Jesus in the Talmud

Notes to Chapter 2 153cuss them briefly in its sequel, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentumin der Antike, pp. 116–118 (of course, to reject any connection with the New Testament,let alone with Jesus).Chapter 2The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly1. I follow again the Munich manuscript with variant readings from othermanuscripts where necessary.2. The word “doubtful” is missing in Ms. Munich but can be added accordingto most of the other manuscripts and printed editions.3. In a state in which it is doubtful whether she is menstruating or not.4. The reference to “Jesus the Nazarene” is in all the manuscripts andprinted editions that I could check (see the chart below, p. 135).5. Either still by Rav Hisda or anonymous.6. b Ber 34a; Er 53b.7. b Bes 29a.8. The latter is Maier’s interpretation (Jesus von Nazareth, p. 65) on the basisthat davar means also “word.” This meaning may play a role here, but Maieroveremphasizes it.9. Abba is the real name of Rav.10. b Ber 62a; cf. b Hag 5b.11. A much simpler explanation of the phrase would be that the son spoilshis food in the sense that he disregards the education received from his parentsand accordingly that the disciple spoils his food in the sense that he disregardsthe teaching received from his teachers. But the strong sexual connotation of“food/dish” in the Bavli makes this easy way out not very likely.12. See also John 11:2, 12:1–8 (Mary of Bethany). The identification is firstmentioned in Ephraim the Syrian’s bible commentary (373 C.E.) and wasendorsed by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century C.E., who furthermoreidentifies the two Marys with Mary of Bethany (John 12:1–8); see Karen King,The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, Santa Rosa,CA: Polebridge, 2003, pp. 151f.13. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, New York: Doubleday, 2003.