Jesus in the Talmud

Notes to Chapter 9 175ter Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, pp. 148–161); Peter Schäfer, “ZurGeschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums,” JSJ 6, 1975, pp. 167–188(reprinted in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums,Leiden: Brill, 1978, pp. 23–44; cf. in the introduction, pp. 13–15, mydiscussion with Herr); Moshe D. Herr, “Tefisat ha-historyah etzel Hazal,” in Proceedingsof the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 3, Jerusalem: WorldUnion of Jewish Studies, 1977, pp. 129–142; Isaiah Gafni, “Concepts of Periodizationand Causality in Talmudic Literature,” Jewish History 10, 1996, pp.29–32; idem, “Rabbinic Historiography and Representations of the Past,” inCambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and MartinJaffee (forthcoming).3. Richard Kalmin puts this claim into a much broader context in his newbook Jewish Babylonia: Between Persia and Roman Palestine (to be published byOxford University Press): “Chapters Two [‘Kings, Priests, and Sages’], Three[‘Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Compilations of LateAntiquity’], and Seven [‘Josephus in Sasanian Babylonia’] ...demonstrate thatthe rabbis’ monk-like quality did not serve to seal them off from all contact withthe outside world, since ...we will find abundant evidence that non-rabbinic literaturereached Babylonian rabbis and found a receptive audience there” (manuscript,p. 12). Professor Kalmin was kind enough to share with me several chaptersof this book in manuscript form.4. For the rabbinic definition of the mamzer see m Yev 4:13; SifreDeuteronomy, 248 (ed. Finkelstein, pp. 276f.); y Yev 4:15/1–5, fol. 6b–6c; b Yev49a–b.5. Stoning as the appropriate penalty is explicitly mentioned in the case ofadultery between a betrothed virgin and a man (Deut. 22:23). The same is truefor the Mishna (Sanh 7:4): “The following are stoned: ...he who commits adulterywith a betrothed virgin.”6. Meticulously listed and discussed by Maier, Jesus von Nazareth, pp.264–267.7. Ibid., p. 267.8. F. Nitzsch, “Ueber eine Reihe talmudischer und patristischer Täuschungen,welche sich an den mißverstandenen Spottnamen Ben-Pandira geknüpft,”Theologische Studien und Kritiken 13, 1840, pp. 115–120. Nitzsch explains thisallusion to “panther” with the panther’s alleged lust and accordingly interprets“Yeshu ben Pandera” as “Jesus son of the whore.”