IF we accept as historic the essential Gospel account of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth we find that Yeshua ben Miriam (his real name) would have been a man of no real social importance during his lifetime. He was one of many unsuccessful itinerate reformers and Messianic claimants during a time of much social upheaval and uncertainty within Roman occupied Judea and Samaria. His fame and influence occurred well after his death due to the work of his followers and talmidim (students), and moreover the efforts and re-writings of those who came after them. This is the Gospel presentation and the historic reality when read as presented in the four main texts without the added element of religious belief and assumption and the scant objective evidence. It was Paul's student Luke who began the process of making Yeshua 'bigger than life'. We do not find the developed 'godman' figure of the Church until 300 years or so after his death.
According to the Four Gospels Yeshua was questioned by the rabbis (i.e. the Parush or Pharisees) and the Tz'dukim (i.e. Sadducees) to ascertain the truth of his suggested reforms and possible Messianic claims. Based on the Torah, the prophets, and established Halacha his reforms and clams were rejected by both of the main Jewish sects (and accepted by none of the others either). He responded to this rejected, according to the New Testament, by committing serious lashon hara or disrespectful words against the Rabbis, as described at Matthew 23 and elsewhere. Attaining no acceptance from the elders of the Jewish people (arguably other than Nicodemus who was afraid to admit his support according to John 7:50), as the real Messiah must have, and leading no significant Jewish movement nor sect during his life, Yeshua lived, inspired a few uneducated people with his novel interpretations and social observations, and was executed as a criminal by the Roman government, and that was his end.
There are few references to Yeshua/Jesus in the Jewish Talmud but these occur well after his death and shed little insight. Some Rabbis maintain that the "Yeshu" referenced in the Talmud is a different person, not Yeshua, the son of Mary. This is further complicated by the fact that the Talmud we use today was edited of most of these comments due to Church persecution. While the Talmud should be considered in this study, it frankly adds little. Yeshu the Notzri simply was not an important figure to Jews and received very little press.
There are some Christian sources that claim to have rediscovered some of this Talmudic material, but their "findings" are suspect on several levels. For instance, as with the New Testament accounts, some of the material allegedly from the pre-censored Talmud records activities and time lines that would have been impossible. For example, the details of his trial. Under halachic law once arrested a period of at least thirty days would have been required to accumulate the evidence and another thirty after the discussions for the decision to be carried out. According to the New Testament he was arrest and executed in a matter of days.
A LOT of what really happened with him is forever lost in the fog of time. Most everything that can be said about him is conjecture based on one of two presumptions: 1). Was he who and what the Church claims or 2). Was he who and what the Rabbis claim? There is I suppose a third possibility for those who are disinterested but we wont look into that here. As a Master of World Religious Studies I find myself between these two presumptions. As a Jew I lean toward the second, but I very much want to know the truth of this. Who was this Notzri (Nazarene) in whose name so very much evil and good has been done? I want to know, regardless of the answer, and I have spent many years pondering this. While I feel comfortable in my understanding, I acknowledge that there remains much uncertainty about this tragic figure.
We know, assuming that he lived as real person, which I am convinced he did, that his life was similar to many other failed Messianic hopefuls. Any Messianic clamant who dies without meeting the biblical requirements can not be accepted as Mashiach ben David (i.e. Messiah, son of David) by the Jews because meeting these requirements is what will establish the clamant and will separate him from all the "failed Messiahs." Why else would G-d have inspired the biblical prophets to write? Its not enough to just "believe." Biblical religion is based on evidence enhanced by faith, not on blind faith. We have had many failed messiahs, but to date no one has met the Messianic requirements.
A Samaritan clamant known as Simon Magus is an example of another who tried and failed. He lived during the same period as Yeshua and is mentioned in Luke's Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:9-24). Simon Magus attracted a following larger than Yeshua's. His talmidim believed him to be a god and they created Simonianism to further their convictions. Like the Way sect of the Apostles, Simonianism flourished in Syria, in various districts of Asia Minor and even at Rome for a time. As late as the 3rd century remnants of the sect still existed. These groups managed to survive into the 4th century until being destroyed by the then emerging Nicolaitan/Catholic Church. Like Yeshua, Simon Magus "darkly hinted" of his hidden true identity as messiah and god. Yeshua's recorded phrase for himself was "Son of G-d" -- which of itself meant nothing but to his grand followers implied divinity -- Simon referred to himself as the "Standing One" with a similar result. Some have theorized Yeshua and Simon were one and the same, but such an opinion is Unsubstantiatable and highly unlikely in my opinion. There were several would-be Messiahs during this period. Yeshua and Simon were but two.
I mention Simon Magus here to demonstrate that the claims and acquired following of Yeshua ben Miriam was not unique. Some critics say it could not have happened as described, but it did for Simon and others, so why not for Yeshua? Other claimants achieved similar limited success during this period. This is evidence that nothing about the Yeshua of the Gospel's smacks of myth nor Roman plot. If Simon and the others lived there is no reason to assume that Yeshua did not and marking them all up to myth and political intrigue goes well beyond credulity.
According to the New Testament Yeshua was an unaffiliated itinerant Pharisee and rabbi (which is to say, a Rabbinic Torah teacher) who was rejected by the Rabbinate mainly due to his suggested reforms and views of proper Torah observance (and possibly self aggrandizement). They did however accept him as a rabbi (or Torah teacher) according to the Gospels (John 3:2). Doctrinally he was Rabbinic but Yeshua maintained ties to the Essene Brotherhood at al-Eizariya (Bethany by the Sea), although he clearly was not an Essene himself as he made clear (Matthew 11:18 etc.).
Such a figure would not have been mentioned by the chroniclers of the day any more than a street preacher in San Francisco or New York would be mentioned in a whose-who of religious teachers today. The lack of documentary reference is not evidence against his existence. To the Jewish and Roman authorities of the day Yeshua was just another religious kook on the streets. This is clear in the New Testament when read as it is, without pre-beliefs. The Jesus story believed by the Christian world of today is quite different from what even the New Testament teaches about him. That Jesus certainly would have mentioned but that Jesus is a Roman Church myth, not the Yeshua of the Gospels.
The historic Yeshua's attempt at Jewish reform consisted mainly of a handful of teenagers until after his execution. Then the charismatic Saul/Paul of Tarsus entered stage right and breathed life into the tiny sect. Were it not for Paul we would probably have never heard of Yeshua of Nazareth, just like most people have never heard of Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, nor the many other failed messiahs of that period. Some people have heard of Simon Magus, maintain because of the New Testament mentions. but few know anything about him and the movement he began. Indeed most people do not even realize that John the Baptist's sect continues to exist to our very day.
Paul's rabbinic credentials as a disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel, giving the benefit of the doubt that that part of his story is accurate (there is no historic evidence), coupled with his missionary zeal under persecution, is what lead to the explosion of the Jewish Way sect. Two hundred years later the sect was formally usurped by Roman Emperor Constantine to create the Christian religion. It was during the days of Emperor Constantine (274 CE to May 22, 337) that the Way sect was formally divorced from Judaism.
According to a new book that is typical of the present anti-Christian drive:
Jesus is lauded as a wise teacher, savior, and a perfect being. Yet Jesus believed in Noah's Ark (Mt 24:37, and Lk 17:27), Adam and Eve and their son Abel (Lk 3:38 and Lk 11:51), Jonah living in a fish or whale (Mt 12:40), and Lot's wife turning into salt (Lk 17:31-32). Jesus believed "devils" caused illness, and even bought into the OT notion (Jn 3:14) that a magical pole proffered by the OT (Num 21:9) could cure snakebites merely by gazing upon it.
So do I, so maybe I don't exist either? According to the Four Gospels, Yeshua believed the Torah (Matthew 5:18). That's a problem? Religious Jews believe these things too (although more and more many seem to be ashamed to admit it!). Our understandings or interpretations of the accounts may vary, but such beliefs only link the historic Yeshua to first century Rabbinic Judaism.
Again the author chides the claim that:
... his words going "unto the ends of the whole world" (Rom 10)...
Of course they did! After the Second Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 CE the surviving Jews (including the original Way sect members and their associates) were dispersed throughout the Roman World (which was considered "the whole world" at the time). By the dawning of the second century the increasingly heretical Way sect (now called the "Nicolaitan heresy" by John at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) was spreading throughout the Roman Empire, throughout the "known world." I'm not saying it was the sect established by Yeshua's talmidim (students), it wasn't, its was already quite different. The sect had by this point become a Roman universalist (Latin: catholic) control system. It had become the political and religious power structure of Constantine and his Bishops. It was however spreading like a cancer across the globe as predicted.
Today Christianity is under attack as never before in its history, like Judaism always has been. Biblical religion, whether Jewish or Christian, is now in the bull's eye of the New World Order and targeted for extermination, again, like Judaism has always been. We have this in common and it is to the benefit of both religions that we work together where we can to restore the Judeo-Christian foundations of our former Republic before its too late (if its not already). There are an increasing number of hit pieces and books attacking Christians and Jesus' physical existence. Some of these are coming from Jewish sources.
By the third century the Way sect had been completely severed from Judaism and from Torah. This had nothing directly to do with the founders of the Way sect. While some of original reforms were correctly rejected as being anti-Torah, the original Way sect members were all Torah believing Jews according to what we know. They would doubtless be appalled to see what became of their reform movement. The truth is, the Roman Pagans stole Judea and Samaria from us, they destroyed our Second Holy Temple, they scattered the Jews and barred us from our rightful Home Land, and they usurped the Jesus story from the Way sect, turning the historic Yeshua ben Miriam into one of the most misrepresented, slandered, and hated Jews in history.
Arguably, the price of Yeshua's lashon hara against our rabbis has been very high!
Loshon hara (lit., evil talk) is defined as information which is either derogatory or potentially harmful to another individual. A derogatory statement about someone is loshon hara, even if will definitively not cause that person any harm. To focus on the shortcomings of another person is in itself wrong.
A statement that could potentially bring harm to someone -- be it financial, physical, psychological or otherwise -- is loshon hara, even if the information is not negative.
(It should be noted that the term lashon hara refers even to true statements which are derogatory or harmful. Negative statements that are untrue or inaccurate are termed hotzaas shem ra, slander -- Sefer Chofetz Chaim page 50.)
According to my research it is true that there is no solid evidence that Yeshua lived. None. The same can be said of many other ancient figures who historicity is never challenged however. I've look hard for evidence and I invite you to share it with me if you believe you have it.
There is however a LOT of circumstantial evidence. For example:
There exists no evidence of direct Roman usurpation of the sect prior to Constantine as would be required by the political assimilation claims that the Jesus story was invented. The Romans used persecution not conciliation in their attempt to stop the Way sect. There is plenty of historic evidence to be had from the Roman persecutions that many people in late first and second centuries believed in Yeshua and regarded him as their rabbi/teacher by at least 50 CE, well before the creation of Christianity in the 300's by Constantine and his Vatican bishops. With the scant communication options available at that time. how could such far flung parts of the Roman Empire all embrace the notion of a reform Jewish rabbi with a message for the world so quickly if that rabbi/teacher did not actually exist? How could so many rival Way/Nazarene sects like the various Gnostic groups condemned by John (ex. I John 4:3), like the Roman Nicolaitan sect condemned by John (Revelation 2:9, 3:9), like the sects claiming to follow the different disciples as warned by Paul (I Corinthians 1:10-14), like the Paulist followers, like the followers of James (which seems to have been original Way sect), etc. all have emerge so quickly and with such fanaticism? If it was a forgery, who invented the original myth and how did it spread so far and wide, and so quickly? Who could have spread such a lie and deceived so many people if there was no historic Yeshua and his missionary disciples? Before disregarding these points consider that the Way sect desperately wanted unity according to the New Testament and common sense. Their acknowledgement, by John, Paul, and others, that the sect was dangerously splintering by the mid to late first century into Paganism and Gnosticism itself testifies to the truth of the Yeshua's existence. It also explains how the sect finally "fell into the unity" of Nicolaitan Paganism and thereafter ceased to exist. Just as Gamaliel foretold according to Luke.
The sect's infighting itself strongly supports the existence of Yeshua as an historic figure whose message, at the hands of his talmidim, touched the hearts of their hearers and grand disciples. Yet ultimately the sect failed. We have seen many initial sects quickly dissolve into rival sub-sects after the founder's death. Look at our own Ba'al Shem Tov. After his death all of his disciples, save one, began new Chassidic dynasties. That the same happened after the horrendous events of 70 CE is to be expected and lends support to the existence of the initial teacher. We have seen many groups begun by well-meaning people splinter in just this way. A difference here is that the Ba'al Shem Tov and his talmidim expanded Torah realization while Yeshua and his successors sought to alter it and merge it with other belief systems. HaShem blessed the former with success and withheld blessings from the latter. They Way sect died, Judaism continues.
There is some objective evidence, although as stated above there really is no reason why we would expect to find any references to Yeshua from his lifetime at all. Everything on this subject is debated of course, however the following points seem pretty solid in my opinion.
The Jewish historic chronicler Josephus lived 37-100 CE. Yeshua was executed circa 34 CE so they were not contemporaries. He has two references to Yeshua in Antiquities of the Jews, books 18 and 20. Some scholars doubt the Josephus' reference in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews.
Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF THIRTY-TWO YEARS.
FROM THE BANISHMENT OF ARCHELUS TO THE DEPARTURE FROM BABYLON.
A SEDITION OF THE PHILADELPHIANS AGAINST THE JEWS; AND ALSO CONCERNING THE VESTMENTS OF THE HIGH PRIEST.
CHAPTER 3. SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME,
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF TWENTY-TWO YEARS.
FROM FADUS THE PROCURATOR TO FLORUS.
CHAPTER 9.
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Personally I believe these are both probably legitimate entries by Josephus in his histories, although the language in both accounts seem to have been tampered with. One would expect that a Jewish historian would have said, for instance, "He was believed to be [the] Christ" and not "He was [the] Christ." We know that Josephus did not become a member of the Way sects, and if had, he would surely have included more information about them. Instead, he only mentions the sect as a novelty of the times and moves on, not as anything he considered to be of any importance to Jewish history. Had later Christian editors added these two bits they surely would not have hidden the reference so deeply within the work, and surely they would have added much more information supporting their claimant in my opinion.
There is also a bit from Tacitus, circa 64 CE:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus -- The Annals of Tacitus, Book 15.44
There is also the Ossuary of James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus dating from AD 63. Despite the ongoing debate, its authenticity is now accepted by most archeologists. This ossuary (i.e. a container or room into which the bones of dead people are placed) appears to contain the remains of Jesus, his wife Mary Magdalena, at least one of their sons, as well as that of his brother James. The Ossuary's authenticity of course is roundly rejected by Christians because, if real, it is undeniable physical evidence that Yeshua did not 'ascend into the heavens' after his death. This important find disproves the foundational Christian dogma.
And then there is evidence from Pliny the Younger, who lived 61-112 CE, and was the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now known as Turkey). He sent a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 CE requesting advise on dealing with the Christian sect. At this early point most of those involved in the Way sect would still have considered themselves Jewish (even though the rabbis considered them to be heretics). The letter (Epistulae X.96) details how Pliny conducted trials of suspected 'Nazarene Jews' appearing before him. Their only stated crime was refusing to worship the Roman gods. This letter is based on The Early Christian Church Volume 1 by Philip Carrington; and Pagan Rome and the Early Christians by Stephen Benko).
The most solid evidence for the historicity of Yeshua however, in my opinion, is that it united a huge number of people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, religions, and races, and absolutely infuriated a different huge group of people from diverse backgrounds, while leaving multitudes scratching their heads. These groups, regardless of their views, all believed he had been a real man. True, we can not objectively prove his existence, but there is no question of the impact his sect, begun by his initial talmidim who claimed to be eyewitnesses shortly after his execution, had on the ancient world.
Religious truth is not like secular truth. Religious truth, regardless of the religion, requires a degree of faith and trust. Jews call this emunah. The existence of G-d Himself is based on circumstantial evidence coupled with emunah. No one can "prove" G-d's existence, and yet for the faithful of all religions His existence is established certainty. Personally I do not "believe in G-d," I know G-d personally. Millions will say the same, for hundreds of thousands it is true. When this ceases to be the case, when this level of faith decays, the religion dies and fades away, as both Christianity and Judaism are now experiencing. Religion is not like the secular sciences! We have different standards of proof. Ours is under attack.
But physical evidence has its place. We also have this from Pliny the Younger in a Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.):
"…they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."
It appears from this that Pliny had connected with one of the Paganized offshoot Way sects. That some sect members came to believe the heresy of his divinity, hence of his existence, is more solid evidence that by 115 or so the sect was active and still convinced of his actual humanity, even though Pagan notions of deification were now entering. These rites were probably performed in the very early hours of the dawn and in hiding because within the greater Way sect such Pagan beliefs were still regarded as apostasies (i.e. violations of the teachings of the original talmidim). Pliny here is referencing Paganized rites that were being performed around 88 years after his execution. Plenty early enough for there to still be eye witnesses to the Gospel claims.
As mentioned above, there is a huge gap in our Talmudic knowledge due to the censoring done by the rabbis to minimize Christian persecution and book burning. The following quote exists in our modern versions and demonstrates that the early rabbis accepted his physical existence as Jewish heretic, while of course rejecting his teachings and other claims:
Our current Talmud reads thusly:
Sanhedrin 43a in the Sefaria edition:
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn't it written: "When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?" (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: "When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?" (Psalms 41:6) -- .
However it is said that another, uncensored, version of the Talmud exists that sheds additional light. We know that tractates 43a, 67a, and 107b were heavily altered due to Christian persecution, but they were preserved in a slim volume called Chesronos HaShas. We have this from this Sanhedrin 43a (supposedly penned around 200-500 C.E):
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!' -- Sanhedrin, vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
Is this real? Of this textual controversy the Christian publishing house Tyndale offers the following explanation, along with their best guess at correct translation:
The tradition investigated in this paper includes most of the first two lines in this image [shown on their site with a good discussion on the issues] of an ancient scroll that had clearly been partial, deliberately erased. In the translation below, the words in bold are those that this paper will conclude were the original core of this tradition, and the ones in grey are those which have been partly erased in the Munich manuscript:
[Note: I will place their darken text in bold face here]
It was taught: On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzri And the herald went out before him for forty days [saying]: 'Yeshu the Notzri will go out to be stoned for sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows [anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.’ But no one came to his defence so they hung him on the Eve of Passover.
Other manuscripts which have this tradition contain a few variants. The Florence manuscript has ‘on the Eve of Shabbat and Eve of Passover’ and only the Munich manuscript includes 'ha-Notzri'.
This passage is followed by a later comment by Ulla bar Ishmael (about AD 300) and another censored passage that lists and discusses the supposed names of Jesus’ disciples. These sections have no evidence of originating before the Third Century, and will not be considered further in this paper:
Ulla said: 'And would it be expected that the Notzri revolutionary had a defence? He was a "misleader," and the Merciful said (Deut.13:9) ‘You shall not spare and shall not shield him.’ But it was not so for Yeshu the Notzri for he was close to the government.
This is all very interesting for several reasons! Many of its details conflict with the Gospels accounts. This lends support for its authenticity because a political insertion would have agreed with the Gospels much more closely. The points of disagreement are also quite interesting in their rights. Consider:
- The Gospels give no hint of an invitation to come to his defense. However someone did ask Peter if was with him (possibly he might want to give a defence) but Peter denied even knowing Yeshua three times. This suggests that all of the original followers abandoned him when they were given the option to speak in his defense, not just Peter as the Gospel's say. This could account for much of the zeal that followed. Guilt over remaining silent leading to at times suicidal obsessions to remain faithful.
- The charge of inciting the people to idolatry could signify the belief in Yeshua as a god. I've always rejected this idea personally as it seems far fetched given the paradigm of first century Jews, but the allegation, as presented here, could support the notion that the original followers were engaging in this form of idolatry from the beginning. The Gospel presents the rabbi's fury as being beyond reason for a Messianic clamant that they had dismissed. but if he actually was claiming some sort of divinity for himself that would certainly cause the rabbis to react so emotionally and with such anger.
- The list of disciples that Tyndale dismisses are included in the modern editions of the Talmud:
"...the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda.
Again would the emerging Church with twelve solar-based Apostles supported this allegedly rabbinic claim when none of the Apostles accepted today are mentioned?
This gives an air of reality to this as a rabbinic document to me.
- The belief that Yeshua or Yeshu had twelve disciples lines up with imagery of the disciples of many popular Pagan leaders as well as with the astronomical connections through Mithra and Sol Invictus (the god worshipped by Emperor Constantine. Some Christian commentators also seek to establish that the twelve apostles had replaced the heads of the twelve House of Israel with this numbering. The number twelve works nicely for the Nicolaitan cult that became that Christianity and the rabbis here were revealing the fallacy of that claim. It makes sense that the Church would react with hostility about this revelation. According to this Talmud, Yeshu has but five talmidim and their names are different. This seems more feasible and again like something that the emerging Church would not have wanted included in the Talmud lest their members learn the truth.
- Then there is a particularly intriguing point: 'He should have had no mercy nor defenders, but "...Yeshu the Notzri [Jesus of Nazareth]... was close to the government." Joseph Atwill, who is the author of a book entitled Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, asserts that Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord" -- Colossians 3:22
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" Ephesians 6:4
This point would seem to support his thesis, that the Roman government, weary of unsuccessful Jewish revolts, fabricated the Jesus ruse in order to provide the Jews with their long awaited Messiah, who order them to obey Roman authority. The Romans assumed the Jews were so desperate for their Messiah that they would accept a false one. The plan failed however. Only a few Torah illiterate Jews accepted him because he met none of main biblical requirements. Had this deception worked the Jews would have embraced Yeshua as their king and he would have ruled in support of Rome, as he said at "Matthew 22:21: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." This is what the Romans wanted. I'm not saying I believe this theory, I do not, but the idea can be made based on this "concealed Talmud passage. But is this passage real?
The debate continues.
There are solid Jewish scholars. many of them, who believe that Yeshua was a myth cut from whole cloth and that the references to Yeshu [the Notzri] referred to a different person. After all the name Yeshua, Yeshu, and so on were quite common. With the addition of 'the Notzri' tag, which is only in one of the manuscripts, many people see this as a later insertion to support Yeshua's existence within the Talmud. But again, why insert something that opposes one own foundational beliefs?
In my personal opinion the case for Jesus' historicity is greater than the case against it, although neither side can prove its position objectively. Those seeking to discredit his existence and hence Christianity, do so from their biases just as those who support his humanity do so from theirs. In the end, it boils to a question of faith and belief.
We can however objectively evaluate the evidence surrounding the Church teachings concerning him. Since both the Christians and Jews accept the authority of the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible (or "Old Testament") we can use it to have a rational conversation on the Church's claims. With the Torah as our foundation we can stipulate that all dogmas must be consistent with it. Christians should be able to accept this based on their scriptures, for instance Matthew 5:18, Acts 17:11 etc.
Lets not do this with this study however. I cover a wealth of such topics elsewhere if one is interested, and I'm always happy to share on these topics. I'll close here with a point, and it applies to a great many topics. A person who uses deceit to establish a "truth" benefits no one and fails to realize the truth. What benefit does one find in denying the historicity of Yeshua? One who attempts this is swimming against the tide. What matters is the doctrine, the belief, and the practice that comes through those who believe they follow him. The central question is this: Do those teaching agree with Torah or not? Do they "produce fruit?" Are observant Christians better people because of their beliefs? Seeking to destroy the beliefs of others is counter to the Jewish Way. We should be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks us about our Jewish emunah and why it is that we do not accept their Jesus. But we also must remember the words of Rabbi Hillel:
"That which you find offensive to you, do not do to others."
