Talk:Yeshu/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Yeshu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Oh, please
The term "Yeshu" is still used as a pejorative and slander against Jesus. Everybody knows these references in the Talmud are about him. Give me a break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even though one reference is 100 years too early, and another appears to be too late? Your unbacked assertion proves something?Mzk1 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. "Everybody knows" means the commentor has a very limited range of knowledge and no contact with the people familiar with Talmud who reject this conclusion for good reason.
Yeshu ha Notsri section misleading
This should not be a separate section. It should be in the later section that discusses the various terms. 4.248.222.74 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This is still misleading. It fails to note that Yeshu was a student of R. Yehoshua ibn Perachia and traveled to Egypt with him during the persecutions by King Alexander Yannai. That firmly places this Yeshu in the first century BCE, not the first century CE, so he cannot be Jesus. The details of his life are on Sanhedrin 103a and 43a. They all prove he is not Jesus. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Eisenmenger
See the autobiography by Gustav Dalman, a Lutheran, in the Schaff Harzog encyclopedia of religion, volume 4. Dalman called Eisenmenger's work a collection of all that was "repulsive" in Christianity and not at all an accurate representation of Judaism. Eisenmenger claimed he read the Hebrew Talmud but the Talmud is in Hebrew as well as Aramaic. Because of Eisenmenger's limited education, he had to ask people to tell him things which he then warped in his book, according to Dalman. The encyclopedia is online at CCEL. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- True, but it's still notable. The anti-semitic flavour of much 14th-18th century "study" of these Talmud references to Jesus of Nazareth is an important part of why some modern readers will not accept modern scholarship, because modern scholarship is basically saying "these early scholars, some of whom were repulsive anti-semites were regrettably correct, these "Jesus the Nazarene" passages in the Talmud are about the only Jesus the Nazarene we know of". As long as these historical "sources" are boxed off from modern scholarship in the article it isn't a problem. Any more than the wishful denial sources being boxed off. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)