Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - NOVA

Cheese · 11-24-2007, 11:24 AM

I apologize for the length of this next part, but I am not an expert on Rabbinic Tractates....(from iidb.org)

The most important rabbinic writing is the Talmud. It contains two parts: the Mishna and the Gemara. The Mishna consists of oral traditions that circulated in Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (compare Mk 7:1-13). They were, according to tradition, written down in Hebrew by Rabbi Judah. (Additional traditions, which did not find their way into the Mishna, were later incorporated into a work called the Tosefta.) Around these traditions arose various commentaries called Gemara, which were written in Aramaic. Together, the Mishna and Gemara make up the Talmud.

The Gemara, which arose in Palestine, was combined with the Mishna sometime between A.D. 350 and 400 to make up what is known as the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud (PT). In Babylon a Gemara was added to the Mishna approximately A.D. 500. Together they make up the better-known and much larger Babylonian Talmud (BT). The Talmud conssts of sixty-three "Tractates" arranged in six "Orders." The main problem invovled in evaluating Talmuding materials is to separate later accretions from earlier materials. All too often it appears that the Talmudic materials witness not to what actually took place in a previous period but to an idealized rendering of how things should have taken place if the later rabbinic understanding of the law had been in force.

The Talmud contains several references to Jesus. The most famous is found in _b. Sanhedrin_ 43a (BT):

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

We find a number of parallels between this tradition and the Gospel accounts. Jesus' death is associated with Passover and occurs on the eve of the Passover (compare Jn 19:13). Indirectly his miracle-working activity is witnessed to by the claim that he worked sorcery (compare Mk 3:22, where Jesus' miracles are attributed to a demonic source). He is accused of apostasy, and although the penalty for this is "stoning," Jesus was not stoned but "hanged," that is, crucified. No mention is made of the Roman part in the trial of Jesus. But that is not surprising in that the concern of the Mishna is to explain the Jewish law, and in this repsect the role of Rome was irrelevant. There is present an acknowledgment that the leadership of Israel was involved in Jesus' death. Mention is made of Jesus' having had disciples, but only five are listed, and their names to do not make a great deal of sense (Matthai = Matthew; Nakai = Nicodemus?; Nezer = Nazarene?: Buni = Boanerges, the Sons of Thunder?; Todah = Thaddaeus?).

The question must be raised whether this material comes from oral traditions of those who were themselves eyewitnesses of the tiral or who had access to eyewitness reports of what took place. If so, these traditions would be extremely valuable. Most of the material, however, arose from later Jewish-Christian debates and appars to be apologetic in naure. for instance, the statement that for forty days a search was made for witnesses on Jesus' behalf looks like an apologetic on the part of rabbinic Judaism against the Christian claim that Jesus did not receive a fair trial. Thus we find that whereas this material is most helpful in the investigation of Judaism and the early church during the second through fifth centuries, it is less valuable for the study of the life of Jesus.

Several other refernces in the Talmud have been seen as referring to Jesus. But they are for the most part problematic in that they do not mention Jesus directly. The Jewish avoidance of using the name of heretics could explain this. The following passage may be counterapologetics to the Christian claim of the virginal conception.

Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the word]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! - R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: That is what men say, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters." (b. Sanhedrin 106a; compare also 106b)

Said R. Simeon B. 'Azzai: I found a roll of geneaological records in Jerusalem, and therein was written, "so-and-so is a [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman," which confirms the vew of R. Joshua ( b. Yebamot 49a)

This also brings to mind the claim of a man named Celsus as recorded in Origin (c. 248): "Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera" ( Contra Celsum 1.32). It is evident that this reference is an apologetic by the neo-platonist Celsus against the Christian claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she conceived him. There may even be a pun here. Whereas the Christians claimed that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin (parthenos, the Greek term for virgin), opponents said, "No, not of a parthenos but of Panthera." By a simple reversal of the _r_ and _n_ they "discovered" the real father of Jesus and argued that Jesuss was illegitimate.

The references given above from the Tractates _Sanhedrin_ and _Yebamot_ may very well represent a similar attack on the Christian claim. Several arguments favor this interpretation. For one, although the name of the woman and child are not given, it is assumed that people would know to whom these sayings referred. Jesus would certainly have been a prime candidate in people's minds. Second, the reference to a carpenter fits well with the fact that Joseph and Jesus were carpeenters, even though it is not the husband of Mary but the adulterer who is so described. It may also be that the reference to Mary's being a descendant of princes and governors may be an allusion to the Gospel geneaologies in which we find such royal figures as David, Solomon and Zerubabbel (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-27. It has also been argued that the name Balaam was seen by Jews as a type for Jesus. If so, the above passages are probably references to Jesus created as counterpropaganda against Christian claims. They are, however, secondary in nature and the result of later Jewish-Christian debate rather than contemporary, eyewitness reports."

Several passages dealing with the treatment of heresy have also been
[34]
suggested as possible allusions to Jesus even though his name is not present.

b. Berakot: "May our company not be like that of Elisha, from which issued Gehazi. _In our bread places_: may we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public." One manuscript (M) adds to the end of this saying, "like the Nazarene."

b. Sanhedrin 103a. "Another interpretation: 'There shall no evil befall thee' - though wilt not be affrighted by nightmares and dread thoughts; 'neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling' - thou will not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns his food." The expression "to burn food" refers to accepting or propounding heresy.

Other possible allusions to Jesus or his teachings may be found in b. Sabbat; 116b (a possible reference to Mt 5:17) and _b. Sanhedrin 107b, where one manuscript tradition refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray."

The key question that arises involves the origin of these rabbinicrabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus. references. The value of these passages would be greatly enhanced if they originated from contemporaries of Jesus who were eyewitnesses of the events they were reporting. This would be true even though they presented the side of Jesus' opponents. On several occasions, however, aspects of these accounts seem to be due less to eyewitness reports than to later Jewish intereaction with the teachings and claims of the early church. This is especially true with respect for such matters as the claim that a forty-day search for witnesses on Jesus' behalf preceded his trial and, if the accounts refer to Jesus, to his brith being due not to virginal conception but to adultery on the part of his mother. As a result, the

rabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus.

11-24-2007, 11:24 AM	#306
Cheese Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Exp:	I apologize for the length of this next part, but I am not an expert on Rabbinic Tractates....(from iidb.org) The most important rabbinic writing is the Talmud. It contains two parts: the Mishna and the Gemara. The Mishna consists of oral traditions that circulated in Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (compare Mk 7:1-13). They were, according to tradition, written down in Hebrew by Rabbi Judah. (Additional traditions, which did not find their way into the Mishna, were later incorporated into a work called the Tosefta.) Around these traditions arose various commentaries called Gemara, which were written in Aramaic. Together, the Mishna and Gemara make up the Talmud. The Gemara, which arose in Palestine, was combined with the Mishna sometime between A.D. 350 and 400 to make up what is known as the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud (PT). In Babylon a Gemara was added to the Mishna approximately A.D. 500. Together they make up the better-known and much larger Babylonian Talmud (BT). The Talmud conssts of sixty-three "Tractates" arranged in six "Orders." The main problem invovled in evaluating Talmuding materials is to separate later accretions from earlier materials. All too often it appears that the Talmudic materials witness not to what actually took place in a previous period but to an idealized rendering of how things should have taken place if the later rabbinic understanding of the law had been in force. The Talmud contains several references to Jesus. The most famous is found in _b. Sanhedrin_ 43a (BT): On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. We find a number of parallels between this tradition and the Gospel accounts. Jesus' death is associated with Passover and occurs on the eve of the Passover (compare Jn 19:13). Indirectly his miracle-working activity is witnessed to by the claim that he worked sorcery (compare Mk 3:22, where Jesus' miracles are attributed to a demonic source). He is accused of apostasy, and although the penalty for this is "stoning," Jesus was not stoned but "hanged," that is, crucified. No mention is made of the Roman part in the trial of Jesus. But that is not surprising in that the concern of the Mishna is to explain the Jewish law, and in this repsect the role of Rome was irrelevant. There is present an acknowledgment that the leadership of Israel was involved in Jesus' death. Mention is made of Jesus' having had disciples, but only five are listed, and their names to do not make a great deal of sense (Matthai = Matthew; Nakai = Nicodemus?; Nezer = Nazarene?: Buni = Boanerges, the Sons of Thunder?; Todah = Thaddaeus?). The question must be raised whether this material comes from oral traditions of those who were themselves eyewitnesses of the tiral or who had access to eyewitness reports of what took place. If so, these traditions would be extremely valuable. Most of the material, however, arose from later Jewish-Christian debates and appars to be apologetic in naure. for instance, the statement that for forty days a search was made for witnesses on Jesus' behalf looks like an apologetic on the part of rabbinic Judaism against the Christian claim that Jesus did not receive a fair trial. Thus we find that whereas this material is most helpful in the investigation of Judaism and the early church during the second through fifth centuries, it is less valuable for the study of the life of Jesus. Several other refernces in the Talmud have been seen as referring to Jesus. But they are for the most part problematic in that they do not mention Jesus directly. The Jewish avoidance of using the name of heretics could explain this. The following passage may be counterapologetics to the Christian claim of the virginal conception. Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the word]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! - R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: That is what men say, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters." (b. Sanhedrin 106a; compare also 106b) Said R. Simeon B. 'Azzai: I found a roll of geneaological records in Jerusalem, and therein was written, "so-and-so is a [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman," which confirms the vew of R. Joshua ( b. Yebamot 49a) This also brings to mind the claim of a man named Celsus as recorded in Origin (c. 248): "Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera" ( Contra Celsum 1.32). It is evident that this reference is an apologetic by the neo-platonist Celsus against the Christian claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she conceived him. There may even be a pun here. Whereas the Christians claimed that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin (parthenos, the Greek term for virgin), opponents said, "No, not of a parthenos but of Panthera." By a simple reversal of the _r_ and _n_ they "discovered" the real father of Jesus and argued that Jesuss was illegitimate. The references given above from the Tractates _Sanhedrin_ and _Yebamot_ may very well represent a similar attack on the Christian claim. Several arguments favor this interpretation. For one, although the name of the woman and child are not given, it is assumed that people would know to whom these sayings referred. Jesus would certainly have been a prime candidate in people's minds. Second, the reference to a carpenter fits well with the fact that Joseph and Jesus were carpeenters, even though it is not the husband of Mary but the adulterer who is so described. It may also be that the reference to Mary's being a descendant of princes and governors may be an allusion to the Gospel geneaologies in which we find such royal figures as David, Solomon and Zerubabbel (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-27. It has also been argued that the name Balaam was seen by Jews as a type for Jesus. If so, the above passages are probably references to Jesus created as counterpropaganda against Christian claims. They are, however, secondary in nature and the result of later Jewish-Christian debate rather than contemporary, eyewitness reports." Several passages dealing with the treatment of heresy have also been [34] suggested as possible allusions to Jesus even though his name is not present. b. Berakot: "May our company not be like that of Elisha, from which issued Gehazi. _In our bread places_: may we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public." One manuscript (M) adds to the end of this saying, "like the Nazarene." b. Sanhedrin 103a. "Another interpretation: 'There shall no evil befall thee' - though wilt not be affrighted by nightmares and dread thoughts; 'neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling' - thou will not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns his food." The expression "to burn food" refers to accepting or propounding heresy. Other possible allusions to Jesus or his teachings may be found in b. Sabbat; 116b (a possible reference to Mt 5:17) and _b. Sanhedrin 107b, where one manuscript tradition refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray." The key question that arises involves the origin of these rabbinicrabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus. references. The value of these passages would be greatly enhanced if they originated from contemporaries of Jesus who were eyewitnesses of the events they were reporting. This would be true even though they presented the side of Jesus' opponents. On several occasions, however, aspects of these accounts seem to be due less to eyewitness reports than to later Jewish intereaction with the teachings and claims of the early church. This is especially true with respect for such matters as the claim that a forty-day search for witnesses on Jesus' behalf preceded his trial and, if the accounts refer to Jesus, to his brith being due not to virginal conception but to adultery on the part of his mother. As a result, the rabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus.