Jesus in the Talmud

[Yehoshua]

Reading the book by Peter Schafer, the director of Judaic Studies at Princeton. Pretty insightful thus far. Anyone else who has read this book? Thoughts?

[simchat_torah]

Jesus, the Christian Messiah, does not appear anywhere in the Talmud.

Sorry.

[BereanTodd]

Jesus, the Christian Messiah, does not appear anywhere in the Talmud.

Sorry.

The author of the book, a devout Jew, and the head of Jewish studies at Princeton shows in this scholarly book that it most certainly does. Not only that, his basic premise in the book is "yes we (Jews) killed Jesus, and he deserved it because he was a blasphemer".

I have not read the book, but I have read many reviews, scholarly and otherwise, about it.

[HaNotsri]

I do not believe He does either

[simchat_torah]

The author of the book, a devout Jew, and the head of Jewish studies at Princeton shows in this scholarly book that it most certainly does. Unfortunately, he disagrees with the official Jewish position then. The great Paris Dispute of 1251 established this as the official Jewish response... Jesus the Christian Messiah does not appear in the Talmud.

Moreover, I have also met Peter Schafer, and I'd be surprised if he actually believed this. Even if he does, he is greatly mistaken. Not only would he be mistaken, he would be diverging from the official Jewish stance on the issue.

In fact, I would like to formally challenge you to a debate on this very topic.

Up to it?

[BereanTodd]

Unfortunately, he disagrees with the official Jewish position then. The great Paris Dispute of 1251 established this as the official Jewish response... Jesus the Christian Messiah does not appear in the Talmud.

Moreover, I have also met Peter Schafer, and I'd be surprised if he actually believed this. Even if he does, he is greatly mistaken. Not only would he be mistaken, he would be diverging from the official Jewish stance on the issue.

In fact, I would like to formally challenge you to a debate on this very topic.

Up to it?

Seeing as I have neither read the book, nor much of the Talmud, which I do not hold in high regard, you would be fighting a one-armed man. Personally I have no opinion on whether the Talmud mentions Yeshua or not as I have not read much of it. I do think it is probably not as black and white as you would claim if someone such as Schafer could produce a scholarly work such as this.

[français]

i always have heard that jesus is mentioned in the talmud, and that he is called a b*stard, born from a roman soldier father, and out of wedlock.
but i have always seen responses about that, and the name yeshua/yeshua/balam was general, and it could have been referring to many different people.

Most likely it probably was not jesus being referred to in some passages commonly thought to be. But, you never know! could be!

[simchat_torah]

Seeing as I have neither read the book, nor much of the Talmud, which I do not hold in high regard, you would be fighting a one-armed man. Personally I have no opinion on whether the Talmud mentions Yeshua or not as I have not read much of it.Then why make such uneducated claims?

I do think it is probably not as black and white as you would claim if someone such as Schafer could produc a scholarly work such as this.Again, I recommend a formal debate, and feel free to add as many people to your side as you feel fit as you consider yourself uneducated on the matter.

But please, if you do feel uneducated, please stop making such uneducated claims?

thanks,
Yafet

[simchat_torah]

i always have heard that jesus is mentioned in the talmud, and that he is called a b*stard, born from a roman soldier father, and out of wedlock.
but i have always seen responses about that, and the name yeshua/yeshua/balam was general, and it could have been referring to many different people.

Most likely it probably was not jesus being referred to in some passages commonly thought to be. But, you never know! could be!

It would be better to cite sources rather than unjustified antisemetic claims.

Thanks,
Yafet

[français]

It would be better to cite sources rather than unjustified antisemetic claims.

Thanks,
Yafet

Senhedrin 42b

[français]

Also I was not making anti semetic claims. So please, quit being mean. My boyfriend is a Jew, and as you can see by my avatar and personal message, I love the Torah lol even though I am atheist.

It is not anti semetic to say the Talmud speaks bad against Jesus (if that is even the case, and as I said, I do not know because I have not looked into it.)

[simchat_torah]

Senhedrin 42bOooookkkk...
I'll take the time to address this one here in this thread, then I will no longer reply in this thread to specific points that are made. I request if you'd like to make specific debates, to do so please... please... in a formal debate thread.

So, without further adue, Sanhedrin 42b. Now, I could be mistaken, but I assume you were referring to 43a (often misquoted as 42b). The text is as follows:
http://www.ijanda.net/pics/43a.JPG


Which states (in English):

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.
Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."
Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

I offer to you a reply written by Gil Student:
Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.
Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well (***NOTE FROM YAFET: I can provide these additonal points if anyone is interested, they are discussed elsewhere and I can provide this later upon request***). Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.
Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. 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.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.


Thus, Sanhedrin 43a refers not to Jesus the Christian Messiah.
Also I was not making anti semetic claims.Unknowing as you were, this is in fact a claim rooted in antisemetic origins. Many Jewish hating organizations (Such as the KKK) have used the idea that the Talmud makes very horrific claims about Jesus as justification of hatred against the Jews. Unknowingly, Christians have perpetuated these claims for a long time. The very same antisemetic groups who created the wandering Jew or the bones of Christian virgins are ground to make matzah are responsible for the false claims about the Talmud. It is sad that many Christian "scholars", pastors, and teachers have fallen into the trap of perpetuating these ideas.

No, Jesus the Christian Messiah was never mentioned in the Talmud.

Now, if anyone would like to continue, please, I urge you out of respect to myself and those in this forum to make a formal debate thread. Out of respect to the Messianics I will refrain from continuing the debate here... but I urge you all to have the same respect... please make a formal debate thread if you wish to continue.

Thank you.
-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

It is not anti semetic to say the Talmud speaks bad against Jesus See post above.

[BereanTodd]

Then why make such uneducated claims?

What uneducated claims? First off if the claim that one would have to be uneducated to believe that the Talmud spoke of Yeshua, then you have an issue to take up with the head of Princeton's Jewish studies department. A very degreed, doctorally degreed person.

Moreover, I never claimed anything as truth. Go back and read my first post, I specificially stated that I had not read the book, only the reviews of it, from scholarly and non-scholarly sources.

But please, if you do feel uneducated, please stop making such uneducated claims?

I did not make claims about the contents of Talmud, but the contents of this book. You sir need to reign in your attitude I don't know what your problem with me is.

[français]

Ah, I know what site you got that from.. I actually was reading it just a few hours ago.

Unknowing as you were, this is in fact a claim rooted in antisemetic origins. Many Jewish hating organizations (Such as the KKK) have used the idea that the Talmud makes very horrific claims about Jesus as justification of hatred against the Jews. Unknowingly, Christians have perpetuated these claims for a long time. The very same antisemetic groups who created the wandering Jew or the bones of Christian virgins are ground to make matzah are responsible for the false claims about the Talmud. It is sad that many Christian "scholars", pastors, and teachers have fallen into the trap of perpetuating these ideas.


Oh, so me, who is dating a Jew, and who openly states "I love the Torah" on his user title, and whose blog has an entire entry on the Torah.. Oh yeah, I am making an anti semetic claim. Sure. Ok.

Senhedrin 42A may have not been talking about Jesus. And I never said I was for sure.. I said that I had HEARD before, but did not have enough info to verify if it was true or not, and had never looked into it. So please, don't ever call me anti semetic again. It is very offensive for you to label someone as predjudice when they are not. No one likes a bigot. And I do not want to be labeled a bigot when I am not one.

[simchat_torah]

Oh yeah, I am making an anti semetic claim. Sure. Ok. Try to follow along:
You are not antisemetic, but... you are referring to antisemetic arguments.

So please, don't ever call me anti semetic again.I didn't, so you can relax. But now that you know what is behind Sanhedrin 42-43, you can stop referring to arguments that were devised by antisemetic groups.
No one likes a bigot. And I do not want to be labeled a bigot when I am not one.Never labeled you a bigot, but you might want to research what you lay out as an argument, instead of making claims without reading the source text.

[simchat_torah]

What uneducated claims? Well, let's see.. you did say:
Seeing as I have neither read the book, nor much of the Talmud...I would say that is an admittance to being uneducated on the subject.
? First off if the claim that one would have to be uneducated to believe that the Talmud spoke of Yeshua, then you have an issue to take up with the head of Princeton's Jewish studies department.No, I have an issue to take up with anyone in this thread who wants to say that Jesus, the Christian Messiah, appears in the Talmud. Said authors are not here in the discussion.... you are. I don't have to debate them. Had you read their books (admittedly you have not), and had you quoted any material (which you didnt), then we would have something to discuss.

A very degreed, doctorally degreed person. Would you blindly listen to the many professors who have doctorates that claim the holocaust didn't exist, or that there is no G-d, or that we come from monkeys, etc.
Or, instead of relying on someone's book (a book which you have never read) in a discussion forum, you could provide your own basis for said discussion.

Instead of referencing a single book which I have not read, I would choose instead to educate myself before attempting to sway the discussion on a forum.

I did not make claims about the contents of Talmud, but the contents of this book. You sir need to reign in your attitude I don't know what your problem with me is.lol, no attitude.


If you want a debate, please start the thread. I would be MORE than happy to go there. I would rather you not attempt to subtely sway a discussion by referencing a book you've never read.

Be up front. Don't try to use crafty tactics. Do you want a debate or not? Do you want to discuss and bring to the table something of substance?

Yes or no?

I'm waiting.

[Yehoshua]

Wow, I should have waiting to read it completely before posting. Here's what I'll do (later next week). I'll post his citations and criteria for establishing the aforementioned supposition and then we can all discuss in a systematic and respectful manner. A good point was made. If I believed everything my professors told me at the University (people who know multiple languages including Egyptian, Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc and with PhDs from World Class institutions) I would not believe there was an exodus. The Jews were really just Canaanites who came down from hill country. The Torah, though containing multiple earlier myths, was composed much later in the Babylonian exile. I won’t even get into the NT and Talmud positions.

[visionary]

Before you do that, let me quickly move this thread to debate, where you two can go at it.

[Steve Petersen]

Wow, I should have waiting to read it completely before posting. Here's what I'll do (later next week). I'll post his citations and criteria for establishing the aforementioned supposition and then we can all discuss in a systematic and respectful manner. A good point was made. If I believed everything my professors told me at the University (people who know multiple languages including Egyptian, Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc and with PhDs from World Class institutions) I would not believe there was an exodus. The Jews were really just Canaanites who came down from hill country. The Torah, though containing multiple earlier myths, was composed much later in the Babylonian exile. I won’t even get into the NT and Talmud positions.

Israel Finkelstein?

[français]

Try to follow along:
You are not antisemetic, but... you are referring to antisemetic arguments.

I didn't, so you can relax. But now that you know what is behind Sanhedrin 42-43, you can stop referring to arguments that were devised by antisemetic groups.
Never labeled you a bigot, but you might want to research what you lay out as an argument, instead of making claims without reading the source text.
I did not make a claim. I said that I have heard that it was speaking of jesus, but I had done no research into it, so I could not be sure. I was just putting things out in the air in case.

And thanks for clearing the whole anti semetic thing up. I thought you were calling me anti semetic, which was offensive, because I hate people who are predjudice. But, you weren't.. just a misunderstanding on my behalf :)

[torahgrandma]

Jesus, the Christian Messiah, does not appear anywhere in the Talmud.

Sorry.

I respectfully disagree Simchat. If you spend much time in the orthodox community you will hear the expression "yeshu ha mamzer" when referring to Jesus and missionariies teaching about him. Sometimes Yeshu, which means "yimmach shemo v'zichro" (blot name and memory) is substituted in speech with the name "Yoshke or Yushke" This concept about Jesus being born of illegitimate unclean (niddah) birth is learned from the talmud. I am sure you are familiar with the term avodah zera, as well as the tractate.

[torahgrandma]

Oooookkkk...
I'll take the time to address this one here in this thread, then I will no longer reply in this thread to specific points that are made. I request if you'd like to make specific debates, to do so please... please... in a formal debate thread.

So, without further adue, Sanhedrin 42b. Now, I could be mistaken, but I assume you were referring to 43a (often misquoted as 42b). The text is as follows:
http://www.ijanda.net/pics/43a.JPG


Which states (in English):


I offer to you a reply written by Gil Student:

Thus, Sanhedrin 43a refers not to Jesus the Christian Messiah.
Unknowing as you were, this is in fact a claim rooted in antisemetic origins. Many Jewish hating organizations (Such as the KKK) have used the idea that the Talmud makes very horrific claims about Jesus as justification of hatred against the Jews. Unknowingly, Christians have perpetuated these claims for a long time. The very same antisemetic groups who created the wandering Jew or the bones of Christian virgins are ground to make matzah are responsible for the false claims about the Talmud. It is sad that many Christian "scholars", pastors, and teachers have fallen into the trap of perpetuating these ideas.

No, Jesus the Christian Messiah was never mentioned in the Talmud.

Now, if anyone would like to continue, please, I urge you out of respect to myself and those in this forum to make a formal debate thread. Out of respect to the Messianics I will refrain from continuing the debate here... but I urge you all to have the same respect... please make a formal debate thread if you wish to continue.

Thank you.
-Yafet

Since by your own admission in an earlier thread Simchat, your reading and comprehension of Hebrew and Aramaic (the two languages of the talmud) is marginal, so therefore, you are merely taking Gil Students word for it.

[torahgrandma]

It should also be noted that is is allowable (per rabbinic writings) for a Jew to present a falsehood to the goyim, so I would advise that you (Francais) check the information out for yourself before you arrive at your final conclusion. Yes, the talmud does speak negatively about Jesus in some places, but that is not the fault of all Jewish people, just like the inquisition is not the fault of all Christians.

[torahgrandma]

Unfortunately, he disagrees with the official Jewish position then. The great Paris Dispute of 1251 established this as the official Jewish response... Jesus the Christian Messiah does not appear in the Talmud.

Moreover, I have also met Peter Schafer, and I'd be surprised if he actually believed this. Even if he does, he is greatly mistaken. Not only would he be mistaken, he would be diverging from the official Jewish stance on the issue.

In fact, I would like to formally challenge you to a debate on this very topic.

Up to it?

Once again, the"official" position in the orthodox community "Chassidic, Charedim, etc) is that Jesus was born of an unclean illegitimate conception, as indicated in the talmud.

[simchat_torah]

Since by your own admission in an earlier thread Simchat, your reading and comprehension of Hebrew and Aramaic (the two languages of the talmud) is marginal, so therefore, you are merely taking Gil Students word for it.Actually, there are several translations I could rely upon if my comprehension is lacking in the original languages. Gil Student, an American Orthodox Rabbi, is able to word it much more eloquently than I.


But, there is no big surprise that someone who has soooo many times expressed highly antisemetic trends would pop into this thread and take the other side, eh Higher_Truth?

[simchat_torah]

Once again, the"official" position in the orthodox community "Chassidic, Charedim, etc) is that Jesus was born of an unclean illegitimate conception, as indicated in the talmud.Despite what rumors you may have heard, the official position was decided in Paris in 1240. See the book - Judaism: History, Belief and Practice By Dan Cohn-Sherbok

You can read the book online at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3oHg70lQL0IC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=paris+disputation+1240+jesus+talmud&source=web&ots=f3PRdx5nhy&sig=xETaydOuCfbdsACXR0uhXLS7LAA

The "official" position was decided by a Jewish inquiry (a court) and not by whatever rumors you may have heard.

[TheRabbi]

I feel sorry for Finkelstein. He's a sad person.

[torahgrandma]

Actually, there are several translations I could rely upon if my comprehension is lacking in the original languages. Gil Student, an American Orthodox Rabbi, is able to word it much more eloquently than I.


But, there is no big surprise that someone who has soooo many times expressed highly antisemetic trends would pop into this thread and take the other side, eh Higher_Truth?

And now because you do not like what I have presented, you are going to make false accusations. I'm in no way anti semitic, I just like to discuss the facts as they are known. No rumors Simchat, btw. I am a first person witness to what the orthodox believe and have stated numerous times .

[torahgrandma]

Despite what rumors you may have heard, the official position was decided in Paris in 1240. See the book - Judaism: History, Belief and Practice By Dan Cohn-Sherbok

You can read the book online at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3oHg70lQL0IC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=paris+disputation+1240+jesus+talmud&source=web&ots=f3PRdx5nhy&sig=xETaydOuCfbdsACXR0uhXLS7LAA

The "official" position was decided by a Jewish inquiry (a court) and not by whatever rumors you may have heard.

Qyestion:

Doesn't the rabbinic writings state that it is okay to make a false statement in order to protect ones life? What was the "climate" when that statement was made? ;)

[simchat_torah]

And now because you do not like what I have presented, you are going to make false accusations. I'm in no way anti semiticI think nearly every single person here who knew you as Higher_Truth would agree with me. Your posts were highly offensive, antisemetic, and antimessianic. Thus you were banned from this subforum.

[torahgrandma]

I think nearly every single person here who knew you as Higher_Truth would agree with me. Your posts were highly offensive, antisemetic, and antimessianic. Thus you were banned from this subforum.

More false accusations...sigh..

Weren't you taught about lashon hara after your conversion from Christianity to Judaism?

[simchat_torah]

lol

C'mon, the mask was pulled off months ago. You even admitted it.

Let it go already, no one here is still fooled. Its like a bad joke at this point.

[SGM4HIM]

If the Jesus I see portrayed throughout the Bible is not in the Talmud as simchat_torah has claimed, I am not surprised and feel no loss.

Would it change anyone's opinion one way or another, really?

What is the underlying purpose of the O.P? All I see is hurt feelings and anger. I'm perplexed.

[torahgrandma]

lol

C'mon, the mask was pulled off months ago. You even admitted it.

Let it go already, no one here is still fooled. Its like a bad joke at this point.

keeping on with the false accusations still.....sigh.

[torahgrandma]

lol

C'mon, the mask was pulled off months ago.... .

Actually, it was probably pulled off years ago Simchat:

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither allow you them that are entering to go in.

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[simchat_torah]

lol, same old HT. If you can't win a debate, condemn those you are debating.

[simchat_torah]

To All:
The formal debate challange has been laid out in the debate section.
I invite everyone to participate, just read the rules in the initial post first.

http://foru.ms/t6335926-formal-debate-challenge-does-jesus-appear-in-the-talmud.html#post40199185

Thank you.
-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

I think too many threads got bumped on top of this one for people to take notice...
However, there is now an official "Debate" thread in the Messianic Debate Section.

[simchat_torah]

So no one's interested in actual real healthy debate? Everyone's only interested in general sweeping unvalidated comments? C'mon, surely those of you who were so ready to argue in this thread will be up for a healthy debate in the debate section?

[Yehoshua]

Again, I'll try to post the citations later this week. I am working full time and going to school full time. In the meantime if you're really that interested just go buy the book.

[TheRabbi]

I don't understand why you would open discussion on a book and then say that you're too busy to quote it to us. I'm not interested enough to buy it. Maybe I would be if you could show me that there was something of interest in it.

[simchat_torah]

I'm not interested in your book in the slightest. I'm interested in debating those who want to make claims on this forum that Jesus appears in the Talmud.

[ChazakEmunah]

Israel Finkelstein?
Thought that had a familiar ring to it.

[ChazakEmunah]

It should also be noted that is is allowable (per rabbinic writings) for a Jew to present a falsehood to the goyim
You better be able to prove this statement, or I will regard it as slander and report you for it.

[Yehoshua]

Bavli Manuscripts utilized:
Firenze II-I-7-9: Ashkenazi, 1177
Oxford Heb. d. 20 (Neubauer-Cowley 2675): Sephardic, Geniza, 13th Century
Karlsruhe Reuchlin 2: square Ashkenazi, 13th Century
New York JTS Rab. 15: Sephardic, 1291
Vatican ebr. 487/9: square Ashkenazi, 13th Century
Vatican ebr. 108: Sephardic, 13th- 14th Century
Munich Cod. Hebr. 95: Ashkenazi, 1342
Vatican ebr. 110: square Ashkenazi, 1380
Vatican ebr. 130: square Ashkenazi, 1381
Vatican ebr. 140: square Ashkenazi, 14th Century
Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23: square Sephardic, 14th-15th century
Paris heb. 1337: square Sephardic , 14th-15th Century
Paris heb. 671/4: Byzantine, 15th Century
Herzog 1: Yemenite, after 1565
Soncino printed edition: printed in Soncino, Barco, and Pesaro between 1484 and 1519
Vilna printed edition: 1880-1886

Citations:
b Shab 104b
Oxford 23, Vatican 108, Vatican 487, Munich 95, Soncino, Vilna
b Sanh 67a
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Sanh 103a
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Ber 17b
Oxford 23, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.7, Paris 671, Soncino, Vilna
b Sanh 107b
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Barco, Vilna
b Sot 47a
Oxford 20, Vatican 110, Munich 95, Vilna
b AZ 17a
Munich 95, Paris 1337, New York 15
QohR 1:8 (3)
Vatican 291, Oxford 164, Pesaro 1519, Constantinople 1520, Vilna, Jerusalem
b AZ 17a
Munich 95, Paris 1337, New York 15
qohR 1:8 (3)
Vatican 291, Oxford 164, Pesaro 1519, Vilna, Jerusalem
b AZ 27b
New York 15, Munich 95, Paris 1337, Pesaro, Vilna
b Sanh 43a-b
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Git 57a
Vatican 130, Vatican 140, Munich 95, Soncino, Vilna

[simchat_torah]

Bavli Manuscripts utilized:
Firenze II-I-7-9: Ashkenazi, 1177
Oxford Heb. d. 20 (Neubauer-Cowley 2675): Sephardic, Geniza, 13th Century
Karlsruhe Reuchlin 2: square Ashkenazi, 13th Century
New York JTS Rab. 15: Sephardic, 1291
Vatican ebr. 487/9: square Ashkenazi, 13th Century
Vatican ebr. 108: Sephardic, 13th- 14th Century
Munich Cod. Hebr. 95: Ashkenazi, 1342
Vatican ebr. 110: square Ashkenazi, 1380
Vatican ebr. 130: square Ashkenazi, 1381
Vatican ebr. 140: square Ashkenazi, 14th Century
Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23: square Sephardic, 14th-15th century
Paris heb. 1337: square Sephardic , 14th-15th Century
Paris heb. 671/4: Byzantine, 15th Century
Herzog 1: Yemenite, after 1565
Soncino printed edition: printed in Soncino, Barco, and Pesaro between 1484 and 1519
Vilna printed edition: 1880-1886

Citations:
b Shab 104b
Oxford 23, Vatican 108, Vatican 487, Munich 95, Soncino, Vilna
b Sanh 67a
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Sanh 103a
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Ber 17b
Oxford 23, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.7, Paris 671, Soncino, Vilna
b Sanh 107b
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Barco, Vilna
b Sot 47a
Oxford 20, Vatican 110, Munich 95, Vilna
b AZ 17a
Munich 95, Paris 1337, New York 15
QohR 1:8 (3)
Vatican 291, Oxford 164, Pesaro 1519, Constantinople 1520, Vilna, Jerusalem
b AZ 17a
Munich 95, Paris 1337, New York 15
qohR 1:8 (3)
Vatican 291, Oxford 164, Pesaro 1519, Vilna, Jerusalem
b AZ 27b
New York 15, Munich 95, Paris 1337, Pesaro, Vilna
b Sanh 43a-b
Herzog 1, Munich 95, Firenze II.1.8-9, Karlsruhe 2, Barco, Vilna
b Git 57a
Vatican 130, Vatican 140, Munich 95, Soncino, Vilna
Not to be mean, but merely stating a brutally honest response: That's one of the most useless posts in this entire forum.

1) You may continue posting here, but I'm not going to debate in the MJ section, only in the debate section.
2) Posting a bazillion citations without actually quoting material is useless, quote the actual passages not just the references... also, that's waaaay too much to respond to. It is much better to quote a passage or a couple of passages.
3) What the heck is Vatican ebr., Oxford Opp., etc? Those are not Talmudic references.

For reference, and debate guidelines, see the debate thread... it is linked for you here:
http://foru.ms/t6335926-formal-debate-challenge-does-jesus-appear-in-the-talmud.html#post40199185

[TheRabbi]

I'm going to use an old Yehivishe phrase that we pull out for a guy that likes to make assertions and then ramble of a bunch of citations.

"Show it to me inside"

[Yehoshua]

b Sanh 103a – that you will not have a son or disciple…like Jesus the Nazarene
b Ber 17b – that we will not have a son or disciple … like Jesus the Nazarene (some editions with text erased)
b Sanh 107b – not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away
b Sot 47a – not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away
b AZ 17a – One of the disciples Jesus the Nazarene found me
QohR 1:8 (3) – He told me a word in the name of Jesus son of Pandera
b AZ 17a – Thus I was taught by Jesus the Nazarene
qohR 1:8 (3) –Jacob….came to heal in the name of Jesus son Pandera
b Sanh 43a-b – on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene
b Git 57a – Jesus the Nazarene is going to be stoned
b Shab 104b -Was he the son of Stada and the son of Pandera?
b Sanh 67a – husband Stada, lover Pandera

Just because the Talmud in your Shul may not read the same way doesn't mean it wasn't there before. I would think you would know that the Talmud was heavily redacted through time, not only by the Rabbi's but by Christian overlords sensitive to anti-Christian rhetoric. You wanted quotes. There you go. You emphatically stated Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Talmud. According to the manuscript evidence you're wrong (there's much more presented in the book).

[TheRabbi]

Can you show me these exact citations? Can you look them up? Do you even know what all these abbreviations mean?

[ContraMundum]

3) What the heck is Vatican ebr., Oxford Opp., etc? Those are not Talmudic references.

I think you'll find that they are possibly Talmud references, arranged by edition or manuscript. (They give names to them often according to where they are stored or found, etc.....but I don't think we can actually check these up for ourselves anyway!)

Still, I don't think these quotes are terribly clear. The only version of the Talmud the modern day Rabbinic debaters will hear is the Babylonian of course. Citing earlier versions before alleged redactions seems pretty futile.

[simchat_torah]

b Sanh 103a – that you will not have a son or disciple…like Jesus the Nazarene
b Ber 17b – that we will not have a son or disciple … like Jesus the Nazarene (some editions with text erased)
b Sanh 107b – not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away
b Sot 47a – not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away
b AZ 17a – One of the disciples Jesus the Nazarene found me
QohR 1:8 (3) – He told me a word in the name of Jesus son of Pandera
b AZ 17a – Thus I was taught by Jesus the Nazarene
qohR 1:8 (3) –Jacob….came to heal in the name of Jesus son Pandera
b Sanh 43a-b – on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene
b Git 57a – Jesus the Nazarene is going to be stoned
b Shab 104b -Was he the son of Stada and the son of Pandera?
b Sanh 67a – husband Stada, lover Pandera
Wow, that's hardly quoting anything at all. "husbad Stada, lover Pandera"??? That's your entire quote for one of the references? That's your proof?

How about context? Just little snippets, and these are supposed to prove...??? what exactly?

But no matter, like I've reiterated MANY TIMES OVER, I will not be debating in this thread. Please take the debate to the debate thread I've directly linked twice now for you.


Do you even know what all these abbreviations mean?lol, I think we all know the answer to that one ;)

[simchat_torah]

I think you'll find that they are possibly Talmud references, arranged by edition or manuscript.Possibly they were editions of manuscripts like you said, but he never answered, so I'm still completely in the dark. If they were editions of manuscripts, there weren't any Talmudic references, just edition names? I mean, talk about confusing.

I'm assuming that he has no clue himself and that he's merely copying/pasting from some other website.

[Steve Petersen]

Gil Student adresses most of these.

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html

[TheRabbi]

The only version of the Talmud the modern day Rabbinic debaters will hear is the Babylonian of course. Citing earlier versions before alleged redactions seems pretty futile.
Not true at all. The Tosefta and Braitot are always brought to clarify matters. The Talmud Yerushalmi, while it has always been used to clarify, is gaining great popularity in the land of Israel, with some giving it's rulings more authority than the Bavli.

[Steve Petersen]

The Talmud Yerushalmi, while it has always been used to clarify, is gaining great popularity in the land of Israel, with some giving it's rulings more authority than the Bavli.

Has it been published in English yet?

[TheRabbi]

Excerpt from an article by Rav David Bar-Hayim
(I apologize for the length, but I just didn't want to take too much out)
In the Talmud Bavli (Sanhedrin 24a) we read: "'He has placed me in the dark, like those that are long dead' (Ekha 3:6) - R. Yirmiyah said 'this refers to the Talmud of Bavel"! A radical statement to be sure, and our teacher Rashi leaves us in no doubt as to its meaning: "Their learning is uncertain." The holy Maharal adds that this is due to the extremely convoluted and legalistic argumentation typical of the Babylonian Talmud, as a result of which conclusions are often dubious, since one can almost always argue against a given point of view (Hidushei Agadoth).
It is pertinent to note that it is R. Yirmiyah who makes this statement. R. Yirmiya was born in Bavel and came to Eretz Yisrael as a young man. He was thus uniquely qualified to discriminate between the Torah of Bavel and that of Erez Yisrael. We are therefore not surpriscd to find the same R. Yirmiyah, upon hearing a certain explanation given in Bavel, remark: "Those foolish Babylonians! It is because they dwell in a land of darkness that they make such dark (incorrect) statements!" (B.T. Pesahim 34b). Once again, Rashi is very forthright: "When they do not know the true explanation for something, they come up with incorrect explanations".
R. Yirmiyah was not alone in his estimation. His teacher, R. Zera, also originally from Bavel, fasted 100 fasts upon coming to Erez Yisrael, to be able to forget the learning of Bavel (B.T. Bava Mezia 85a). Rashi says plainly, that this refers to the Babylonian Talmud with which we are familiar. Note also that these statements about the Torah of Bavel are found in the Talmud Bavli itself. We find no attempt to hide this information.
All of the above can only be understood in light of the observation of our Sages to the verse "And the gold of that land is good (Bereshith 2:12) "There is no Torah like the Torah of Erez Yisrael, and no wisdom like the wisdom of Eretz Yisrael" (Bereshith Raba 16,4). The above mentioned citations make it clear that the difference is very real, and that the words of our Rabbis are in no way an exaggeration.
So how does this affect or apply to us? R. Zera and R. Yirmiyah did not live in the days of the Mashiah. We in fact, in this generation, are much nearer to those glorious days. If we train ourselves to be aware of the reality and truth of these ideas, and open our minds and hearts to a truer appreciation of the miraculous worlungs of Torah within Am Yisrael as described above, we shall be well on the way to a new era in the mystical and wonderful conjoining between ourselves and G-d's Holy Torah.

[TheRabbi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRabbi http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40295494#post40295494)
The Talmud Yerushalmi, while it has always been used to clarify, is gaining great popularity in the land of Israel, with some giving it's rulings more authority than the Bavli.

Has it been published in English yet?


As far as I know, it has not. I understand that Artscroll is working on it though.

[Talmidah]

Has it been published in English yet?

As far as I know, it has not. I understand that Artscroll is working on it though.

http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/yrt.html

[Yehoshua]

First Simchat, Let’s get several things straight. Pomposity scares me not. Secondly you don’t know anything about me so for you to be making ignorant unfounded assumptions about me is perhaps illustrative of your own personal diminutiveness. Kahane used to say, barking dogs never bite. So true. So let me explicate further. The references were not posted from a website. I cited them directly from the book. If you doubt the references, you are doubting the references from the head of the Judaic Studies department from Princeton, whose reputation among the scholarly community, I believe, would be in peril after publishing such spurious references. Now if you want you can go look at several of the manuscripts listed. http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/intro_eng.htm I admittedly don’t read fluidly Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic, so I am in this case trusting the scholarship of the aforementioned author. And just for your information the words such as Paris and Vatican are the names of the libraries where they manuscripts are housed. But I’m sure you already knew that. The Munich codex is generally regarded as the most trustworthy in relation to transmission.

[TheRabbi]

I admittedly don’t read fluidly Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic, so I am in this case trusting the scholarship of the aforementioned author.

That's a mistake. These "scholars" make their living and reputation by reading controversial things into texts and getting debate started. This gets them invited to speaking engagements all over the country.

[simchat_torah]

If you doubt the references, you are doubting the references from the head of the Judaic Studies department from Princeton, whose reputation among the scholarly community, I believe, would be in peril after publishing such spurious references. I highly doubt his entire professional scholastic career hinges on whether he is correct lon this one issue. However, if it does, I'm afraid his career will soon come to a close. Moreover, the references are correct, but his conclusions are wrong. Dead wrong.

Tell you what, instead of relying entirely upon one person's book, why don't you vary your studies a bit? Relying on one person is a dangerous thing.
First Simchat, Let’s get several things straight. Pomposity scares me notI wasn't being pompous. I was being brutally honest. Whether you got the citations from a book or a website matters not. The point is: You didn't get them from your own studies or from reading the Talmud.
I'm sorry you failed to grasp the higher point I was making, which was not the specific source of your citations, but merely that you are wholly unfamiliar with what you cited and relied upon a third party source to provide them for you.

Secondly you don’t know anything about me so for you to be making ignorant unfounded assumptions about me is perhaps illustrative of your own personal diminutiveness.Mmm, big words for someone attempting to argue about a subject for which he is ignorant. Tell you what, read the Talmud, read the references, find a variety of sources, and then we might have some grounds to debate. Until then, debating you would be unfair... as you are wholly unprepared for it.
And just for your information the words such as Paris and Vatican are the names of the libraries where they manuscripts are housed. Which further shows your ignorance. To prove that Jesus is in the Talmud it would be completely useless to cite which libraries the manuscripts reside! How goofy. I think what happened was you picked up the book, copied and pasted the citations and had no idea what it was that you were citing. What library the manuscripts reside has nothing to do with the debate, and any rational person entering the debate would not have used those totally unnecessary sources!

What WOULD have been utterly ESSENTIAL to the debate is actually citing the sources and context, not some mini snippet. Providing less than a sentance for references that are paragraphs in length does not suffice for providing source text. Citing 4 words and a comma does not count as providing context for a passage that is multiple paragraphs (as though it were plainly obvious that "husband Stada, lover Pandera" is about Jesus???? lol, c'mon).

What happened here, and you have not been man enough to admit it, is that you are completely ignorant as to what the Talmud says. You've never read it. You don't even know what the full passages say in regards to Jesus. You don't know the history behind the stories in the Talmud. You (maybe) have read a book about the subject, posted arrogantly and authoratatively, stating as though fact that Jesus the Christian Messiah is in the Talmud. When pressed for details you provided barely even quotations of snippets from a book, not the Talmudic references and context itself.

If you'd like to give this a REAL attempt, please... see me in the formal debate thread. And one last time, the link is here:
http://foru.ms/t6335926-formal-debate-challenge-does-jesus-appear-in-the-talmud.html#post40199185

IF you follow the guidelines set out in the debate thread, I garuntee you will earn respect in reply posts. But if you make a mockery of "debate" as you have in this thread, I will certainly request that you be removed from the thread.

[simchat_torah]

That's a mistake. These "scholars" make their living and reputation by reading controversial things into texts and getting debate started. This gets them invited to speaking engagements all over the country.Absolutely. People like this want to make money by stretching a Talmudic passage that states "husband Stada, lover Pandera" to somehow be a reference to Jesus.
If this is seriously one of the "proofs" he provides in his book then I believe we could outright dismiss the entire book as bunk without even giving it a second thought.

[ContraMundum]

That's a mistake. These "scholars" make their living and reputation by reading controversial things into texts and getting debate started. This gets them invited to speaking engagements all over the country.

Wow....sounds exactly like liberal NT "scholars" to me. ;)

[TheRabbi]

Absolutely right. I think the NIV editors made huge blunders in their New Testament. They created questions in the minds of Evangelicals that even I don't see as valid.

[debi b]

The Tosefta and Braitot are always brought to clarify matters.

I recently purchased a copy of Tosefta - it is unpointed making it a bit of a challenge for me. I have an English version, but there were times I wanted to understand what was being translated.

:wave:

[TheRabbi]

Who translated the Tosefta?

[Talmidah]

I believe there is a translation by Neusner. Not sure about others.

[torahgrandma]

What WOULD have been utterly ESSENTIAL to the debate is actually citing the sources and context, not some mini snippet. Providing less than a sentance for references that are paragraphs in length does not suffice for providing source text. Citing 4 words and a comma does not count as providing context for a passage that is multiple paragraphs (as though it were plainly obvious that "husband Stada, lover Pandera" is about Jesus???? lol, c'mon).


Absolutely. People like this want to make money by stretching a Talmudic passage that states "husband Stada, lover Pandera" to somehow be a reference to Jesus.
If this is seriously one of the "proofs" he provides in his book then I believe we could outright dismiss the entire book as bunk without even giving it a second thought.



Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Talmud (A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature), which is used by many orthodox Jews in their scholarly study of the Hebrew and Aramaic words found in the Talmud states: "Pandera (Pantera, Panteri) surname of Joseph the father of Jesus of Nazereth. Jastrow also states that the Aramaic term panter is a panther or a leopard.

I am sure you probably have a copy on your bookshelf Simchat, so please check it out for yourself.

Here is a wiki bio about Jastrow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Jastrow

Also, these quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia may be of help to you:

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….


The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yeb. iv. 3. The mysterious phrase "that man" cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which R. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in "R. E. J." i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature—"that anonymous one," (the name of Jesus being avoided) and "bastard"; for which in later times was used). Such a family register may have been preserved at Jerusalem in the Judæo-Christian community.


Birth of Jesus.
…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).


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus#2

[TheRabbi]

The isssue is not whether the Talmud speaks of Yeshu Ha Notsri/Jesus of Nazareth. The issue is, which one? There were many. The name pool was very small back then, as evidenced by the Talpiyot tomb.

The point is that there was another Yeshu HaNotzri/Jesus of Nazareth who lived long before the Christian Jesus and his execution is mentioned in the Talmud. In fact Nazareth likely produced many, many men named Jesus.

[muffler dragon]

The point is that there was another Yeshu HaNotzri/Jesus of Nazareth who lived long before the Christian Jesus and his execution is mentioned in the Talmud. In fact Nazareth likely produced many, many men named Jesus.

From what I have read, Nazareth wasn't more than a couple family dwelling in first century CE; therefore, I don't know that there would be a plethora of such persons. However, I don't know if HaNotzri always references the locale.

[simchat_torah]

to HT/TG:I am sure you probably have a copy on your bookshelf Simchat, so please check it out for yourself.Its refreshing to see you actually providing substanance to a debate HT... but this isn't the thread for which I will continue to debate. This has been stated many times over. If you want, bring your evidence to the thread above in the debate section and I'll gladly address it there.



to md:

Fyi... outcroppings of developed civilization have been found near Nazareth dating back 9,000 years (supposedly). Numerous masonry homes have been found dating to the first couple of centuries c.e., and these would have been for the more wealthy at the time. Archeologist James Strange has found evidence of roughly 2,000 people living permanently within the borders of Nazareth during Jesus' time. There were numerous outcroppings around the city as well, which could have driven the population significantly higher for the "Nazareth region."

James Strange reference: *E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981*

[muffler dragon]

to md:

Fyi... outcroppings of developed civilization have been found near Nazareth dating back 9,000 years (supposedly). Numerous masonry homes have been found dating to the first couple of centuries c.e., and these would have been for the more wealthy at the time. Archeologist James Strange has found evidence of roughly 2,000 people living permanently within the borders of Nazareth during Jesus' time. There were numerous outcroppings around the city as well, which could have driven the population significantly higher for the "Nazareth region."

James Strange reference: *[I]E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981*

Thanks, ST.

1981 is much older than what I had suspected. I guess it depends on who performs the archeology.

[simchat_torah]

The only thing cited from James Strange is the citation that roughly 2,000 people lived within the city limits of Nazareth. The rest of the info came from other sources.

[simchat_torah]

More Citations for md


Stone houses: Chad Fife Emmett (1995). Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth. University of Chicago Press, 16.

Archeological Evidence of civilization dating back to 9,000 c.e.: Goring-Morris, A.N. “The quick and the dead: the social context of Aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh.” In: I. Kuijt (ed.), Social Configurations of the Near Eastern Neolithic: Community Identity, Hierarchical Organization, and Ritual (1997)

[torahgrandma]

to HT/TG:Its refreshing to see you actually providing substanance to a debate HT...



I am not HaTorah...I am Torah Grandma, thank you.



but this isn't the thread for which I will continue to debate. This has been stated many times over. If you want, bring your evidence to the thread above in the debate section and I'll gladly address it there.This is where I posted my substantiated information, this is where we shall discuss it....unless of course you have no response ;)

[simchat_torah]

This is where I posted my substantiated information, this is where we shall discuss itnice try. I won't be playing games. You have a choice. But I already know what you have chosen.

[torahgrandma]

nice try. I won't be playing games. You have a choice. But I already know what you have chosen.

No games here Mr Simchat, but let me clarify it for you. Everything that I post here is for the other members of the forum. When you talk, I post more. There are a whole lot of cats in the bag, so I am hoping that the discussion will continue. If not, I may just post them all anyway. ;).

[simchat_torah]

Just as deceitful and full of games as ever Higher Truth. I'm not going to bite on your bait. And if you had any integrity at all, you'd at least post your evidence in a formal debate thread where you can be held accountable.

[torahgrandma]

Just as deceitful and full of games as ever Higher Truth. I'm not going to bite on your bait. And if you had any integrity at all, you'd at least post your evidence in a formal debate thread where you can be held accountable.

Debate 101:

An ad hominem attack or false allegations utilized as a smoke screen is not a good substitute for a well constructed rebuttal.

A lot of people are admitting that the passages are about Jesus of Nazareth......Jewish people....

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/556

[visionary]

Both of you, quit the personal snippetts at each other and stick to topic at hand. If either one of you make another personal comment to about the other, you will be written up. First Warning.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Absolutely right. I think the NIV editors made huge blunders in their New Testament. They created questions in the minds of Evangelicals that even I don't see as valid.Hi Rabbi. I rather like the NIV Chronological Bible, but for deeper study of translations, I prefer going directly to the 3 main Greek MSS.
They can be found here and what I do is copy/paste the greek text to wordpad then write the english word next to them:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

John 1:1 | en <1722> {IN} arch <746> {A-BEGINNING} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD,} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} proV <4314> {TOWARD/NEAR} ton <3588> {THE} qeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} qeoV <2316> {GOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD.}


This Hebrew/Greek interlinear is also good and Orthodox Jews might be interested in that it uses "the damsel" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[torahgrandma]

Hi Rabbi. I rather like the NIV Chronological Bible, but for deeper study of translations, I prefer going directly to the 3 main Greek MSS.
They can be found here and what I do is copy/paste the greek text to wordpad then write the english word next to them:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

John 1:1 | en <1722> {IN} arch <746> {A-BEGINNING} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD,} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} proV <4314> {TOWARD/NEAR} ton <3588> {THE} qeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} qeoV <2316> {GOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD.}


This Hebrew/Greek interlinear is also good and Orthodox Jews might be interested in that it uses "the damsel" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Are you referring to the almah/bethulah confusion? Almah can also be translated as virgin, and that is quite easy to prove, even using Jewish sources.