Executive summary

Rabbinic literature contains a small, uneven, and often-censored set of passages that many scholars read as references to Jesus (“Yeshu/Yeshu ha-Notzri”) and virtually no secure references to Paul. The Jesus traditions appear in scattered tannaitic and amoraic sources (Tosefta, Yerushalmi, Bavli) and focus on polemical themes: illicit magic, misleading Israel, improper teaching, and post-mortem punishment—rather than biography. Modern Jewish studies treats these texts as late antique rabbinic counter-narratives about the Christian figure, shaped by censorship, redaction, and inter-religious polemics. By contrast, Paul is absent from the Talmud; contemporary Jewish scholarship on Paul therefore proceeds not from rabbinic sources but from close readings of Paul’s own letters and early Christian literature, often under the rubric “Paul within Judaism.”

Primary loci in rabbinic literature (uncensored/candid readings)

1) Trial and execution

b. Sanhedrin 43a (uncensored via Munich 95) preserves a notice that “on the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu ha-Notzri for sorcery and leading Israel astray.” David Instone-Brewer’s analysis argues the core kernel is that brief formula, with later editorial expansions around it. 

2) Teacher–disciple anecdotes, heresy, and healing “in the name of Jesus”

Avodah Zarah 16b–17a (Bavli) recounts R. Eliezer’s arrest on suspicion of minut and a teaching transmitted to him by Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin “in the name of Yeshu,” alongside debates about accepting healing from a min.  Tosefta Ḥullin 2:22–24 and parallel y. Avodah Zarah 2:2 report Jacob’s attempted healing “in the name of Yeshu ben Pantera/Pandera” and link that practice to minut (sectarianism). (Good overviews collate the variant readings across Tosefta, Yerushalmi, and Bavli.) 

3) Afterlife punishment

b. Gittin 56b–57a (often censored) includes the famous Onkelos necromancy pericope; in uncensored lines, “that man” (read by many as Jesus) is punished “in boiling excrement,” framed as a sanction for “mocking the words of the Sages.” 

4) “Ben Stada/Pandera” and magic

Several Bavli sugyot (e.g., Shabbat 104b; Sanhedrin 67a) play with the satirical names “Ben Stada / Ben Pandera,” sometimes linked (by medieval readers and modern scholars) to Jesus traditions that ascribe illegitimate paternity or Egyptian magic; modern syntheses list these among the “possible” Jesus references given variant manuscripts and censorship. 

5) Liturgical polemic: Birkat ha-Minim

Rabbinic references to minim (heretics) and later Genizah witnesses that name Noẓrim (Nazarenes) show a liturgical boundary-marking against Jewish Christians or Christians; this frames the social world in which some “Yeshu” anecdotes make sense. 

Censorship and restoration. Medieval Christian censorship, Jewish self-censorship under pressure, and bowdlerized printings removed or euphemized many Jesus lines. Uncensored manuscripts (esp. Munich 95) and 20th-century critical editions have allowed cautious restoration and reevaluation. 

Do these passages “really” refer to Jesus of Nazareth?

There is no single rabbinic dossier “about Jesus.” Instead, later sugyot weave brief notices into legal or homiletical discussions. Scholarly positions:

Affirmative, with caution. Peter Schäfer argues the Bavli deliberately engages the Jesus of Christian proclamation, not a random namesake, and that these passages parody Gospel claims (e.g., disciples, execution, sorcery) to assert rabbinic/halakhic superiority.  Skeptical/minimalist. Johann Maier and some earlier Jewish scholars treat most references as legendary, late, or not biographically useful for the historical Jesus.  Middle path. Surveys acknowledge a small historical core (execution; discipleship claims; healing/magic reputation) refracted polemically and chronologically displaced in rabbinic storytelling. Instone-Brewer’s stratification of b. Sanh 43a exemplifies this layered approach. 

A persistent chronology problem (e.g., the “Yeshu” placed as a student of Yehoshua b. Peraḥyah in the Hasmonean era) is often read as polemical anachronism rather than historical memory; others posit multiple “Yeshu” figures behind the traditions. Modern reference lists therefore mark several items as “possible” or “disputed.” 

What about Paul?

The Talmud does not name Paul of Tarsus. Occasional popular claims that the Bavli alludes to Paul (e.g., as a scoffing student of Rabban Gamliel) lack firm evidentiary basis. Scholarly consensus: there is no secure Talmudic reference to Paul. 

So where does Jewish scholarship on Paul come from? From Paul’s own letters and earliest Christian sources, not the Talmud. Over the last three decades, Jewish and Judaics scholars have advanced influential readings:

Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew (1994): Paul as a Hellenistic Jewish cultural critic whose universalist vision recasts difference; a Jewish intellectual history of Paul.  Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian (2009): Paul understood as a devout Jew working within Jewish frameworks; no intention to found a new religion.  “Paul within Judaism” (Mark Nanos et al.): a research program reading Paul’s mission to gentiles as intra-Jewish discourse in Second Temple terms; active discussions continue. 

How contemporary Jewish studies reads the rabbinic Jesus materials

As late antique polemic, not biography. The sugyot function as boundary-work vis-à-vis a powerful Christian rival. Parody (e.g., sorcery, disciples, execution “on Passover eve”) reverses Christian claims.  With critical attention to text history. Scholars privilege uncensored manuscripts (Munich 95) and trace how printers and censors shaped what “the Talmud” seemed to say for centuries.  With genre sensitivity. These are halakhic/aggadic units, not continuous narratives; apparent “data points” (Pantera/Pandera; Egypt; magic) are read as stock polemical tropes also known from Greco-Roman critics like Celsus.  Across rabbinic corpora. Tosefta and Yerushalmi preserve briefer or more elliptical forms; the Bavli often amplifies and sharpens the polemic, perhaps reflecting its later date and different political setting. 

Key takeaways for readers and researchers

Jesus is present but peripheral in rabbinic literature: referenced briefly, polemically, and unevenly across texts; modern editions increasingly print the uncensored lines with notes.  Paul is absent from the Talmud; Jewish conversations about Paul are robust—but they are modern scholarly engagements with Pauline texts, not rabbinic testimony.  Method matters: Responsible reading weighs manuscript evidence, censorship history, genre, and late antique inter-religious dynamics.

Selected resources (starter bibliography)

Primary/textual: b. Sanhedrin 43a (Munich 95; uncensored discussion in Instone-Brewer).  Avodah Zarah 16b–17a; 27b (Jacob the min, healing “in the name of Yeshu”).  b. Gittin 57a (Onkelos episode and the afterlife punishment line).  Tosefta Ḥullin 2:22–24; y. Avodah Zarah 2:2 (parallel traditions).  Birkat ha-Minim (Genizah forms naming Noẓrim).  Secondary (Jesus in rabbinic texts): Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, 2007)—synthetic, argues deliberate engagement with the Christian Jesus.  David Instone-Brewer, “Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud,” Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011).  Overviews listing “possible” references and censorship history.  Secondary (Paul in Jewish studies): Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (1994).  Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian (2009).  Mark D. Nanos and colleagues on “Paul within Judaism,” with recent symposiums and reviews. 

Appendix: How to read the passages you’ll encounter

Check the manuscript note. If a printed Talmud says “oto ha-ish (‘that man’)” in Gittin 57a, consult an uncensored witness or a critical apparatus.  Mind anachronisms. A Hasmonean-era placement of “Yeshu” signals polemic or midrashic play, not timeline data.  Distinguish Talmud vs. Toledot Yeshu. The latter is medieval folk-polemics and not part of the Talmudic canon; don’t conflate them (modern surveys keep them separate).