Jesus in the Talmud

142 Appendixnot know of the Jesus connection in this passage—on the contrary, it mayhave taken it for granted (and note that Ms. Munich makes clear that Jacobis a “heretic”).(2) The “Jesus/Jesus the Nazarene” tradition in the stories unique tothe Bavli is surprisingly stable, although here the intervention in the textby the censors becomes more visible. In chapter 2 all the b Sanhedrinmanuscripts have “Jesus the Nazarene,” including the old Firenze manuscript,but the name is left out, not surprisingly, in the late Vilna edition.In the b Berakhot parallel, the censor was at work (or was preempted bythe Jewish printers) not only in the printed editions Soncino and Vilnabut also in the Firenze and Munich manuscripts.A similar picture emerges from chapter 3 (b Sanh and b Sot). All manuscriptsin both Talmud passages agree that “Jesus the Nazarene” 30 waspushed away by R. Yehoshua; but interestingly enough, the name is erasedin Ms. Munich 95 only in the b Sanhedrin version and not in the b Sotaparallel (clear indication of how sloppily the censor worked). Again, onlythe printed edition Vilna has instead of “Jesus the Nazarene” the obviouslyemended phrase “one of his disciples.” However, in the encounter betweenR. Yehoshua and Jesus in the inn, it is only Ms. Oxford 20 and Ms.Herzog that explicitly identify the disciple as “Jesus”; the other manuscriptsas well as the printed editions have “he/one of his disciples.” Yet it is worthemphasizing that Ms. Oxford Heb. d.20 seems to belong to the earliestmanuscripts we possess and confirms the rule that the Yemenite manuscripttradition (to which Ms. Herzog belongs), despite being rather late,preserves older textual evidence that has often not survived in the other(and earlier) manuscripts. In any case, in the concluding statement by themaster most manuscripts return to “Jesus the Nazarene” (again, Ms. Munich95 in b Sanh has just “he,” whereas in b Sota the same manuscripthas no trouble in spelling out “Jesus the Nazarene”).Finally, as to the narratives about Jesus’ execution, the fate of his disciples,and Jesus’ punishment in hell, there can be no doubt that they aretalking about Jesus/Jesus the Nazarene. In b Sanhedrin (chapter 6) it isonly Ms. Munich that deletes “Jesus the Nazarene.” The printed editionsBarco and Vilna clearly reflect the intervention of censorship or ratherpreempting self-censorship: Vilna has left out the whole passage, andBarco shows a (nonlegible) later addition, obviously of the previously