15.08.2015 Views

Jesus in the Talmud

4IAjqbGxC

4IAjqbGxC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

144 Appendixtext to <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages. Instead of a two-tiered transmission history of<strong>the</strong> Bavli stories (<strong>Jesus</strong>, at first an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> narratives,was later gradually removed, due to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>volvement of Christian censorship),he suggests a three-tiered transmission history: (1) an orig<strong>in</strong>alstage, <strong>Talmud</strong> stories without any reference to <strong>Jesus</strong>; (2) gradual andlate <strong>in</strong>trusion of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> stories as part of <strong>the</strong> textual history of <strong>the</strong>Bavli before <strong>the</strong> implementation of censorship but not as part of <strong>the</strong>“orig<strong>in</strong>al” Bavli text; (3) removal of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages by Christian censorship.31This reconstruction of <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s textual history is hard to comprehend.Maier starts from oversimplified assumptions when he seems tosuggest that <strong>the</strong>re is no manuscript evidence for <strong>Jesus</strong> at all for <strong>the</strong> timebefore <strong>the</strong> implementation of Christian censorship (<strong>the</strong>re is) and that<strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> manuscripts that were exposed to <strong>the</strong> censorshipdeleted <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>the</strong>y do not). The textual tradition of <strong>the</strong> Bavli is far morecomplex than Maier wants to admit. True, we do not have much manuscriptevidence for <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship period, but we do have some.More important: To take it for granted that all <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship manuscriptsdid not conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> 32 is a much bolder claim than to concludefrom <strong>the</strong> manuscript evidence we possess (and some of which does goback to <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship period) that <strong>the</strong> lost earlier manuscripts also<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>Jesus</strong>. The latter assumption proposes an essentially unbrokentext history with regard to <strong>Jesus</strong> that starts with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> earlier stages of <strong>the</strong>Bavli transmission, whereas Maier’s reconstruction presupposes a majorbreak <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early Middle Ages, when some later editors suddenly felt freeto sneak <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>—only to be repudiated, almost simultaneously,by <strong>the</strong>ir Christian censors. This does not make much sense. I <strong>the</strong>reforepropose to hold on to <strong>the</strong> traditional view that <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s manuscripttransmission, so far as we can presently reconstruct it, reflects <strong>the</strong> Bavli’sdiscussion with <strong>the</strong> founder of Christianity.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!