Talk:Jesus in the Talmud

Related move discussion

Talk:Yeshu In ictu oculi (talk)

The second paragrah of this text is not very good

The first sentence states that "most of the individuals ... lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus". However, this statement is not backed up by a citation. Instead it seems to be a lot of original research. The paragraph then goes into a number of stories in the talmud and makes arguments why they can't refer to the christian jesus. Direct citations of passages from the talmud are used. It seems very bothersome to check some of these sources, some of them cite arcane Jewish religious texts for which there might be no translation (e.g. Midrash Shocher Tov). I would also not do this kind of original research in a wikipedia article and then conclude that most do not refer to jesus since this is a topic of hot debate. The following paragraphs contradict this by mentioning that this is part of on ongoing intellectual debate.

Furthermore, the basic arguments seem to be borrowed from Gil Student. However this is not properly noted here but presented as 1. general knowledge and 2. Original writing.

The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; Yeshu the sorcerer is noted for being executed by the Hasmonean government which lost legal authority in 63 BC, Yeshu the student is described being among the Pharisees who returned to Israel from Egypt in 74 BC,[3][4][5] and Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather is noted as speaking with Rabbi Akiva shortly before the rabbi's execution, an event which occurred in c. 134 AD.[6][7][8] These events would place the lifetime of any Yeshu decades before or after the traditional dates most Christians accept as those of the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scisne (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Also there are two paragraphs on christian censorship which give different dates for the first censorship occuring. Scisne (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. Noticed this and figured I'd try my hand and shaping it up and bringing it up to code for MOS. Insofar as I was forced to keep the Angelfire reference (it is written by a notable scholar, but it seems these particular findings have found no better publishing), I have added additional RS and heavily modified the language such that it is neither a point-by-point fisking, nor SYNTH or OR. Sinclairian (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that this opinion should maybe be worked into the paragraph below. I think the general consensus is that there is a mixture of opinions on who these parts reference to. Another way to look at it is this: Why only look at one side of the arguments in the lede of the article? Why not also show arguments for why they may refer to the biblical jesus. I think the article should begin with stating that there is a difference of opinions. ("In the modern era, there has been a variance of views among scholars of the possible references to Jesus in the Talmud") Scisne (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Title of the Article is Defective; there are 2 Talmuds

It looks like this article ignores that there is a Jerusalem Talmud, which an apparent reference to Mary as Miriam, the daugher of (H)eli, with a reference to hanging by her nipples. I have seen this reference myself in the library, but I am having trouble finding it now, probably partly because there are different/competing verification systems of the Jerusalem Talmud. The article should be entitled either "Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud" or "Jesus in the Talmuds." (PeacePeace (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC))

@PeacePeace:, the article in many places lists possible references to Jesus in the Jerusalem Talmud. I don't think the plural is really required, as it is implicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds are two different works (though they share the Mishnah). So they should be handled in two different articles and not confounded for the reader. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

The Jerusalem Tamud's possible reference to the genealogy of Jesus should be added.

Neusner translates 2:2 [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.

My source for this is the Accordance edition of the Jerusalem Talmud.

Jastrow gives:

"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","

Some have equated the ‘LY above with Heli of the genealogy in Matthew 3. The reference in Jastrow and in other scholars uses the reference system found in Jastrow, which significantly differs from Neusner's. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

@PeacePeace: are you still interested in trying to improve this article? If there are notable sources for Mary being in the Talmud(s) then they should be in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

“A certain Galilean” as a mention of Jesus in the Talmud

John Froelich, can you explain why you eliminated the whole ""certain Galilean" as a a mention of Jesus" topic? האמת הצרופה (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (האמת הצרופה (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)) @John Froelich: (האמת הצרופה (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC))

Emolu, can you explain why you eliminated the whole " certain Galilean" as a mention of Jesus topic? @Emolu:האמת הצרופה (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Massive OR, SYNTH, poorly formatted, poorly written. Emolu (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You can edit the text. But the content is important and completely corresponds to the topic of the article. Why eliminated the whole topic? האמת הצרופה (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Because, as I already told you, it was original research, synthesis, poorly formatted, and poorly written. Emolu (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war. 109.65.12.39 (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It was me האמת הצרופה (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not original research. There is a link to the source. If you think that the text needs to be improved, then I suggest undoing the deletion of the text and you and other participants can improve it. האמת הצרופה (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said—the charge that this was original research seemed incoherent to me as well, so much so that I was immediately suspicious that it had, instead, been removed for some unstated, subversive purpose. I do know that there are large organizations composed of paid and volunteer members whose stated purpose is the correction of libelous content (particularly on Wikipedia) relating to the modern state of Israel, but the way these organizations were set up sounded to me like they might be particularly susceptible to conflicts of interests, and the adjudicators of whether material was libelous were the organizations, themselves, or other organizations which seemed to be at just as great risk for conflicts of interests. While I can't be certain, I'm inclined to think that the topic of this article might fall within their purview, which, in the context of (ⅰ) such a transparently dubious explanation for removing a large section of the article, (ⅱ) where the remover made no attempt, at any stage, to identify examples of the writing and formatting deficiencies he alleged, nor (ⅲ) any attempt to cure alleged deficiencies by rewriting them, himself, prior to (ⅳ) removing an entire section of material, clearly substantive and germane to the topic of the article, it makes me particularly suspicious that the removal was the product of clandestine motivations instead of carelessness or innocent, naïve misunderstandings.

Further, and especially in light of current events, I think it would make sense to at least closely monitor for, and possibly take extraordinary measures to protect against, a foreseeably heightened risk of vandalism of this article, by potential bad actors on either side, since topics like this might have propagandistic value regarding the prospect of Western intervention. I'd even recommend, after surveying for, and correcting, any apparent recent vandalism, locking down the article to prevent edits while the conflict is ongoing. Fitzws (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)