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 42b

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:

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?