Talk:Jesus in the Talmud/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Constradictary

The second part of the article appears to contradict the first, and notably the Yeshu article. While the latter state that the connetion to the Christian Jesus is in dispute, the former (second part) has a number of statements claiming that it tis not. This should be fixed by someone who knows the sources.Mzk1 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Yeshu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No Consensus. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Tag was removed as stale, but restored as the old issues still remain. These are basically two duplicate articles about a fact that no scholar with academic tenure denies, that the references to Jesus (name Yeshu is only ever used for one Jeshua in Hebrew) in the Talmud are references to the Christian figure. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It is important you keep these articles separate. When people merge pages they hack down a lot of information to make the page smaller. As it is the Yeshu entry is a major success. A Break though unique the the entire web with an outstanding amount of source siting. Jesus in the Talmud should remain separate. Yeshu has a unique story that exists outside of the Talmud. I haven't added that the Arabic people also used this name and Eesa for Jesus. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(largely) duplicate article

The effectively duplicate article Yeshu still is duplicating/contradicting this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Brick vs Fish-Worship

Who translated לבינתא in the Talmud as "fish-worship"? It means a brick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.140.215 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek complaint faster than a De Tomaso Panthera.

The current article mentions the Pantera / Pandera "scandal" multiple times, but does not provide any explanation, which is a rather biased state of affairs! It has been long known among biblical scholars that antique jews simply mis-translated the greek language: Pant(h)era generis (from the groin of Panthera) <=> Part(h)eno genesis (being born to a virgin). Anyhow, it's just great that this way Torah gives further credence to the biblical events of Father sending Son to mankind via the humble servitude of Mary, daughter of Anne. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems quite far fetched. Jews were quite fluent in Greek (and all members of the Sanhedrin had to be fluent). And There is no such concept as virgin birth anywhere in Judaism. Rather, the Pauline misconception of Isaiah mentioning a virgin birth stems from a mistranslation of Hebrew coupled with Paul's pagan background. That is why Jesus' original followers, the Nazarenes rejected Paul and his version of the Gospels as heresy. The Nazarenes (later led by Jesus' brother), agreed that Jesus was the son of normal parental relations and not magical or part of any sort of trinity (which itself was not accepted by Christianity until about 300 years later at the Council of Nicea). affinity 292 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.210.63 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

...Funny that there is not one ounce of evadence to support your myths about the Nazarenes at war with Paul. but you keep the lies coming, maybe a 3rd grader might believe them. Sad. really sad what some people will do and believe in their Christaphobic hate.--69.14.41.250 (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is in Wikapedia, it has to be Anti-Christian.

Odd how I knew when I saw this link in Google that it would be 100% anti-Christian and portray Christians are evil. Glad there is one thing in this world that never changes - Wikipedia's hate for Jesus and Christianity. Small minds big hate - the Liberal way!--69.14.41.250 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity deadened "sweetly" here

I know Hebrew and know the Talmud from start to finish -- systematically, methodically.

I almost laughed reading how this article absolutely guts the way Jesus Christ, Mary, etc., is portrayed in the Talmud -- I mean, the vehement antipathy and raging bellicosity of the Talmud in relation to Christ and Christianity is here not merely given the "soft-pedal" treatment, but sort of "whitewashed" in the "gentle analysis" -- this is bordering on academic malfeasance, I'm sorry, I have to be honest... Is this how Wikipedia works, really?

Angelomorphic (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Angelomorphic

I agree with the above user statements here. The article doesn't even cite the Talmud as a source in the Bibliography. I would suggest reading the Talmud to find out what it says about Jesus first before reading from a supposed scholar who has an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.50 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoting WP:PRIMARY:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

In other words, prefer analyses of other people to citing the Talmud directly. It's not like someone who understands enough of the topic to follow the discussion in the page won't know that they could look up the Talmud themselves even without a bibliographical reference or "see also" link. --Wtrmute (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The Talmud consisted of Numerous Volumes. It is not one book which a person can consult. Additionally the Talmud has multiple different editions. This means articles in one series might not be in another. The first person believes he has read all of the talmud? I say good for you. Then why the Jingle bells don't you share what it says, named the edition, name which volumes and pages Jesus can be found, or tell us where a free online edition exists to consult since each volume costs so darn much? DigDeep4Truth (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I, having read the Old Testament and several targums (Onkelos, Jonathan, etc. Never the entire Talmud), do not understand why in Gitten it is referenced here as Yeshua when in the Babylonian Talmud, it references Balaam and "The Sinners of Israel", but this article, perhaps referencing some book, points to Jesus. Please clarify what text the Yeshua (or Yeshu) was taken from. DuaneGTR (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

censorship a red herring

The censorship of 1554 CE did not last 50 years. The Amsterdam Talmud restored all of that material in the early 1600s. The online 1324 Babylonian Talmud manuscript (Bayern state library) reads identically to modern texts available online. Your article is very poorly written because it never says what was taken out in which censorship AND HOW THE PROPONENTS OF THE JESUS IN TALMUD FALSEHOOD KNEW WHAT THEY SAID if the only thing available from then on was the censored version. You need to record the first date of attested claims that Talmud refers to Jesus and compare them to the censorship efforts. If material that is supposed to have been censored out is used in later disputations or documents, you have to trace how it suddenly reappeared in time for those later events. 100.15.138.239 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Improving the article

Perhaps someone consult the sources mentioned in the In Talmud and Midrash section of the Encyclopaedia Judaica article or its bibliography: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/jesus = EJ 2nd ed. v.11: https://ketab3.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/encyclopaedia-judaica-v-11-ja-kas.pdf pp.246-51 and edit the Wikipedia article. Mcljlm (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

An Article on Jesus in the Jerusalem Talmud Is Needed, one that explains the "verse" systems

I doubt that 1 person in a million knows that there are 2 Talmuds. It is not implicit that there are 2 at all. One thing confusing about the Jerusalem Talmud is that there is not one standard versification system so that you can find a reference say to Jerusalem Talmud, Hagiga (or Chagigah) 2:2 and then quickly find some verse or few verses as in chapter 2, verse 2 (2:2 refers to a rather long stretch of text, as in Neusner). The text which in Neusner is under "2:2," is listed by Jastrow as

"Hag. II, 77ᵈ bot." as in "צִיר II, hinge, pivot; socket; pin. Y. Ḥag. II, 77ᵈ bot. צ׳ דתרעא וכ׳ the pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear",

a somewhat famous passage on the nipples of Miriam (Mary) evidently in Gehenna, listed in Neusner as in 2:2 with a P at the side which looks like a verse number.

[P] He saw Miriam, the daughter of ‘LY BSLYM [Jastrow: the leek-like sprouts of onions], hanging by the nipples of her breasts. Some say that the pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear.

Some have equated the ‘LY above with Heli of the genealogy in Matthew 3.

So I would like some expert on the Jerusalem Talmud to explain the different versification / reference systems used and how they came about. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC))