Jesus in the Talmud

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
frank Rogers
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:07 pm

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by frank Rogers » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:43 am

Yes I have read through a few books and find no mention about these references. It seems they would be pretty earth shaking as the christian community and scholars would give them attention. Did Prasch have access to Unedited versions at Cambridge? Kris had mentioned Prasch emailed claiming something like that. I was curious exactly what Jacob he had claimed and still cannot find anyone else who would verify such.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Jesus in the Talmud

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:21 pm

If Jacob Prasch claims he came upon substantive Talmudic references that stayed hidden from other scholars like Risto Santala (1929-2012), the writers and scholars connected to the Caspari Center in Jerusalem and Michael Brown, and Prasch only has vague remembrances, I would put that under a very low bar of evidence validity.

bbyrd009
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:52 am

Re: The Impulsore Chresto is the Prophet Egyptian: my case

Post by bbyrd009 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:29 am

Giuseppe wrote:
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...
"Modern enthusiasts often forget that to the people of the first century the gospel of Jesus Christ was the intellectual branch of the Great Revolt. The armed, Zealot branch ultimately provoked Roman military intervention, which in turn led to the destruction of the Temple of YHWH in 70 AD, and where Paul's writings are riddled with pleas to resist peacefully in order to prevent the destruction, the gospels are a literary response to its finally happening..." http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... dp6knplChC "Taking up the cross"
"No Son of Man may die for another's sins..." Ezekiel 18:20

Post Reply