearly identical to Sanheidrin 43a (differences noted)

Also, the Rashi also takes some stabs at Christianity in the following places in the Talmud as well:

Berachos 12a
Berachos 12b
Rosh Hoshanah 17a
Yoma 40b
Sanhedrin 17a
Megilla 17b
Megilla 24b
Chagigah 5b

Interestingly enough, these stabs are made by the Babyloinian Jews and not the Jerusalem ones who don't seem to know anything about that character!

Apikorus, you quoted one source for your contention that JC is in the Talmud and Toldot Yeshu. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. As I have said there is a passage in which JC is boiling in a vat of excrement for his sins. So what? Where is the evidence that Sanedrin 43a is referring to the HJ? Just because JC is soemehwere in the Talmus or Toldot Yesu doesn't mean Sanhedrin 43a is proof of the HJ. Your only argument seems to be assumption based on inference and more assumption while I keep sticking to the only two texts we have to work with, the NT and the Sanhedrin 43a.
I am stunned that you seem to think that the content and substance of a text you say is a proof text has so little to do with your assertion. If you are going to cite a text in proof of your assertion then at least use the text in supoport of your assertion. I'm in this wierd situation where someone is leaning on a text to prove his point but then goes out of his way to make no reference to it at all. Hello?
Are you at anytime going to abandon your neglect of your "proof text" and actually use it to prove your point?

Yes ynquirer. The passage is not in the New Testament.
Please show me where this passage exists in the New Testament. Please show me where the words Toldot Yeshu appear in the New Testament.
Here is the passage again:
Show me where the phrase "three hundred and ten young men" is mentioned in the NT.
Show me where the passage "Yeshu proclaimed, "I am the Messiah" is in the NT.
Show me where in the NT the name Yeshu appears.
I did find "thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee". So what's your point?
Here is some more from that text:
Sound much like what happened to your JC ynquirer? Sound like a text that can be used to prove the HJ? Hardly. Details count. The substance and content of texts matter. Otherwise why even bother citing them. Why not just rehearse some of your favorite nursery rhymes? You are arguing that details and substance of texts do not matter. Continuity between so called proof texts does matter. Your and Apikorus' continued evasion of this point is something to behold.
BTW, this text is all over the internet. It originated from Jesus in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Morris Goldstein (pp. 148-154) (1950, NY)
Take note:Goldstein also writes that the characters written about in the Talmud are certainly not of Jesus and there there are many Jesus' (pp. 57-81). In page 101 he states that based on the period mentioned, there "cannot be fixed at a definite date within the Tannaitic time-area.
Do you guys get it now? As I said before this Toldot Yeshu thing is a distraction.
Just in case you guys ever want to discuss the text, Sanhedrin 43a, you say is proof of the HJ I will once again post the reasons why it is not:

1) The text says Yeshu, not Jesus.

2) Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words the name was common not by any stretch unique.

3) Despite ynquire's contortions and distortions JC was crucified, not hanged. The dictionary does make a distinction between the two words.

4) JC was not stoned

5) The NT makes no mention of a herald going forth 40 days before the execution.

6) JC had no connenction with the government. ynquirer tried this argument to make it seem that he was:
Quote:
The Hebraic word Malkut means either “royalty� or “kingship� rather than “government.� This adds another concordance with Jesus: Both Yeshu and Jesus were connected with the royalty – Jesus descended from King David, according to Paul, and the Sanhedrin knew it.
Round peg meet square hole.
There is a well known phrase, "dina d'malchusa dina", i.e. the law of the land is the law. (i.e. its a mandate that Jews must be law abiding citizens in addition to their loyalty to Torah law.) Literraly, it means the law of the government is the law. So, what would these people say it means? Only "royal edits" are law thus any other law is non binding?

It is clear, especially for anyone familiar with Talmudic and Mishnaic phasiology, that the Hebrew "Malchus" or Aramaic "Malchusa" is used widely to refer to "government" in general not just "royalty" (primarily because originaly governments were monarchies).

In addition, the phrase of Ulla says "Karov L'Malchus" "close to Malchus". If it wanted to say that he was descended from royalty it would use different phrases, not the word "close". Thus, it is clear that it means "someone who has close connections to government".

7) JC was not charged with sorcery or leading Israel astray. He was, in fact, charged with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God, and assuming the role of King of the Jews.

8)The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.

9) Yeshu lived at least a century before Jesus.

10) From The Truth about Talmud: Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.

11) The Christian Jesus was not captured 40 days before his execution.

12) JC had at least twelve disicples, not five. JC's disciples did not have the same names as these five disiples of Yeshu. These disciples of Yeshu went by the following names:
Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Beni, and Todah. These are the Hebrew words for "when", "innocent", "branch", "my son", and "thanks", and are not proper Hebrew names.

Any time you guys want to respond to these points, to the actual text, the text you say proves your point, Apikorus and ynquirer, you just let me know.

Apikorus

Noah, this is exasperating. I have said repeatedly that nowhere in the entire rabbinic literature can we find so much as a single independent datum which bears on "historical Jesus" issues. It is all rabbinic response to Christian claims. I do think that Yeshu in B. Sanh. 43a refers to the Christian Jesus. A figure known for practicing magic, who had disciples, who was executed on the eve of Passover, whose name is clearly anomalous -- you've got to be obtuse to deny that this is the Christian Jesus. It is not historical information, since as I said it is merely a response to Christian claims. Verstehe?

Again, if you go looking for point-by-point correspondence between the Talmud and the NT, or even between two different Talmudic pericopes, you are barking up the wrong tree. We could do the same exercise with aggadot which refer to events in the Tanakh, and applying your methodology we would be forced to conclude that the Talmud is talking about a different Abraham, Moses, David, et al. I asked if you were familiar with midrashic expansion -- are you?

Notsri

Truth be told, noah, the initial baraitha from the b. Sanh. 43a text is the first in Goldstein's list of authentic tannaitic references to Jesus.

Others include:

The second baraitha of b. Sanh. 43a: "Yeshu had five disciples"--that one.
t. Hull. 2.22-24
y. Shabb. 14d
y. Abod. Zar. 40d, 41a
b. Abod. Zar. 16b, 17a, 27b

His authentic amoraic references to Jesus include:

Ulla's saying (the Gemara) in b. Sanh. 43a
y. Shabb. 14d
b. Gittin 56b-57a
b. Ber. 17a-b
b. Sanh. 103a

Regards,
Notsri