Talk:Yeshu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions that ceased at the end of August 2004 or earlier are at Talk:Yeshu/July04Aug04

Contents 1 Information removed from Sources about Jesus page 2 Jesus in the Mishnah 3 Jeshu page 4 Hebrew 5 Ben Stada redirects 6 Yeshu in medieval and modern Hebrew 7 Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:4 8 However it literally means the watchman 9 Changes to Intro 10 Pandera information from Pandera page 10.1 Yeshu Ben Pandera 10.1.1 Other Sources 11 Pandera information from other pages 12 Tidy 13 Phonetic Difficulties 14 Distinction Difficulties 15 Erroneous beliefs cannot override the facts 16 Analysis of Chullin text 17 NPOV violation 18 Honesty violation 19 Checking original text 19.1 Which scholars do you highlight as refuting the position of R&B, KG? 20 Cleanup 21 Cooperation 22 Policy Review 23 Early Manuscripts 24 Samma-Sichnin-Sechania 25 Parthenogeneis 26 NOR concerns 27 yeshu/yisho in Syriac?

[edit] Information removed from Sources about Jesus page

RK removed this information from the Sources about Jesus page, I just thought I'd park it here for now in case there's anything of value that can be retrieved from it. Jayjg 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

References to Jesus in the Jewish Toledoth Yeshu compiled in the twelfth century but preserving traditions that go back to the 6th century are even less detailed. There is mention of the late 2nd century BCE Yeshu Ha Notzri who had some disciples, and was executed, and a certain early second century CE Ben Stada who practiced some form of "sorcery" (Sanhedrin 43a). There are traditions about Ben Stada's illegitimate birth and attempts to link him with a certain early first century Ben Pandera (Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 64a) whose disciples were healers and respected by Rabbis Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and/aka Eliezer ben Dama. The currency of this last story around 180 is corroborated by the anti-Christian polemic philosopher, Celsus, who reported hearing the story from an anonymous Jew.

The Toledoth Yeshu combines the traditions of these three men whose lives spanned four centuries (from the second century BC to the second century CE) and other characters like the 5th century Rabbi Tanhuma Bar Abba into one satirical and cautionary would-be messiah tale. It starts with the story of his allegedly illegitimate birth reports that in the time of King Jannaeus, a certain Miriam of noble blood, while engaged to Jochannan of David's line had an affair with a certain mid first cnetury BC Joseph Pandera and that the late second century BC Yeshu Ha Notzri was the result of this affair. Ben Pantera so means "Son of Pantera". It should be noted that the name of this alleged father means Panther in Aramaic. The chronological mess is because this is not taken to be a historic account but a satirical folk-tradition.

The word "panther" was also used as a metaphor for unbridled sexual desire (according to who?), so this could have begun as an allegation that Jesus was born out of wedlock because of his mother's sexual waywardness. Another theory is that the story of "pantheras" comes later than the chistian accounts as a deliberate distortion of and play on the Greek word for virgin, "parthenos".

[edit] Jesus in the Mishnah

Jesus is not mentioned in the Mishnah. At best there is an allusive reference to "ploni" (= rabbinic parlance for "so and so") in M. Yev. 4:13. Aside from that slender possibility, there is no mention of Jesus at all anywhere in the Mishnah. There are references from the Tosefta and from the Talmuds. However, it seems extremely unlikely that the Rabbinic literature can be appealed to for any independent historical data on Jesus of Nazareth. There is nothing to suggest that any reference to Jesus, from anywhere in the entire vast rabbinic corpus, is anything more than a reaction to contemporary Christian claims.

[edit] Jeshu page

I've redirected your Jeshu article here. Wikipedia does not need four articles on the same topic, it already has three. Here is the text you wrote. Please incorporate any NPOV text, with references, into this article. Thanks. Jayjg 22:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jeshu is an acronym used in the Talmud for individuals who were guilty of enticing Jews into idolatry. It is an abbreviation of the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro meaning may his name and memory be obliterated. The usage of the acronym reflected the belief amongst the redactors of the Talmud that people guilty of such a sin should not have the honour of being remembered in history.

The use of the term Jeshu in the Talmud is of historical importance as it lead to misconceptions amongst both Jews and Christians that the passages were references to Jesus. Amongst Jews this lead to the class of documents known as the Toldoth Jeshu or Generations of Jeshu. These contain legendary accounts of the origins of Christianity that confound anecdotes about individuals designated Jeshu in the Talmud with elements of the Gospels. Amongst Christians it lead to the belief that the Talmud contained derogatory comments about Jesus and the early Christians, resulting in the censoring of the Talmud.

Isn't this version similiar to the old version of Yeshu before VfD and rewrites: [1] --Pjacobi 22:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the people who have written the various articles relating to Yeshu are not qualified to do so. I have studied the topic of Yeshu and ben-Stada in the Talmud for nearly 15 years and am undertaking to rewrite the articles. I have started a page titled Jeshu that uses the Soncino spelling and with time will merge in relevant material from "Yeshu" and "Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud". The very name "Quotations about Jesus" implies that it is a fact that the references to Yeshu are about Jesus when modern scholarship clearly rejects such a claim. The very name "Yeshu" is an acronym for the Hebrew expression "may his name and memory be obliterated" NOT the Hebrew form of the name Jesus! - 15 Oct 2004

Ok Jayjg won't let me have my Jeshu page so I have begun rewriting the Yeshu page. Things I have changed:

1. Added alternative form Jeshu, this is the form used in the Soncino and is consistent with JPS conventions for transliterating Hebrew names.
2. Removed claim that the name is usually translated Jesus, the usual translations are Jeshu, Yeshu or even Yeishu and Jeschu. "Jesus" is a POV translation. Jesus is a Greek name, used also as a translation of the Hebrew names Joshua and Jeshua and even Hoshua when the latter refers to Joshua.
3. Removed claim that the Mishna refers to him, it does not!
4. Mentioned that the majority Jewish understanding of the name is acronym yemach shemo vezichro.
5. Added mention that the Ben Perachiah story is from the Talmud.
6. Busy adding references to Talmud passages for each anecdote about Yeshu.
7. Removing the use of the term "stories" when describing these references, this term is misleading they are not stories but refernces mentioned in passing to illustrate points that the Talmud makes.
8. Splitting primary references from Toledot Yeshu stories.
9. Will try make a proper easily readable article instead of a cobble of quotes from the Judaica.
10. Removing claims that Yeshu was a common name, it is not even understandable as a real Hebrew name and is not attested anyone other than the few references in the Talmud.
11. Combining sections on Is Yeshu Jesus and Jesus as other people.

User:Kuratowski's Ghost 15 Oct 2004

I've put back some of the info you deleted from the "Is Yeshu the Christian Jesus?" section. I realise that you don't agree with this, and I'll obviously accept your claim that most scholars don't think this anymore. However, in the interests of NPOV all the views need to properly discussed and I don't think that it's helpful to delete named references to people who believed the contrary. If you could provide references to "critical historians" who argue against Yeshu being Jesus Christ it would be even better. --G Rutter 12:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

@User:Kuratowski's Ghost: If you are right (I'm far from being able to judge) and if the other authors agree, this solution is even better that having separate Jeshu and Yeshu pages. --

@G Rutter: Mentioning the Jesus identifcation POV should be a part of the article, of course. Independent from the current scholarly view, it is quite often heard and the fact alone that several authors insisted to make this the article's main POV, is sign for this. It would be intersting whether User:Kuratowski's Ghost can give enough evidence to stop these other authors from reverting.

Pjacobi 13:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff because it contains factual errors such as claims of Yeshu in the Mishna (he isn't mentioned there) and the claim that Yeshu was a common name - it simply isn't true, it occurs nowhere other than in the Talmud and Tosefta and no example is known of anyone having Yeshu as a real name. There is also absolutely nothing about Mary and a carpentar in the Talmud passages - that comes from Celsus not Jewish sources.

Important things to remember about keeping NPOV

1. Assuming all references to Yeshu in the Talmud are about one individual is POV, its like assuming everything about "John Doe" is about one guy.
2. Assuming all references to Ben Pandira is about one guy is also POV, assuming Ben Pandira, Ben Stada and Yeshu are all one guy is extreme POV. Its like saying Bill Gates is Bill Clinton is George Clinton. No one would be so silly with English names but seem all to willing to do it with Hebrew names which they don't know or understand.

I will add a section on Ben Stada and Ben Pandera in good time.

User:Kuratowski's Ghost

Thanks. I think that the page looks a lot better now. I've added the References and Links sections from Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud- I'm sure you can add more. Does anyone now have any objections to removing the NPOV warning at the top of the page? --G Rutter 14:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew

To illustrate "The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is in fact superficial, the latter name contains a gutteral consonant in the original Hebrew which is absent from Yeshu" and perhaps at other places, can somebody please insert the names in Hebrew and in academic transliteration? --Pjacobi 16:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit deceiving as well; the latter indeed contains a "guttural consonant", the letter ayin to be specific, but it is at the end of the word. In other words, Yeshu is just Yeshua with the last letter dropped. Jayjg 19:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The point is, one cannot simply drop letters at the end of names.

Of course one can, it's done all the time. Rob is short for Robert. And in Hebrew Yishaya is short for Yishayahu. Jayjg 07:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the ayin was pronounced like the Arabic pronunciation of G in Gaza and that the patach under a final ayin is pronounced before not after the ayin, blending into the preceding vowel, Yeshu is pronounced YE-shoo but Yeshua is ye-SHOOAGH

Assuming that the Masoretic vowellization accurately reproduced first century pronunciations. Jayjg 09:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the precise pronunciation of the vowels is not important, the important things is whch syllable is emphasized and and the fact that Yeshua has the GGGHHHH sound at the end. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Syllable emphasis is also a feature of Masoretic convention, and the emphasis varies depending which syllable becomes the penultimate one. And it's still just one brief sound, regardless of how many letters you use to "re-produce" it. Moreover, loss of the distinct sound of the "ayin" is a common an early feature of Hebrew; the Talmud itself comments on it. Jayjg 18:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please folks, can anybody be so kind to add the Hebrew and the academic transliteration to illuminate to clueless? --Pjacobi 09:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Stada redirects

I redirected Ben Stada to Yeshu instead of Pandera. Similarly with Plony Ben Stada. My advice is that Plony Ben Stada should be removed completely it doesn't even deserve a redirect. Plony is not a name it is Hebrew for "a certain person" and the combination "plony be stada" is not found in the Talmud its baloney :P

I will be adding more about ben-Pandera to the Yeshu article especially regarding Celsus and Christian writers talking about a Panthera and the relationship this has to the Toledot Yeshu, once this is done we can redirect Pandera as well, its the dodgiest page I have ever seen on Wikipedia :p

KG

Please sign with four tilde signs, so your comments are dated. Jayjg 07:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yeshu in medieval and modern Hebrew

"Yeshu" is the common term for Jesus in medieval and modern Hebrew; this point should be incorporated into the article. Jayjg 18:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi.. Another point, Yeshu is often understood as the name for Jesus in Hebrew speaking circles today outside/notwithstanding the acronym stuff. And it is wrong to say that this is only a late or Talmudic usage, there is ossuary evidence without the ayin, and some folks, like the late historian David Flusser, consider it a gutteral Galilean Aramaic usage.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/names An Introduction to the Names Yehoshua/Joshua, Yeshua, Jesus and Yeshu by Kai Kjær-Hansen

One problem is that Christians (Messianics especially) became defensive because of the acronym situation, and attempted to eliminate the Yeshu form from consideration, scholarship on all sides tended to be through glasses. The formation of the acronym is by no means proof that Yeshu was not an actual form of the name of Jesus, we have to watch out for variants on the 'post hoc ergo propter' hoc fallacy.

Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic Praxeus 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:4

In the un-censored version of Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:4 he refers to Jesus; doesn't he use "Yeshu HaNotzri" there? Jayjg 18:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you confirm that it is indeed a comment by the Rambam and not a 17th century addition to Hilchos Melachim? Kuratowski's Ghost 21:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed an original comment by the Rambam, as found in uncensored Yemenite manuscripts; as far as I am aware there are no scholars who dispute this. Jayjg 22:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, it is not included in the standard Rambam. Rambam is indeed earlier than the Munich Manuscript and that needs to be mentioned. Ok how is this for a rewrite of the paragraph:

In the Munich manuscript of the Talmud (1342 CE), the appelation Ha-Notzri is added to to this last mention of Yeshu. However it literally means the watchman and its original intended meaning is unclear. The term Yeshu Ha-Notzri is already found in the (uncensored) Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:4 where the reference does seem to be to Jesus. Even if Nazarene is meant, the addition in the Munich manuscript is considered far too late to have any authority. The term is not found in four other early manuscripts. Herford's translation takes liberty and not only translates Ha-Notzri as Nazarene but appends it to other occurrences. The use of the expression Yeshu Ha-Notzri led to this becoming a standard Hebrew translation of Jesus the Nazarene.

Kuratowski's Ghost 23:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] However it literally means the watchman

Well, yes, that's one thing it means. But why does that rule out other possible derivations, including "off-shoot" (from netser), or even "from Nazareth"? Jayjg 18:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A derivation of Notzri from netzer or Nazareth is not grammatically plausible. A derivation of "Nazarene" used to describe Jesus in the Gospels is indeed plausibly derived from netzer in addition to the traditional understanding of being derived from Nazareth, leading to the whole debate about whether Nazareth even existed in the 1st century or if it was inserted into the Gospels based on a misunderstanding of Nazarene. But that belongs in the article on Nazarene not in the Yeshu article. I already mentioned that the occurrence in the Talmud led to Notzri being applied to Christians on the assumption that it meant Nazarene, I will add mention that it in fact led to Yeshu Ha-Notzri being used for Jesus the Nazarene. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, just to push the point, "Notzrim" is the Hebrew word for Christians, and it sure as heck doesn't mean "watchmen" or "offshoots" or "Nazirites". And claiming its "not grammatically plausible" and actually proving it are two entirely different things. Jayjg 22:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well actually there are two things complicating the matter. Firstly is the conventional vowelization Notzri correct? If yes then I don't see how it could get that vowelization from netzer. BUT if the vowelization is wrong resulting from people misunderstanding the word as being the word for watchmen (which is notzri) when it should really be vowelized Netzari then yes it does come from netzer. The second complication is what do we actually mean by Nazarene? If we mean someone from Nazareth. Then no notzri and a supposed alternative pronunciation of netzeri is unlikely to mean someone from Nazareth. But if Nazarene itself never really meant someone from Nazareth but instead comes from netzer then the supposed alternative pronunciation of netzari does correspond to Nazarene. Notzrim is standard Hebrew for Christians but this would result from the mediaeval usage of Yeshu Ha-Notzri for Jesus the Nazarene. Hows this for a rewrite of the paragraph.

In the Munich manuscript of the Talmud (1342 CE), the appelation Ha-Notzri is added to this last mention of Yeshu. The term Yeshu Ha-Notzri is already found in the (uncensored) Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:4 where the reference does seem to be to Jesus. With the conventional vowelization this word literally means the watchman and its original intended meaning is unclear. It became the standard Hebrew word for Christians and Yeshu Ha-Notzri became the conventional rendition of Jesus the Nazarene in Hebrew. However, the addition in the Munich manuscript is considered far too late to have any authority. The term is not found in four other early manuscripts. Herford's translation takes liberty and not only translates Ha-Notzri as Nazarene but appends it to other occurrences.

Kuratowski's Ghost 09:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Intro

The introduction said However, scholars now generally argue that there is no connection between Yeshu and Jesus. This is apparently not true. I base this on sources I've cited above, plus a trip I just made to my local library. In fact the majority argue that references to Yeshu are references to Jesus. There are, to be sure, a minority who say otherwise, but this is not what scholars generally argue.

Also, the status of Yeshu as an acronym is not inconsistent with its being connected to Yeshua. The generally held view is that it is a play on words, derived from Yeshua by dropping the final letter to keep it from implying "salvation" and to make it into an insulting acronym. Josh Cherry 01:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I note that Judaism has many other examples of "inventive" (and often post-facto) acronyms; Maccabi is a classic example. Jayjg 03:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well Toledot Yeshu narratives do try explain it as wordplay. They clearly borrow ideas from the Gospels but being aware of the fact that it is an acronym they explicitly go out their way to argue that Yeshu is indeed a wordplay on Joshua = yehoshua in order to justify the identification. The application of Yeshu to a student of ben Perachiah in the Hasmonean period and to the teacher of Jacob of Sichnin in the second century CE CANNOT be considered wordplay on Joshua or Jeshua meaning Jesus. I'm moving the mention of wordplay to the Toledot section, it is too strong a POV to be in the intro. This whole Yeshua thing doesn't deserve so much emphasis. The popular idea that Jesus original name is Yeshua is based on ignorance that there is nothing odd about Jesus coming from Joshua/Yehoshua and that Jesus is consistently used for yehoshua in the Septuagint as well as Philo and Josephus. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It is not the view of the majority of scholars. Downplaying something believed by the majority of scholars because you personally disagree with it is the essence of POV editing. I've put this back. Josh Cherry 13:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the majority of scholars believe this? Laymen tend to believe it because they are unaware of the fact that Jesus is used for Joshua and think that yeshua matches it better than Joshua because of the way it looks in English. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I get this idea from my survey of various books and other sources, some of which I've quoted or provided links to above. Certainly those sources that find a connection between Yeshu and the Christian Jesus--and these are the majority--can be counted as accepting a connection between the names. In addition, many of those who deny that Yeshu is connected to the Jesus accept that he was a Jesus, i.e., that there is a connection between the names. Josh Cherry 22:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well there is a nice study that was done on the subject and the only references to Yeshua that were found were Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. Oh and the James Ossuary but thats a can of bones I'd rather not open :p Kuratowski's Ghost 00:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, we're talking about different issues. I should have realized it earlier. My remark about "the majority of scholars" was directed toward your conclusion that the name Yeshu "CANNOT be considered wordplay on Joshua or Jeshua meaning Jesus." That's not what most scholars think. On the Yeshua vs. Yehoshua quesion I have little to say at the moment. Josh Cherry 01:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pandera information from Pandera page

Pandera (also Pantera, Pantiri, Pantheras and Pantira), meaning "panther" in Aramaic was the name of a Jewish family around the end of the last century BC and first century CE suggested as centered in a certain Bethlehem. (There was at least one Bethlehem in Galilee besides the one in Judea).

The independent sources for information about the family are Epiphanius, the church historian (in identifying "the sacred family" of early Christian writings); Tertullian in 198 CE; Origen, in writing about the 178 CE comments of anti-Christian polemic philosopher Celsus; passages from the Jewish Mishnah; and less seriously the satirical Toledoth Yeshu.

The names of people mentioned from these sources as belonging to this family are Jacob ben Matthan; his sons Joseph and Clopas; their sons Yeshu, James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Jude. Finally and most controversially a certain "Plony" Ben Stada is supposed to be illegitimately descended from the same family because of his mother Miriam Mgadla (Miryai the Hairdresser) called Stath-Da as "she was unfaithful" to her husband Paphos Ben Jehuda.

Christian scholars have often suggested that the application of the name Pantheras to the family in question grew out of poking fun at the use of the term "huios parthenou" amongst Helenized Israelites meaning "son of a virgin by repeating it as "huios pantherou" meaning "son of a panther". Otherwise the surname may be of Moorish origin indicating origin from a proselyte.

[edit] Yeshu Ben Pandera

In the Talmud very little is known about an early first century CE rabbi called Yeshu Ben Pandera whose disciple Jacob of Kefar Soma/Sama or Sakanin, though described as a "Min" (i.e. heretic), later enjoyed a certain amount of admiration from Rabbi Eleazar ben Hyrcanus (c.70-100CE) the Shammaite and later Rabbi Eleazar (Eliezer) ben Dama (the nephew of Rabbi Yishmael/Ishmael Ben Elisha c.90-135CE).

R. Eleazar (Eliezer) is mentioned in a few traditions a couple concerning Yeshu Ben Pantere describing one of two incidents. One of Yeshu Ben Pandira's disciples was called Jacob of Kefar Sakkanin (Tosefta Hullin 2.24; cf. Zara 16b-17a where in manuscript M Sekanya and Ha-Notzri are written) whose comments amused R. Eleazar. Tosefta Hullin II, 22,23, discusses the case where R. Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a serpent and wanted to be healed in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira (See also Avodah Zarah 40d, 41a) but died before he could prove to R. Ishmael that it was permitted.

From the passages about Yeshu Ben Pandera in the Mishnah it can only be determined that his school were doctors, opposed the period's establishment of Roman conspirators, and that they were not popular with the House of Shammai. Hyam Maccoby (SCM Press, 2003) has presented good evidence that this particular Pandera was a Pharisee. Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk (NY 1985) further classified him as a Hillelite who sided with the Shammai Pharisees only on the matter of divorce. For centuries many Jews have thought him to be the Historical Jesus behind the figure Christians have been worshipping as Messiah because of the certain similarities between their biographies. For example Epiphanius said Jesus's mother's husband Joseph was the brother of Cleophas, the son of James, surnamed Panther (the literal meaning of Pandera). Interestingly the teachings attributed to Jesus identify his origin from the House of Hillel which was opposed by the House of Shammai.

Ben Pandera mentioned explicitly in

Aboda Zara 16b-17a

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2. 40d

Shabbath 14 4 (Eleazar's death)

Shabbath 14 14d (Ecc. 10:5) Yehoshua Ben Levi's Grandson)

Tosefta (c)Hullin 2:23 (Rabbi Ishmael)

[edit] Other Sources

It is thought that those fragments of the Toldoth Yeshu which are not obviously adapted from the Mishnah concerning the early first century BC Yeshu Ha Notzri or the early second century CE Plony Ben Stada may be referring to this Yeshu Ben Pandera. Ibn Daud, Nahmonides (Vikuakh Ha-Ramban, Mossad edition, p.306) Jacob Tam (Tosafists, shabbat 104B uncensored) R. Jehiel Heilprin (seder Ha Dorot p.151) have all highlighted the fact that these three men are different people from different times.

[edit] Pandera information from other pages

For NPOV purposes some of this [2] information should be incorporated into the page:

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)." William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

Biblical scholar Morton Smith disagrees that Pandera was based on a pun.

The word parthenos "depends on a Greek translation of Isaiah 7.14; it cannot be derived from the Hebrew with which the rabbis were more familiar. Jesus is never referred to as 'the son of the virgin' in the Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church (30-130), nor in the second -century apologists. To suppose the name Pantera appeared as a caricature of a title not yet in use is less plausible than to suppose it [was] handed down by polemic tradition." Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 61

The name Pandera, Pantera or Panthera "is an unusual one, and was thought to be an invention until [a] first century tombstone came to light in Bingerbrück, Germany. The inscription reads: 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years' service, of the 1st cohort of archers, lies here'." Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

"...Panthera was a common name in the first two centuries of the Christian era, notably as a surname of Roman soldiers....There is no proof that Jesus was referred to by the title bo buios tes parthenous ['son of the virgin'] this early on. It is possible, though, that the accidental similarity of the Infancy Narratives' parthenos to 'Panthera' ...caused 'Panthera' to be picked as the name of the adulterer, once the theme of an adulterous soldier arose in the tradition." John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

"Eusebius, about 300, tried to explain 'their' [the Jews] Panthera story as a misunderstanding of scripture, and Epiphanius, a century later, actually gave Panther a legitimate place in the Holy Family - he became the Savior's 'paternal' grandfather! Later Christian writers found other places for him in the same genealogy." Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 80 --Jayjg 17:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The gist of most of it is in the article. Celsus' Pantheras claim is mentioned as are the rebuttals making Panther a family member. The parthenos claim is mentioned. The Roman form of Pantheras, Pantera, is mentioned. Do we really need more detail? Kuratowski's Ghost 21:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy

After the recent merge, there is a lot of information on the page. However, it needs to be tidied up, some points need to be bulleted.

Maybe the "is/not Jesus" section needs to be in the form of

Issue

• Case For
• Case Against

Where Issue is Name, Censorship, etc.

Thoughts, issues? CheeseDreams 12:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical explanantions in the ben Perachiah paragraph. The passage doesn't say that the gesture was covering the eyes for prayer (ha ha arguing about this is really pendantic). The claim that Yeshu set up a brick and worshipped it is understood to be a sarcastic idiomatic way of saying he turned to idolatry, it is also used to describe the idolatry of Elisha's servant Gehazi, no need to assume that they literally worshipped bricks. Kuratowski's Ghost

Again I removed the comment that the gesture was covering the eyes, the sources do not make such a claim, it is an unfounded assumption. The impression one gets from reading the source is that the gesture was probably holding up hands to request silence. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like the brick mentioned, its quite funny. CheeseDreams 18:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reworded the reference. If one wanted to say that Yeshu died one wouldn't simply write "Yeshu kicked the bucket" leaving people unfamiliar with the idiom to misunderstand what is being said, similary with saying that he worshipped a brick. Kuratowski's Ghost

Nor would one state "Jesus made the blind to see and the death to hear", the populus being unfamiliar with the references to those who do not understand, and those who are unwilling to. Oh, but, urm, people do assume these things are literally true miracles. CheeseDreams 22:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic Difficulties

As well there are significant phonetic difficulties in finding parthenos in the epithet son of Pandera, and this ignores the understandable Hebrew meaning of betrayer.

This seems off-point to me. I don't think anyone argues that Pandera is a corruption of parthenos. They see it as a deliberate wordplay. So the part about phonetic difficulties seems not to apply, and a Hebrew meaning of betrayer fits well with the hypothesis. Josh Cherry 23:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it is argued by some that is a corruption of parthenos. You can mention that the phonetic difficulties do not preclude deliberate wordplay. However the strong counter arguments are that the expression is used to describe a Yeshu who lived about a century after Jesus and moreover, "son of the virgin" was not an expression normally used for Jesus so it is an unlikely candidate for being the target of wordplay. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me at some souces that argue that it's a corruption? I haven't run into that yet. Anyway, I changed the relevant section. Josh Cherry 05:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read it too long ago to rememeber the book although it discussed the name and ruled out normal phonetic evolution from parthenos while pointing out that "garbled" pronunciation of an unfamiliar foreign word was possible as such pronunciations do not always follow normal phonetic rules. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW the current wording of the article suggests that the explanation of Pandera as coming from Pandaros is highly conjectural, my understanding is that the use of Pandaros and derivative forms to mean a betrayer is well known and is the reason Shakespeare chose it for one of his characters, Pandare. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been trying to find info on this. It was Chaucer who used Pandare based on Pandaros in the story of Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare uses the form Pandarus. There was also a Pandareus in Greek mythology, those familiar with the Toledot Yesha will recognize the origins of the bronze dog and stealing from a temple elements as being derived from the Greek story of Pandareus. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article says betrayer is an easily understandable hebrew meaning. Well it was not easy for me to make any connection at all.

Because you are unfamiliar with Hebrew from the Middle Ages where "kol Pandar" (voice of Pandar)is an expression meaning the false promises of a betrayer, the reference being to Pandaros of Greek literature. Pandera is the same word with the Aramaic definite article -a at the end. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Hebrew from the Middle Ages" really? Where can I learn more about this? It sounds like it comes from translating some renaisance literature into Hebrew which I understand was not in use at the time.

Now you are just showing your ignorance. Much poetry, midrashim and responsa were written in the Middle Ages in Hebrew. Pandar (i.e. Pandaros) to denote treachery is found in the Midrash Rabbah in Hebrew.

I have changed the article to state as a fact that Pandaros' name was used to mean betrayer and borrowed by Hebrew - the usage in Midrash proves this, it is not simply conjecture. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's unattributed. Which Midrash Rabbah mentions it? Which section and verse in that Midrash? Also, the Midrash Rabbah compilations generally preceded the Middle Ages. Jayjg 17:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Depends if you consider the Middle Ages to have begun with the splitting of the Roman empire or with the end of the Western empire or later. I checked the reference at its in fact in Bereshit Rabbah 50. Bereshit Rabbah if I am not mistaken dates to same era as the Talmud so I think its quite a strong case for Eisler's explanation of Pandera.

Kuratowski's Ghost 22:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction Difficulties

Can someone please go through the article and clear up paragraphs like this one?

"Some see the Greek for virgin parthenos in the word "Pandera" either as a corrupted pronunciation or an intential play on words. Others see the names of Jesus' disciples amongst the five disciples of Yeshu; principally Matai and Todah as Matthew and Thaddaeus, though some have gone further and see the names John and Andrew in Buni and Netzer."

It talks about two different Yeshu's as if they were one. The article is full of things like this so it makes it very difficult to know which passages from the talmud (and indeed which talmuds) are being refered to, and what the chronologies are etc..I know that Ben Pandera & Ha-Notzri have only been equated due to one passage spceicifally manuscript M version of the Babylonian Talmud, Aboda Zara 16b-17a but historical factors indicate this is a later gloss and anyway it is not oldest nor only surviving version of the story.

The point is that those who argue that "Yeshu" means Jesus believe that there is only one Yeshu being referred to and that it is Jesus. They are either unaware of the chronological impossibilities or they assume that these are due to mistakes. Kuratowski's Ghost 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we avoid trading off logic and appraisals of historical source documentation against opinions of various schools? If a passage talks about all the Yeshu's as one then it should be clearly attributed to the school of opinion which takes that stance as is good journalistic practice. Phrases like "some see" are not good enough.

There is a whole spectrum of opinions not clearly defined schools of thought. Kuratowski's Ghost 04:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Either way.

[edit] Erroneous beliefs cannot override the facts

Erroneous beliefs even be they of the majority cannot override the facts as they stand. There are four centuries between the birth of one Yeshu and the death of another in question (later in this article mingled together as one) they cannot be the same it is pure insanity. Will someone please address this issue, as there is an editor who has looking through the history pages at least three times now (if my eyes are correct) attempted to override the statements in the books as they are. In the mishnah there are no two ways about it there must be at least two Yeshus.There is absolutely nothing wrong with going into detail as to why some people believe these references to be to one person, but this belief must be shown to be pulling the historical veracity of the Mishnah into question. Anything else is mis-information.81.132.103.100 11:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Some historians believe these Talmud references all refer to Jesus, some do not. NPOV demands both views must be expressed. "One or more" captures that, while the text itself makes it clear what the arguments are on both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Chullin text

An analysis of the reference in Chullin was recently added. I have removed it for the following reasons:

1. Largely irrelavant to the topic of Yeshu (deals with the details leading to the mention of Jacob of Sichnin)
2. Uses a dodgey translation of Chullin which, for example, has Notzri in it which is absent from the Hebrew text.
3. Assumes that the passage is talking about Christians etc when that still has to be decided. Kuratowski's Ghost 06:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove valid content. This is an encyclopedia, and knowledge is good. This article makes it clear that there is some debate over what "Yeshu" refers to. Minimally, it refers to a set of texts in the Talmud. I added content about those texts. Some people do believe they are about Christians, although the point of my additions is that they are about the rabbis. Also, what I added comes from published scholarly literature. I will be clearer about the sources, but do not delete content. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I have to agree with Kuratowski's Ghost here; the additional information about Chullin is largely irrelevant to Yeshu, but seems more about theories about early Jewish-Christian relations; it probably belongs an article on that topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg, what then is the purpose of an article called "Yeshu?" Since there is little agreement not only as to who the name refers to, but even if it is the name of a person, or if the person ever really existed, the one thing we can be sure of is that "Yeshu" is a literary character in the Talmud. How this literary character is used and to what purposes seems entirely appropriate in an article on Yeshu. If we had an article on "Moby Dick" (name of a whale, not the name of a book) we wouldn't just have some speculation on whether Moby Dick was the real whale that destroyed the Essex, or an invention of Melville. We would also have an account of how scholars have interpreted the meaning of "Moby Dick" in the novel. To put it another way, the article opens by saying "Yeshu" is the name of someone, and it seems that you and KG agree. I, on the other hand, say that "Yeshu" is a rhetorical device. I am not excluding your view from the article, and I do not think you have a right to exclude my view (which is actually the view of at least two published scholars whom I source). This seems entirely reasonable to me and I honestly do not understand Kuratowski's Ghost's or your objection. Can you explain your objection more patiently to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include the views of scholars who believe that the "Yeshu" of the Talmud is a rhetorical device, that's certainly a valid thing to do. However, the material you've included doesn't really seem to talk about that, but rather about early Jewish-Christian relations. If you could include material specifically discussing Yeshu in the Talmud in the context of a rhetorical device, that would be great. However, as it stands, the material seems peripherally related at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little more editing to introduce the section that I hope makes this point clearer. The article already stated that Yeshu is always used in relation to a story about the threat of heresy, I just did some editing to make this point stand out more clearly. I think the point itself is pretty clear: "Yeshu" marks a genre of stories, these stories are about the threat of heresy and possibly ambivalent relations between rabbis and early Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Better, but I think the article still gives far, far too much information on the specifics of the stories; rather, it should just summarize what the various scholars say about the use of "Yeshu" in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I dunno -- it seems to me that Yeshu is the perfect place for a detailed exposition of the Yeshu narratives. I don't see any harm. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But it's not that at all; it's discussing narratives that don't even mention Yeshu, at great length. Furthermore, it is recapping theories about the origins and relations of Judaism and Christianity the really belong in other articles. In my opnion the material you have presented here should be summarized in three or four sentences, and expanded in an article on early Jewish-Christian relations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

According to Rubenstein and Boyarin, they are Yeshu narratives. These are two legitimate scholars. Rubenstein's book is part of "the Classics of Western Spirituality" series which is very well-respected. The introduction is by Shaye Cohen, an extremely well-respected historian of the late Second Temple period. Rubenstein discusses the tosefta in Chapter 27: Jesus and his Disciples. Now, Jayjg you have every right to disagree with Rubenstein and Boyarin. And if you know of scholars who take another view (I assume you do) you have every right to make sure they are represented in the article. But the fact that you disagree with Rubenstein and Boyarin is not sufficient to exclude their views from this article. You suggest that this material can be in an article on early Jewish-Christian relations and perhaps it could go there. But in that article, people could well make the following objections: "we do not know for sure if these stories are historically accurate; they really say more about Rabbinic values than about actual relations between actual Christians and Jews." Of two things, however, we are certain: these stories mention Yeshu, and they are in the Talmud. So let's talk about them in the article on the Talmudic figure "Yeshu." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really have an opinion on Rubenstein and Boyarin, though I think you should declare a conflict of interest regarding the former. ;-) However, the stories you have brought don't mention Yeshu, so they're peripheral to this article, which is about the use and meaning of the term, not how Jewish communities framed their relationship with early Christianity through the use of Talmudic narrative. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

According to Rubenstein (no connection, honest! ;-) both stories mention Yeshu. And it seems to me that "the meaning of the term" is the way the Rabbis used it to frame their relationship with early Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The analysis as stands should not be in the article and certainly not in the primary references section which is intended to present short accounts of the primary references without interpretation.

One immediate glaring problem that jumps off the screen at me is the POV translation of the Tosefta:

• The original Hebrew text does not have Ha-Notzri as a description of Yeshu.
• The use of Yeshua is also POV, as mentioned later in the article some manuscripts have Yeshua (in fact only in one place, perhaps the translation being used was based on such a manuscript) but as noted later this is not the case in all manuscripts and is regarded as an error.
• Also the Hebrew text refers to the town as Sechania in the main body (the Aramaic form of Sichnin) but when quoting the words of Rabbi Eliezer uses the Hebrew form Sichnin. This translation however translates Sechania as "Samma" - a town in Lebanon now known to be a different site to Sichnin/Sechania. Oddly it translates the Hebrew form Sichnin by an unusual form Sakhnia" that appears to be based on the Aramaic. This sloppy translation creates the false impression that there are two different Jacobs, yet if you read the Hebrew and are aware of the fact that Sechania is the Aramaic for Sichnin one understands only one Jacob.

I would suggest cutting down the description of the Chullin passage + correctuon of the translation. I would suggest moving the discussion on Jewish Christian relations to the section on identification of Yeshu with Jesus. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I see the "Ha-Notsri" has found its way into the Talmud references. Please correct this, as pointed out its only in the Munich manuscript in one place and magically appears in biased English translations. Also move discussion identifying with Jesus to the appropriate section. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've moved some new material to the right section but I have again cut out the material added to the primary reference section as it is POV and uses wrong and highly POV translations containing speculative embelishments. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violation

Kuratowski's Ghost, NPOV polity requires that articles present different views, even if editors disagree with or reject entirely one of the views. The view of Rubenstein and Boyarin is a legitimate view; it is simply irrelevant that you disagree with it. When I added their views to the article, I was careful to explain that this is their view, and not everyone's view. Do not delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wording is not very careful in places; you sometimes present their views as fact. Moreover, as I've said before, there is far too much in this article about this; it really needs to be cut down to a reasonable amount of material. As it is, it is repetitive, and quotes far too much. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty violation

I was pulling my punches before, but we are in fact dealing with more than POV we are dealing with factual accuracy and honesty.

Slrubensteins additions to the article uses the Herford translation. This translation contains erroroneous and extraneous material:

• It misidentifies the Kfar Sechania of the Tosefta with the Lebanese town of Kfar Samma, the location of Sechania is known and it lies in Israel. Ok this is minor but Herford is inconsistent in his translation which leads to a misconception that there are two Jacobs, a Jacob of Samma and a Jacob of Sichnin. You will find in the popular literature on the subject much ink spilt over whether these two Jacobs are the same or different and its all a result of sloppy translation. (Because he also has the anomalous spellings of Yeshu and Pandera I suspect Herford used a poor quality manuscript in which the kaf-nun-yud of Sechania looked like a mem, not sure precisely which manuscript this is.)

The identification of Samm comes not from Herford's translation but from Zuckermandel's critical edition of the Bavli.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• It adds in Notzri when its not in the Tosefta - dishonesty.

A mistake. Please assume good faith — you are correct in this case. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Slrubenstein's version of events adds further dishonesty:

Dishonesty suggests intent. Do you really believe this was my intention, or are jou just mean-spirited? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Akiba suggests that perhaps R. Eliezer had been seen listening to, and enjoying, a Christian preacher, and R. Eliezer agrees."

Complete lies, Christians preachers are not mentioned in the text.

Again, you are correct. I have no problem admitting to mistakes, though you seem to believe you are perfect. I have no objection to you restoring the literal meaning.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Then unjustified POV biased interpretation, e.g.

"This tale reveals that there was greater contact between Christians and Jews in the second century than commonly believed. But it also provides the rabbis with an opportunity to mock Christianity."

This is not unjustified when the person whose POV it is is identified. Many articles provide multiple interpretations of texts; this is one.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Again in reality there is no mention of Christianity in the real passage.

• More fabrication:

"Yaakov of the town of Sakhnia, a follower of "Yeshu Ha Notsri," quoted Deuteronomy 23:19, "You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow," and asked whether it was permissable to use the money to build a toilet for the high priest. When R. Eliezer did not reply, Yaakov told him that Jesus, quoting Micah 1:7, "For they were amassed from whores' fees and they shall become whores' fees again," etc

This text is not in the original passage, no Ha-Notzri, no quoting of Deuteronomy by Jacob, no Jacob telling him about Jesus, its simply not there!

You are wrong. Ha Notzri, and the quote from Dvarim, are in the text. Your research, however good it may be, is obviously not thorough. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost, you have to distinguish between two things here, whether information is relevant, and whether it is correct. If the information indeed is relevant, then it certainly can be cited, regardless of whether or not you think it is incorrect, or improperly translated, or biased. While I think the insertions are far too long, not expressed in the best way, and rely on too many quotes, that doesn't mean they can be removed entirely because they are "biased". I would recommend summarizing the positions of those authors and re-inserting them; that would seem to be a reasonable compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well my initial reaction was that it was largely POV comments in the wrong place and irrelavant material. Upon checking the source, I realized that its more than just biased translation, its making up things that aren't there. Another example, theres nothing about the judge being a Roman either, indeed why would a Roman care about minuth. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly at least partly on topic. And again, regardless of how incorrect you think it is, it can't be deleted simply on the grounds that you don't agree with it or think it is wrong. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

ROFL oh come on Jayg, thats equivalent to saying that a Wikipedia article can never be edited or corrected!! Why should Slrubenstein be allowed to delete my information then? What if someone started adding in translations from neo-Nazi websites that also fabricate quotations? Should those be allowed to stay simply because Jews disagree with then and think they are wrong? (BTW in case anyone is wondering, Herford and Slrubenstein's fabrications are largely based on statements taken from the Munich manuscript of the Bavli and shoved into the Tosefta, not from anti-semitic fabrications.) Kuratowski's Ghost 23:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

First, the Rubensteins are different, please stop claiming they are the same, and in so doing call Slrubenstein a liar. Second, the sources themselves are scholarly, Jewish, and on topic, so the analogy regarding neo-Nazis is silly. They should indeed be allowed to stay (or at least their positions summarized. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Its about as scholarly as discussing the Gospel of Matthew while making statements like "when the UFO appeared over Bethlehem" and "this shows that aliens were impregnating human females already in Roman times". Capisc? Kuratowski's Ghost 15:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your analogies are again quite weak; these are reasonably serious authors, not kooks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I wasn't apologizing :) Kuratowski's Ghost 21:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Was that a joke? I said analogies, not apologies. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops just tired and using a 1600x1200 monitor without my specs :) Kuratowski's Ghost 22:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure what you are getting so up tight about, I did move the summary of Rubenstein & Boyarin's views to the Identification as Jesus section. I would not object to the detailed analysis of chullin if it was placed in this section, clearly distinguished between what the source says and what is interpretation (saying its about mocking Christians is pretty close to the neo-Nazi site stuff), clearly distinguished between what is in Chullin and what is from Avodah Zarah and, didn't use interpolations and mistranslations. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith why don't you give that a try? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checking original text

I think the above debate illustrates an important point: checking original sources. A lot of things written about Yeshu in popular literature is based on statements that are only found in translations of the Talmud or unsupported reconstructions of censored material.

As the article notes the Talmud was censored by the Church and the standard texts of the Talmud in fact contain none of the Yeshu references. Subsequently people have tried to restore the censored material and have often done this without supporting evidence from actual pre-censorsed manuscripts. Herford is very guilty of this kind of thing. He has Jesus the Nazarene all over the place in his translation. Not only is this a POV translation, it is unsupported by manuscripts - Notzri occurs only in the Munich text in one place. Now people realize that the translation Nazarene is POV but then instead have Ha-Notzri based on Herford in places where he has added Nazarene not realzing that its Herfords own addition. Similarly Yeshu ben Pandera is not attested in any pre-censored Talmud manuscript but Herford and others add it into their reconstruction of the censored Avodah Zarah based on its occurrence in the related Tosefta passage.

The Kfar Samma vs Sichnin case is another example of unnessary debates based on something that only exists in translations not source texts. For example in Zindler's book he gloats over how the rabbis confused Sichnin and Samma. (Zindler is rabidly anti-all Judaeo-Christian religion but he is isn't the sharpest pencil in the box, he even thinks that Sechania is a different place to Sichnin and accuses the rabbis of confusing three places.)

Kuratowski's Ghost 09:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

KG, you have an axe to grind with Herford, Rubenstein, and Boyarin. Okay. But do not take it out here. You are an editor and an editor does not put his own views into articles. For you to make decisions about what the correct version of the text is, or what it means is to violate both our Wikipedia:No original research policy and our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I have not deleted any claim you made. Do not delete the content I put in. Jayjg, if you feel that the way I wrote it doesn't clearly enough ascribe these views to Rubenstein and Boyarin, please make what you think are appropriate changes, I trust you (if you don't mind!) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You have again contaminated the primary reference section with the non-neutral opinions and interpretations of Rubenstein and Boyarin which belong under the section discussing the identification of Yeshu with Jesus. You have also jumbled up the order of the sections so that the article no longer makes any sense, early sections are assuming later sections have been read. You have also introduced inconsistent spelling and naming. I honestly don't see how to tidy things up without reverting again and then carefully introducing the Rubenstein and Boyarin material in the right places. And BTW there is indeed a Wikipedia:No original research but there isn't a Wikipedia:No checking of facts allowed policy or a Wikipedia:Blindly accept whatever anyone says policy. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

To quote the Wikipedia:No original research policy:

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Kuratowski's Ghost 22:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want a primary reference section that is neutral, provide no summaries, simply provide a list of the citations. Any summary is POV because it reflects a particular manuscript. Perhaps we could have a section comparing the different manuscripts. Moreover, it makes perfect sense to have the discussion of what "Yeshu" refers to before going into specific cases. Certainly, no one is going to make up theri own minds on what "Yeshu" refers to by reading the summaries; moreover, there is the question on NPOV (each summary should mention which ms. the summary comes from. The "primary sources'As to spellings of names, I followed the spellings of the sources I used. I understand the argument for consistency and agree that in non-quoted material the spelling should be the same. How is this for a compromise? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As I mentioned on Jews as a chosen people, interpertations of primary material needs to be grounded in the scholarship, namely 2ndry sources (i.e. editorial opinion is insufficient and counts as original research). El_C 03:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

And before Slrubenstein's edits we had no original research and very neutral article which stated what was said in the original sources without interpretation. Now we have Rubestein and Boyarin's interpretations stated as fact and POV summaries. Do you see why I am so frustrated? Kuratowski's Ghost 08:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which scholars do you highlight as refuting the position of R&B, KG?

How is that possible though, KG, without it being a part of and introduced within a uniform narrative ? Are ♪R&B♪ not legitimate scholars? Are there no scholars who refute their position? How are those (and possible other) positions viewed within the critical scholarship in general? You say, and I revise: [a] neutral article which stated what was said in the original sources without interpretation, but is it not true that there is an ongoing debate within the scholarship as to what was said? Thus, the (so-called?) original, true reading —which, again, I see as inherently interpertive— undoubtedly has scholars which support it. Why not present their views alongside those (R&B) who oppose them instead of arguing that these shcolars which SlR added be excluded from the article? Finally, I return again to the matter of consensus within the critical scholarship wrt these views as the overarching framework for comparing the two (and/or any other) reading of/view/position/interpertation/etc. The point is, KG, is that there is a(n original research) limit as to how much editors here can engage in and debate the various philological points of contention in isolation from and without relying on the pertinent scholarship. El_C 09:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

R&B are part of the school of thought identifying Yeshu with Jesus and we already have quite a good section on criticism of the identification. There is no debate amongst scholars what was originally said. Its a case of some scholars failing to clearly indicate what was said and what is their own interpretation of what was said. We could give full texts in Hebrew/Aramaic but this would not be understood by most readers, full translations would clutter the article (people can look them up in the references at the end anyway) I think the current neutral paraphrase approach is the best option. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that; not what was originally said, but what was originally meant. Feel free to elaborate in case I'm overlooking something pivotal wrt the source (I am as fluent in Hebrew as I am in English, so you may cite in abundance). The way I understand it, the debate is over a more literal versus comparative reading of the text. I am inclined on having scholars for each school of thought represented (I noticed you have yet to mention any specific ones) – is this debate, then, more philological in nature viz. straight-forward translation... How they are to be represented, again, I maintain, depends on how these approaches, in general, are viewed within the critical scholarship. El_C 13:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Scholars critical of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus are listed in the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I know that, I'm interested in the other side at this juncture; sorry, I thought that was obvious from the above. El_C 14:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I also like to add, that I would prefer to wait and for you to address all my questions, then recieve one partial answer right away, to avoid repetition. Please have another look at my 13:51 comment, and take your time. Thanks. :) El_C 14:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are asking if anything. I don't see too many statements ending in a "?" :) Kuratowski's Ghost 14:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I guess I misphrased some of these...(?), and the rest is rather rambling on my part. Still, it almost make sense! What I'm getting at, KG, in the interests of sound representation of views, I'm interested to learn (your perception of how) the two schools of thoughts are viewed in relation to one another in the scholarship, and beyond too. Those are questions, by the way (and I hope your first thought isn't: what are questions?) :) El_C 07:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in the context of _my perception_ I'd start off by saying that in my perception the scholarship on the subject is very poor on all sides. In all the works I've read I've spotted obvious errors and blatant ignoring of other points of view. I'm a mathematician and so maybe I'm biased - in mathematics the lack of rigor I see would never be tolerated. All the writers seem to have an axe to grind: Those identifying Yeshu with Jesus are either desparate to find proof of an historical Jesus or wish to prove that Judaism insults Jesus. Those against the identification wish to demonstrate the lack of any evidence of Jesus outside the NT. There is also a middle ground that the article (currently) doesn't fully address, those who associate Yeshu with Jesus, but not as an historical Jesus but as different individuals who contributed to the formation of a myth of an earthly Jesus. My understanding of the different views is that initially identification with Jesus was the main point of view but after a more critical examination of the texts the tide has turned and the other views (i.e nothing to do with Jesus or various contributors to a myth of Jesus) have become more popular. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that, answers the question of representation (with a greater emphasis, of course, placed on that which enjoys more shcolarly consensus at the moment), but you also raise another interesting point which intimates significant imporvement. I am interested to hear SlR thoughts on this and how he thinks it can all be tied in to further enhancing the article. The key, though, I think, is that, text of primary source/s aside, what it means (and respective debate) needs to be (concretely) tied to with specific scholars, works, theories, models, etc., as much as possible. I'm positive everyone here is in agreement of that. El_C 10:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that KG makes the nature of his violation of the No original research policy crystal clear when he states "in my perception the scholarship on the subject is very poor on all sides. In all the works I've read I've spotted obvious errors and blatant ignoring of other points of view." If KG believes this to be the case, he needs to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal before this view can be expressed in the article. Spotting errors is original research. You can't put what you think to be the correct version in. It violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Reread this Talk section, El_C was asking for my opinion, I gave _my opinion_ on this _Talk page_ because it was asked for, none of this opinion is stated in the article. Spotting and noting errors is not original research its honest reporting of the facts. Obviously if a source makes an error (as shown by other sources) the source with the error carries less weight. The policy is "No original research" not "No application of common sense". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The (non-hidden) agenda:

1. Clarify the names of the sections, the new names that have been introduced can confuse and mislead as they sound like statements of fact instead of descriptions of scholarly interpretations they discuss.
2. Move the Rubenstein and Boyarin interpretations of Chullin to the section mentioning their views at the same time restore the neutral description of the contents of Chullin (more detail if necessary).
3. Ensure that the sections are in a logical order with earlier sections not assuming that later sections have been read.
4. Tidy the Rubenstein and Boyarin interpretations so it is clear what is fact and what is their interpretation.
5. Throughout ensure common spelling in unquoted material.

Is everyone ok with this? Kuratowski's Ghost 08:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've basically done the above, very painful. The one thing I did still completely cut was the really irrelevant Br'er Rabbit comment. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I have no problem with your recent work. I do have two strong objections. First, I put the Br'er Rabbit reference back in. You still do not get it: you do not own this article, and if you want to criticize Boyarin's book, you can't do it through wikipedia articles — go out and write your own book or article (which we could then cite). This is an important point for Boyarin, and the article makes it clear that it is his view, so it stays. Second, since there is debate over the accuracy of texts, the "primare references to Yeshu" section needs to specify which manuscript is being relied on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't own the article which is why I would have preferred if others had rushed in to help clean up. The thing I really don't get is why the Br'er Rabbit rabbit comment is so important??????? Its a very obtuse description, isn't there a better way of saying this.

I will try to figure out a better way to word it, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There aren't widely varying manuscripts, the article notes where the Munich and Florence manuscripts differ from the rest. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Tidy the Rubenstein and Boyarin interpretations so it is clear what is fact and what is their interpretation. I'm sure you mean what is literal interpertation (translation), and what is the comparative one (philological) ;). El_C 07:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What I meant what is in the source text and what is their interpretation of the text. For example they speak of a "Christian preacher" yet the text merely speaks of a "min" (heretic/apostate/sectarian). They speak of "the Roman Governor" yet the text speaks merely of the "hegemon" (Talmudic term for chief judge, from the Greek for leader). So to me its just as scholarly as referring to the star of Bethlehem as "the UFO" and the virgin birth as "impregnation by aliens" :) things that are not in literal text are being read in based on conjecture about the circumstances. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, though I doubt they'll stress that much on the sci-fi aspect of it! But, if I could play the devil's advocate here, the other side would say that reading the literal text (merely) literally, would amount to conjecture. Undoubtedly, they, as well, have some examples they consider persasuive. Perhaps SlR would want to shed some light on these, and beyond, and in general how he feels the good, the bad, and the obscure can best be addressed in the article (esp. in light of the suggestions you made in the section above). El_C 10:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I did some more checking and made a few corrections. Although Notzri does not appear in the Tosefta, it appears in the Babylonian Talmud in all the manuscripts, Munich, Paris, and JTS. According to the Zuckermandel critical edition of the Babylonian Talmud, which is highly regarded, the Tosefta Hullin uses the name Yeshua, not Yeshu. Zuckermandel's edition also identifies Yaakov as being from Samma. The Deuteronomy 23:19 quoted by Yaakov is in all Talmud manuscripts. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Zuckermandel highly regarded?? By whom is it highly regarded?? State your sources :D :D :D (just kidding) :D Kuratowski's Ghost 10:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jokes aside, one of the things Lieberman is known for is his correction of mistakes in the Zuckermandel. I am curious, would you do some independent research for me ;) and see if there is a mem instead of a kaf-nun-yud in the Zuckermandel you have access to, I'm just personally curious about it. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Notzri does not appear in early manuscripts other than the Munich. It has been placed in more recent printings like the Paris of 1865 and the Koenigsberg (which has it in parentheses). (Not sure what the JTS is, I assume it is also a relatively recent printing?) These should not be given weight, the inclusion of Notzri in these are relatively recent editorial decisions, we need to be concerned with what the early source manuscripts say, not what 19th century scholars assumed. As noted in the article some manuscripts of Chullin are known which have Yeshua in one place, but as the article notes these are regarded as errors and the normative text says Yeshu.

Is this based on your own research? I mean, this claim about what is "normative?" If so, this counts as original research and cannot be included in the article. If on the other hand this is a claim that has been made by an acknowledged authority (e.g. in a peer-reviewed journal or in a scholarly book) then of course you can follow our NPOV policy and state "According to X, ...."

Regarding Samma, the text says Sechania - samech-kaf-nun-yud-aleph. This is the Aramaic name for Sichnin. I have not been able to find out for certain where the translation Samma comes from - modern Samma is 9 miles from Sichnin so it might simply be because at the time of translation the area was considered part of Samma (after the the Israeli War of Independence, the border between Israel and Lebanon split Sichnin from Samma, one of the reasons the area is known today, that and its soccar team :). As I noted earlier in the talk I have a personal suspicion that Samma comes from a misreading of the kaf-nun-yud as a mem, but that would be independent research so I won't put that in the article :)

Scholarly sources seem to agree that the its one Jacob that is being referred to even Herford who uses the Samma translation. On the contrary, I provided a scholarly source that identifies this Jacob as coming from Samma. If you know of scholars who, in peer-reviewed articles or in a scholarly book, who claim otherwise, of course you can put that in "A and Y however claim that this is a mistake, based on the evidence of ..." However, you cannot be the arbiter of truth in this article, that is a clear violation of our policies. If different scholars have different views, we must represent all of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Deuteronomy is quoted in all Avodah Zarah passages but the point is not in the Tosefta passage. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not see that I had already corrected that mistake. In my last edit I specified that the passage in question was from the Talmud, not the tosefta. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I see also that the current article says that one account is in Chullin and the other in Avodah Zarah. Chullin in fact has both accounts about Jacob of Sichnin (Eleazar's snake bite and Rabbi Eliezer's arrest) following each other. Thats partly why the Samma translation is so odd, the Aramaic form sechania is translated Samma while in the quoting of Rabbi Eliezer's word where the Hebrew form sichnin is used, the translation is sometimes Sakhnia which is another vocalization of sechania. Avodah Zarah only has the second anecdote and adds in the quotes from Deuteronomy etc which are not in the Tosefta version.

The anomalous Yeshua instead of Yeshu is found in the 19th century restoration of censored text in the Vilna printing of the Tosefta of 1881. It also has the anomalous spelling of Pandera in the second Chullin account. The Vilna printing is known for numerous errors. These are corrected in the Lieberman edition which is viewed as authorative. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, the article can and should clearly spell that out. Sorry, am I missing something about the Yeshu–Yeshua bit? (I havane't read the rest as closely, I'll revisit it when I get a chance). Little יְשׁוּעָה, please?  ;) El_C 03:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes the article should spell it out, but not based on KG's say-so. Who considers the Lieberman edition authoritative? Then, specify "According to the Lieberman edition...." Also, KG has been disregarding our policy, Cite sources. Your claims come from various sources. You need to name the sources and put them in the "references" section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, how about you follow policy as well instead of changing the article based on your say so. The article has the main literature used in researching the article listed in the references. These unfortunately are often sloppy and don't clearly indicate themselves the level of source that we are interested in. And stop insinuating that I am the sole author of the version of the article before you arrived, the article has a long history and involved mergers of other articles. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Any time I changed or added something to the article, I explicitly mentioned my source. You should learn to do the same. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

KG, I have to agree with SlR's point as, in all honesty, I was going to pose the same question myself. You maintain that the Lieberman edition is considered authoritative, so the logical next step is to ask: by and according to whom? I need for you to name names! :) El_C 23:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

k, I'll include an entire list of every scholar who uses Lieberman's version, might clutter the page bit though ;) Lets not be silly people, firstly this is the talk page, not the article, I agree the article needs a better mapping of statements to references, the lack of it is still the result of its legacy as a merger of several messy articles. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, an (holistic) list was a tongue in cheek comment :p, but I'm glad you also see the need for better referencial attribution. Though, I think there's no harm to mention some of these sources in the talk page, in relation to and within the context of a broader overview for certain important points, certainly those which are (or where the presentation of which is) disputed here. El_C 09:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperation

Instead of petty bickering lets work together on sorting out remaining problems with the article:

• The current article still states that only one account is in Chullin and the other in Avodah Zarah. Earlier versions correctly pointed out that both accounts were in Chullin (snake bit + arrest for minuth) and only the second in Avodah Zarah (arrest for minuth).

No objection, except we need to be clear that the version of the second account in Avodah Zarah is different from the version in Chullin. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the mystery over Samma, Sichnin etc, when I checked the other day what the Hebrew text has for Samma, I noticed that the Hebrew has samech-kaf-nun-yud-aleph (Sechania). I was in a hurry and didn't check what it has in the second anecdote. Since Zindler goes on about it in his book that the first says Samma and the second Sichnin, I assumed he knew what he was talking about. But I checked the second one and it too has samech-kaf-nun-yud-aleph also Sechania thus explaining renditions like Sakhnia. It seems that both "Samma" and "Sichnin" are artifacts of translation existing only in English translations. From what I understand Zindler doesn't actually know Hebrew or Aramaic and has relied purely on the translation of others. I think the article should reflect that the text in fact has Sechania in both cases while mentioning perhaps in parenthesis that as a result of varied translation Zindler and Herford have considered the question of whether there were two different Jacobs.

Although we can discuss what "seems" to be the case on this talk page, it violates our NPOV and NOR policies to put it in the article itself. However, we certainly can and should provide an account of any debate among scholars or differences between manuscripts. I object to an editor chosing which is the "correct" version. I have no objection to an editor adding "Manuscript x reads ..., manuscript y reads ..." and "Scholar a interprets the difference between anuscripts this way, but scholar b interprets the difference betwen manuscripts that way" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I won't have access to a university library for a while. Perhaps someone else can help out here, the obvious place to look for the info we want is Lieberman's edition Of the Tosefta with his commentaries, where he has corrected errors based on the evidence of various manuscripts including those of the Cairo Genizah. I have only seen the text itself and it has "samech-kaf-nun-yud-aleph" in both places. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• The article needs to clarify that of the 5 pre-censorship manuscripts, only the Munich has Notzri (as pointed out by Gil Student, Zindler), and that its inclusion in historically recent printings like the Paris, JTS, Koenigsberg are the decision of their 19th century editors based only on the occurrence in the Munich manuscript.

Can you incluse the accurate dates for the manuscripts involved? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Although wikipedia articles don't have owners some people are more motivated at some times to work on a particular article than at others, I was motivated back at the time of the merger, at the moment I'm more motivated to kvetch in the Talk page. Slrubenstein seems to be the most motivated to work on the article, so I say go for it, but check what people have to say on the talk.

I did work on the page, and I added information from two recent works of scholarship I cited. I am not opposed to your working on the article as long as you do not put your own interpretations or evaluations of the sources in, and do cite the scholars whise interpretations or evaluations you want to put in — this has been my main objection to your changes thus far. I have never objected to your working on the article as such, I just want you to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

yup, but I'm too lazy at the moment (and I'm supposed to be working ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 13:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we need one of those "List of" articles presenting all the Hebrew text color coding what is standard censored Talmud, what is censored material found in all pre-censorship manuscripts and what are the Munich and Florence comments unique to those manuscripts. El_C can type the Hebrew for us ;)

Kuratowski's Ghost 09:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid can't :(, I don't have Hebrew support on this machine, and I must in turn resort to copying and pasting letters from .he or google.co.il — but I can certainly proofread such additions for typos, spelling, and whatnot! :) El_C 09:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I can help you with that, if you need it. --Zappaz 00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of this article's references are mostly if not all Jewish sources. Jews offering their opinion would propably not want to state what is really says since their religion and culture states that they should lie and confuse when dealing with attitude towards gentiles, because they are tribal. This is a fundamental problem considering the English version of the Talmud was translated by a Jew, and that most of the Talmud has not been translated. Why it might be a fallacy to suggest all Jews prefer to lie, it would be a good assumption on basis of what the Talmud states.

• yawn* Kuratowski's Ghost 15:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Review

Hi there, Ghost. I was invited by Prof. Rubenstein to drop by and see what's going on. Before I get in too deep, let me just mention a couple of quick points:

• Wikipedia is not a place to present one's own research. As an encyclopedia, it is meant more for digesting and describing a comprehensive view on what is already understood. Hence the heavy reliance on sources, documentation, bibliography, etc.

Will someone please explain what exactly in the article do they think is my or anyone elses own research? The information is obtained from the listed references. (Well any stuff I added is, I assume info that other people added is indeed from listed sources). We are in the process of doing _source based research_ to find out more about the origin of variant translations of the Tosefta etc. If source based research is not allowed then it is impossible to write an article. The policy says no research in the sense of producing new primary sources or new secondary sources, it does not say don't research the existing primary and secondary sources to report their contents, in fact it says the exact opposite. It also doesn't say don't apply common sense in gauging the standard of the source, otherwise one could write in an article that the earth is flat and have only to reference an essay on the flat earth society website to make it kosher by wikipedia standards. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia makes no claims to have discovered THE TRUTH. It tries to be as accurate as possible with facts, but in all disputes it backs off and merely describes each point of view as fairly as possible - without drawing any conclusion about which one is "right".

When I have time, I'll catch up but 85 KB of talk is a lot of reading! Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

KG, you violate our NOR policy when you reject claims made by publisched scholars like Rubenstein and Boyarin in favor of your own interpretation of the correct text. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Above, KG writes "only the Munich has Notzri (as pointed out by Gil Student, Zindler), and that its inclusion in historically recent printings like the Paris, JTS, Koenigsberg are the decision of their 19th century editors based only on the occurrence in the Munich manuscript." He is still mistaken. Paris and JTS are manuscripts of Avodah Zarah, not printings, and both have Notsri. These three (with Munich) are the only three full manuscripts of Avoda Zarah to the best of my knowledge. They are not printings. So all manuscripts agree on "Notsri." Rabbinowicz in his "Dikdukei Soferim" gives a whole bunch of other text witnesses that agree on this. There is zero doubt that this is the correct reading of the Talmud. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this your own research? :) Both Zindler and Student say its only in the Munich. Your violate NOR when you reject the published work of Zindler and Student. Who are we to believe? There is a difference between Paris manuscript and 19th century Paris printing btw. What about the Karlsruhe and Florence manuscripts of the Talmud?

KG, I got this information from Jeffrey Rubenstein who is no relation to me but who is a rabbi, has an MA in Talmud, and a PhD. in religion — and I respect his statements on this particular matter more than yours. Now, I have never said to exclude any view. I have only said accept our NPOV policies, which means you should not reject/delete properly sourced views no matter how wrong you think they are. By all means, write in the article "According to Zindler and Student, Notsri appears only in the Munich ms, but according to J. Rubenstein, the Paris and JTS ms.s also have Notsri, see Rabbinowicz' Dikdukei Soferim for other examples of the use of Notsri" This is an NPOV and accurate statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

KG also writes "The anomalous Yeshua instead of Yeshu is found in the 19th century restoration of censored text in the Vilna printing of the Tosefta of 1881. It also has the anomalous spelling of Pandera in the second Chullin account. The Vilna printing is known for numerous errors. These are corrected in the Lieberman edition which is viewed as authorative." It is true that the VIlna printing has many errors. BUT there is no Lieberman edition of the tosefta, Hullin -- he did not get that far in his edition. Zuckermandel in his critical edition based on the Erfurt and Vienna manuscripts reads yeshua. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet even Student presents a text with Yeshu and remarks that its based on Lieberman. Again who do we believe? Kuratowski's Ghost 15:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, this comes from J. Rubenstein, so the NPOV way to handle this is "According to Student, Lieberman claims that Hullin reads "Yeshu" text, but according to J. Rubenstein, Zuckermandel's edition, based on the Erfurt and Vienna ms's, claims that Hullin reads "Yeshua" or something like that. It is when you simply present unsourced information and delete alternate views that you violate our NOR and NPOV policies.

I see that Lieberman didn't get as far as Chullin in his Tosefta ki-Feshutah, but to quote the article on Jewish Virtual library on Lieberman:

"In the comparatively short period of three years (1937-1939) he published the four-volume Tosefet Rishonim, a commentary on the entire Tosefta with textual corrections based on manuscripts, early printings, and quotations found in early authorities."

Kuratowski's Ghost 17:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I trust Rubenstein more than the "Jewish Virtual Library" -- I know Rubenstein has an MA in Talmud and a PhD. in religion, and I do not know the credentials of the authors of the JVL. No matter. The way to handle this is to write "According to Rubenstein, Leiberman's text does not include Hullin, although according to the JVL it does" That is the way we comply with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early Manuscripts

My understanding is that the early manuscripts of the Talmud before it was censored are the Munich of 1342, the Florence of 1176, the Hamburg of 1184 (Zindler), thats three, Student speaks of 4 independant manuscripts including the Munich so I was wrong when I said 5 earlier - its 4 with the Munich not in addition to the Munich, from a text by McKinsey available online at [3] I understand that the remaining early manuscript is the Karlsruhe although I don't have a date. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

For JTS ms. see Friedman, Shamma "Avodah Zara, Cod. JTS - A Manuscript Copied in Two Stages"[in Hebrew]. Leshonenu, vol. 56, 1992, p. 371-374. I think but am not at all sure that this is from the Cairo Genizah (and it is incomplete) I will try to find details about the Paris ms. I think that the Munich is the oldest complete Talmud codice but JTS and Paris have Avodah Zarah. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samma-Sichnin-Sechania

SlR can you be more specific when you say the translation Samma comes from the Zuckermandel. Does it in fact have samech-mem-aleph in the text? The texts I have seen all have samech-kaf-nun-yud-aleph. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

My source is Rubenstein; I will investigate further, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Any followup on this? I have been promised an electronic text of the Tosefta based on Lieberman's Tosefet Rishonim but no sign of it yet. BTW, of course the Tosefet Rishonim exists and covers the whole Tosefta, its his later Tosefta Kifeshuta that he never finished, this can already be mentioned in the article. I can't see myself managing to get to the university library where I looked at it once before until I'm on vacation at the end of the year so other peoples help would be much appreciated. Also there is in fact a parallel account about Jacob the min in the Talmud Yerushalmi (which is not mentioned currently in the article as it doesn't mention Yeshu) and there the hometown is also clearly Sechania. Even without knowing yet where the reading Samma comes from, something can be mentioned in the article about what Herford's view was and similarly Zindler's. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jacobs hometown is Sechania also in the Bavli which of course also contains a parallel account although like the Yerushalmi does not mention Yeshu. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I finally found a Sama!! Although a translation I looked at of the Yerushalmi account of ben Dama's snake bite had "Sekanya" the Aramaic text has Sama! (I checked the TorahPlus and Mechon Mamre texts). The Bavli Aramaic has Sechania. I'm still not aware of a Tosefta text with Sama. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been pre-occupied; I will try to check again, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made some additions in particular the second chullin account paralleling the avodah zarah account which went missing. I will add some more info on where Noztri occurs and where it doesn't, not sure if what we've got currently is correct. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the Jewish Encyclopedia in the Ben Dama article refers to Jacob the min as "Jacob of Kefar Sama (Sakonya)", seems that they consider it to be just another name for the same place. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Talmud may mention Jesus and Christianity in coded terms, such as min (???, sometimes translated "apostate" or "heretic"), though this term refers to various sectarian groups. In terms of labeling Christians as minim it is important to note the adage of Rav Nahman in the name of Rava bar Avuha in Tractate Chullin 13b: There are no minim among the gentiles, i.e., the appellation could only be applied to converts from Judaism." Min in modern hebrew means sex,species(same as english word :sex).Minim could mean species too(plural:many species).

This whole page is full of extraneous nonsense. He was the soul Onkelos conjured from hell, period. Look in Chesronos Hashas, oh I forgot Soncino doesn't publish that. These editors need to: 1.Learn to learn Gemara, wait a second they can't because no one who really knows Gemara would ever teach it to a Non-Jew just like the Kabbalah center doesn't really teach Kabbalah. 2. Disregard the Gregorian calendar, it's worthless. After meeting these requirements, then start writing these entries.

If you look at the external link to the Gil Student site, it references your spirit as one of the Yeshu's referenced, but it is NOT the only reference to Yeshu that some historians attempt to read in as being evidence of 'Christ' in the Talmud. In fact, it is generally agreed upon by most rabbis that there are at least 2 seperate people being referenced by the name "Yeshu" and I would hazard to guess that this spirit conjurred up by Onkelos is likely a third person altogether. If it were one of the other 2, it would have to be Yeshu ben Pandira (c. 80BCE) rather than the later Yeshu ben Shada (c. 100CE) because the time of the second Temple's destruction (i.e. the time of Titus and Onkelos) was in 70CE. It is doubtful that all 3 of these instances reference the same Yeshu conjured by Onkelos before his conversion. Also, your POV that the Gregorian calendar is worthless is unsubstantiated. I think it has much worth being it allows for a universal method of dating -- which allows us to bring dates from other world events in synch with other calendars such as the Jewish one.

Thus this article is not only valid but also helpful to us non-Jewish historians who might not necessarily be able to look in Chesronos Hashas as Mr. Student and others have done to help us out, by presenting a good summary and then pointing us in other directions to research. Your POV that the page is "nonsense" you are entitled to, but I must humbly disagree. I think the work that Ghost and Slr and others have done here is highly commendable, and I hope to see more work from them on Wiki in the future! Kudos! Caspian Greywolfe 18:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parthenogeneis

The story about roman army officer Panthera originate from the fact jews misunderstood the greek word parthenogenetis (= being born to a virgin) and used this to create a slander, since Talmud always describes Jesus as the worst kind of fake prophet.

gey shloffen Kuratowski's Ghost 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR concerns

The following appear to violate our NOR policy:

Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament. The oppression by King Janneus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In the 13th century Jehiel ben Joseph of Paris wrote that the Yeshu in rabbinic literature was a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah, and not to be confused with Jesus the Nazarene (Vikkuah Rabbenu Yehiel mi-Paris). Nahmanides too makes this point, and Rabbis Jacob ben Meir (Rabbeinu Tam) (12th century) and Jehiel Heilprin (17th century) also belong to this school. Likewise the comments of Rabbi Jacob Emden cannot be reconciled with the collective identification. In addition, the information cited from the Munich, Florence and other manuscripts in support of the identification are late comments written centuries after the original redaction of the Talmud.

The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is of questionable importance. The guttural consonant ayin at the end of the latter name forms part of the root but is absent from Yeshu. Although, as remarked above, the ayin became a silent letter no other case is known of where this led to a dropping of the consonant in spelling nor of where it led to a complete dropping of its accompanying vowel (the patach genuvah denoting a modified pronunciation of the preceding "u") as would be the case if Yeshu were derived from Yeshua. The occurrence of Yeshua instead of Yeshu in certain manuscripts of the Tosefta is accompanied by anomalous spellings of Pandera and based on comparison of texts both are seen as erroneous attempts at correction by a copyist unfamiliar with the terms. Moreover, Yeshua (Jeshua in English) is not necessarily the original form of Jesus. In the Septuagint and Greek language Jewish texts such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Jesus is the standard Greek translation of the common Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua), Greek having lost the h sound. Yeshua on the other hand is a shortened form of Yehoshua originating at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem viewed the Greek form itself to be the original name of Jesus.

NOR concerns can be addressed simply by naming the critics who make these claims, and if possible providing citations. The section ends mentioning Herford. if all of these arguments are of Herford, I suggest he be named right at the top. If this arguments have been forwarded by a number of scholars they should all be given credit. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the article still lacks proper detailed referencing although the main sources that contributers used seem to be listed, not sure why you would single out just the section that deals with criticism of the identification. Offhand I recognize info pointed out by Zindler and Student as well as Herford and the first paragraph clearly mentions content from Nahmanides, Rabbeinu Tam etc Kuratowski's Ghost 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess this section caught my eye as being particularly argumentative. Other sections seem pretty descriptive of the rabbinic literature; I focussed more on the argumentative sections. And many of those sections actually do ascribe the scholarship. Certainly, any section with argument should be sourced. I won't argue with your main point. Whoever has claimed that Yeshu is Jesus for example should be sourced too, or course. Of course there are othe examples from the article For example, "It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro..." we should provide some examples of who has used it this way, with citations. Also, "Some argue that this has always been its meaning" - do you know who? Can you add the sources and citations? Also, "Others point out that the word is similar to, and may be a wordplay on, Yeshua, believed by many to be the original Aramaic or Hebrew name of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity" - do you know who the others are? Can we add them and citations? And most obviously, just adding sources to this would resolve a lot of the problems (since this is a summary of much of what is to come: "There are currently at least three approaches to this question. Some argue that there is no relationship between Yeshu and the historical Jesus; some argue that Yeshu refers to the historical Jesus; some argue that Yeshu is a literary device used by Rabbis to comment on their relationship to and with early Christians" - we should have one, two or three names for each basic view and citations. I think I have made only one major contribution, which I sourced. Frankly, I think you know this literature better than I do so i think you are more likely to know the appropriate sources. Can you add the Zindler and Student as appropriate? My point remains the same, no matter what examples I provide: much here appears to be Original research and violates our NOR policy. Anyone who knows who holds these views and can provide the sources brings us into compliance. Who else has worked extensively on this article besides you? Are there others who may know the sources? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked a lot on the merge from previous articles as did Jayg although there was a lot in the previous articles that was unsourced to start with. This is just one of numerous articles that needs a lot of stuff that I could contribute if I had the time, will see what I can do over the next few weeks although I don't have any copies of Klausner's works at the moment and if I recall a lot of statements came from there. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will ask Jayjg too. look, I am not going to delete anything - I take everything in the article on good faith. The fact is, I think it is a very good article that more people should read. This lack of sources is I think the main flaw and I don't want to leave other people grounds to challenge the article. I am sure you are busy as I am ... just want to keep this issue on the radar. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yeshu/yisho in Syriac?

When reading about the origins of Jesus' name, why does it seem that no one ever mentions the Syriac-Aramaic version (found in the Peshitta, for example), which is yisho, spelled with four letters: yud, shin, vav, ayin, with vowel markings to indicate it is pronounced yisho, and not yeshu (or yeshua)? What is the etymology for the Syriac-Aramaic spelling and pronunciation? Is it a valid, early source, or not?Jimhoward72 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC). I will add another question - is there any etymological/historical relationship between the Hebrew Esav (Esau) and the Arabic Isa (Jesus)? The spelling is almost identical: עֵשָׂו/عيسى Actually the Arabic name 'Isa/عيسى literally means Against/Opposing/Facing/Anti-Yeshu and corresponds to the Hebrew letters עישו. In Arabic, the name Esau is spelled quite differently.