Jesus in the Talmud

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kris
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Kris » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:39 pm

I came across an article called Jesus in the Talumud by Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries. In it, he states:

There is something called the Avodat Zerah; it is one thing when Christians say they believe that Jesus did miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended from the Mount of Olives, but what about when people who were not only non-Christians but actually anti-Christian believe all these things?

You can read Roman historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus, and it is fascinating to read of how Jesus was understood by pagan Rome—even they did not deny the things that He did. It was said to be common knowledge throughout the Roman Empire that Jesus rose from the dead. The Avodat Zerah, however, says that Jesus did miracles as no other rabbi, that his disciples not only healed the sick but even raised the dead in His name, that after He was crucified He rose from the dead, and that He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives. All of that is actually in the Talmud. Even His enemies acknowledged the truth of what He did. This was written by rabbis who were trying to prevent other Jews from believing in Him, but they had to deal with the historicity of His miracles, of His disciples doing miracles, and not only of His crucifixion but also of His resurrection and ascension into heaven—the Talmud admits He did it!

I am unable to locate this information in the Talmud. I found the Avodah Zara-- but it doesn't say what this person says it does. Is anybody familiar with what this gentleman is saying, or whether the Talmud talks about Jesus' resurrection, etc. If it does, was it written much later than Jesus' time?

This guy really confused me as to where he got this information!!

https://www.moriel.org/online-sermons/. ... almud.html

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:17 pm

.
Suetonius and Tacitus do not refer to Jesus - they only refer collectively to 'Chrestus', a 'Christ', and 'Chrestians'.


In answer to your question about Jesus in the Talmud, there are these references -
  • some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud refer to Jesus the son of Pandera -
    • *Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 - "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
      * Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/8 - "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
      * Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/12 - "Jacob ... came to heal him. He said to him: we will speak to you in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
      * Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/13 - "Jacob ... came in the name of Jesus Pandera to heal him".
and
  • some Talmudic-era texts also refer to Jesus the son of Pantera (Pandera): -
    • + Tosefta Hullin 2:22f - "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pantera";
      + Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) - "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
There is also a Pantera assertion of Celsus.

.

User avatar
winningedge101
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:26 pm

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by winningedge101 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:56 pm

Suetonius is writing about Jesus. He assumed that Christus must have meant Chrestus since Chrestus is a common name and it wouldn't make since if a founder of a religious movement was named Christus. This is why he assumed that this person must have still been alive if he was the founder of this new religious movement.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The Impulsore Chresto is the Prophet Egyptian: my case

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:02 pm

I think Suetonius is talking about the Egyptian Prophet, for the following reasons:

1) the Egyptian Prophet was known to be a fighter hard to die, since he always manages to disappear after the defeat and to return with other forces to strike again the Romans. The theme of Egyptian Prophet's persistence in fighting is reflected by the continuity of him as impulsore: while he ''impulit'', Claudius ''expulit''. Both Carrier and Laupot agree about the seditious nature of the Chrestiani. Contra Laupot and pro Carrier, ''Auctor nominis eius..'' is an interpolation therefore Chrestus is the founder of the Chrestiani and not a historical Jesus. Contra Carrier and pro Laupot, I think the Fragment 2 is authentic and mentioned 'Chrestiani'.

2) Enrico Tucciardini finds in the Talmud that Jeschu ha-Notzri was a leader of latrones (i.e. zealots) and was called NEZER. He identifies rightly this NEZER with the founder of zealot Chrestiani mentioned in Suetonius and Tacitus. I think that the authors of the our Gospels called Jesus NAZARENE because their goal was the cooptation of the name NEZER of the Egyptian Prophet, as anti-marcionite reaction (the Gospel Jesus is not from heaven, as Marcion says, but he is from Nazaret, confirming he is Jewish at 100%).
He was from the region known as the Galilee (ha-Galel: Josh. 20.7), and according to an early but dubious tradition from “Nazareth.” But the tradition soon lost track of the ascription and seems to have used a place name for an imperfectly understood epithet based on the common Hebrew word נֵ֫צֶר or branch. No one knows what Jesus is supposed to have been a branch of, but the two likeliest prospects are of the sect associated with John the Baptist or the sect associated with Judas of Galilee.
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2 ... e-outline/

At contrary of Joseph Hoffmann, we know (via Talmud) that NEZER was a zealot title for their leader.

Note that the historical NEZER (the Egyptian Prophet) and John the Baptist were coopted both in the Christian tradition as reaction to Marcion: so they work as simbolic link of continuity between Judaism and the new religion.

3) Even if I don't follow Lena Einhorn, I think that the theme of exit from Egypt is derived from the Egyptian Prophet in virtue of the same reason (the cooptation of a 100% Jewish tradition to judaize entirely the marcionite Gospel Jesus). But the historical Paul didn't know nothing about the Egyptian Prophet. This is reflected in Acts when he is accused to be the Egyptian and his answer is no.

4) Ireneus says that Christ died at 52 years under Claudius. The Egyptian Prophet was active under Claudius. Therefore Ireneus knows that Jesus is called NAZARENE from NEZER. Acts of Apostles did coopt the same name CHRISTIANI from the followers of the Egyptian Prophet to do the full identification. Tertullian believes that the chrestiani victims of Nero are the pauline Christians. After Tertullian, someone interpolates the ''auctor nominis eius..'' passage.

In conclusion, we can say that the cooptation of the name 'Christiani' (and derived via itacism Christiani), the cooptation of the title NEZER from his owner, the cooptation of John the Baptist, were intended to claim, for the emerging proto-Catholic church, a more ancient past and a most Jewish past than all the other Christian sects.

IN CONCLUSION:

Only IF Mark is the first gospel, then my entire theorem fails, because it exists the concrete probability that the historical Jesus in person was the Jeschu ha-Nozri mentioned in the Talmud.

But I believe at moment that Mcn is more old than Mark...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kris
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Kris » Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:34 am

I sent a few emails to Jacob Prasch to ask him more about what he is asserting in his article. Since he never actually quotes his sources, it is unclear what his sources actually say. I also asked him to clarify some of he stuff he said about Daniel-- he talks about the Yalkut-- I can't even find this anywhere!

Supposing there is information in the Talmud that talks about Jesus-- it doesn't necessarily prove the historicity of Jesus, correct? Wasn't the Talmud written way after the gospels?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7094
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:09 am

Kris wrote:Supposing there is information in the Talmud that talks about Jesus-- it doesn't necessarily prove the historicity of Jesus, correct? Wasn't the Talmud written way after the gospels?
Talmud = Mishnah + Gemara.

The Mishnah is thought to have been redacted around 200 AD. The Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah) was written over the course of the next 2-3 centuries until the final forms of the Jerusalem Talmud (between 350 and 400 AD) and of the Babylonian Talmud (around 500 AD) were achieved.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:13 am

And to understand the repulsion of the Karaites, Sabbateans and and Frankists it is declared that where Gemara and Torah disagree, follow Gemara. Ridiculous
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:01 am

Kris wrote:I sent a few emails to Jacob Prasch to ask him more about what he is asserting in his article. Since he never actually quotes his sources, it is unclear what his sources actually say. I also asked him to clarify some of he stuff he said about Daniel-- he talks about the Yalkut-- I can't even find this anywhere!

Supposing there is information in the Talmud that talks about Jesus-- it doesn't necessarily prove the historicity of Jesus, correct? Wasn't the Talmud written way after the gospels?
There is a reasonably OK wiki article Jesus in the Talmud

Andrew Criddle

Kris
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Kris » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:48 pm

I finally did hear back from Jacob, and basically, he told me that I would not find any good information regarding what the Avodah Zerah says about Jesus in current Talmudic works. According to him, he studied at Cambridge and he was privy to some "uncorrupted"versions of this book that have material that wasn't edited out in the 1600's. Does anybody know about these earlier editions? Does the Avodah Zerah talk about Jesus being resurrected from the Mount of Olives? I read the Toledat Jeshu and saw that it does talk aobut Jesus performing miracles, etc and being killed. It also talks about one of his magic tricks being that he said the was going up to heaven and so he then rose up. However, a man named Judas was also able to rise up to heaven and he actually peed on Jesus and both fell back to earth. That is all I can find on Jesus being resurrected in the Talmud or Jewish literature. I am mainly interested in how the resurrection may have been interpreted. The way it is described in the article mentioned in my OP seem to portray it is a somewhat positive light, but perhaps it was presented negative, just like everything else about any Jesus in the Talmud was. As a reminder, here is what my OP had regarding the AZ:

The Avodat Zerah, however, says that Jesus did miracles as no other rabbi, that his disciples not only healed the sick but even raised the dead in His name, that after He was crucified He rose from the dead, and that He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives. All of that is actually in the Talmud. Even His enemies acknowledged the truth of what He did. This was written by rabbis who were trying to prevent other Jews from believing in Him, but they had to deal with the historicity of His miracles, of His disciples doing miracles, and not only of His crucifixion but also of His resurrection and ascension into heaven—the Talmud admits He did it!

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by GakuseiDon » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Kris wrote:You can read Roman historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus, and it is fascinating to read of how Jesus was understood by pagan Rome—even they did not deny the things that He did.
I don't think that is true, at least for those writers.

Suetonius (~115 CE) didn't claim anything about Jesus. Christianity he referred to a mischievous superstition. Tacitus (~115 CE) said that Christ was crucified, but again that Christianity was basically a cult.

Lucian (~150 CE) seems to call Jesus a crucified "sage", but that Christians were gullible idiots.

Celsus (~170 CE) is the only one who claims that Jesus could perform miracles. Jesus was born out-of-wedlock to Mary, and Jesus went to Egypt where he learned Egyptian sorcery. He used that sorcery to set up claims that he was God. Celsus was obviously heavily influenced by the contents of the Gospels.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Post Reply