Read Dr David Instone-Brewer’s article Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a here. He has also authored the book Traditions of the Rabbis.
Read Dr David Instone-Brewer’s article Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a here. He has also authored the book Traditions of the Rabbis.
It is well known that many passages of the Talmud were censored by the church in Europe. But we have them from non-European sources. The problem is that the person mentioned lived over a century before the NT says Jesus did. Also since the name there is an abbreviation, we don’t know who it was. There is a catch 22, If it is Jesus, then he lived before the NT says he did. And if it is not, then there is no evidence from it that can be used.
It says Yeshu HaNotzri, it is pretty specific in that detail.
I am most interested Moshe, in your evidence to back the claim that the Talmud’s Yeshu HaNotzri lived 100 years earlier than the New Testament claims.
Happy to wait till after Pesach though, if you are busy.
Hi Moshe. I am interested. Why would the church want to censor the Talmud, and what passages did they censor?
Anything that appeared to be anti-Christian even if it wasn’t was taken out.
Where to even begin?
Assuming, IF – and only IF – it’s talking about Jesus –
A) As Moshe said above, the Yeshu mentioned lived a century before the time of Jesus
B)The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus executed ON Passover, not Passover eve
C)This is an execution by the Sanhedrin – love how Instone-Brewer just says, because the account is in disagreement with the Gospels, that the Jews changed it. What did he think they were, Church fathers?
D) The passage also says that Yeshua had friends in government. The NT offers no evidence of that.
In a nutshell, anyone stating as fact that this is talking about Jesus has to do more than just state it as fact.
Sundown is eve and is also the Passoever. The day began and ended by sunset.
Bear in mind that Ken identifies himself as an “Aryan”. That is the vantage point from which he condescends to dispense advice to the Jewish people.
Mind where you tread everyone.
Anon’s faeces are littering the discussion.
Of course, Ken, you are aware that the synoptics disagree with John (and possibly Paul) as to which date it was. The Synoptics agree that the Last Supper was the passover meal and Jesus dies on the first day of passover. John sees him as the Passover Lamb, and has him die the day before the passover meal. (It seems theologically Paul is following the ideas that will later appear in John.)
I think Moshe is referring to the idea that Yeshu haNotzeri is confused with Ben Stada who was a couple of generations earlier. They got confused because they were both charged with sorcery, and when the Toledoth Yeshu added the story of Jesus learning magic in Egypt and carving the NAME on his skin, more links and confusion resulted.
However, there is no doubt that the one “hung on the eve of Passover for sorcery and enticing Israel” was Jesus of Nazareth.
Please see further details at
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/bSan43a-Intro.htm
And see the full article which discusses dating in great detail at:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf
David, Moshe is referring to someone who lived around a hundred years before the time of Jesus. Ben Stada, according to the the passage you’re referring to – which is in Sanhedrin 67a – is referenced elsewhere in the Talmud. His father was killed by the Romans along with Rabbi Akiva -significantly after the time Jesus supposedly died. That would be early 2nd century. You’re confusing two entirely different people.
David, greetings. The story of Yeshu appears twice in Sanhedrin. In 1644 in Amsterdam they printed a small book called ‘Chasronos HaShes’ which included all those places where the censors required removal, but still appeared in the Talmuds printed in Sefardic lands under the Arabs. One passage which you have used is 43b, the other is 107b. In both places it appears as the abbreviation YSh’V, (usually pronounced Yeshu). The earlier passage talks about his death the later about his beginning. In the later passage we find that he was among those forced to flee under the persecution of the Pharisees by King Yanai. This is an historical event which we can place in the second century BCE.
Among Rabbinic sources there is a disagreement as to whether this person is the ‘historical Jesus’ or not. If he is, then based on the two passages in Sanhedrin he lived over 100 years too early. This appears to be the historical majority view of the Rabbis. It is why you will not find Rabbis saying he never existed.
The second view which is one of Tosephus and other sources is that it is another person who lived at an earlier time, and not the historical Jesus. There are some valid reasons. BOTH passages relate information that makes it impossible to have occurred under Roman rule. The earlier passage described the punishment of stoning (the person is stoned and then publically hanged for a short time as the Talmud explains elsewhere.) However in the time of Jesus they could not do that. The second passage mentions specific people and events which are from the late 2nd century BCE. It could not be about someone who lived in the mid 1st century CE.
As to the name, YShY stands for the words: His name should be obliterated, and is based on a verse in Proverbs. It is used because we do not want to name the names of wicked persons, so there is no need to assume it means Jesus, there were more then enough people worthy of that in the late second temple period. I would point out that one person (the teacher of Rebbe Meir) is only referred to as ‘Acher’ (the other one) except in one place in a Mishnah.
“It is used because we do not want to name the names of wicked persons, so there is no need to assume it means Jesus, there were more then enough people worthy of that in the late second temple period.”
Case in point! (See my prior comment on this)
I was just wondering, David. If your theory is correct, that it was Jesus whom the evil, deicidal Jewish people executed after their courts convicted him of sorcery and heresy, how does that comport with the Christian claim that Jesus was a saintly king who reigned over the Jews? And if you claim that the Talmud is fraudulent, then how does finding Jesus in it help the Christian argument that Jesus was a supernaturally sired member of a three-person god squad who died unjustly to prevent others the justice reward and punishment objectively, rightfully due to them?
Anonymous at least you are consistent, consistently offensive to everyone you disagree with!
Thanks David, look forward to reading these pieces.
Thankyou Dr Instone-Brewer for your comment.
I should say, I find the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Jesus of the Talmud a hugely attractive and generous idea, as it suggests that people don’t want to dismiss or curse Yeshua entirely, and they do respect the historical narrative of the Gospels.
As I understand it, the anti-Jesus narrative didn’t appear in a vaccuum, but was a response to the relentless anti-Judaism prevalent in Christendom.
I think both attitudes should be left in the middle ages, and it’s good to see Jews and Christians moving away from polemics against Jesus/ Judaism respectively.
Joseph,
What does Yeshu of Nazareth have to do with Joshua (Yeshua, with an “a”, in Hebrew)? You keep calling Jesus “Joshua”. I hope you realize they’re two different figures: the one, a Biblical hero, the other, a fictitious character from a bad anti-Semitic novel.
Joshua would be Yehoshua not Yeshua.
Thanks Joseph. Yeshu is an insult… a curse in fact meaning something bad for eternity. Yeshua is the correct name.
Joseph,
The only name given for Jesus in the only source document attesting to his supposed existence (the “new testament”) is Jesus. Not Yeshua.
Yeshua is an accurate transliteration of Joshua’s Hebrew name in the Hebrew Bible, as is Yehoshua–the two are both applied in the Jewish Bible to Joshua.
I think that you have an identity crisis with your god.
It is not ‘Jesus’ Anon it is a Greek version – Ἰησοῦς – of a Hebrew name which we are told is given him because ‘he shall save his people from their sins’. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not English.
You make a great point, worth emphasizing, Gev: the Christian bible is not a Jewish or Hebrew document. It’s literally Greek to the Jews. Hence the Greek named god, sired by another god who came down from on high to knock up a human girl–just like the Greek mythology, but quite foreign to the Jews.
Here we are again with you misrepresenting what people write, it is a characteristic of your comments here anonymous. Does a document have to be in Hebrew to be Jewish authored? No.
How would all your dear Christian friends feel about your good will toward them with such a caricature of their beliefs: another god who came down from on high to knock up a human girl
No one believes the Almighty had sex with Mary, but such derisive misrepresentations are all that we have come to expect from you.
Yeshua=Yehoshua… It’s one and the same name, only Yeshua is a shortened version. Just like Jonatan=Jehonatan. I personally know a chasidic boy who is name Yehoshua, but often is called by his family by the name Yeshua. Remember that the letter ‘Yod’ stands for Hashem and does not always have to be accompanied by the letter ‘Hey’…
‘Yeshu’ (YSH”U) indeed fits a lot of people who’re wicked…from Haman to actually even..Hitler.
Another example:
*Yosef=Yehosef
Another example:
*Yonatan=Yehonatan
Oh fair enough then.
Matthew 1:21 gives us the reason for the name Jesus is given. “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” His name means salvation, therefore we can see that Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) is the Greek form of a Hebrew name that means salvation. The English name Jesus is what has resulted from transliteration from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English.
Oh my, this should be my last posting for the moment.:) I think especially the Christian (Catholic) Bible makes names very confusing…. for example:
-Yehoshua Bin Nun is translated as=Joshua
-the Yeshua named in Ezra 2 is translated as Yesua or maybe sometimes Yeshua
-Yeshua Ben Sirah (deutero canon) is translated as Jesus.
All of these names read some form of Iesou(s) in the Septuagint (LXX). I think inconsistant translations like these are very disturbing and either the consequence of biased translation or just plain lack of knowledge.
Moshe is correct that Yeshu could be an abbreviation for the phrase “is name should be obliterated”, and this is a good explanation for why it was changed from Yeshua. The Munich Talmud preserves the full name “Yeshu haNotzeri” (Jesus the Nazarene).
The Notzerim was the name given to early Christians in the earliest manuscript of the Eighteen Benedictions (see more at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/18%20Benedictions.pdf )
Moshe assumes that the Talmud tradition which was removed from b.San.43a was all written at the same time. I have pointed out in my paper that the earliest core was “Jesus of Nazareth was hung on the Eve of Passover for sorcery and enticing Israel”. The details about the herald & stoning etc were added later. See the details at
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf
I would be interested in a response to the historical reasoning there.
David,
I’m confused, or perhaps you are.
The “new testament” does not record Jesus’ name as Yeshu or as Yeshua, only as Jesus. Gev and some of the others here have divined out of thin air an oral tradition, the invention of mere mortals, that Jesus had a Hebrew name that varied from the only known name assigned to him in the foundational Christian religious text. As you know, Christians don’t allow for extra-Biblical, unwritten additions or alterations to their bible, but setting aside their intellectually untenable bid to add to and subtract from the written word of Paul, where are you coming up with Jesus as Yeshu? Where in the Talmud did you find a statement by the rabbis that the Yeshu figure in the Talmud is the same as the Jesus character from the Christian “new testament”? Or, did you just make that part up?
usual evasive bullshit from Anon who simply can’t handle the fact the Jesus was a Jewish man with a Jewish name, and has given a typical non-response to David’s historical reasoning.
On the other hand, to give him his dues, Anon did admit to being confused. Mazal tov Anon!
There is a pattern of vulgarity amongst Jesus’ spokesmen here. We don’t find this sort of language on Jewish religious sites. I guess that’s just part of the total depravity missionaries bask in?
You never used such language here anon!? You never heard a hosid swear in Yiddish?
Anon to reply to a previous comment of yours:
“How would all your dear Christian friends feel about your good will toward them with such a caricature of their beliefs: another god who came down from on high to knock up a human girl.”
Although a Muslim also believes that christians believe this, they would never express it in such a way.
I don’t know how old you are, but no matter how old you are, death comes soon to all. You – now you’re probably thinking something even more foul to say – will have to face Hashem one day and tell Him waht you have just said to His face.Unless you repent, all these words you’ve said on RPP will certainly not allow you to RIP.
usual evasive bullshit from Anon who simply can’t handle the fact the Jesus was a Jewish man with a Jewish name, and has given a typical non-response to David’s historical reasoning.
On the other hand, to give him his dues, Anon did admit to being confused. Mazal tov Anon!
Dov, actually you seem to be the one that is confused and evasive?
Anon is asking a direct question, however, since you cannot answer
the question, you focus on trying to personally insult him…your tactics
reveal you don’t have a clue. Anon is right, this name Yeshua is the
invention of the messiyantics in trying recreate jesus for jews
who are vulnerable and ignorant. I can identify because at one
time i bought into this mishigas, and I am thankful and now realize
what a load of poop it is for jews to believe in jesus.
C’mon Bubby you can do better than that – see Gev’s comments above where Anon’s “argument” has already been demolished:
“It is not ‘Jesus’ Anon it is a Greek version – Ἰησοῦς – of a Hebrew name which we are told is given him because ‘he shall save his people from their sins’. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not English.”
Also, it does concern me as to why Anon would seemingly want to play down the Jewishness of Yeshua – this is normally the tactic of anti-Semites and anti-Zionists – does Anon realise that?
See here too Dov: http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php
Fascinating link, Gev. But obviously wrong. Even you know enough Hebrew to know that his conclusion is dead-on false, and that word yeshua does not have the word “lord” in it.
Apologetics is an interesting and different read because both the writer and the audience both know what’s written is patently untrue and that the writer is being disingenuous, and unconvincingly so, and yet, despite that weird friction the writer persists. But, that’s what your religion commands you to do.
I don’t agree with that part of it either, but I’m guessing that they are assuming that the yod is an elided form of Yah. The article is an edited version so Bivin may well have explained his reasoning there.
Above I quoted Gev, pat of which was what Anon said:
“How would all your dear Christian friends feel about your good will toward them with such a caricature of their beliefs: another god who came down from on high to knock up a human girl.”
I was commenting on Anon’s “another god who came down from on high to knock up a human girl.”
dear know-all commenters,
why don’t you just check the pre-christian (2-3. c. bce) greek translation of the hebrew bible, called septuagint (abbrev. LXX), for the name of moses’ successor and son of nun (in greek: nave) – you would marvel that the standard translation of “יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן” (joshua, son of nun) is “Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη” (jesus, son of nave).
it is also a recorded fact that the galilee dialect often had personal names shortened, like “lazar” for “eleazar”, “matthai” for “matatyahu” and so on; “yeshu” for “yehoshua`” or “yoshua`” would be completely normal.