Jesus in the Talmud?

[Toto]

Has anyone heard of this?

Dating of Matthew? (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/6014126.htm)

In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0268038570/internetinfidels), Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.

Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."

The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier.

The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late date of A.D. 85-90 or later," said Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.

"That is very significant and very important," said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in Georgia, because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did."

Blomberg said a close study of the parody's wording indicates it was based on an existing text. If that text was Matthew, the Gospel existed much earlier than some scholars believe.

Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.

"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it," Blomberg said.


Apart from the apologetic nonsense, this seems a bit unlikely. I was under the impression that the Talmud references to Jesus could not be dated very accurately.

[yummyfur]

So which one is it attributed to? The first Gamaliel(and most famous, grandson of Hillel) died at about 52 CE.

The other famous ones are Gamaliel II and III. It is unlikely this is sourced to Gamaliel I, as Acts portrays him in a positive light and by other more dubious traditions, is supposed to have converted to Christianity. Gamaliel II (Gamaliel of Jabneh, grandson of first Gamaliel) wrote some anti-sectarian tracts, so he would be most likely.

He succeded Johanan ben Zakkai at Jabneh, but I thought his stuff was dated starting around 90 CE and on. There were a total of I believe 6 Gamaliels, with the rest coming well after the first century.

I've never heard of the parody, but I remeber vaguely something about Gamaliel II using a supposed qoute from Matthew in a court case with a Christian in Rome or something (Gamaliel II was in Rome for some time, at about 95 CE or so, at about the very end of Domitians reign, this was to have taken place then, I think).

Patrick Schoeb

[godfry n. glad]

The Talmud compilation was not even begun until late in the second century or early in the third. There are reputedly several references to Jesus (the "Toldat Yeshu" being amongst the most notable), but several reputable scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have dismissed these references as the result of an expanding polemic exchange between Judaism and the nascent Christian church.

A sophisticated parody of Matthew from the third century CE would not be any big deal.

I'd be interested to see the claimant's evidence. How did they fix a date of authority on the parody?

godfry

[Haran]

I would like to know exactly what story they are talking about as well.

For more info on Jesus in the Talmud, I found an excellent website dealing with the issue (even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions):

Jesus in the Talmud (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusi.html)

[Tellurian]

I have read the Babylonian Talmud section Sanhedrin 43 which tells of Jesus (Yeshu), a man who was arrested, tried, and convicted by the Sanhedrin for sorcery and leading the Jews astray. The Sanhedrin sentenced him to death by stoning and then held him a prisoner for 40 days while they searched for anyone who would come forward to speak on his behalf.

After 40 days they took him out and hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Because the text claims that the Sanhedrin killed him it would not have been by crucifying him, because that was a Roman form of punishment. In 33 CE the Roman authorities took the power of capital punishment away from the Sanhedrin.

Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?

Does anyone know if this record refers to the biblical Jesus or to someone else named Jesus who was executed on the Passover?

[Tellurian]

Does no one know the answers to my questions? Or have my questions already been answered before I came into this forum? If so, could someone tell me where I can read those answers?

[Toto]

Reading and interpreting the Talmud is not for the casual amateur such as myself. The Talmud is not a straight history, but is full of moralistic tales that might or might not have any connection to anything that ever happened.

Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?


It's not clear that the Sanhedrin ever told people that the Romans had crucified Jesus. In fact, it's not clear how the story of the Romans crucifying Jesus ever got started, but for some educated guesses you could look for some threads a while back on the Passion Narrative (the server is too busy for me to search right now.)

I can recommend this on-line book that is fascinating and may throw some light on the subject, even if you don't agree with the conclusion:

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? (http://www.didjesusexist.com/mead/) By G. R. S. Mead (1903)

"An Enquiry into the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius—Being a Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins."

In addition, after I posted this, someone put the same question on the Jesus Mysteries list. You need to join the list to view the answers, but they would help:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

The thread is titled "Matthew's Gospel, Eyewitnesses, & the Talmud". The inital post is here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/14539).

[Paul Baxter]

FWIW,

I haven't heard of this particular story, but on a related note, there was a fragment of Matthew found several years ago which some scholars had dated in the 60's. I don't know anything more than that about it. There were, of course, other scholars who disputed the dating. This was from one of those Time or Newsweek Easter editions from about 1994 or 1995.

Anyone else heard of this fragment?

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Tellurian
Did the Sanhedrin tell the people that the Romans had crucified him in order to take the blame off themselves? If so, then why does the Talmud still have the record of the Sanhedrin executing him?

Does anyone know if this record refers to the biblical Jesus or to someone else named Jesus who was executed on the Passover?

Does anybody know for sure? Nope. But the Talmud story is generally accepted to be a reference to the xian Jesus. The real question is: does it predate the xian story and contain a grain of truth, or was it written later to discredit the spreading xian story?

My hypothosis is that the original story was exactly what the Talmud says: Jesus was killed by the Sanhedrin according to Jewish law (which means stoned to death, and the corpse hung from a tree as a visible warning to others). I can think of no motivation for the Jews to take the blame from the Romans.

But the original story just doesn't sell well among non-Jews. Imagine the reaction from the crowd when the story was improved, and the villians were the all-powerful Roman empire, whom everyone feared. I think an early xian preacher edited the story to refer to crucifixion by the Romans.

[Peter Kirby]

Paul,

See here:


Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt)

And here:

Review: Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/theide.html)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Tellurian]

I have information that in the Talmud section Sanhedrin 52b the execution of Jesus is described. I have been told it says, "Jesus was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound around his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead."

Does anyone know if this statement is accurate, and does it refer to the biblical Jesus?

[Celsus]

*Bump* for David Gould and judge.

[Peter Kirby]

Who decided to make this a news item now? The book in which Yuval wrote was published in 2000, the study this note is based on dates to 1987, the suggestion of an allusion to Christianity goes back to 1864, and the talmudic text has been available continuously for centuries.

Stephen Goranson writes on TC-List (July 2, 2003): "The text Israel J. Yuval refers to is Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 116 a-b. Yuval's footnote refers to Burton Visotzky, 'Overturning the Lamp,' JJS 38 (1987) 72-80. Visotsky's article is more nuanced than the newspaper article. The newspaper article authors have previously urged a medieval dating of Dead Sea Scrolls, so the received Bible text will be unaffected. Their articles are often hodgepodges of quotes which may or may not be relevant or reliable; I could give examples."

Jack Kilmon writes (July 2, 2003): "Gamaliel of Yabneh became nasi of the Yabneh Rabbinate in 80 CE and is reported in the Talmud to have had instituted tha Birkhat ha Minim. . . . If Gamaliel wrote a parody on the canonical Gospel of Matthew, it was during his tenure between 80-110 CE. Also, none of the New Testament works, the earliest by Paul, were written by anyone who knew and heard Jesus."

Stephen Goranson writes further (July 2, 2003): "If I may say more about b. Shabb. 116 a-b and gospel(s) of Matthew. The newspaper article does not defend a date of 'AD 73 or earlier' for the 'parody,' so there's little to evaluate. I, in my dissertation (pp. 92-94), and Visotzky's article, which I commended there, work with a somewhat later date. . . . B. Shabb. 116 a-b is interesting in part because, I think, it refers to Nazarenes and Ebionites, via puns, and compares them, giving the mirror image of what Epiphanius thought. To Epiphanius, Ebionites were the more heretical of the two terms as he used them. (See Anchor Bible Dictionary on how both terms evolved.) In the Talmud, the question is raised: should one save books of minim from a fire. With uncertain vocalization these houses: Be )Abidan and Be Nitsraphi. These are probably puns on Ebionites and Nazarenes, as suggested at least as early as 1864."

best,
Peter Kirby

[judge]

A couple of questions.
1. in what way is this work a parody of matthew?

2.How on earth is a date of 73 a.d. arrived at?:confused:

[Peter Kirby]

First person to type up the passage from the Soncino Talmud gets a brownie!

best,
Peter Kirby

[judge]

Presumably the parody is that mentioned in this link?



"Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew's gospel, though longer than Mark's, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.
When Matthew's gospel to the Hebrews was written is important to biblical conservatives because an early Matthew would strengthen its credibility by making it possible, if not probable, that the tax collector whom Jesus recruited was the first to write and distribute his account of Jesus' birth, ministry and death.
Most liberal scholars would say Matthew's gospel didn't come along until 90 AD or later and was in Greek, separating the apostle from the Jews as well as book that bears his name.
But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary."

from......

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04-03/04-19-03/a06op041.htm

[Peter Kirby]

Both articles were written by Neil Altman.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Toto]

This is the part that is considered a parody (from here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/14547)

from Shabbath 116a and b:

Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eleazor and the sister of Rabban Gamaliel II, had a neighbor who was a philosopher, who had a reputation that he would accept no bribes. They wished to make fun of him. Imma therefore sent to him a golden lamp [as a bribe]. Then she came before him. She said, "I should like to have a share in the property of my family." He said to her, "Then have your share!" But Gamaliel II said to him, "We have a law, 'Where there is a son, the daughter shall not inherit'." The judge said, "Since the day when you were driven out of your own country, the Law of Moses is repealed and there is given the gospel, in which it is said, 'Son and daughter shall inherit together'."

The next day Gamaliel II brought the judge a Libyan ass [as a bribe]. Then the judge said to him, "I have looked at the end of the gospel; for it says, 'I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses and I am not come to add to the Law of Moses.' It is written in the Law of Moses, 'Where there is a son, the daughter shall not inherit.' " Then Imma said to him, "Nevertheless, may your light shine like a lamp." But Rabban Gamaliel said, "The ass has come and overturned the lamp."

Gustav Dalman, in Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the liturgy of the synagogue (1893) figured the person involved here was R. Gamaliel II, which would give this passage a historical context of 90-110 CE. . .

However, the Talmud was not written as history, but as moral instruction; and was not written down until the 6th or seventh century. There is no way to show that this passage has any history at all behind it, or when it was composed.

[Jayjay]

Resurrecting an old thread...

I recently bumped into this argument about Gamaliel the Elder having written the "parody" of Matthew contained in Talmud, but at last a quick google search didn't provide me with any clues as to why Yuval supposedly concluded it could not have been one of the later Gamaliels. Also I would be interested to know why his critics think that it was Gamaliel II, if they have any reason for it besides the dating of Matthew.

[andrewcriddle]

Resurrecting an old thread...

I recently bumped into this argument about Gamaliel the Elder having written the "parody" of Matthew contained in Talmud, but at last a quick google search didn't provide me with any clues as to why Yuval supposedly concluded it could not have been one of the later Gamaliels. Also I would be interested to know why his critics think that it was Gamaliel II, if they have any reason for it besides the dating of Matthew.
IIUC Yuval and his critics are in agreement that the intended Gamaliel is Gamaliel II, Gamaliel I who appears to have died before the destruction of Jerusalem could not have delivered a judgment in c 73 AD.

Yuval may be attributing the story to the early period of Gamaliel II's career before he became the leader at Yavneh c 85 CE.

In any case this is a story in an Aramaic portion of the Gemara to the Babylonian Talmud and is IMO very late maybe after 400 CE.

Andrew Criddle

[Jayjay]

Thanks for the information! So it was just the newspaper article or some other popularization of Yuval that swapped Gamaliel II to I? Also there is just one thing that still kind of bugs me:

IIUC Yuval and his critics are in agreement that the intended Gamaliel is Gamaliel II, Gamaliel I who appears to have died before the destruction of Jerusalem could not have delivered a judgment in c 73 AD.
Where does this year come from?

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks for the information! So it was just the newspaper article or some other popularization of Yuval that swapped Gamaliel II to I? Also there is just one thing that still kind of bugs me:

I haven't read Yuval so I can't be absolutely certain but 73 CE does seem far too late for Gamaliel I (who was the grandfather of Gamaliel II who died in c 110 CE. )

I'm not even clear that the newspaper article does unambiguously claim that the story is about Gamaliel I.

Where does this year come from?I don't know but 73 CE is about the time when the Jewish war is finally over and the Jews can more or less get back to running their own affairs under loose Roman supervision. If the story was authentic from the early years of Gamaliel II's career (before he becomes a leader at Jabneh) then 73 would be a plausible date.

Andrew Criddle