New controversy with mel Gibson film and the Talmud

[MORTARDUDE]

Topica Digest --

Mel Gibson ignites old debate---->Jesus In The Talmud
By Magnu96196@aol.com

Jesus' Death Now Debated By Jews---->Talmudic Passages
By Magnu96196@aol.com

------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus In The Talmud
By Steven Bayme
National Director
Contemporary Jewish Life Department
10-13-3

The recent controversy over the forthcoming release of Mel Gibson's The Passion has reignited the longstanding debate over responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. This 2,000-year-old debate clearly has been a costly one for
Jews. Statements attributed by the Gospels to Jewish leaders of the first century urging that Jesus be crucified and that responsibility for the act be laid at the hands of the Jewish people for all time form the basis for the charge of
deicide against the Jews. More tellingly, historians have argued correctly that this "teaching of contempt," casting the Jews as a permanently accursed people, often served to legitimate violence against Jews as the living embodiment of those who killed Jesus.

In the mid-1960s, the Vatican II Council was meant to relegate this teaching of contempt to the history books. The Church released a statement claiming that "what happened in His passion can not be blamed upon all the Jews then
living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today". Precisely with the leadership of groups such as the American Jewish Committee, remarkable progress in Catholic/Jewish relations has since been attained, especially concerning the portrayal of Jews and Judaism within Catholic textbooks. Gibson's movie,
intended to tell the story of the Gospels, has alienated many Jewish leaders, who correctly worry whether the movie's graphic description of the crucifixion and its alleged overtones of a Jewish conspiracy to kill Jesus may ignite long-dormant Christian hostilities to Jews.

For this reason, the account of the Gospels, and its associations with anti-Semitism, needs to be honestly confronted, including the question of the relationship of church teachings to acts of violence against Jews. Yet it is also important that Jews confront their own tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus narrative. Pointedly, Jews did not argue that crucifixion was a
Roman punishment and therefore no Jewish court could have advocated it. Consider, by contrast, the following text from the Talmud:

On the eve of Passover Jesus 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. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But
since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither
shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a)

This text, long censored in editions of the Talmud, is concerned primarily with due process in capital crimes. Standard process requires that punishment be delayed for forty days in order to allow extenuating evidence to be presented. However, in extreme cases, such as seducing Israel into apostasy, this
requirement is waived. The case of Jesus, according to the Talmud, constituted an exception to this rule. Although one who enticed Israel into apostasy is considered an extreme case, the Jews at the time waited forty days because of the
close ties of Jesus to the Roman authorities. However, once the forty days elapsed without the presentation of favorable or extenuating comment about him, they proceeded to kill him on the eve of Passover.

Three themes emanate from this passage. First, the charges against Jesus relate to seduction of Israel into apostasy and the practice of sorcery. According to the Gospels, the charges against Jesus concerned his self-proclamation as a messiah. The Talmud seems to prefer the more specific charges of practicing
sorcery and leading Israel into false beliefs. One twentieth-century historian, Morton Smith of Columbia University, argued on the basis of recently discovered "hidden Gospels" that the historical Jesus indeed was a first-century sorcerer (Jesus the Magician, HarperCollins, 1978). In the eyes of the Talmudic
rabbis, the practice of sorcery and false prophecy constituted capital crimes specifically proscribed in Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 and 13: 2-6.

Second, the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus' political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction: The Jews waited forty days, in a departure from the usual practice, only because Jesus was close to the ruling authorities.

Lastly, the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon,
then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed
have been executed.

To be sure, historians can not accept such a text uncritically. For one thing, the Talmudic text, as noted, was written some 300 years after the event it reports. Secondly, it makes no acknowledgement of intra-Jewish tensions in
first century Palestine in which Jewish sects proliferated, and Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots competed for Jewish allegiances. Jesus's antipathy towards the Pharisees, of course, is well known from the Gospels, and the Talmudic rabbis, who presumably read these accounts, defined themselves as the
intellectual heirs of the Pharisaic teachers. By contrast, the High Priest was, in all likelihood, a member of the Sadducee faction, which generally consisted of more aristocratic elements. What the Talmudic narrative does demonstrate is fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of
Jesus.

What, then, are the implications of this reading of Jesus through the eyes of rabbinic sources? First, we do require honesty on both sides in confronting history. Jewish apologetics that "we could not have done it" because of Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic account. However, the
significance of Vatican II, conversely, should by no means be minimized. The Church went on record as abandoning the teaching of contempt in favor of historicizing the accounts of the Gospels and removing their applicability to Jews of later generations. A mature Jewish-Christian relationship presupposes the ability of both sides to face up to history, acknowledge errors that have been committed, and build a social contract in which each side can both critique as well as assign value to its religious counterpart.

Bibliography for further reading:
Steven Bayme, Understanding Jewish History (KTAV), 1997
Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (Beacon Books), 1964
R. Travers-Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (KTAV), 1975

Questions for further discussion:

1. Given the climate in first-century Palestine, what threat did Jesus pose
to Jews and to Rome?
2. How should Jews understand Jesus today?
3. What should be the terms of a social contract between believing Jews and
Christians? How should adherents of each faith view the other?

First published September 24, 2003
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...rg/inthemedia/
RelatedArticles.asp%3Fdid%3D933+%22jesus+in+the+ta lmud
%22+bayme&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 04:50:14 EDT
From: Magnu96196@aol.com
Subject: Jesus' Death Now Debated By Jews---->Talmudic Passages





http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/ne...hp3?artid=8530

Jesus' Death Now
Debated By Jews
AJ Committee Scholar Cites Talmudic Passage; Others
Question Views And Timing In Light Of Gibson Furor
By Eric J. Greenberg
Staff Writer
The Jewish Week
10-13-3

"...an article by Steven Bayme, the American Jewish Committee's national director of Contemporary Jewish Life... declares that Jews must face up to the fact that the Talmudic narrative 'does clearly demonstrate... fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus.'"

The controversy over Mel Gibson's upcoming film about the death of Jesus has spurred painful exchanges between Jews and Christians and progressive and traditional Catholics in recent days. To date, the debates have centered on the "proper" interpretation of the role of Jews in Jesus' Crucifixion, as presented in the four New Testament Gospels.

But this week, Gibson's $25 million biblical epic, which the director insists is about love and forgiveness, has triggered a new squabble - among Jewish scholars.

The texts in question are not New Testament but rather passages long censored (by Christian authorities) about Jesus from the Talmud, the encyclopedia of Jewish law and tradition considered sacred by traditional Jews.

Raising the issue is an article by Steven Bayme, the American Jewish Committee's national director of Contemporary Jewish Life, which declares that Jews must face up to the fact that the Talmudic narrative "does clearly demonstrate ... fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the
execution of Jesus."

"Jewish apologetics that 'we could not have done it' because of Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic account," Bayme said.

He contends that Jewish interfaith representatives are not being honest in dialogue if they ignore the explicit Talmudic references to Jesus.

His article was posted on the AJCommittee's Web site last week, then removed after a Jewish Week reporter's inquiry.

Ken Bandler, a spokesman for the AJCommittee, said the article was taken down to "avoid confusion" over whether it represented the organization's official position. AJCommittee officials now refer to the article as "an internal
document."

Some Jewish scholars and interfaith officials were upset with the article, either questioning Bayme's scholarship or his timing - saying this was a particularly delicate time to call attention to Jews' role in Jesus' death - or both.

But Bayme was unswayed. Citing the continuing controversy over Gibson's "The Passion," which has reignited concern over Christianity's ancient charge against Jews as "Christ killers," he wrote that it is also important "that Jews confront their own tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus
narrative."

Bayme cites a passage from the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, which relates the fate of a man called Jesus who is hanged on the eve of Passover for practicing sorcery and leading the people of Israel astray.

When no one comes forward to defend the accused sorcerer during a 40-day reprieve, Jewish authorities put him to death, despite Jesus' "connections with the government." The Talmud cites this incident during a discussion of due process and capital punishment in Jewish law. (See box.)

Bayme acknowledges that that the passage was written by Talmudic scholars in Babylon, who lived about 400 years after Jesus.

"To be sure, historians cannot accept such a text uncritically," Bayme wrote.

But he says the passage is significant because the Talmudic text "indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed.

"No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans," Bayme said. "Pointedly, Jews did not argue that crucifixion was a Roman punishment and therefore, no Jewish court could have advocated it."

Bayme told The Jewish Week he wrote the piece for two reasons: to educate Jews and promote honest dialogue with Christians.

He cited the Catholic Church's 1965 statement that Jesus' death "cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today."

Bayme said Gibson's movie "has alienated many Jewish leaders who correctly worry whether the movie's graphic description of the Crucifixion and its alleged overtones of a Jewish conspiracy to kill Jesus may ignite long-dormant Christian hostilities to Jews."

That's why the Gospel and its association with anti-Semitism need to be confronted as well as Jewish sources, he said. But Bayme stressed that he is not suggesting a moral equivalency between problematic anti-Semitic Gospel passages "which have caused the death of Jews" and the Talmudic Jesus references.

Indeed, the Catholic Church, which burned copies of the Talmud in the Middle Ages, officially censored the Talmud's Jesus references in the 13th century. Even today the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud omits any discussion about "Yeshu," Jesus in Hebrew.

The Jesus omissions began to be restored in the last century, Bayme said. And the passages "are now included in most of the new printings of the Talmud," said Yisrael Shaw of Daf Yomi Discussions, an on-line Talmud service.

"If you do an Internet search for Sanhedrin 43a, you will find that it is one of the favorite sources of the Christians to use as proof of the Jewish murder and hatred of their god," Shaw said.

But Bayme is concerned that Jews know nothing about the censored texts.

"Whenever I talked about the origins of Christianity with fellow Jews, I discovered massive ignorance of Jewish narratives concerning the death of Jesus. It's something I thought Jews ought to confront fairly," he told The Jewish Week.

Bayme contends the Talmudic text resonates with the Gospel accounts for several reasons. He said the Talmudic charge of practicing sorcery and seducing Israel into apostasy, a biblical capital crime, matches recently discovered "hidden Gospels" that "a historical Jesus was indeed a first century sorcerer."

"A mature relationship between two faiths should allow for each faith to ... uncover these texts and view them critically," Bayme said.

But some disagreed with Bayme's analysis and policy suggestion.

His own organization pulled the piece only a couple of days after it was posted.

Rabbi David Rosen, the group's director of interreligious affairs, said Bayme's views were not the "official AJC position" concerning the trial of Jesus.

He called the Talmudic text historically "dubious" and questioned Bayme's connecting the text with the Gospel stories, noting the actual charge against Jesus and the nature of the court "is in conflict."

Some outside specialists also refuted Bayme's article.

Brooklyn College History Professor Rabbi David Berger, a specialist in Christian-Jewish issues, said it would be a mistake and diversion to bring the Talmudic texts into the interfaith dialogue.

"The Second Vatican council properly rejected collective Jewish guilt for the Crucifixion, even though it affirmed that some Jews were involved," he said. "Consequently, raising the question of the historical involvement of Jews, with or without reference to Talmudic texts, diverts us from the key issue, which
is the denial of contemporary Jewish culpability for these events."

He noted that in the Middle Ages, "most Jews assumed that Jews executed Jesus of Nazareth based on these Talmudic passages, though some asserted that the Jesus of Talmud is not the same as the Jesus of Christianity."

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, whose Talmud edition has been translated into English, Russian and Spanish, said he believed the Talmudic Jesus is probably not the Christian Jesus.

"It could very well be somebody else" who lived 100 or 200 years earlier because the stories don't match the Gospel account, he said.

Rabbi Steinsaltz noted that the Hebrew name Yeshu was popular back then and that "stories about the resurrection of dead leaders are a dime a dozen, before Jesus and after him. This is not a historical issue."

In any case, Rabbi Steinsaltz said Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition.

Ellis Rivkin, professor emeritus of Jewish history at Hebrew Union College and author of the seminal book "What Crucified Jesus," said dragging in the Talmud text is "dangerous, utterly meaningless and irrelevant."

But Dr. David Kraemer, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary, supported Bayme's call for honesty about Jewish texts and Jesus.

"I think it's very relevant to bring up evidence of the difficulty of our relationship with Christianity," he said, contending that it is indeed Jesus of Nazareth in the text. Kraemer believes the text was written at a time of fierce competition between the early rabbis and Christian leaders in the early centuries of the Common Era.

"The attitudes expressed [in the Talmud] can be pretty hateful attitudes," he said. "It's not about comparing them [with the anti-Semitic Gospel passages]. Just because you can't equate them doesn't mean you can't raise the issues."