Jesus in the Talmud

See Larger Image	List Price: $25.95 Our Price: $20.76 Your Save: $ 5.19 ( 20% ) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Manufacturer: Princeton University Press Written By: Peter Schafer Average Customer Rating:


Binding: Hardcover Dewey Decimal Number: 296.1206 EAN: 9780691129266 ISBN: 0691129266 Label: Princeton University Press Manufacturer: Princeton University Press Number Of Items: 1 Number Of Pages: 232 Publication Date: 2007-01-15 Publisher: Princeton University Press Studio: Princeton University Press
Related Items The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge Companions to Religion) The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (S. Mark Taper Foundation Imprint in Jewish Studies) How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now
Editorial Reviews: Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus--and they're not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schäfer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism's superiority over Christianity. The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus' birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater. They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell--and that a similar fate awaits his followers. Schäfer contends that these stories betray a remarkable familiarity with the Gospels--especially Matthew and John--and represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives. He carefully distinguishes between Babylonian and Palestinian sources, arguing that the rabbis' proud and self-confident countermessage to that of the evangelists was possible only in the unique historical setting of Persian Babylonia, in a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom. The same could not be said of Roman and Byzantine Palestine, where the Christians aggressively consolidated their political power and the Jews therefore suffered. A departure from past scholarship, which has played down the stories as unreliable distortions of the historical Jesus, Jesus in the Talmud posits a much more deliberate agenda behind these narratives.
Spotlight customer reviews: Customer Rating: Summary: irresponsible claims Comment: The citations in this work are indeed of a man named Yeshua, but are almost certainly NOT the Yeshua ha Notzri who is the Jewish Messiah, the Christ. There are far too many unexplained discrepancies between the accounts of the Yeshua of the Bible and the Yeshua of the Talmud. The only value to this work is that it demonstrates the LACK of evidence for the claims Schafer makes therein. Customer Rating: Summary: Second Hand Perceptions Comment: Is Jesus written of within the Talmud? This book says that he is. I am not convinced that the actual man Jesus (Yeshu, Yeshua, whatever) is written of in the Talmud. Of course, Dr. Shafer's book is not new for the subject but he takes the matter seriously to make the case that Jewish writers in the Talmud did believe Jesus to be the son of a 'hair dresser' (a promiscuous woman)--not a virgin; a bastard from a foreigner rather than the son of the Most High, a divine or semi-divine being; an apostate rather than a revelator; and in gehinnom boiling in sh#t without any keys. The great Jewish scholar, Joseph Klausner, in his work on Jesus, took up this subject of Talmudic references as well against people claiming that the Talmud was 'anti-Jesus' before him. He made the case that this was unlikely unlike Schafer claims. However Klausner does not take the depth Schafer does. But I am unconvinced either way--if Jesus is or is not featured within the talmudic literature--still. Thus I rate it a little low. But let us assume that Schafer is correct. It means very little. Supporters of Christianity who rally here to defend Jesus or those who would like to feel supported by the sages in their allegedly low opinion of Jesus are both taking it upon themselves to make unnecessary conclusions about the subject. It's not about Jesus but perceptions about a representation of him. Consider a few things. In the earliest books of the Christian canon (the Pauline epistles) an actual man, Yeshua, is almost obliterated in favor of a theological creation 'Jesus Christ' or just 'Christ' rather than the Jewish teacher. It is a miracle that there are any gospels at all, written and redacted long after Jesus' execution. The accounts disagree with themselves, and work in a half dozen view points and religious agendas. This includes a Pauline back-writing with his mythic veneer. And there are dozens more from other non-canonical writings. In the mix there may be actual information about the man Jesus. Therefore, Christianity appears not to be too sure of its own theology or accounts for three hundred years or more (or still?). What did it really know about Jesus? Anything? A few things are clearly known from Christian theology. It faithfully believed that Judaism/Yahwism was somehow so defective that it needed to be superseded; > that Jewish Scriptures and its Jewish interpreters were incompetent in their 'true meaning'; > that according to Christian dualism Jews are rejectors of the mythic Christ and thus were demonic and damnable; > and the Torah and the entire cultural development in regard to it was just as damnable because it opposed Christianity and gentiles; > that gentiles were the true Israel. Gee, Jews may have had something to say about that. (They certainly should.) Schafer's belief is that they would have written in 'code', in ambiguous terms. If Schafer is right then that is certainly to be possible. Jews living among gentiles, their whole culture wrecked by Rome and living in the ascendancy of an anti-Jewish Christianity-- it would be wise to be cautious. And we see ambiguous 'code' even in some writings traditionally taken as Christian (example: Revelation). This adds support for Schafer's thesis. But Jews would know the 'Christ' image of Christianity, rather than the Jesus of history. They knew of Jesus only second or third hand. He made no real impact on Jews. He taught nothing unknown or earth-shattering. He was just one of many teachers who were watching and reacting toward the destruction of Jewish society under gentiles and 'Rome.' His following was perhaps sizable among Jews wanting to see him as an anointed Davidic king--but he failed miserably and would have been quickly forgotten as another tragic failure. (Not hated!) To get an idea of all this consider the book of Revelation in which at least one writer hung on to his Schneersonesque messiah, undergoing the terror of Jerusalem's destruction and end of the Jewish world. He writes of a desire for divine justice on the gentiles and vindication of his beloved teacher--which never came. He saw the rise of Paul's cult (666 and his synagogues of Satan, of 'Jews who are not'--a supposed 'spiritual Israel'). But all this was for initiates' consumption. Non-Yeshuine Jews would likely have no interest in such sectarian writings and probably no knowledge of them. The Christians themselves would not admit Revelation for centuries. In other words, Jews knew little and wrote nothing about Yeshua that is without question. If Paul did not create Christianity and its savior mystery cult it is likely that Jesus may have disappeared from history altogether. The historical Jesus did disappear submerged by a mythic Christ. The Talmud, coming along in the centuries afterward, is not writing about Jesus/Yeshu. Its sages do not really know him. However, they would know about the 'Christ Jesus' creation of the anti-Jewish Church, the cult of Paul, and its opinion of Jews. If the Church was to be taken at its words, and Jesus was responsible for the Church's teachings, Jews would rightfully interpret that 'Jesus,' as evil. How could they do otherwise? Perhaps Hitler loved Jews too and killed them for their own good? The Talmud, if it is writing about 'Jesus,' is writing about the same fictitious 'person' Christianity fabricates to construct its religion. Could Jews attack Christians? We have an answer in Toldot Yeshu. But again it uses Christian (mis)information as the basis for its attacks. It certainly does not represent an independent source of a historic Jesus. It confuses key figures. Some earlier Christian sectarian writings do this as well in spite of gospel and Acts information. But nowhere could the Talmud or Jews in general write against Jesus without Christianity's claims and inaccuracies to build upon. We will find in real or perceived information about Jesus only reactions to what the Church says about Jesus (and by extension Judaism). The Talmud and Toldot are reactions to misinformation, by Jews as misinformed by the Christianity they knew. Any book about the Talmud in regard to 'Jesus' can only be about a contrast in perceptions of Jesus as presented by Christianity and how Jews may react to them as anti-Jewish. Such a book could be only about a disagreement between faiths, Christianity vs. Judaism. And considering the historical lot of Judaism in the matrix of a Christian 'world' any alleged negative information about the Church's Jesus is amazingly sparse. I would expect whole tractates of condemnation of the Christian Church and its key figures in reaction to the way the Church has defamed and tormented the Jewish People. Customer Rating: Summary: A goyim's interpretation Comment: "We are not the murderers of the Messiah and the Son of God, nor the king of the Jews as Pilate wanted to have it. Rather, we are the rightful executioners of a blasphemer and idolater, who was sentenced according to the full weight, but also the fair procedure, of our law... For the first time in History, we encounter Jews who, instead of acting defensively, raise their voice and speak out against what would become the perennial story of the triumphant Church" The above are not a quote from the Talmud, but instead they are some pretty strong words spoken by author Peter Schaffer. (Page 74) For centuries Jews have claimed that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and that they are not the ones responsible for Christ's crucifixion, but here, we have a very outspoken Jewish person, head of Jewish studies of Princeton University, claiming that not only are there negative references to Jesus, but they are quite justified. Not only are Jews responsible, they should be pleased with themselves for doing so. The claims the Talmud, allegedly, makes against Christ have been repeated often, but here a few for an example: "Mary was a vvhore and her son a bxxstard." "Christians celebrate orgies during which they practice cannibalism and promiscuous s e x." "Jesus worshipped a brick." This book is not simply a list of references to Christ in the Talmud but a theological discourse concerning Jews' and Christians' very different beliefs about Christ. Usually it has been Christian groups that make these claims about the Talmud. They have been regarded as fallacious and biased. Here, however, we have a Jewish man writing a book for Jewish people, claiming there are many references to Jesus and none of them complimentary. Schafer claims on page 103 that a sect is "a school that deviates from a common origin, caused by a deceiver." It should be known that `sect' is Schafer's word of choice when describing Christianity throughout the entire book. I suppose Christians should feel relieved however, he refers to the Zoroastrians as a cult. Sometimes Schafer presents scripture out of context in order to support his and the Talmud's claims, such as the story of Simon Magus, a magician that converted to Christianity for, as Schafer states, to learn the magic that the apostles possessed. He never bothers to explain that Simon never really converted as he would know should he read the next few verses. That Simon wished to buy the power of the Holy Spirit with money and when he did so he was rebuked by the apostles. Another example is when he claims John calls Jews the synagogue of Satan in Rev. The scripture actually reads: "I know the slander of those who says they are Jews and are not; but are a synagogue of Satan." And "I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but liars..." In each instance John is clearly referring to false Jews. If Schafer takes this personally I can only assume he does so justly. Every Jewish prophet throughout their writings criticizes false Jews. The entire Old Testament is the story of the Jews, God's chosen people falling away from him, repenting, and going back to him. It goes without saying that John is Jewish himself, as well as the other authors of the NT. Schafer continually refers to John as the most anti-Jewish gospel, and yet fails to quote a single passage from John that is even remotely anti-Jewish. The best he can come up with is the passage that reads: none can reach the Father except through the Son." That people have tagged this book anti-Semitic, only shows they have not read this book. If anything, it is vehemently anti-Christian. Whether it's using C.E and B.C.E or saying "Jesus(allegedly)rose from the grave," Schafer doesn't miss an opportunity to take a potshot at Christians. He makes a very good case for his assertions, but he does go through a few hurdles in order to corroborate them. He even admits in the beginning that when he began this study he assumed the references were there and tried to prove them wrong. If Schafer is exaggerating Jesus' appearances in the Talmud, could I be misguided by assuming that he is doing so for the sole purpose of placing a wedge between the Christian and Jewish people? Customer Rating: Summary: Very Good Book, Idiot Followers Comment: Why don't we see such works more often? No, not because "the Jews" control "the establishment". Rather--as most (though not all) of the four- and five-star reviews here show--such a book would becomes a magnet to the ignorant antisemitic fringe, who shower the author with undesired praise and attention for "daring to say THE TRUTH about the evil Jews". In fact, of course, Schafer's book does nothing of the kind--nor does he intend to. It was well known that the Talmud and other Jewish writings of the period express occassional anti-Jesus and anti-Christian sentiment. What's new is Schafer's claim that (a) the criticism wasn't random, but a parody and inversion of Christian sources, and (b) careful examination of precisely what the rabbis are parodying and inverting shows the sages of the Talmud were more aware of contemporary Christian writings (esp. the most antisemitic of the Gospels, John) than previously supposed. They reacted to the antisemitic biases of the Christian sources with their own anti-Christian bias. The fascinating thing about this book is the "treasure hunt": how obscure references from dozens of seperate tractates are put together to show the coherent thought behind them. If the book has a weakness, it is that, by necessity, the rarity and obscurity of the material (in many cases criticism had to be disguised, for example by using pseudonyms for 'Jesus') sometimes force Prof. Schafer to guess more than he would like about missing material. But this is the general flaw of all historical works about obscure subjects; Schafer might be wrong in his thesis, for all we know, but he sure does his very best to show it is correct with the material available. For the record, Schaffer of course knows very well that 99.99% of the Talmud has nothing to do with Jesus; that its (rare) anti-Christian sentiments express particular rabbis' opinions, and are not a command to all Jews to hate Jesus; and that, in any case, the vast majority of Jews are completely unaware of the very existence of these obscure Talmudic claims about Jesus. Unfortunately for the antisemites praising the book, Prof. Schafer hasn't "exposed the awful truth about the Jews"; he simply puts forward an interesting literary thesis. But, hey, guys--thanks for showing everybody, in your enthusiastic though totally inaccurate reviews, everbody the real reason serious scholars dislike writing about such subjects. They're not afraid of making "the Jews in the establishment" their enemies; they just don't want to make you their friends. With friends like these... Customer Rating: Summary: Here we go again... Comment: I have not read this book, but understand it to be well-researched and serious. This is a review of the previous reviews, not the book! My original one star rating was an error on my part, and is not meant to apply to the book, but the reviews... This subject attracts bigots and nut cases just as it always has, though there have been well-intentioned scholars, such as Mr. Schafer, R. Travers Herford, GRS Mead, the Atheist Frank Zindler (with all his scholarly faults), etc, who have attempted to deal with this difficult material. Difficult because there are many layers of development, and simplistic mis-attributions have become accepted all too readily. Most Jews accept the fact that Jesus is mentioned briefly in the Talmud. But how many have troubled themselves to discover what THEY make of these citations (as Schafer has apparently done)? How were they meant to be understood by the writers? What motivated them to express themselves in precisely this way in the Talmud? The Talmud is an extraordinarily deep subject, however rough and unrewarding it may appear on the surface. It takes a knowledgeable person to understand it, not a bigot. The subject invites jumping to conclusions, downright falsification, and yes, appeals to bigotry. One reviewer here attempts to portray himself as a macho scholar, even writing: "Sanhedrin 52a suggests Jesus should have been strangled while immersed in dung." I challenge this motor-mouth lightweight to find the name Jesus, or any reference to his execution in Sanhedrin 52a. But he has already dropped so many names in his review that we expect he MUST know what he is talking about. In fact, Sanhedrin 52a discusses executions, in a way that defies easy analysis. The Talmud is filled with difficult material of all kinds. Sanhedrin 52a (actually, in the Mishnah) states that a person who is sentenced to burning should be immersed in dung up to his armpits first, then have his mouth forced open by near-strangulation so a burning wick may be thrown down his mouth and burn his innards. (This unlikely procedure may or may not have been historically the case. The Talmud can be quite fanciful, and should never be taken at face value without proper study. One thing the Talmud is NOT is a work of reliable history!) Since our reviewer sees the words "immersed in dung", his mind jumps to the fact that Jesus is said (Gittin 56b-57a) to have been immersed in "boiling hot excrement" as an eternal punishment in the afterworld, and therefore, he concludes, Sanhedrin 52a "suggests" Jesus should have been strangled, as if he had been sentenced to death by fire! That is the kind of intelligence displayed here. These simplistic minds appeal to the ignorant. Bigotry and prejudice can never replace real dispassionate study, and the urge to UNDERSTAND. There is much in the Talmud that is unappealing to superficial minds, as opposed to the Bible, which as we all know is all sweetness and light... NOT! (Read any book with a title such as "The Bible Exposed!" to find all the questionable Biblical material.) You won't learn much from a card-carrying enemy of the culture under scrutiny. If you want to learn about the Talmud, ask someone who truly knows it and respects it. It must be studied in a special way, as it is an astonishing work, filled with flights of fancy and complex discussions. Besides, the Babylonian Talmud was completed before 600AD. There are relevancy issues here that must apply to the modern world, exactly as in the case of the Bible. Just read the previous reviews here to see the kind of minds who are drawn to this material, though there are many true seekers for whom Jesus in the Talmud is a fascinating study, and not a war-cry, whether against Judaism or Christianity. I have been assured by respectable opinion that Mr. Schafer is such a seeker. However, it is always depressing to see the kind of writing in these reviews. Do these people represent the majority? Let's fight against their darkness! More Reviews