I think Cecil may have gotten something which I regard as really important wrong and I’m only quoting two sources because I’m in a bit of a rush right now, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen other writings which also disagree with him on this one.
Wikipedia says differently:
"A long tradition of interpreting the term as a reference to Jesus exists outside normative Jewish commentary. This interpretation is first seen in the writing of Celsus who provided an account of Jesus which he claimed he obtained from a Jew. In this account Jesus is said to be the illegitimate child of Mary and a soldier named Panthera. The Jewish tale that Celsus refers to is recognized as relating to Yeshu ben Pandera mentioned in the Tosefta [15], where Celsus understood Yeshu to mean Jesus and Pandera to be the name Panthera. (Celsus wrote in the late second century CE before the final redaction of the Talmud and Tosefta but well after origins of the account during the time of Eliezer ben Hurcanus.) The Talmud itself does not make any such equation and indeed places Yeshu ben Pandera in the mid second century CE…"
Also Rabbi Gil Student concludes his study of Talmudic passages by writing that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud.
Innerestin’ comment, Bpelta. I’ve slightly edited your thread title to make it clear what you’re commenting on, for the convenience of other readers. No biggie. I’m hoping this will spark some debate and learned commentary!
I thought the Josephus passage had been shown to be, most likely, a later insertion by Christians.
In short, two of the three non-Christian sources cited are questionable at best. And the Tacitus and Josephus passages could be merely referencing the cult rather than asserting the person’s existence.
Powers &8^]
Thanks. If I’m right, is it possible we could get a retraction at that article? The Jews’ relationship with gentiles is a historically sensitive subject and it’s supposed passages regarding Jesus from the Talmud. I don’t suspect Cecil of anti-semitism (the only crime I suspect Cecil of is being cooler than Chuck Norris) and Jews are almost by definition not down with Jesus’s messiahship, but I do think it’s important that a fact like this be cleared up.
(Btw, proposal for a new forum: if anybody catches Cecil writing something wrong, they get to ask the master a question)
The problem when asking whether or not was Jesus mentioned in the Talmud is what part and what book.
There are two separate Talmuds. One is called the Jerusalem Talmud. The other is the Babylonian Talmud. It is the Babylonian Talmud that most people refer to.
Both Talmuds contain what is called the Mishnah which was compiled by Rabbi Judah HaNasi in 200 CE, about 140 years after the destruction of the Temple and 160 year after Jesus supposedly lived. The Mishnah was a compilation of the various oral laws – practices that were considered part of the Mosaic law, but were not explicitly stated. The Mishnah is very brief and consists of little commentary.
The other section of the Talmud is called the Gemara. This was written after the Mishnah and is suppose to be an expansion of what the Mishnah covers. When people talk about the Talmud, they are usually referring to this part. In the Talmud, you’ll see a few lines of Mishnah followed by sometimes pages of Gemara in reference to that Mishnah.
The Babylonian Talmud was finished being compiled around 500 CE which is 440 years after the destruction of The Temple and 470 years after Jesus supposedly lived.
Also remember that the Talmud was compiled before the printing press. This meant it was hand copied and there were few copies around. Any alleged anti-Christian or anti-Jesus quotation would have been censored. After the printing press was invented, the Talmud was now in the hands of Christian printers and the censorship was even heavier. Anything that the Christians thought could be a reference to Christians or Jesus in an unfavorable light would often be expunged or changed.
So, we have a set of books compiled hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived, and suppressed and censored by Christians. What we have are a few stray characters that both Christians and Jews have taken to be Jesus depending upon their point of view.
We cannot use any Talmudic reference as any sort of proof one way or another.
In my last post, I wrote:
“The Jews’ relationship with gentiles is a historically sensitive subject and it’s supposed passages regarding Jesus from the Talmud.”
That should read:
“The Jews’ relationship with gentiles is a historically sensitive subject, since supposed passages regarding Jesus from the Talmud were used to incite hatred and violence.”
This week I’ve been zombie-ing out on my sentences for some reason…
That’s mostly accurate, but bear in mind, there ARE uncensored, more accurate manuscripts (such as those Andalusian ones used by authorites of the geonic and early rishonic periods, generally in lands of Islamic sovereignty). I just studied off a copy of an 800 year old manuscript myself 3 weeks ago. The differences between it and today’s standard text of the Talmudh Babhli published in 1520 by (a convert from Judaism) Daniel Bamberg in Christian Europe, are subtle but crucial.
I did not get up to any parts which refer specifically to Jesus or Christianity (at least not directly), but it would be interesting to get my hands on ancient manuscripts or copies thereof and see if the differences pre-censorship are reflected in rulings based on those sections by Maimonides, the RI"F, Sherira or Hai Gaon, etc.