Jesus in the Talmud

Along with ' TheTalmud Unmasked ' byPrenaitis , this is a book that should be read by EVERYONE .

Good and helpful

Peter Schäfer argues extremely well for the theory that the few but powerfully disturbing polemical references in the Talmud to Jesus of Nazareth are all genuinely Rabbinic but relatively late and represent a counter-narrative to the Gospel stories, rather than a genuine Jewish historical tradition or folk-memory. Sometimes the Rabbinic propagandists rely on pagan Roman accusations against the early Christians, such as the libels that the Eucharist and mixed-sex religious meetings were cannibalistic and incestuous sexual orgies.We know of these pagan accusations against the early Christians from Christian attempts to repudiate them. In the works of Tertullian and Justin Martyr, however, blame for their invention is typically shifted onto the Jews. Peter Schäfer acknowledges this antisemitic theme of early Christian polemics but he does not add (as I would) that the half-dozen references to Jesus in the Talmud, however harsh the polemic, are innocent and mild compared to the reams of vicious and disgusting Christian invective against the Jews.Two of Peter Schäfer's novel theories are that Rav Hisda (7th century) was the author of the anti-Christian polemic in the Babylonian Talmud; and that Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrkanos (1st century) was made the object of much later Rabbinic criticism of Gentile Christian practises (so the story of the arrest of Rabbi Eliezer by the Romans as a 'heretic' means he was arrested as a Christian who approved of sexual orgies).Peter Schäfer does not persuade me that the story of Joshua ben Perachia and his disciple called 'Jesus' refers to Jesus the Nazarene and is a polemic based on an accusation of sexual impropriety. The chronological disparity is insurmountable: Joshua ben Perachia lived 200 years before Jesus the Nazarene. Also, Peter Schäfer accepts the Christian interpretation of 'Son of God' as a divine appellation and therefore, in the Jewish view, an idolatrous and blasphemous claim; but the expression 'Son of God' is a commonplace of Judaism and neither blasphemous nor idolatrous. Schäfer more accurately notes the Rabbinic discussion that distinguishes between one who tells others that he is God and one who teaches others to worship him as God: only the latter is a punishable idolater.These criticisms aside, 'Jesus in the Talmud' is an excellent book, full of fascinating ideas and clearly written.

The author does not set up his subject to my liking.What was the state of Babylonian rabbis to Jerusalem rabbis during the 1st century?Did the religious establishment of Babylon travel back and forth to Jerusalem?Did the religious establishment of Jerusalem travel back and forth to Babylon?Did Jesus or any of his disciples travel to Babylon?Were there Babylonian rabbis who were eyewitnesses to Jesus? Who were they?We know rabbis of Jerusalem experienced Jesus first hand.Does the Babylonian Talmud only reflect activities and debates that took place in Jerusalem?Were the major players and contributors to thought only in Jerusalem with their being no intellectual capital of consequence in Babylon?What was the source material for the editors of the Jerusalem Talmud vs. the Babylonian Talmud. Did the two schools of editors share primary sources?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1)There is exciting information about Christianity at the time of Constantine in this book. Peter Schafer's book added to what I learned having read Constantine the Great: And the Christian Revolution by G. P. Baker.2)On page 122, the author writes: "The polemic [between Jews and Christians / between two competing 'religions' under the suspicious eye of the Sasanian authorities] that the Bavli shares with us is scanty and has unfortunately been tampered with by Christian censors..."To what is the author referring? How has the content of the Bavli been tampered with by Christian censors? Alternatively, how has the polemic been tampered with by Christian censors?The author needs after "...been tampered with by Christian censors..." (See "Appendix: Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship, page 132.) However, once one reads the page to which the reference should be made there are still questions. 1) While the author points out the difference in political climate between Jerusalem under Roman rule and Babylonia under Parthian and Sasanian rulerships and the lack of freedom to speak/write vs the freedom to speak/write, he does not explain censorship on both sides of the West-East divide. 2) In his list of Bavli Manuscripts, there appears to be no West-East divide. The majority of the manuscripts, if not all are from the West. How is it that no manuscripts survived in the region from which the Bavli originated? Did the Muslim conquest of Persia bring censorship and/or the destruction of manuscripts? The answer seems to be no since the Bavli dates to the 7th century after the Sasanian empire underwent the Isalmic conquest. This makes the author's comments about the Bavli's anti-Christian stance during Sasanian persecution of Christians weak and in need of extended treatment.3)Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochba (Jewish Messiah, according to Rabbi Akiva) revoltvs._[name of tannaim/s]__? and Jesus (Christian Messiah) revolt during the mid 30s Common Era_[name of tannaim/s]__? and the position of the rabbis as to whether or not to submit to Rome - Jewish Rebellion to the Destruction of the TempleReferencing the above, it is quite evidenced that the Talmud includes Rabbi Akiva, a revolt and a Jewish Messiah.It is also quite evidenced that we find Hillel and Shammai in the Talmud. We also find Yoma 39b where Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai "foretells" the destruction of the Temple. So, Jesus wasn't the only one to "foretell" the destruction of the temple. (Which prophecy came first Johanan's or Jesus'?)When I think on Jesus in the Talmud, I think of Jesus' crime against Rome, Jesus' display on "Palm Sunday" which was an affront to Rome. What seems to be apparent in Peter Schafer's book and in the Talmud itself is that there isn't an equal distribution of editorial coverage of tannaims and the Bar Kochba revolt vs. tannaims and the Biblical Jesus revolt of the mid-30s, and the tannaims and the leaders of the revolt of the late 60s Common Era.In conclusion of this point, Peter Schafer's book could benefit from a chart that showing the tannaim, amoraim--list of contributors--and the year they lived. The passages he cites for Jesus go back to what years of Oral Scholarship?4)The author misleads people into thinking he's covered all the references to Jesus in the Talmud, but he fails to mention Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 105a. This should have been added to his coverage of Jesus and Ancient Egyptian magic/sorcery. Ancient Egyptian creation myths are related to Sanhedrin 105a. Here, Balaam is Jesus because after reading Numbers chapters 22-24, it would not be the Balaam of the Torah who was practicing Egyptian sorcery but Jesus.An Egyptological perspective factors into an accurate concept of Jesus. One book that covers this subject is  The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy .5)This book is a good read for Christians who have been taught the hope of interfaith dialogue between Jews and Christians without seeing its limits. It is also a good read for Jews for Jesus for the same reason.This book shows the contempt the Babylonian Talmud had for Jesus and for whatever signs of support God gave to Jesus.6)I thought it was interesting that neither the Jerusalem Talmud nor the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) mentions the Palm Sunday event. In this book of Peter Schafer, one reason for Jesus' execution is that Christianity led Jews into idolotry. While Jesus may have said things that could be taken as idolatrous, the Jesus of Paul (Christianity) needed to be executed as well, if not more so.The book cautions the reader to be careful about reaching conclusions about the Historical Jesus from the Talmud because the Babylonian Talmud is more clearly reacting to the "Johannine" Syrian Diatessaron ("Harmony " of the Four Gospels) by Tatian (120 - 173 C.E.) rather than eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the tannaim. However, Schafer does not explain how Sanhedrin 43a is only sourcing the Diatessaron and not a historical Jesus. Sanhedrin 43a explains that Jesus was close to government/royalty.And as the Talmud does not pick up on the ramifications of a historical Palm Sunday event, the Gospels do not pick up on the talmudic allegation of idolatry against Jesus. Neither the Bible, Sunday schools or seminaries articulate this position. The case made against Jesus seems to be a good case. Those who chose Jesus over Barabas may have been given less credit than they deserve. However, Christian theology counters Jesus is God and therefore cannot be an idol before G-d. This was not the public theology of Jesus during his lifetime. The Johannine declaration of Jesus being the Word of God in the beginning probably was not a tenet preached by Jesus. Was this a secret teaching of Jesus? I do not know.(First draft - August 1, 2011) / (Second draft - November 6, 2011) / (Third draft - November 13, 2011) /(4th draft - Nov. 25, 2011) / (5th draft - Dec. 3, 2011)

Te book is rather controversial since it is very difficult to say if passages of Talmud that sometimes associated with Jesus really refer to Jesus of Gospels. For once Talmud speak in on place about a person who lived about 90 year earlier then Jesus and in another about the same tame later yet both passages somehow associated with Jesus that Christians worship.It is true that many Jews including known rabies associated these passages with Christianity yet there is no "official" point of view in Judaism about the subject. So the content of the book is just on of the possible (and not even the most probable) interpretation.

It's the product of those who rejected the divinity of Christ

An excellent study into the reality of Jewish attitudes towards ChristianityThere is no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian' connection.The Talmud makes it clear that Judaism considers Jesus 'the son of a whore' and the Rabbis confirm that the Jews murdered Jesus.The only connection is hate for Christians and confirmation that it was not the Roman that murdered Jesus but the Rabbis!Every Christian should read this scholarly work written by a Jew.The facts on the ground in Israel today confirm the hate Jews have for Christians by the many incidents of attacks and spitting on Christian Priests .Too sad really

Peter Schafer has been one of my favorite writers and without doubt he delivers here again

L'auteur fait un relevé des principaux passages du Talmud où Jésus est mentionné. Selon lui, les scribes du Talmud auraient eu une connaissance précise des textes évangéliques et les passages mettant en scène Jésus seraient en fait des contre-narrations évangéliques savamment élaborées. Mais Schafer ne retient que les éléments qui paraissent aller dans le sens de son hypothèse. Une analyse plus approfondie des sources tend plutôt à montrer que les rabbins de Babylone n'avaient qu'une connaissance indirecte et très superficielle des textes évangéliques.

I heartily second the glowing reviews Jesus and the Talmud has received from the scholarly community across the board. This is an important book, ably described by many scholars in the "Editorial Reviews" section. I would like to add, in particular, to the praise toward the book's clear and very accessible style. I teach and write history for a living, and not all academics make things so easy on their readers.I suppose the David Dukes of the world will find ammunition in Schaefer's work as long as the people they appeal to don't read it. I suppose also that some Jewish readers who do not understand the world of the distant past or the Middle Ages might have bruised feelings. Such are the dangers when entering into waters that spill onto some very ugly history of the last hundred years.I find Schaefer's argument completely convincing. Considering the rapid spread of the "Jesus movement" in the 1st century (and especially when considering that Jesus' earliest followers, like Paul, came to the synagogues spread throughout the ancient Mediterranean,) it strikes me as naive to believe that many, perhaps most, Jews of the era never heard anything of the "good news" and that what they did hear they simply ignored. It also certainly makes sense that Jews in and around what is now Israel, whose rabbis compiled the Jerusalem Talmud, would have been much more circumspect when dealing with the new Christians than those living in the Mideast whose leaders created the Babylonian Talmud. It would be interesting to know what Jews thought of the early Christians during the Temple period, but other events were much closer and important. After the Jewish revolts against Rome in Judea (66-135 CE)Jews remaining in Roman territory had good reason to keep their heads down. Jews in the Fertile Crescent, however, were either at the fringe of the Roman Empire or, before Constantine, living under Sassanid Persian rule, a friendlier environment. There rabbis could write what they believed.And as Schaefer shows, the leaders of Rabbinic Judiasm, displayed no affection for the increasingly powerful Christian movement. How could they? Political and cultural pluralism were not commonly found outside the contemporary world. the Christians claimed that a Jew was the revealed son of God. With an issue like this it is hard to find grounds for polite disagreement. If the Christians were right, the foundations of Rabbinic Judaism were built on sand. In the event, the Christian message was rejected by most Jews. (And, although Schaefer's book by necessity deals with the writings of the Jewish religious elites, I think it a fair assumption that ordinary Jews understood their leaders and agreed with them.) It would be likewise difficult to believe that as Christianity became the biggest religion in the world that the guardians of the Torah and Talmud would or could ignore it. So, in disparate pieces, rabbis constructed an alternate narrative that struck not at Christianity itself but upon the figure of Christ. This narrative represented literal history no more than did the Gospels and like the Christian writings were filled with symbolism. No doubt this reflected deeply held and sincere feelings. It was also important to discourage Jews in Christian lands to solve a lot of problems and simply convert. So, what developed, according to Schaefer was a kind of counter-narrative to the Gospels that portrayed Jesus as illegitimate, a trickster, a monumental liar and a betrayer of his people. Naturally this implied Christians were, at best, dupes. So, if this led some rabbis to picture Jesus as sharing a particularly grisly corner of hell with Titus, destroyer of the Temple, it all made sense.In the long run, of course, this situation developed an ugly chemistry. Christians often viewed Jews as particularly nasty infidels and Jews responded with quiet contempt. Indeed, the segregation of the Jewish from the Christian communities in Europe was a reciprocal relationship. Jews lived in an often hostile environment. However, if isolation was not enforced inside the community, its leaders feared (with good reason I'd guess) that conversion would eat away at the heart of Judaism itself.This is the kind of subject that must be addressed if we are to understand fully the relationship that existed over nearly 2,000 years between Christians and Jews. As it stands the shadow of the 3rd Reich makes it very difficult to describe the full and complex web that made up this relationship over time. It has done so to the extent that recent accounts that have emphasized a series of outrages committed by Christians against the Jews have, in my view, obscured the superstitious, parochial and violent atmosphere that existed throughout Christian lands until the French Revolution. For instance, much has been made understandably about the murder of Jews along the Rhine and in Jerusalem during the First Crusade. However, it is almost certain that far more Christian Cathar "heretics" were killed during the Albigensian Crusade. And if Jews suffered pogroms and discrimination in Early Modern Europe, they were better off than eccentric women in rural Europe some 30,000 of which were killed as witches. I am not trying to compare horror stories here. But at some point and at some level we have to accept the past as it was, a fascinating but often crude and brutal place. And we should realize that this brutality was apportioned with a kind of ugly equality.The point to remember is that we do not live in the world of antiquity or the Middle Ages. And Hitler is dead and disgraced. Scholars of all stripes should continue "full steam ahead" in studying the intersection between the forces that shape history and religious faith as it played out in the past.Eric Bergerud