Jesus in the talmud or mishnah? A look at christian and non-christian interpretations.

A closer look……

For centuries Rabbis have walked the tightrope between Christians and upholding their own faith. To the Jewish Nation he can be neither God nor the Son of God, in the sense conveyed by belief in the Trinity. Either conception is to the Jew not only impious and blasphemous, but incomprehensible. Neither can he, to the Jewish nation, be the Messiah: the kingdom of heaven (the ‘Days of the Messiah’) is not yet come. Neither can they regard him as a Prophet: he lacks the Prophet’s political perception and the Prophet’s spirit of national consolation in the political-national sense. Neither can they regard him as a lawgiver or the founder of a new religion: he did not even desire to be such. Neither is he a ‘Tanna,’ or Pharisaic rabbi: he nearly always ranged himself in opposition to the Pharisees and did not apprehend the positive side in their work, the endeavor to take within their scope the entire national life and to strengthen the national existence.

Jesus was a Messiah for Rome, as Roman soldiers recognized that Jesus didn’t say or do anything against Rome and therefor couldn’t be executed on those grounds.

In the Jewish on-going desire to bridge the difficult gap between themselves and Christianity, and the on-going persecution toward the Jews, they have graciously said that the character of Jesus represents a great teacher of morality and an artist in parable. They have diplomatically recognized that the Roman character of Jesus Messiah could be recognized as a hobbled compilation of other characters who were written and recorded in Jewish history.

Messianic Jews ignore this and claim that Jesus is the incarnation and Son of God. Here is what one messianic Jews says, <“But in his ethical code there is a sublimmity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forceful epigrams serve, in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular possession. If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of its wrappings of miracles and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures in the literature of Israel for all time.” >

The interesting thing is that Messianic Jews didn’t factor in that it was poetic and lovely because it was written by outstanding Grecian trained writers! One could expect nothing less from writers of that caliber of Grecian training. It was unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code because it wasn’t Hebrew ethical code – it was Grecian written prose and ideas; occasionally based on a Hebrew seed, but more often created out of thin air that had nothing to do with Hebrew teachings .

Lovely as they were, they were Grecian written none-the-less, and that is why it cannot be compared or paralleled to the Hebrew writers.
They both had different motives and different training, which makes new testament Jesus a Grecian written creation used by Rome. It is another example of christians attempting to bridge gaps where there are none and twist details to make it fit and support their ideas without looking logically and carefully at all aspects and perspectives. They will say, ‘yes, the Hebrew does not believe in a Son of God, but this son of God is so ethical that it would be the best story Israel could claim. The orthodox Jews know why they cannot claim it – it was Grecian-Roman created all along. There are fanciful dreamers in every era and the Messianic Jews display possibly the most examples of cognitive dissonance and pretzel bending to conform to an idea which appeals to them in the face of concepts that do not match.

After the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), the rabbinical leadership, faced with a proliferation of traditions and interpretations, began to arrange and edit the material. As I previously researched, Yochanan ben Zakkai of Jerusalem, held a meeting with Vespasian, who became the next emperor. The Rabi was concerned about striking a deal to save the Jewish tradition at least to some degree. This meeting led to the foundation of the Academy of Yavneh under the surveillance of control of Rome. The academy produced the Mishnah which led to the survival of rabbinical Judaism. The final result was a document redacted and arranged (by command of Rome) by Rabbi Judah Hanasi (second century CE) and called the Mishna, a word signifying "repetition" and "teaching."

It would be interesting to note what redactions were demanded, but obviously it wasn’t pro – Jesus or Rome wouldn’t have demanded redaction. Also, bear in mind that 2nd century Jews experienced a massive slaughter following Simon Bar Kosiba’s denouncement of Jesus as a myth. This slaughter would keep the Jews in Roman line, meaning that the Jewish records would reflect their accommodation to Rome as per their 70ce agreement.

Sages whose teachings are mentioned in the Mishna are known as Tanna'im. The Tannaitic period, during which the Mishna was compiled, lasted from the destruction of the Second Temple to the early part of the third century CE. The effort was to save the Hebrew; and as mentioned earlier it is uncertain exactly what changes were made to accommodate Rome in that effort. It is of utmost importance to remember this detail why reviewing the problem surrounding the absence or presence of Jesus in the Jewish texts.

Rabbi Akiba, before his death in 135ce, and Rabbi Meir, organized and revised the material. (note* this was after the 3rd war known as the Simon Bar Kosiba Revolt and Jews were slaughtered for their lack of conformity and their objection to various issues – one which mentioned earlier was that Bar Kosiba denounced Jesus and the tax cut for converts to Christianity.)

Around 200ce, Rabbi Judah completed the project, which became known as the Mishnah (literally “teaching” or “repetition”).

One could argue that if the Jews knew about Jesus they would have inserted it in their record thereby accommodating Rome, whether or not he was a messiah whom they accepted or rejected.

Conversely one could argue that if there was a Jesus Messiah the Romans could have requested they mention Jesus as it served their cause as well.
Or that the Romans could have manipulated them into making some mention of a messiah; insisting on implementing correct datelines and data for a story/Messiah as important as this.
Or, one could argue that the Jews did not want to out rightly violate their honor code for Roman authorized written texts and complied an obscure manner to somewhat appease both parties.

Any stand a person wishes to take it is important to recognize the connection to Rabi Yachonen, Emperor Vespasian and the many subsequent redactions that were pressured by Rome and the potential for problems within that context.

The 1950’s and 1960’s saw a great rush of Messsianic Jews attempting to contort the Talmud to support Christianity. Many of the Rabbi’s used the Roman backed literature to validate a claim that there was a person named Jesus even though the Jews did not record anyone as such that matched the Roman version.

One essay I’d like to share is from J.Z. Lauterbach,a Judaic scholar, in his Rabbinic Essays of 1951. The last chapter, pp. 473 – 570, is devoted to the subject of Jesus in the Talmud.

He states, >“The references and allusions to Jesus found in theTalmud and in the Midrashim are of such a nature that they cannot be considered convincing proof that he actually existed. For, as will be shown, not even one single statement preserved to us in the talmudic-midrashic literature can be regarded as authentic in the sense that it originated in the time of Jesus or even in the first half century of the Christian era….In other words, the Talmud does not furnish any contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus. The references to Jesus recorded in the Talmud are mostly from teachers who lived a long time after Jesus. The rabbis heard the stories, came into contact with Christians and discussed Jesus. They never argued the question whether such a figure had actually existed or not, since Christianity was an actual reality. They probably were not even interested in this question.”> (p 477)

A number of Talmud stories describe this to the letter. At least one Rabi describes a questioning situation and was sent up to the Roman court because of it.



Authors like Muslim Shamoun believe that the talmud contains references to Jesus :

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm

>>quote: “Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews.
Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:

>"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates:
Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’
At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors. As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Dr. Morey, pp. 58-59)

Dr. Robert Morey continues:

>"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts any more... While the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a censored text, the editors usually give the uncensored original readings in a footnote. We have put the statements about Jesus back into the text where they originally belonged and have indicated this by [ ]." (Morey, pp. 1-2) >>end quote.

A little f.y.i about Shamoun…….he is of the Evangelical Christian sect and engages in Muslims who critique Jesus. His main interest is to denounce the Muslim view of Jesus. Dr. Morey is the author of the website Faith Defenders; his web title is self-explanatory. Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson are Christians supporting Christianity in a book called, He Walked Among Us: Evidence For The Historical Jesus Thomas Nelson Publishers-Nashville TN, 1993

Many christians who support a historical Jesus show obvious omissions which are oddly similar to the mormon essays, but I digress.


I know through personal experiences the manner in which Christians overlook information and distort it without using all the data available, but using only that which supports their claims. For that reason I’m hesitant to accept their Polish comments.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the 17th century Jews wanted data expunged based on prior persecution, and it also wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted it expunged based on their historic knowledge of Roman pressure to put it in and their desire to stand in objection to this on-going Roman pressure of redactions.

Or, were the Polish interested in converting to Christianity and received pressure from Orthodox Jews? They do not clarify their comments. I would have to check their sources to ascertain the truth behind their words, and until then I simply offer it to you as Christian on-going attempts to use anything to defend their story without factoring in full details and while omitting other necessary details.

Morris Goldstein is another Jew, a messianic Jew, to whom this group of Christians reference a few of his interpretations in the support of their defense. They omit others that don’t support their defense.

Goldstein says, “Whole paragraphs have been deleted, words have been expunged or substituted, spellings have been changed, thoughts mutilated, and manuscripts seized and burned.” He claims that all editions of the Talmud in languages other than Hebrew have been heavily edited by their Ashkenazi publishers.

The modern aspect of the story gets interesting now….

Who are these Ashkenazi Jews as mentioned by Rabi Goldstein and the Christians?
Here is a story as told by Jack Berstein in 1985; link below:

http://www.unique-design.net/library/sacred/psalms.html#ashkenazi

snip from above link” “Before Israel became a state in 1948, Jews world-wide were filled with the Zionist propaganda that Israel would be a homeland for all Jews, a refuge for persecuted Jews, a truly democratic country, and the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

I am an Ashkenazi Jew (Ashkenazi = Eastern European Jews = Polish Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews of mixed Khazar descent) who spent the first 25 years of my life in the United States, the country that has given ALL Jews freedom and the opportunity to prosper - and prosper we Jews did, to the point that one segment of the Jewish population (the Zionist) have gained a position of political and economic dominance in America.
To fully understand the story I am about to tell, it is important that you understand what Zionism really is. Zionist propaganda has led the American people to believe that Zionism and Judaism are one and the same and that they are religious in nature.

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE.

Judaism is a religion; but Zionism is a political movement started by East European (Ashkenazi) Jews who for centuries have been the main force behind communism and socialism. The ultimate goal of the Zionists is one-world government under the control of the Zionists and the Zionist-oriented international bankers. Communism and socialism are merely tools to help them accomplish their goals. “>end quote.

However interesting that may be, it’s a digression from our original topic. I only meant to give a little background to their views. :) As long as they have a history degree apparently anything is passable from them. Christians gobble it up without any desire to look objectively.

Morey and Shamoun do not quote Goldstein when Goldstein says, “Klausner claims that the Sanhedrin 43a is of greater value than Sanhedrin 107b, however on the trial of Jesus the evidential value of the baraita (verse) for historical purposes is nil.”

Below is the Sanhedrin 43a for your review:
Quote: >> “It was taught: On the eve of the 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 apostacy. 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 whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? 1) With Yeshu, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, ie. Influential).” End quote.

Something I find interesting…
the above Sanhedrin 43a last sentence states that there is a Yeshu who was connected with the government. Connected with the government!! Who was the Government?
Jesus wasn’t in a good connection with the Jewish government according to the new testament. (I'll look at the date comparison of this Yeshu story later.)

The Roman’s were in good standing with Jesus and couldn’t execute him based on not having any crime against Rome.
The Jewish scriptures say that they must neither spare or coneal an enticer. However, with Yeshu, it was different because he was connected to government. The government that controlled the Jews was the Roman government.
Yes, it was different alright.
Rome owned Rabi Yachonen and the new Talmud and Mishnah passed through Rome first. The Jews couldn’t honor their scriptures of denouncement where Yeshu was concerned. Instead I notice a clever Jewish denouncement through various encodements. For example, they use the name Jeshu, but never in the timeframe that the Roman Jesus was placed.

None of their references have an identical match. This possibly could be a combination of not having information until the 2nd and 3rd century, and trying to piece it together as they went based on redactions forced by Rome. Again, Rome wouldn’t ask to redact an actual likeness of Jesus; because obviously a likeness would confirm Jesus, they would however force a redaction of Jews exposing the enticer, Yeshu.

Why was this Yeshu considered an enticer by Judea jews? Because he wanted them to convert to the Roman concept of Jesus Messiah. (tax-free perks and absence of harassment were all part of the lure to convert.) Oh, this Yeshu was Roman alright. He was a creation to Romanize the Jews in keeping with a long held Roman project.

Many of Goldsteins points may be valid, and all writers and interpreters have their flaws, but one of the concerns I have in the treatment of his book, “Jesus in the Jewish Tradition” is that he attempts to a explain a possible Jesus in a way that is rather unsettling when one analyzes it.

“If Jesus existed he existed as a Jew who lived and taught and died among his people; his people therefore, would be expected to remember him most clearly.” Goldstein, Morris, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York Macmillan Co. 1950 Pp. 319.)

The author thus accumulated all of what is known regarding Jesus in Jewish life and literature from the FIRST century of the Christian Era until modern times. Goldstein’s study is divided into three major sections:
the Tannaitic, Amoraic and post-Talmudic periods.

His information is further broken down into 3 aspects,
1) Authentic References to Jesus
2) References incorrectly Identified with Jesus and
3) allusions to Jesus. One of the critiques I have is that although he appears to consider earlier European Jews for changing the Talmud he doesn’t apply Rabbi Lauterbach’s considerations nor does he mention the important Talmud detail that the Talmud was influenced by Yochanan through Emperor Vespasian in it’s earliest connection to Rome.


In his book Goldstein writes:, “It is in fact, told in the Talmud: ‘Into the Sanhedrin are brought none other than those wise and acquainted with magic” (B Sanhedrin 17a; B.Menahoth 65a). “Rashi, in his interpretative comment, many centuries later explained the requisite: it was in order that the members of the Sanhedrin should be capable of exposing magicians and sorcerers” (p27.)
“This, therefore, was but another way of saying that Judaism in Tannaitic times did not accept the religion based on Jesus”. (p.27)


It’s just as easy to say that Judaism in Tannaitic times did not accept the story of Jesus and set up criteria to expose it. Remember that much of the data from the Tannaitic time was redacted, so there’s that to level of authenticity and accuracy to consider.

Below is some of the account of the Talmud information perhaps to which Goldstein is referring; although I’m not sure if this verse is from the Tannaitic period and will check it’s era later:

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html


Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a


*note: the verse is translated from a messianic jewish perspective.

>“What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah?
When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him "From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt. My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken."
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].
[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself?
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him.
[Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me. But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention.
One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted]. [Yeshu] came before him. He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand. [Yeshu] thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him. He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it.
[Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.
And the master said: Yeshu {the Notzri} practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray.”>



>"Background and Summary
Note that historians differ on the exact years of these events. For simplicity, we will assume the latest possible dates as suggested by Gershon Tannenbaum [Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, p. 87].

>"John Hyrcanus was a successful king and soldier. During a banquet celebrating his victories in 93 BCE, some Pharisee rabbis offended him and he was convinced by Sadducee leaders to try to kill every Pharisee rabbi [Hyman, vol. II pp. 691-692, 766]. Some rabbis, such as R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and his student Yeshu, fled to Alexandria outside of John Hyrcanus's reach [Hyman vol. II pp. 647, 692]. Shimon Ben Shetach, however, was hidden in Jerusalem by his sister, Salome Alexandra, who was John Hyrcanus's daughter-in-law [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647, 692, 766, vol. III pp. 1212-1213]. The extremely diverse religious population of Palestine, full of sects and numerous other groups, was temporarily devoid of any public Pharisee leaders.

>"By the year 91 BCE, John Hyrcanus and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulos had died and his third son Alexander Janneus became king. Even though Alexander Janneus was an ardent Sadducee, his wife convinced him to appoint his Pharisaic brother-in-law, Shimon Ben Shetach, to the Sanhedrin, then dominated by Sadducees. Slowly, over the course of a number of years, Shimon Ben Shetach outshone his Sadducee opponents in the Sanhedrin and appointed his Pharisaic students as members [Hyman, vol. II pp. 766-767, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

By the year 80 BCE it was finally safe for the Pharisee rabbis to quietly return and Shimon Ben Shetach sent a cryptic note to his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah, encouraging him to return [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647-648, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

Some 50 to 60 years after the great Pharisaic victory of the Hasmoneans, in which Pharisees rebelled against the Greek-Syrians and gained the monarchy, these Pharisee rabbis returned to a country full of heretical sects that had either integrated aspects of Hellenist paganism into their religion or had, in an attempt to repel all unproven influence, rejected the traditions of the rabbis. The Pharisees who remembered the prominence in which they had so recently been held were now witnesses to the disintegration of their religious society.

While returning, Yeshu misunderstood one of his teacher's remarks and said something that demonstrated that he was interested in and looking at married women. As sexual promiscuity was a sign of many of the Hellenist sects, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah suspected his student of being yet another leader influenced by Hellenism and had him excommunicated [this hasty conclusion was condemned by the Talmud a few lines before our passage]. After many attempts by Yeshu to reconcile with his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah was finally ready. However, Yeshu approached him while he was reciting Shema, the most important part of the morning prayer during which he could not stop to speak. He motioned to Yeshu with his hand which was misinterpreted as a signal to go away. Yeshu finally gave up and fulfilled his teacher's suspicion. He adopted a pagan religion and went on to create his own sect of Judaism and lead many Jews astray.

Proof
Some historians note some similarities here between Yeshu and Jesus. Most notably, in one manuscript of the Talmud he is called Yeshu the Notzri which could be rendered (with only a little difficulty) Jesus the Nazarene.

Problems
1. Yeshu lived about a century before Jesus and during rabi Eliezar’s era of a century after jesus.

2. Only one of the approximately four distinct manuscripts available have the title HaNotzri (possibly, the Nazarene). None of the other manuscripts contain that title which make it suspect as a later interpolation, as medieval commentators suggest [cf. Menachem HaMeiri, Beit Habechirah, Sotah ad. loc.].

3. Notzri does not necessarily mean Nazarene. It is actually a biblical term (Jeremiah 4:16). While centuries later it was undoubtedly used to refer to Christians in the form of Notzrim or Netzarim, it could have been a term used to refer to many strong communities. The name "Ben Netzar" was used by the Talmud to refer to the famous chief of robbers Odenathus of Palmyra [see Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary p. 930]

4. The name Yeshu alone could have been common. We know that the name Jesus was common [see Collossians 4:11 and above].

5. Other than the name, nothing in the story fits anything we know about Jesus.

Yeshu was in fact a common name of that day, which is why it may have been used in the Talmud if it is a way to encode the deception by the Jews. By referring to many different accounts of yeshu the writers appease the Roman watchdogs who demand redactions. I later determine that it is indeed a covert way of exposing the Roman agenda, appeasing Rome while still doing as the scriptures command, which is to expose an enticer. Rome’s storyline was generally in flux and it would have been very difficult for them to pinpoint any actual attempt to expose the Roman story as a fraud. After many Roman demands for redactions and interpolations the Jewish writers became skilled at code in their exposition and thereby honor their ancient scriptural command.

Goldstein doesn’t explain why the writers of the Talmud would describe this man Yeshu but not make a connection to his followers who considered him a Messiah. In this case it would appear that Rome used fragments of these stories and people, incorporating them into a hybrid person who would be preached to Romanize the Jews and offer a religion for Rome. It is common to write about what you know, to take snippets of information and bits and pieces and compile a story.

Another Hebrew text, Tesephta Hullin, II, 22-23: “It happened to R Eliezer ben Dama (son of R. Ishmael’s sister)1) that a serpent bit him; and Jacob of Kefar Sama (Sekanya) came to heal him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandera. But R. Ishmael forbade him. He said, Ben Dama, you are not permitted! He (R. Eliezer ben Dama) answered, I will bring you a proof that he may heal me (I will bring you a verse from the Law showing that it is permitted.) But ere he could bring a proof he died. R. Ishmael said (called to him): Happy art though, Ben Dama, that you have gone in peace (that your body is clean and your soul has gone forth in purity) and have not broken down the fence of the Wise.”

How many Yeshu’s are there in the Hebrew texts?
Is this the same Yeshu ben Pandera as Perachiah? Or are they different Yeshu’s.
If they are the same then the same problem arises as with the other references.
If they are different the same problems arise, as there is no clear reference to a Yeshu Ben Pandera that would fit a dateline for the Jesus Messiah. Later we look into the Jewish reference about Yeshu ben Pandera. It is not authenticated by the Jews as a Jesus character.

The Mishnah is the basic compilation of the Oral law of Judaism; its compilation began in 189 CE. This is long after Jesus, therefore followers stories can’t be used to confirm an actual Jesus. It could just as easily be used to confirm a later concocted story fed to Jewish converts and forced upon by Roman redactions.
The Tosephta was arranged alongside the Mishnah, dating this excerpt from roughly the same era as the Mishnah with the same type of issues prevalent as a result.

Now, the Jews knew the Roman storyline of Jesus during this redaction period, but did the Romans’ know the Jewish Yeshu stories?

If the Jews pick that name they are bound to cause some confusion --- and they did just that. How could the Jews get such important Messiah information wrong. Even if the Jews didn’t think Yeshu was the messiah they would have written something about this man being considered THEE messiah by his followers standards. After all, we have been led to believe for centuries through the new testament that he preached extensively and there were many who listened and followed. The mention of Yeshu Ben pandera is either some random minor magician-healer or a Jewish documentation to appease the Roman pressure to redact texts. Although the Jewish Masoretes were vowed to honesty in their texts they had little choice when pressured by Rome to redact.




The comment: >“Happy art though, Ben Dama, that you have gone in peace (that your body is clean and your soul has gone forth in purity) and have not broken down the fence of the Wise.”>

Is this the Jewish writers clever encoding to write a story that might appease Roman clergy (the Roman clergy story was never quite clear to begin with so it’s unlikely that the Roman authorities could object too much) while also letting the fraud be known through parable?
As I muse over possible encoding in a time of Jewish persecution and pressure by Rome to conform texts I consider a possible parable, as follows:

Ishmael didn’t want Ben Dama to accept Yeshu. It didn’t fit the Jewish law. (other Jews were also considered healers in the texts but this follower of Yeshu Ben Pandera is not.) Ben Dama would die before accepting Yeshu and all that implied. Ben Dama was blessed for remaining clean and not submitting to this healing. Is that an obscure parable for converting to Christianity?


What does the saying mean, “you have not broken down the fence of the WISE.”
It was wisdom not to join Christianity. The fence represents the details that act as a barrier to convert and accept Christianity.
By writing that a Rabi would offer proof that Yeshu’s follower could be a means of placating the Roman redaction alignment process.
The fact that the Rabi died sounds like a parable that this ‘law’ was never found or accepted.

If Goldstein can come up with obscure and unsupported interpretations or allusions, as he calls them, then what stops anyone from linking ideas? My interpretation does have some merit which is supported by history and present day…. And we’re back to the Romanization of the Jews and the creation of a belief system; plus Judea’s overall objection to it because it was not aligned with the Jewish Messiah whom Rome claimed Jesus was. Were they objecting to Rome’s false messiah and his followers?


Goldsteins claim that “this is another way” of saying that Judaism didn’t accept Jesus religion based on the credibility standards of that time (the Tannaitic period) doesn’t account for the absence of this Tosephta’s claim of anyone who resembled the messiah. If Goldstein is right by claiming “This, therefore, was but another way of saying that Judaism in Tannaitic times did not accept the religion based on Jesus” why didn’t the redacted record of the late 2nd century reflect or clarify this?

It didn’t.

Instead it supports the absence of the record of the vast number of Jewish followers claiming that he was a Messiah during the period of 30ce onward through the first century Tannaitic period.

Even if this references the actual Jesus and he was considered a sorcerer by the Jewish standards there would have been mention of the followers claiming him as a Jewish Messiah.
There is none in this account.

Instead the account shows a rabi who claims he’ll show him where following the Yeshu is not against the law. The Tosephta does not clarify that it is in accordance with the law. It’s a subtle admission that it is against the law even if another Rabi tries to convert and follow and tell them it’s okay. It’s another way of warning Jews not to follow Yeshu ben Pandera because spiritually you will die. Being bitten by a snake is very symbolic in Judea symbolism. The snake can be symbolic for evil, as per the deception of Adam and Eve and the representation of the Snake as evil.

Another symbolism is Moses staff which turned into a snake. Snake represents evil which Moses conquered and used to his will, God’s will. The same type of symbolism is used in Hinduism representing conquering snake.

There is no way of knowing this story actually happened in the 1st century, because as I’ve mentioned everything was destroyed in the 70ce war and Rabi Yachonen worked with Emperor Vespasian to structure his belief with the purpose of holding onto his Jewish faith in some form.

The story could easily be an example of the climate during 2nd century, after the 3rd war of Simon Bar Kosiba who denounced Jesus, and a interpolated story to the 1st century without any real detail to corroborate an actual Jesus, but enough use of the name to appease Rome.
Like I said, Rome had all kinds of stories, therefore it would be easy for the 2nd century Rabi’s to give a cautionary tale in this manner and honor their scriptures to expose the menuth enticer; while covering themselves in their agreement with Rome as per Rabi Yachonen and his academy.

Goldstein is making this claim because they didn’t accept Yeshu ben Pandera’s teachings, but what of the rest of the Jewish Messiah prophecy which would need to be filled as per Jewish standards?
Look, Christians can’t accept some of the Jewish standards and throw away others.

Christians say that the texts are correct to point to a man Yeshu, and discount the lack of texts needed to confirm the Jesus figure. This is a problem that Rabbi’s have objected to for millennia. As usual the Christian apologists like to slip a Jesus look-alike into an era where groups were introduced into the Hellenization/Romanization project even though the story doesn’t match up with information and dates and the tiny bit that might work is a massive stretch to fit a round peg into a square hole.

I prefer my interpretation to Goldsteins. It makes more cohesive sense with all things considered and accounted for.

This leads me to question all Goldsteins evaluation as he attempts to determine which references are Authentic References to Jesus versus References incorrectly Identified with Jesus versus his so-called “allusions” to Jesus. I would have to place Goldsteins above commentary and reference into the category of incorrectly identifying with Jesus and Allusion to Jesus.

The Tannaitic era seems to hold little significance to his debate as he had hoped when all other criteria is factored in.

Rabbi Lauterbach writes: >“Yeshu ben Pandera; Ben Pandera; Bar Pandera; Yeshu Pandera…fanciful interprations have been given of the meaning of this name (p.536). Perhaps, however, we need no interpration beyond the simple interpration that Panther was just a name or still better a family name”.

Goldstein thinks that “Yeshu ben Pantera was given simply as a family name of Jesus in its earlier mention in the Talmud.”

Goldstein must ignore mountains of contrary evidence to make this claim. (Later I’ll look into the reference of the earlier Yeshu ben Pandera, it’s very interesting.)

It was established at quite an early date (12th century) by Rabbi Tam and by Rabbi Yehiel in 1240 during a celebrated disputation in Paris that Ben Stada and Jesus are not identical. Simon Magus, who called himself the “stadios” the eternally standing one; the Egyptian false prophet mentioned by Flavius Josephus. In holding to the Roman tradition they surmise then that Ben Stada equals James, the brother of the Lord. In all these passing centuries there is nothing to back them further than speculation based on the desire to match Roman texts. *Hence, the problem with using Roman texts to authenticate anything.

Lauterbach is of the opinion that the spelling Ben Satada or Ben Sateda must be replaced by Ben Sarata, in which “Ben” has the meaning of “expert”. Ben Sarata then means an adept at tattooing or an expert tattooer.” (op.cit.p.517).
According to Lauterbach there is only in Tos. Sanhedrin 67a: “a suggestion that it refers to Yeshu who was sentenced and hung on the eve of Passover” (p.518 cf. Goldstein, op.cit. p.61).

Here’s the funny thing, and at this point I must say it’s becoming a comedy of errors, tattooing is denounced as taboo among the Jewish tradition! You cannot mark your body. Was this the Jewish version of parables revealing the lies in the midst of all the Roman pressure? Whether it was Jesus or the brother of Jesus, or as Josephus claims Simon Magus who called himself ‘stadios’ t hey would be assigned a position of Egyptian false prophet by Jewish standards. Ben Sarata, the holy Jew who was a tattoo artist!! How witty! How clever!
And the Messianic Jews think the new testament is the best version of parables!

They clearly haven’t become familiar with the Jewish texts! Do not follow Ben Stada the tatoo artist. stada = sarata? Maybe there is something to Lauterbach’s analysis.

Of course the new testament supports the fact that Jesus never went against the Roman government and was of the Roman government.

Goldstein considers it extremely important that people be prepared to accept arguments that the names Ben Stada, Balaam, Josos, etc, do NOT relate to Jesus, since confusion on this point has caused so much trouble.

Goldstein makes a number of remarks on the attitude adopted in the days of the Tannaim towards miracles and forgets to mention that those references were dumped by order of Rome and redacted in the late 2nd century and even later again. In Goldsteins defense of Jesus he points out that Rabbi Elieser, who lived in about 90-130ce, performed a number of startling miracles to support his opinions that the Tannaim would not allow themselves to be convinced by these miracles.

Goldstein says, It’s significance in relation to our theme is the fact that the Tannaim refused to heed signs and miracles in seeking to comprehend the will of God expressed in the Torah and to crystallize it in religious practice laid down in rabbinic law.

The problem is that Rabbi Elieser was specifically recorded and detailed and Jesus was not. Note the date that Rabbi Elieser lived. 100ce!! The timeline supports the Emperor Vespasian Roman clergy creation and the Jewish desire to hold on to their culture after this war and invasion. The Jews could easily have agreed to the Roman story, making their life a whole lot easier. They would have foregone a few slaughters and taxation that was egregious, to name a few perks, but they couldn’t. Their laws forbade the level of lying needed to corroborate the Roman Jesus story.

Goldstein says that the 2nd period, that of the Amoraim, extended over a fairly long period of time and from this period date various allusions to Jesus and the Minim.
- Healings were performed in the name of Yeshu Pandira. This shows, says Goldstein, that even in later times Jesus was alluded to.
– Rabbi Joshua ben Levi lived in Palestine in the first half of the 3rd century – there were Jews who, for healing, used the name of Yeshu, and it also demonstrates that it was the healing power of Yeshu which had made the deepest impression. Goldstein says the opposition of the rabbis in those days was more violent than at the time of the Tannaim.

This actually points to the christian persecution coming from the Jews; not from Rome!

(As an aside, the Romans were a polytheist nation, embracing all beliefs, so it’s unlikely that they’d persecute the Christians. They did however persecute the Jews to no end. It was in fact the Jews who were continually persecuted by high taxes, slaughter etc for not becoming Romanized.)

Is this what is reflected in the new testament as the stories in the new testament reflect more this dateline era of the 2nd century with Bar Kosiba, Celsus and when other Rabbis denounced this use. Of course the Jews would denounce it! The Rabinical order who wrote the text made it in such a way that they were worshipping someone who did not fit the Roman structure timeline or qualifications and the Rabi’s knew their text was a joke encrypted against Rome to expose the truth.

The Rabi’s couldn’t contest it in the 1st century, the Tannaitic period, because it didn’t exist. Pre-70ce war there was no record and after 70ce war the Jews were holding on to their culture for dear life, making deals with Rome so as not to be entirely Romanized.

Lauterbach claims that this story of Rabbi Elieser is a legend, saying, “To sum up, then, the story in b.Sanhedrin is a later legend about Jesus and not a contemporary report, not even a reliable tradition….” (p.490) further saying, “some modern scholars are so eager to discover allusions to Jesus, that at an allusion in the Talmud to any person in whose history or character there is the slightest hint or a resemblance to one feature or another in the life story of Jesus, they immediately jump to the conclusion that the person referred to was Jesus presented under some disguise.” (p.543.)

*At this point it’s fitting to identify Jacob Zallel Lauterbach. He lived from 1873–1942, was an American Judaica scholar and author who served on the faculty of Hebrew Union College and composed responsa for the Reform movement in America. He specialized in Midrashic and Talmudical literature, and is best known for his landmark critical edition and English translation of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.

Sanhedrin 107b “And a master has said, Yeshu practiced magic and led Israel astray.”
Here Jesus is represented as a contemporary of King Jannai (104 bce to 78 bce). This couldn’t possibly be the same Jesus spoken of in the new testament dateline.

See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, p. 50 f. Sotah 47a an almost identical story occurs, in which a pupil of Rabbi Jehuda ben Tabai committed the same fault as Jesus did with regard to Joshua ben Perahiah.

Goldsteins defense of Jesus is blinded to any ability to look further than his own determination to make it so.
The same application applies to someone like Bart Ehrman, but Ehrman doesn’t have the guts to tackle the Jewish Mishnah, Tosephta, etc. At least Goldstein does however misled and erroneous. Writers like him read more into it than there was, while justifying it stating that it’s okay to make ‘allusions’ and they write volumes about it. Modern people then become extremely confused as they attempt to use it all to verify and support their belief in Jesus, and they fail to get to the actual root. Remember Goldstein wrote it in the 1950’s when post wartime put Roman Catholicism in a somewhat bad light and Messianic Jews received an American serge. They don’t detail omissions or known discrepancies that would leave their allusions to the dream land from whence they originated.




This particular Yeshu story became such a joke among society.

Jews apparently polemicized actively against the new Christian religion, as can be inferred from the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a Jew. In chapter 17 Justin claims that the Jews had sent out "chosen men" throughout the Roman Empire to polemicize against Christianity, calling it a "godless heresy". It is not known how many were Christians at the time of Celsus but as a comparison the estimation of Wilken of the Jewish population of the empire to have been about 10% may be quoted. “The Christians were certainly fewer. It is unlikely their influence was greater than what the physical evidence reveals throughout AD 100-400.” (Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100-400, (Yale: University Press, 1989)


Celsus writes of this aspect of Jesus by saying,” Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”

Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word (Account, Doctrine or Discourse) , written about by Origen. (Origen was a Roman clergy who kept tabs on the christian issues of heresies and anti-christians fell into that category.) This work 177ce, is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Christianity. It is uncertain the exact date of the toledoth story, but it’s origin of scandal is first seen with Celsus. Apparently Celsus continued where Simon Bar Kosiba left off. Again, It is curious why so many people objected to the Roman Christianity when Rome was known to be a polytheist nation embracing all beliefs (but Jewish) and building temples to any god or deity. Why did so many people – Jews and non-jews alike- in that era and onward object to the Christian use of the story of Yeshu as their Jesus Messiah?

Once one factors in all the details it becomes easy to see why so much objection.
Could you imagine living in the era when the teaching and records were coming out AND knowing full well that it was a fabricated story?
Celsus and others like Simon Bar Kosiba denounced it even though Rome slaughtered them to attempt to control and squash them.

My question is why didn’t Rome demand the Talmud be re-written to make it clearer in favor of Jesus Messiah, and why didn’t the Jews write it clearer to reflect the Jesus Messiah in dates and circumstances if it were correct?

Goldstein and the christian commentators earlier claim that the Polish Jews, or Zionists, expunged references to Jesus does little to help their cause because as Morey says, they have the pure pre-1631 texts. Getting back to Morey, the pre-1631 texts still do not help clarify their cause for all of the reasons I’ve already mentioned.
I have no idea what would be the purpose of the Zionist Jews wish to expunge Jesus data. He claims it was due to persecution. It doesn’t really have anything to do with authenticating Jesus, as the entire mess had its roots prior to the 16th or 17th century, but it is interesting on-going mess none-the-less.

Below is a link to some of Celsus’ words as rebuttaled by Origin and other references:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm


Polemicists continued from the 9th through 20th centuries using the Toledot story to inflame Christian hostility towards Jews. (Schonfield, Hugh J., The History of Jewish Christianity, (1936, London, Duckworth) page 129. And Tolan, John Victor (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 17f.)


A link to the Toledoth Yeshu story is below:

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html


Keep in mind that non-christian viewpoints were squashed regularly throughout history. This explains why only recently sholars, historians, philosophers and archaeologists have been able to come forward and state their views concerning a historical Jesus.
With all that in mind, below is another Christian interpretation of the Talmud to defend Jesus in the Talmud:

>>I. Jesus' Birth
>R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress."
McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69)
According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)
>”Compare this with Luke 3:23.
>MISHNAH.[104b] “If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)
R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] (Morey, p. 6) >>end quote.

As mentioned in the above review of this same passage, mesith is an enticer. Morey is using it to somehow try to support a Jesus in the Talmud. When I read it all I can see is the Jewish Rabbi’s confusion over this Stada. I read that in the Torah the witnesses are not hidden, except for this one?
Where are the witnesses? There are none! This messiah Jesus is hidden. It is all hidden. None are hidden but this one, Jesus!

They didn’t know from where he really originated? They had no record of him. It seems that this verse is admitting the confusion as to who he was, which is denoted by the overt and covert encryptment of Jesus lineage. Jews were masterful at stating lineage. By divulging that they didn’t know his lineage, and not being able to give any proper lineage, they’ve exposed that they don’t know any such man Jesus. By not dating him to a time frame that matches the Roman dates they’ve corroborated yet again that there was no such man. They’ve been slaughtered in the mid-late 2nd century for denouncing Jesus and Christianity as a myth, therefore by the time of this redaction in the late 2nd century they exposed it with caution.

The enticer – the Roman clergy hidden messiah - wishes to convert the Jews to follow the enticer – the hidden one – the witness that should never be hidden in Jewish scripture. The jew asks, “but how shall we forsake our god in Heaven and serve idols?” They cannot convert to Christianty because it is along the same line as idol worship.

If he retracts and does not convert it is well for the Jewish community, but not for the Roman community. If he converts, believing that is his duty he will be stoned by his faith, symbolic of denouncing the faith. If he does not convert he will be stoned/persecuted by Roman clergy with the agenda to Romanize Jews. Either way the Jews were caught between a rock and a hard place. Slaughter was the result.

The confusion over who Ben Stada was is comical. He didn’t exist in the first place, which is a very clever parable. The tattoo artist is such a blasphemy! Jews were strictly against body tattoos.
This woman has turned away from her husband is a saying referring to someone who has rejected and fallen – not in accordance with Jewish law or rule.

The interesting thing is that Goldstein cannot see the reason the Jews of that era became more and more cautious about allowing miracles to be accepted. They were dealing with a Roman magic Messiah creation who was hidden from them – unknown, was he from this tattoo artist – or that lineage – it was unknown because he was hidden from them. Why else did Rabbi Yachanan meet with Vespasian to accommodate him in a newly built academy with the goal of trying to salvage the Jewish tradition. These lies were known to the Rabbi’s and the way they could protect themselves from it; and their people from converting to it, is if they would not support the Jesus messiah miracle stories. I believe that for this reason they held up strict codes about magic in case the members were enticed by the conversion process to Romanize the Jews.

They didn’t disallow some of the Jewish messiahs who came forward in the era proceeding 33ce, as I mentioned earlier, but those messiahs were real; known to them and not hidden. They would not support a hidden, unknown and fabricated Messiah.

*


*continued:



Morey quotes from the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud:
>Footnote in Soncino: "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus."
Some scholars also see an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ in the term, "son of Pandira." This is due to the fact that "Pandira" seems to be a play on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, the very term used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when recording Jesus' virgin birth.
McDowell & Wilson report: "... Scholars have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name (i.e., ben Pandira) attached to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek word pentheros, meaning 'son-in-law.' Klausner and Bruce accept the position that panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning 'virgin.' Klausner says, 'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of the leopard."'... The theory most sensational but least accepted by serious scholars was dramatized by the discovery of a first century tombstone at Bingerbruck, Germany. The inscription read, 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 c.e. was transferred to service in Germany.'... This discovery fueled the fire of the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier, Panthera. Even Origen writes that his opponent, Celsus, in circa A.D. 178, said that he heard from a Jew that 'Miriam' had become pregnant by 'Pantheras,' a Roman soldier; was divorced by her husband, and bore Jesus in secret.

"If 'Pantheras' were a unique name, the theory of Mary's pregnancy by the Roman soldier might be more attractive to scholars. But Adolf Deissman, the early twentieth-century German New Testament scholar, verified, by first century inscriptions, 'with absolute certainty that Panthera was not an invention of Jewish scoffers, but a widespread name among the ancients.'... Rabbi and Professor Morris Goldstein comments that it was as common as the names Wolf or Fox today. He comments further:

>continued: "It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Joseph, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...
"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)
Hence, why or how Jesus came to be called ben Pandira is an issue which scholars have not come to an agreement.>>end quote.



It’s important to note that Origen of Alexandria was born in 185 and died in 254 ce. He is credited with the story of Yeshu Pandira. The redactions from the late 2nd century and early 3rd century are well documented. It clearly shows how the storyline couldn’t possibly be written with any accuracy, because it was always in flux, causing redactions. The Jews couldn’t possibly get it straight because they had no actual story from which to write in the first place.

The implication of a tattoo artist is a parable code as is the idea that Jesus mother is a hair dresser. It’s derogatory encryptment against the ever changing storyline, lately put out by Origen.
It is made clear that there is no Davidic ancestry or lineage.

In the midst of Christian allusions I will make my own allusion. If I were a Jew in an era when my religion was threatened with extinction (70ce war), and I was frightened to fight back (slaughter of the 3rd war after Simon Bar Kosiba’s Jesus myth denunciation), I would tell the story in parable to secure the truth to all who had ears to hear.

The mother is specifically cast in confusion as she does not exist any more than the son. The lineage is made a joke.
They are hidden from identification as anything but a hairdresser – or perhaps a more disrespectful profession like a tattoo artist. The ultimate anti-Jewish profession might be a tattoo artist. Panthera was a very common name, showing that Yeshu and his mother are the offspring born out of a Greek Roman story. The anscestor and father of Yeshu/Jesus is a Greek story.
It was indeed written by Grecian trained Roman writers!! That is a fact!
I have checked the history of the important Greek writers behind the New Testament and they are pretty much all widely known as Roman/Grecian trained writers, some from very proliphic Grecian teachers I might add.

The allusion that they didn’t exist is referenced to the mother as maybe this woman, maybe that woman – nothing precise because she didn’t exist. The mother is a nobody and the confusion points to that detail.
The child messiah is the son of the Grecian Roman storytellers.

Again, even Klausner says, 'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of the leopard."

Earliest times = early to mid and late 2nd century.
Of course the christians spoke greek from the earliest times (theres that vague timeframe referencing the word “earliest” again, haha) it originated from the Roman Grecian writers and preachers. Klausner concedes to this and do you think the Jews did not know this? This is why many of them denounced the christians and tried to fight against this while being occupied by Rome and slaughtered a few times for doing it. Again, When the Christians say that Rome persecuted the christians it was Rome persecuting the Jews.
like Bar Kosiba etc who denounced this game as best as they could without being slaughtered…..again. The Christians who converted were given perks like no taxes and immunity, etc. The polytheist emperor had nothing to gain by slaughtering Christians as they were already in alignment with a Roman agenda to romanize the Jews. The Jews who were not converting offered the problem. Again, it was always about the Romanization project. Aside from the Jews the Romans left other religions to live in peace under their polytheist policy.

The last slaughter caused Jews to become even more closed . It’s interesting to note that Goldstein mentions that the jews became increasing resistant and closed but fails to detail events surrounding this as it might unravel the mythology.
That omission is intellectual dishonesty!

Continued:
II. Jesus' Crucifixion
"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)
Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: "You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him." It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship. (McDowell & Wilson, p. 65) >>end quote.

Christians and Messianic Jews add the word Nazarene in their interpretation. The other version says ‘he was near the government’. I reviewed this passage earlier. The word Nazarene is debated for many reasons. The timelines are wrong. This is why Jewish Rabbi’s have long considered the Roman Jesus messiah a hybrid of earlier stories. Passover is a very important symbolic date to have the Sanhedrin comment on this man’s death. Anyone who knows anything about the Passover can make the parable association that this evil will pass over them. Why did the Jews consider this man to be a deceiver? Because he was a creation from Egyptian ideas, Roman aligned, and this was not in keeping with upholding the Jewish standards. He was a Roman messiah to help Rome, not to help Judea. Jesus did in fact help Rome. That has been proven out in 2 thousand years of history and still counting! He was always near the kingdom, the government – Rome!

Again the term, “you shall not conceal him” references the earlier text of not “hiding” the witness. There was never anyone to hide. There were never any disciples to hide. They all had to be killed off early so that no one would wonder why they never met these men. There is zero data, archaeology or documentation from the 1st century validating that the 11 disciples went out and preached in the world. Constantine brought crosses etc to Asia when he moved there long after the 1st century. They were hidden, concealed, but the Jews did NOT conceal them or validate or support them. They didn’t reference to them in any way that would link it together and to this day it may well be the most brilliant and strategic war through the written verse. The messianic christian thinks that the new testament is the greatest story to be credited to Israel. I counter that and posit that the Jews may have brilliantly surpassed even the Grecian writers and Roman war strategists at their own game.



continued:
III. Jesus' Resurrection
"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God. [a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)


I’m seeing this as more of an allusion to the fraud of the Romans than the allusion to support an actual historical Jesus. The Jews were using parables as the new testament Grecian writers were using parables. They are writing to counter parables. This was dated AFTER the written new testament parables. It is AFTER the Jews were pressured to conform their texts by Roman clergy. It is also a christian interpretation of the Sanhedrin text. I’d have to get a Jewish interpretation to be more clear that the author of the above quote isn’t skewing it to slant in support of Christianity. As Rabbi Laughterbach said, these texts were redacted and written well after 100ce. This is long after Jesus era and in the era when the storyline was being hammered out, preached and pressured by Rome to convert to.

Again, the Jews were pressured by Rome to redact their writing. This is in fact a clear stand. It says, The Jews shall not live when God does such a thing. Rome and Greece did such a thing, but God? Why would God do such a thing to the Jews! The Jews had always considered themselves a chosen people of God – led by his hand. The Jews were under threat of being exterminated and absorbed and assimilated – they would not survive and THAT is what Rabbi Yochanan feared when he met with Emperor Vespasian and formed the academy afterward.

The decree against the Christian texts is Woe unto him who accepts this and lives by this name of this God Messiah. It was their way of saying it is false! It is a fraud. Don’t convert! Again, Thousands of Jews were exterminated in the 135ce war which made them afraid to denounce further. This doesn’t verify or validate that there was a Jesus in the era of 30ce to 33ce or proselyting from Jewish disciples. This verifies that there was a storyline going around after the texts were redacted under Roman pressure from 70ce onward. It verifies that the Jewish writers had to be covert in their message out of fear of persecution which was on-going. When the Jews fought back the Roman clergy claimed that they, the christians were getting persecuted for their faith! They miss the larger picture and story. The Jews fought back against the Roman clergy, (christians) because they didn’t want to be converted. When the Polytheist emperors tried to settle the in-fighting christians and jews were killed alike. No, this points to the storyline written not during Jesus era but during the Roman written era, because there is nothing anywhere to support a man like that in the Jewish dateline. This is why historians cannot find details to properly support the Roman new testament and why there is zero archaeological Christian artifacts anywhere in the world dating to the 1st century . (I will go over that more in detail when I review Bart Ehrmans book on a Historical Jesus.)

Continued:
IV. Jesus' Deity
Christian Author Michael Green quotes a rabbi named Eliezar, writing about AD 160, who writes:
>"God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future, who would attempt to make himself God and lead the whole world astray. And if he says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that he will depart and will return at the end of days." (Green, Who is this Jesus? [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992], p. 60- cited in We Believe Series - Basics of Christianity, Jesus Knowing Our Savior, author Max Anders [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995], p. 136)

>"Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that he should lie.' And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live - of what nation which heareth that man who hath made himself God." (Yalkut Shimeon, [Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue)

Another rabbi, writing a hundred years after Eliezer, states:
"Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says 'I am God,' he lies; if he says, 'I am the Son of man' he shall rue it; 'I will go up to heaven,' (to this applies Num. xxiii 19) he saith, but shall not perform it." (Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b)


The dates are written in the last part of the 2nd century. The Rabbi’s were at their wits end as to what to do about this Roman-Messiah creation. The interesting thing is that the Rabbi says the story is a lie. He is outrightly saying that God would not tell you to give heed to this story and follow it because God would not lie and lead you into a lie. The other interesting note about the dates is that in 160ce the Rabbi is predicting a man coming forward in THE FUTURE. Jesus was claimed by the new testament and Roman clergy to have lived in the past, dead at 33ce. I can’t possibly imagine the kind of myopic tunnel vision a christian must engage in to use this revelation from 160ce projected toward the future to verify Jesus from the past era of 33ce. It truly does boggle the mind! This happens because people are converted to Christianity culturally as an accepted truth. They don’t bother to look into it and when they do they take the word of someone who already tries to support and verify it as a truth. I have not seen one review supporting a historical Jesus to be objective and unbiased.

Clearly this is a way for the Rabbi’s to denounce anyone claiming to be a Son of God, or a Savior/God in the capacity that the Romans were using their precious Messiah prophecy. The Roman clergy had taken their prophecy and filled it with blasphemy! Furthermore they were converting using threatening and both overt and covert invasive tactics. What a clever way to denounce the Roman Jesus story by placing the warning into the future. The attention is taken off Jesus by putting it into the future, thereby avoiding the threat of Roman clergy if they denounce Jesus from the past. (again, this Rabi wrote only 3 decades after the slaughter of Bar Kosiba’s era of 135ce during his denunciation against high taxation, conversion exempt to taxation and jesus mythology). The Roman church clergy couldn’t accuse this Rabi for denouncing Jesus, as his revelation was void of the use of the word Jesus but was in the future against anyone who claimed to be a God. Of course, the Roman clergy writers countered this by writing in the now canonized new testament, “it is you who say I am.” This was a poor attempt to lead the persecution of Jesus back to the Jews. In fact, it was the Roman writers manipulation because every knee HAS to bow to Jesus as the God and Savior and the redemption story got more elaborate with ever writer that followed. This was the Rabi’s way of denouncing the Roman clergy Jesus story in a safer way. It just makes sense. It’s the only explanation at this point that fits anything and makes any sense.


Continued:
V. Jesus' Disciples
Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. (Sanhedrin 43a)
The purpose for singling out only five of Jesus' disciples could be due to the fact that other rabbis in the Talmud such as Yohanan ben Zakkai and Akiba are also said to have five disciples. (McDowell & Wilson, p. 65)

I ask why would they say Jesus had 5 disciples when he had 12? Look, aside from the number error of disciples, Yohanan came on the Roman scene in 70ce when Vespasian conquered Jerusalem. Akiba lived from 50 ce to 135ce. This was NOT during Jesus era of 33ce. They are clearly showing that there is no Jesus with 12 apostles. If there was an actual Jesus with disciples he would have had 5.
The Roman writers couldn’t keep track of all the details. Jewish redactions did their best to appease Rome while showing that the Roman 12 were a fraud. Rome couldn’t keep up with all the details because they were always in flux and also they were largely clueless as to main details of Jewish tradition. If there was a real Jesus Messiah he would have had 5 disciples.

I can imagine the pressure of Jews trying to write a fake story while still upholding their law of exposing the fraud enticers. If you read this verse from this context it makes sense that the Jews had no idea of a man named Jesus, were trying to later write a story to appease Rome, and did so in this manner.

If we can trust the interpretation of the Jewish writers in the below link we’ll see a slightly more interesting story:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_zakkai.html

quote from Jewish virtual library: “Yochanan Ben Zakkai urged surrender, but the Zealots would not hear of it, so ben Zakkai faked his own death and had his disciples smuggle him out of Jerusalem in a coffin. They carried the coffin to Vespasian's tent, where ben Zakkai emerged from the coffin. He told Vespasian that he had had a vision (some would say, a shrewd political insight) that Vespasian would soon be emperor, and he asked Vespasian to set aside a place in Yavneh (near modern Rehovot) where he could start a small school and study Torah in peace. Vespasian promised that if the prophesy came true, he would grant ben Zakkai's request. Vespasian became Emperor within a year, and kept his word, allowing the school to be established after the war was over. The school ben Zakkai established at Yavneh became the center of Jewish learning for centuries and replaced Jerusalem as the seat of the Sanhedrin.” >> End quote.

Yochanan was in place to write the new and improved texts as per Emperor Vespasians allowance!! It’s not surprising that the Jewish writers and the Roman clergy writers couldn’t quite get together on their information, even though Jesus was said to have lived in Judea and not in the area centuries later where the Roman clergy wrote – and admittedly not having met Jesus themselves.

According to the Jewish tradition the rabbi’s in question above had 5 disciples so of course the Jewish writer would assume that Jesus would also have 5 disciples. But wait, not according to the Grecians who enjoyed the number 12. It doesn’t matter anyway, the Grecians couldn’t develop interesting storylines for most of the 12 , as I mentioned earlier the disciples (all but a few) were killed off early anyway. Does this point to a possibility of a few disciples? No, it doesn’t based on Yochanan’s desire to stay alive in the midst of a Roman slaughtered Jerusalem and to hold some position maintaining his belief system as best he could. With the threat of on-going Romanization it’s not surprising that his fear of assimilation provoked a surrender and co-operation with Vespasian. The purpose for singling out 12 disciples should have been for authenticity – the purpose of singling out 5 disciples to lead to Yochanan points to Yochanan’s contribution of a vague reference in his schools to appease the Emperor Vespasian and the upcoming albeit ever evolving Jesus storyline that proceeded. Yochanan was long dead when the storyline culminated more thoroughly and yet Yochanan writes nothing else about Yeshu this Great Messiah except for these 5 disciples and their random names which are also devoid of any detail. If Yeshu as refered to by Yochanan wasn’t an appeased bow to the Roman storyline why wouldn’t the Jewish writers mention that Yeshu was either the Jewish denounced messiah or the Roman announced messiah? They didn’t elaborate about something as important as this? How curious. Even Rabi Akiba and Eliezar and Yochanan himself get more details than the controversial Yeshu Messiah!

Continued:
>”Our teachers have taught: When R. Eliezer [the Great] was arrested for Minuth they brought him to the tribunal for judgment. The Procurator said to him, Does an old man like you busy himself with such idle matters? He answered, I trust him that judges me. So the Procurator thought that he spoke of him, whereas he spoke of his heavenly father. The Procurator said to him, Since you trust in me you are dimissus, acquitted. When he returned home his disciples came in to console him, but he would not accept their consolations. R. Akiba said to him, Suffer me to tell you one thing of what you have taught me. He answered, (Say on). He said, Perhaps [a word of] minuth came upon you and pleased you and therefore you were arrested. (Tosefta reads: Perhaps one of the Minim had said to thee a word of Minuth and it pleased thee?) He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads "street") of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads "Sakanin") was his name. He said to me, So [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads "Yeshu ben Pantere"): "For the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return"; from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed against what is written in the Law: "Keep thy way far from her" - that is Minuth; "and come not nigh the door of her house" - that is the civil government.”> (McDowell &Wilson, pp. 67-68)


Minuth means "heresy." The titles Minuth and Mnim were applied to Christians.

First it is clear that we have a Christian interpretation of this passage and this is problematic but I will address it. Again, Rabi Eliezar is dated to 160ce. Rabi Akiba dates from 50 to 135ce. It would have had to have happened before 135ce which roughly places Akiba’s death date. This is a century AFTER Jesus! It doesn’t support a Jesus story from Jesus era, it supports a Roman clergy Christian Romanization threat.
It shows that the Roman tribunal procurator had some hand in the Christian clergy affairs! The procurator is a Roman political judge. Were the Jewish Rabi’s monitored to determine what they were saying about Christianity?
According to this in the mid to last part of the 2nd century they were indeed!

Suddenly when confronted with Rabi Akiba the Rabi Eliezar remembers a confrontation with a disciple of Yeshu, named Sekanya. Why would Eliezar be arrested for something he heard long ago?

It was an excuse to get out of the accusation for slandering the Jesus Christian myth – and in this case it worked. The message was sent to keep away from heresy/ Christians and the civil government – apparently the two went hand in hand. The Jewish law said to keep away from it. It helps explain why it is couched in the texts.

Apparently Eliezar spoke of his denunciation of Christianity and the civil government, as per the very harsh quote, and then said, oh yes, I remember now that a disciple of Yeshu of Panthera told me about it. Essentially he reverts the quote back to Yeshu of panther. It is a very clever as this was during the era of prolific christian storyline writing.
I posit that Yeshu of Panthera is the son of the Grecian story writers…..the child and creation of the Grecian/Roman clergy writers. The tongue-in-cheek reference is that the Clergy and their christian doctrine are filth and hired harlots. Jesus denounced filth as did the Jewish law. The problem was that Yeshu backed the Greek writers in favor of denouncing the Jewish Rabbinical order.
*note: it was Romans who wished to defile the temples and the Roman bought and appointed Jewish priests assisted them. These were the jews that were offensive to the zealots, but Yeshu backed the Romans while condemning the Roman backed Jewish priests.

Using their own doctrine against them sends a message to be warned of this child of Grecian writers. The jews were very sophisticated writing covert and subversive material. It almost backfired on Eliezar. Allusions to a Grecian written creation which not only incorporates a Judaic principle but uses it to defend Christianity and is used to denounce them by Eliezar during a time that was patrolled for heresy in the mid to late 2nd century.

Allusions can cut both ways, however, rather than trying match up an allusion I’d rather focus on looking at information that may or may not back up the allusions. Allusions aside, the thing I find disingenuous and unethical is that the commentator and author of the above version of text changes it to read “Jesus of Nazareth” when the actual Tosefta reads Yeshu ben Pantere.

Basically the Rabi was talking about the Christians as harlots and filth. When he was sent up to the Roman magistrate for slander the other Rabi suggested he cover it by saying that he heard Yeshu make the statement. This cleared the Rabi. They were very smart! They learned how to manoeuver in a very difficult era of persecution for denouncing Jesus and its followers.

Reviewing Tosefta Hullin:

>”VI. Jesus And Healing
>”It happened with R. Elazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit, that Jacob, a man of Kefar Soma, came to heal him in the name of Yeshua ben Pantera; but R. Ishmael did not let him. He said, "You are not permitted, Ben Damah." He answered, "I will bring you proof that he may heal me." But he had no opportunity to bring proof, for he died. (Whereupon) R. Ishmael said, "Happy art thou, Ben Damah, for you have gone in peace and you have not broken down the fence of the Sages; since everyone who breaks down the fence of the Sages, to him punishment will ultimately come, as it is in Scripture: 'Whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.'" (Tosefta Hullin 2.22; Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 14d and Abodah Zarah 40d, 41a; Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 27b)
This is an admission that the name of Jesus had power to heal others and prevent them from dying. >.end quote.

I reviewed this text earlier, but included the christian commentator because of his fascinating claims that this validates Jesus power to heal when
1) it doesn’t reference Jesus the Christian Messiah it references the Hebrew joke of Yeshu Pantera from an era that is over a century after Jesus.
2) the reference can just as easily point to justify later story clergy inserts
3)my previous review of this indicates that the Jew would rather die than be healed by a son/creation of Greco-Roman clergy.

In this case it would be more likely to compare the serpent biting him with the Minuth/enticer. Breaking down the fence of the sage resembles the breaking of their barrier and boundary and accepting the Minuth/enticer/christian conversion doctrine. If they break the barrier and are not steadfast the serpent/Minuth/enticer shall bite them. Perhaps these types of stories brought Rabi Eliezar to be judged by the procurator because it was a defamation against the Christian conversion movement. Rather than an admission of any Jesus existing from the era of 0ce to 33ce, it is an admission that in the mid to late 2nd century, when this was written, the storyline and conversion process was in place AND the Jews denounced it as a lying serpent. In other words, the serpent always lies and is not the correct path, do not follow the serpent or you will die – be Romanized. In this parable, NO PROOF could be presented. There was never any proof, only 130 year old legends and myth which these Rabbi’s joked about. Rabi Akiba was considered something of a Messiah contender within the Jewish texts in straightforward terms with no allusions or ‘inside’ jokes surrounding those accounts.

TOLEDOTH YESHU
"There is another Jewish hostile manuscript called Toledoth Jeshu. This manuscript does not refer to Jesus only, but it also relates to us a fictitious story about what happened to his body after His death. Its author claimed that Jesus' disciples plotted to steal Christ's body, but a certain gardener, whose name was Judas, discovered the conspiracy. He came secretly and removed the body from Joseph's tomb and relocated it in a newly-dug grave. When the disciples came to the original tomb and found it empty, they proclaimed that He had risen from the dead. Soon after, the Jewish leaders also approached Joseph's tomb and found it empty. The gardener then took them to the newly dug grave and showed them Jesus' body.
"Though this tradition was not compiled before the fifth century A.D., it undoubtedly echoed an earlier Jewish tradition that was widespread among the Jewish circles after the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 28:11-15). This manuscript, despite its hostility to Christianity, is strong evidence for Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection, because it is the testimony of an avenging foe." (Faris al-Qayrawani, Was Christ Really Crucified? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria, 1997], p. 48) >>end quote.

Correction: it wasn’t considered a Jewish hostile script. The writer isn’t entirely known although some point toward Celsus from the 2nd century, who was not Jewish but Grecian and was part of the over-all movement against the fraud which was Christianity. It isn’t certain that it was compiled in the 5th century (see my earlier review on the Toledoth Yeshu.) In around the time when the Yeshu Pantera texts were being joked about from within the Jewish texts themselves (see my above reviews on the Rabbi’s Jewish texts making jokes and claims that this Yeshu Pantera story was not to be followed as it was a snake/serpent/lie) many groups began to context Christianity not only because it was a fraud written by Grecian writers, but because it incorporated a Roman clergy and political means to Romanize the Jews in the name of the fraud. Anyone who had a modicum of ethics and integrity, like Celsus, even though not Jewish himself, objected based on the fact that a Roman fraud was being foisted on them.

A comment from an avenging foe does not prove it is correct or true! How does this author arrive at such a conclusion? If your car was stolen by your neighbor you would make appropriate files and legal claims. This doesn’t mean that your avenging proves the thief is good or true. It means that you will not stand for such a thing and will take appropriate action and make it known – especially if you have been in some way lied about or further mistreated.

During this 2nd century era the Roman procurators were apparently watching people who might be against Christianity according to the Jewish texts. {This is alluded to in the new testament as the new testament discusses this from the 2nd century and interpolates/inserts it into the 33ce era when it was not known to be happening to this degree. Goldstein has also validated this when he wrote that the Tannaitic/Jesus period was not as strict as the Ammoraic/2nd century period; but various data from non-clergy sources validates this conclusion. However writing from the 2nd and 3rd century claims that the 1st century had strict magic laws. Oh the contradictions!}

It is a strong evidence that there was a mythology which apparently some facets of the Roman political systems (procurators/judges) backed; and that Jews and non-Jews alike did not agree with it. It supports that they had to be careful about how they objected, based on the recent Kosiba war of 135ce and Rabbi Eliezar and Akiba’s statements they were afraid to be persecuted for speaking against Christianity. They chose anonymous scripts which wouldn’t necessarily pin something to one person – but simply the telling of a story while it allowed them some limited freedom to vent their dislike in the story and its origin of the Yeshu who came out of – was birthed and originated - through the Grecian trained preachers!

How could this story validate a man who was alleged resurrected over a century earlier when none of them were alive as eye witnesses. Afterall, how many people have you witnessed resurrected? Seriously! Think about it! Think! If I were to spread a story that said my leader – let’s call her Anne - was resurrected a hundred years ago and went to heaven and will return again YOU would LOCK me UP! You’d advise me to seek help and soon. Now, if I were to say that I never actually met this person, but that there’s a rumor floating around that it was true and also preached by people who never met this person and supported by the government if one might denounce this story, and that there was another story making fun of it WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE!
Please!

I am writing and analyzing this in hope of educating from 2,ooo years of nonsense still happening today in hope that truth and more clearer and logical heads will eventually prevail in the world. I can only hope because it is after all the world in which I live and I have an interest in my community and society, plus it is most difficult to interact with people such as the above christian commentators as they have no ability to recognize bullshit and fraud in the name of God. They not only are duped and lied to but they defend it in ways that make no sense and they become extremely difficult to be around when you object to them. I am often ostracized, shunned or feared when I tell christians that I don’t believe any of it. This all effects the quality of my environment and I prefer truth – so if anything educational comes of my research I will be happier for it.

*
-continued:

Below is a link to a pre-published copy of a pre 17th century Talmud.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf

It’s important to ascertain who translated the texts and as of this date I haven’t researched that.

Even though people like Shoumon and Morey, or the Messianic Jew Goldstein, are an example of other Christians who make their strong claims and allusions, they don’t include or explain why records of Jewish Simon Ben Kosiba denounce the idea of Jesus as a lie.

They also don’t include the fact that the records were Roman redacted and that the later Jews did not agree with this but it took centuries before they would stand up and renounce AGAIN the Roman tampering with their record under the original Vespasian/Yochanan academy and subsequent changes from Roman clergy.

They also mention this misinformed era of persecution in ways that aren’t accurate. The Jews were under persecution from Roman Catholicism in the 17th century just as the 2nd war of Simon Bar Kosiba held fear in the eyes of the Jews intended to make them conform as much as possible (such were the on-going goals of conformity re the Romanization projects) to implant references that would assist in conformity and conversion processes.

I’ll continue to look at the texts where the Jews inserted the name Yeshu many times but never defined exact details to corroborate with the Roman messiah.

Scholars (who aren’t christian biased) have looked at the various interpretations that Jesus is recorded in the mishnah or talmud and cannot verify any of them. The following link explains the interpretations and rebuttal.

Rabi Gil Student is an orthodox Rabi. He echoes many orthodox Rabi’s explanations and interpretations, however many people refuse to view them as scholarly. Instead they listen to the skewed omissions and twisted stories of christian theologians with a history degree; not an orthodox Jew with a history!


http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html

>>quote from above link: “We will quickly realize that there are great difficulties in stating that any of these texts refer to Jesus. We will see that a large number of historians and talmudists have addressed these issues and have concluded that either none of these passages refer to Jesus or that they refer to a proto-Jesus, whose life was later obfuscated by the theologically motivated rewriting of history.” >>end quote.

>>quote: It is important to keep in mind that there are many people in the Talmud with the same names. R. Aaron Hyman in his biographical work on the sages of the Talmud, Toldot Tannaim VeAmoraim, lists 14 Hillels, 61 Elazars, and 71 Hunas. Josephus lists approximately twenty different men named Jesus, at least ten of whom lived in the same time as the famous Jesus [cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, p. 206 n. 6]. The name Panthera was also a common name in the first two centuries [cf. L. Patterson, "Origin of the Name Panthera", JTS 19 (1917-18), p. 79-80, cited in Meier, p. 107 n. 48]. When dealing with first names, it is very common to come across different people in the Talmud with the same name and the same applies today. When I refer to Bill, am I talking about the President of the United States, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, or a local celebrity? In one place I could mean one Bill and in another place a different Bill. It is therefore almost impossible to identify someone based on their first name alone. Second names, which in the Talmud means the name of the father, enable us to identify people with much better accuracy, but not entirely. It is very possible for both two men and their father's to have the same names. This makes history much harder but ignoring this fact is distorting history.” >>End quote.

The last sentence of the above quote was well said and worth repeating. People ignore many facts and that in itself distorts history. If we remember to include all the things we know – facts – and include the things that are problematic errors, the dots start to connect and a rather obvious picture is painted.

The Jewish scribes either purposely lacked detail by referring vaguely to many men with no actual reference to Jesus as the Christians worship or they were simply writing about events which had no resemblance to this Christian Messiah Jesus in referring not specifically to one man who would fit Jesus profile. Of course, how could they – that profile wasn’t even known until Clement of Alexandria could put the finishing touches on it. Even the Roman writers couldn’t keep up with their ever changing storyline – how could they expect the Jews even though the Jews were agreed to conform their writings under Yochanan and Vespasians meeting and subsequent Rabbi redactions. Again, if the Rabbi’s took their power back in the 17th century and finally expunged data it would make sense after the centuries of torment and lies they endured at the hands of Roman Catholicism.

Here is another interpretation of the Talmud by Rabi Student, offered to compare to the previous christian interpretations.




---------




Quote:
Passage #1: Ben Stada
Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a

>"It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
[No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.
Summary
What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.
Proof
Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.
Problems
1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father.


________________________________________
Passage #3: Trial

Talmud Sanhedrin 67a

>"It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses. How do they deal with [the enticer]? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him "Tell me again what you said to me in private" and he tells him. He says "How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?" If he repents, good. If he says "This is our obligation and what we must do" the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him. And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover.
Summary
This passage discusses how an enticer to idolatry, one of the worst religious criminals (see Deuteronomy 13:7-12), was caught. The Talmud then continues and says that this was the method used to catch the notorious Ben Stada.
Proof
Again we see Ben Stada. Above we were told that he performed witchcraft and we are now told that he was an idolater as well. The connection to Jesus is that Ben Stada is connected to Jesus in the passage above and that he was executed on the eve of Passover. The Gospel of John (19:14) has Jesus being executed on the eve of Passover.
Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Ben Stada to Jesus apply here as well, including his living almost a century after Jesus.
2. Ben Stada was stoned by a Jewish court and not crucified by the Roman government like Jesus.
3. The Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus was executed on Passover itself (Matthew 26:18-20; Mark 14:16-18; Luke 22:13-15) and not the eve of Passover.
4. Jesus was not crucified in Lud.
________________________________________






5Passage #4: Execution

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

>"It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.
Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."
Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.
Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.
Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.
Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.
________________________________________
Passage #5: Disciples

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

>"It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."
They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."
They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay."
They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."
They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots."
They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."
They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel."
They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."
They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."
They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."
Summary
Five of Yeshu's disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law. This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise.
Proof
The name Yeshu is used as above. The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples.
Problems
1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized. What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period. It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people. Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah's famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].
________________________________________
Passage #6: The Student

Tosefta Chullin 2:23

It once happened that R. Elazar ben Damah was bitten by a snake and Ya'akov of the village Sechania came to heal him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira, but R. Yishmael did not allow him.
Proof
Here we see the only place in which the names Yeshu and Ben Pandira are connected.
________________________________________
Theories
Hazy History

">Some historians consider all of the above passages to refer to Jesus. Granted, there are many difficulties in tying all of the details together, particulary the historical timeframes. However, these historians claim "that chronology was not a science in which the rabbis excelled, or one in which they laid stress upon accuracy" [RT Herford, Chritianity in Talmud & Midrash, p. 347]. The rabbis of the talmud had a hazy memory of Jesus and embellished upon it in order to villainize him. The inconsistencies among the various stories are of no consequence because the rabbis did not care. Thus, Jesus is Yeshu is Ben Stada is Ben Pandira. Mary Magdalene is called Jesus' mother due to some vague familiarity with the gospel story. Jesus' execution was recalled but only some details remembered. In fact, these historians found many more references to Jesus in the talmud that did not use his name [discussed here]. Herford lists about twenty different passages that he claims refer to Jesus and still concludes that "it is remarkable how very little the talmud does say about Jesus" [ibid.].

>"This was at one time the standard approach of historians. However, the obvious bias against talmudic rabbis and the wanton attribution of nameless passages has since given way to a more balanced approach among academics.

>"Goldstein, in his highly respected doctoral dissertation Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, argues against the attribution to Jesus of various references in the talmud, such as Balaam and "a certain person". In his view, this is finding in the texts what one was a priori looking for [Cf. Goldstein, pp. 57-81]. Joseph Klausner does not consider the Ben Stada passages as referring to Jesus [Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 20-23]. Johann Maier concurs and adds that Ben Pandira had no connection to Jesus either [Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung, p. 237, cited in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. I p. 106 n. 45]. Maier further denies that the passage in Sanhedrin 43a about the execution and disciples of Yeshu has anything to do with Jesus [Maier, p. 229, cited in Meier vol. I p. 107 n. 51]. John P. Meier, a Catholic priest and author of the most recent and highly acclaimed scholarly analysis of the evidence of Jesus' life, A Marginal Jew, which has even been added to the Anchor Bible Reference Library, takes a middle ground and says "While not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" [Meier, vol. I p. 98].

>"Meier also adds what seems to be a direct answer to Herford's remark quoted above. Meier says "Hence, apart from Josephus, Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent source for inquiry into the historical Jesus. Indeed, why should it? Engaged in a fierce struggle for its own survival and definition, early rabbinic Judaism had other matters on its mind -- matters that, from its own perspective, were much more important" [Meier, ibid.].

>"Many modern historians detect different strata of texts from different ages within the talmudic period. The passages originally referred to different people named Yeshu, Ben Stada, and Ben Pandira, none of whom were Jesus. Over time, different generations of talmudic rabbis melded the passages together with added phrases and details. However, according to Johann Maier, none of these passages ever related to Jesus. Some scholars, such as Joseph Klausner and John P. Meier, believe that some of the later additions were meant to refer to Jesus, while the original basic text did not. It is therefore very difficult to determine what, if anything, the talmud actually says about Jesus.

>"These attempts at literary analysis of the talmud, while not quite heretical to traditional Jews, are certainly anathema. We will therefore try to use the literature of more traditional historical views of the talmudic passages along with some classic rabbinic commentaries to understand the subjects of these texts.

Two Yeshus
>"The standard rabbinic understanding of these passages is that these passages refer to at least two different people [cf. Tosafot HaRosh, Sotah 47a sv Yeshu, Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; Tosafot (uncensored) Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; R. Abraham Zacuto, Sefer Hayuchasin 5:6, R. Natan David Rabinowitz, Binu Shenot Dor Vador, pp. 422-425] The first lived in the first half of the first century BCE during the reign of Alexander Janneus. The second lived in the first half of the second century CE, during the time of the Roman persecution that led to Rabbi Akiva's tragic death.

>"The first, Yeshu Ben Pandira, started his own sect and had many followers. His heretical and idolatrous teachings lasted centuries after his life but, like so many Jewish sects, slowly died out after the destruction of the Temple.
The second, Ben Stada, was simply a public idolater from an illustrious family who was caught and punished.
The only connections between the two are their fathers' names, that they were executed on the day before Passover, and that they both spent time in Egypt. The first is probably a mere coincidence because, as pointed out above, Panthera (which in Hebrew and Aramaic is equivalent of Pandira) was a common name.
Ben Stada may have been executed on the day before Passover in Lud out of deference for his illustrious step-father. On that day, most people were gathered in Jerusalem preparing their Passover sacrifices and very few people would have witnessed the execution in Lud. Yeshu Ben Pandira may have been executed on the day before Passover in Jerusalem for the exact opposite reason. Since he was the leader of a heretical sect, the court may have wished that the crowd in Jerusalem would see his execution and learn that his sect was a deviation from the true Judaism.

>"Their both having spent time in Egypt is similar to two American Jews today both visiting New York City at some time in their lives. From the year 307 BCE to the year 113 CE, Alexandria had one of the largest and most illustrious Jewish communities in the world. Its hundreds of thousands of Jews had a very large and active Jewish community, which is probably why R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and Yeshu were able to hide there . The Alexandrian community was also noted for its affinity to Hellenistic culture. Its most famous product, Philo, wrote exclusively in Greek and propounded a very Hellenistic philosophy which some consider to be heretical to Judaism [see Samuel Belkin's introduction to Midreshei Philon]. It is certainly not surprising that the young Ben Pandira's visit to this thriving Jewish center led him to accept a hybrid Jewish-Hellenist religion that was considered idolatry by traditional Jews.

The following chart shows which details refer to each person.

Yeshu Ben Pandira
Passage 2
Lived appr. 80 BCE
Student of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah
Escaped persecution by fleeing to Egypt and, upon return, became an idolater

Passage 4
Executed on the day before Passover
Had close contact with government officials

Passage 5
Had five disciples who were also executed.

Passage 6
His legacy remained for centuries, even until the time of R. Yishmael (died 133)

Ben Stada
Passage 1
Lived appr. 100 CE
Sometimes called Ben Pandira but mainly Ben Stada, possibly to differentiate him from Yeshu Ben Pandira
Brought witchcraft from Egypt
Mother was Miriam the hairdresser, also known as Stada
Father was Pandira
Step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah

Passage 3
Executed on the day before Passover in Lud for idolatry


Early Jesus
>"Some historians go further. It is well known, and long a matter of controversy, that beginning in the early 19th century some historians disputed the existence of an historical Jesus at all. According to this theory, Jesus never existed and the early church fathers created him as a figure for their religion. The gospels are compilations of various legends that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus. Much ink has been spilled debating this theory, but there are some historians who accept this and go one step further. They identify the basis of the New Testament Jesus in the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira. This legendary figure, who was branded a heretic by Jewish leaders, founded a Jewish sect that inspired and influenced the early Christians. These early Christians then adopted the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira and modified it to fit into a later historical period and their own eclectic religious beliefs. [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Sefer Hakabbalah, 53; Sefer Hayuchasin, ibid.; Avraham Korman, Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 354-364].

>"Some daring scholars have even identified the original Jesus or proto-Jesus, Yeshu Ben Pandira, as the Teacher of Righteousness who led the sect in Qumran [cf. Alvar Ellegård, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ; G.R.S. Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?; G. A. Wells, The Jesus Myth]. While these theories are highly speculative and certainly not mainstream, researchers have amassed a large amount of evidence, from archaelogical finds to medieval references, that point to either this or a similar conclusion.

>Conclusion
It seems clear by now that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed "blasphemies" of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus' messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look. However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocably that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. As has been shown, those passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.

>Note: The wording of the texts was taken from Chisronot Hashas, originally printed in Koenigsberg in 1860 and reprinted in Tel Aviv in 1989. The text of the Tosefta was taken from the standard Vilna edition and slightly modified based on Saul Lieberman's Tosefet Rishonim.
>>end quote

--------

This doesn’t stop the newly formed Messianic Jews from attempting to twist ideas to fit them in as a match even though there is none, while overlooking the many other glaring problems.

The Simon Bar kosiba/kuchka letters found in the cave of the dead sea, indicate that Simon Kosiba’s followers were also non-jews fighting against Rome and denouncing Christianity. There is not a chance that Christians could attempt to make Kosiba’s group into the Jesus Messiah as that would be too ridiculous for even them to attempt. One of the documents in the cache is of a woman Babata. The last of her documents is dated August 19, AD 132, the year of the Bar-Kohkba Revolt. In this document she uses a form of address, ‘Yeshua son of Yeshua my orphan son’, that suggests that her previous petition for guardianship of her son might have failed. The document is a receipt, ‘from you on account of aliments and clothing of the said Yeshua my son, six denarii of silver from the first of the month of Panemos [June] of the said 27th year [of Provincia Arabia] until the thirtieth of Gorpiaios [August] three full months’.

Yeshua is a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshuah" - Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which comes the English spelling Jesus.

>>quote: “The Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) appears in some later books of the Hebrew Bible. Once for Joshua the son of Nun, and 28 times for Joshua the High Priest and (KJV "Jeshua") and other priests called Jeshua - although these same priests are also given the spelling Joshua in 11 further instances in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It differs from the usual Hebrew Bible spelling of Joshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ y'hoshuaʿ), found 218 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the absence of the consonant he ה and placement of the semivowel vav ו after, not before, the consonant shin ש. It also differs from the Hebrew spelling Yeshu(ישו) which is found in Ben Yehuda's dictionary and used in most secular contexts in modern Hebrew to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, though the Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) is generally used in translations of the New Testament into Hebrew and used by Hebrew speaking Christians in Israel. The nameYeshua is also used in Israeli Hebrew historical texts to refer to other Joshuas recorded in Greek texts such as Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus ben Sira.”> (Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000, Franz Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament, Matthew 1:1, BFBS 1877, Isaac Salkinsohn Hebrew New Testament)

*note: The above author, Robert Van Voorst, is a Christian writer writing in a slant to support a historical Jesus.

In the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria, in a Greek exposition, offered this understanding of Moses’s reason for the name change of the biblical hero Jehoshua/Joshua son of Nun from Hoshea [similar to hoshia` meaning "He rescued"] to Yehoshua in commemoration of his salvation: "And Ιησους refers to salvation of the Lord" [Ιησους or Iesous being the Greek form of the name] (Ἰησοῦ δὲ σωτηρία κυρίου) (On the Change of Names 21.121). “The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews.

Why am I not surprised when Philo or Josephus makes a commentary on the name Jehoshua. It was their job to bridge a gap by Romanizing or Hellenizing the Jews, and they were the ones who wrote just that. They are a pure example of origin of mythos and stories. If you tell a story long enough people will believe it, whether it is true or not. If you offer enough psychological fear, guilt or shame tactics the belief becomes sealed, as we have seen in Christianity.

In the Talmud, only one reference is made to the spelling Yeshua, in verbatim quotation from the Hebrew Bible regarding Jeshua son of Jozadak (elsewhere called Joshua son of Josedech). The Talmud does refer to several people named Yehoshua from before (e.g. Joshua ben Perachyah) and after Jesus (e.g. Joshua ben Hananiah). However in references to Jesus in the Talmud, where the name occurs, it is rendered Yeshu, which is a name reserved in Aramaic and Hebrew literature from the early medieval period until today, solely for Jesus of Nazareth, not for other Joshuas. However Rabi’s and scholars, such as Maier (1978) regard the two named "Yeshu" texts in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a and 107b) to be later amendments, and not original. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (Hebrew: 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara (500 CE),

Again, Roman clergy pressured the Mishnah and records to be redacted/changed almost 2 centuries after Jesus alleged life and after the Roman push to make Christianity it’s national religion. Rabbi’s under pressure of more slaughter conformed but as we read they did not conform in a way that would support the Roman Christian storyline and in this way they were not liable to support such an egregious lie.

I've already reviewed poor ole Bart Ehrman and submitted it a few years ago. He is a disgrace, but he has a history degree and is a self proclaimed agnostic (erroneously but that's another review) so because of this christians gobble up his blather.

Most Christians are not fans of Ehrman because he is agnostic, doesnt believe Jesus was divine and doesnt believe in the Bible. Where on earth did you get the idea that he has a big Christian fan base?

Bona, can you take a stab at explaining why some people on the board are so down on Ehrman? A person could not know less about this topic than I, but the threads keep popping up and I'm just curious what the essence of the dispute is. Reading his bio, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have anything interesting to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 01:41AM by thingsithink.

Everyone here loved him before he wrote a book claiming Jesus existed. I think it is mostly mythicists who are down on him. They expected him to be one of them.

MyTempleNameIsJoan, is there any chance that you could write an executive summary of your super long post?

I don't know what you are trying to say with this wall of text but I'm just going to correct you on a few details. Jesus didn't break Roman law and the Romans wouldn't kill him? This is nonsense on so many levels.

Declaring yourself king of any part of the Roman realm was considered treason and punished without hesitation. Only the emperor and the roman senate held the right to appoint kings. The real Pilate would have no trouble or remorse whatsoever for putting an alleged pretender of the jewish throne to death.

Christianity was indeed a curious greek branch/distortion of judaism during it's earliest stages. But this still doesn't lend any credibility whatsoever to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about it being sculpted into existence by Roman authorities. The same Roman authorities that as far as they bothered with the movement at all, persecuted it. In fact we have a pretty good grasp how and why christianity developed from the second century AD and onwards. Unsurprisingly it reveals a multitude of competing views vying for power instead of some secret world police nonsense.