Me being obsessive -- Pranaitis
Patty
in Talmud -- Robert Travers Herford -- on Google books. The book he
credits with his discussion on the subject is also on Google books --
Heinrich Laible's Jesus Christus im Thalmud. But I'm now trying to
track down the original Latin of Pranaitis' Christianus in Talmude
Iudaeorum. The reason is that Herford, among all his "quotations"
from Talmud, has only one in Latin.
I found Pranaitis listed on the site www.chabadlibrary.org but they
didn't have a link so I emailed asking them for help. I checked the
online library catalog of my local university but they don't have him
at all, not even in translation.
If any of you can help I'd appreciate it. If only the original Latin
for Pranaitis' "quotation" of Kallah 51a. There are lots of
translations online but that won't help me show that Herford copied an
uncited source.
Unless you're as obsessive as I am, don't bother reading either
Herford or Laible. The insanity will flip you out.
Cheers
Joe Bruno
> I finally tracked down one of the sources of mis-citations about Jesus
> in Talmud -- Robert Travers Herford -- on Google books. The book he
> credits with his discussion on the subject is also on Google books --
> Heinrich Laible's Jesus Christus im Thalmud. But I'm now trying to
> track down the original Latin of Pranaitis' Christianus in Talmude
> Iudaeorum. The reason is that Herford, among all his "quotations"
> from Talmud, has only one in Latin.
>
> didn't have a link so I emailed asking them for help. I checked the
> online library catalog of my local university but they don't have him
> at all, not even in translation.
>
> If any of you can help I'd appreciate it. If only the original Latin
> for Pranaitis' "quotation" of Kallah 51a. There are lots of
> translations online but that won't help me show that Herford copied an
> uncited source.
>
> Unless you're as obsessive as I am, don't bother reading either
> Herford or Laible. The insanity will flip you out.
>
> Cheers
I find the anti-Semites and their lies to be both frustrating and
depressing.
It's a subject I discuss as little as possible.
Amitai
> I finally tracked down one of the sources of mis-citations about Jesus
> in Talmud -- Robert Travers Herford -- on Google books. The book he
> credits with his discussion on the subject is also on Google books --
> Heinrich Laible's Jesus Christus im Thalmud. But I'm now trying to
> track down the original Latin of Pranaitis' Christianus in Talmude
> Iudaeorum. The reason is that Herford, among all his "quotations"
> from Talmud, has only one in Latin.
>
> didn't have a link so I emailed asking them for help. I checked the
> online library catalog of my local university but they don't have him
> at all, not even in translation.
>
> If any of you can help I'd appreciate it. If only the original Latin
> for Pranaitis' "quotation" of Kallah 51a. There are lots of
> translations online but that won't help me show that Herford copied an
> uncited source.
>
> Unless you're as obsessive as I am, don't bother reading either
> Herford or Laible. The insanity will flip you out.
>
> Cheers
A complete English translation of "Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum"
is avaiiable at http://www.talmudunmasked.com/ .
It is not searcheable, so you would have to know the chapter in which
the citation appears unless you want to read the whole filthy book.
What is the alleged "quotation" from Kallah 51a? If you would rather
not publicize it on the net, you might mail it to me.
Amitai
Patty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, I was looking for the Latin of Pranaitis because when Herford
gives a quote (which by the way is mis-cited, Kallah actually isn't
split into pages) it's in Latin; all his other quotes are in
English. He claims most of his stuff about Jesus comes from Laible,
but Laible has this passage (correctly cited) in German. Since no two
translators produce exactly the same result, I'm wondering if Herford
isn't plagiarizing Pranaitis who wrote his original work in Latin.
Pranaitis' imprimatur is 1891 and Herford's first edition was
published 1903.
Chabad tells me I have to go to their library physically to read their
copy of Pranaitis. I'm checking a couple of other websites that
publish works in Latin. Since I'm being obsessive about my hobby of
debunking supposed references to Jesus in Talmud, I won't post the
Latin text (if I get it) unless I get requests.
Cheers
Amitai
translated both from Pranaitis' Latin and from Laibile's German. It is
clear that the passage in the original refers to an occurrence more
than a century after Jesus' birth, and is clearly unrelated to him in
any way. Laibile's translation is more or less accurate, but the
implication that it refers to Jesus is far fetched. If Pranaitis'
Latin version is found, I would - of course - like to see it, but I
don't need it in order to be convinced that he committed a deliberate
fraud that would link this particular story with the birth of Jesus.
If, as Patty writes above, the intent is to use the translation as
ammunition to deubunk Talmudic references (real or supposed) to Jesus
in disputes on other, unmoderated newsgroups, fine.
In this connectoin, in order to decide whether Herford cribbed "his"
Latin translation from Paraitis,
simply check how he rendered the word "shushvini" in English. If it is
"evil sprit", then yes; if not - no.
However, if the idea is to understand the historic relation between
Judaism and early Christianity, deriding the integrity of a rogue like
Pranaitis or discrediting the scholarship of biased authors of
"yestercentury" like Laible and Herford is flagellating a defunct
equine quadruped.
A very recent, presumably balanced analysis of the subject is "Jesus
in the Talmud" by Peter Shaefer. I am ordering a copy and fully intend
to read it, but do not promise to discuss it on the net.
Amitai
> Cheers- Hide quoted text -
Feldman Astronomy
> I finally tracked down one of the sources of mis-citations about Jesus
> in Talmud -- Robert Travers Herford -- on Google books. The book he
> credits with his discussion on the subject is also on Google books --
> Heinrich Laible's Jesus Christus im Thalmud. But I'm now trying to
> track down the original Latin of Pranaitis' Christianus in Talmude
> Iudaeorum. The reason is that Herford, among all his "quotations"
> from Talmud, has only one in Latin.
How is this a mis-citation? On page 49 (Christianity in Talmud and
Midrash) Herford states that he doubts it has anything to do with
Jesus, and only brings it becasue other works allege that it did refer
to Jesus.
> Unless you're as obsessive as I am, don't bother reading either
> Herford or Laible. The insanity will flip you out.
Where is the insanity in Herford? I quite enjoyed the book, and find
it very useful as a reference. He does not have access to Jewish
Talmudic traditions, but his analysis is often quite correct.
> Cheers
Jacko
Feldman Astronomy
> In this connectoin, in order to decide whether Herford cribbed "his"
> Latin translation from Paraitis,
> simply check how he rendered the word "shushvini" in English. If it is
> "evil sprit", then yes; if not - no.
Herford's Latin term is "paranymphus" ("paranymphus autem venit ad
me"). Quite correct for "shushbini", and hardly "evil spirit."
Sephardic Jews still use the term "shushbin" for the agents of the
bride and groom.
By the way, this is from the second barraita in the second chapter of
Massekheth Kalla (Viena 1864, ed. R. Nathan Coronel).
> Amitai
Jacko
Amitai
complete and searchable. (I couldn't find a complete Laible.)
I agree to both points:
1. Herford did not plagiarize Pranaitis' translation of the passage in
Kallah. Moreover, since he
credits Laible as his major source, it is unreasonable to assume that
Laible is liable for the
mistranslation either.
2. Herford recognizes the anachronism and decides, quite reasonably,
that the citation has nothing to do with Jesus. Having just been
introduced to Herford by Patty, I was pleasantly surprised by the
objectivity of his analysis.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how Pranaitis translates
"shusbhini" into Latin. If he
too writes "paranymphus", he - vicious antisemite that he was - is
innocent of the mistranslation.
n that case, the culprit is the one who translated "paranymphus" as
"evil spirit": E.N. Sanctuary, the
translator of Pranaitis' book into English.
http://www.thetalmudunmasked.com
Amitai
> Jacko
Patty
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My public library has its catalog online, does yours? I would
definitely see if they have a copy anywhere in the system; I can
borrow books from any library in my county through my local branch.
Frankly with the mis-citations in Herford and Laible, I don't find
them reliable sources. Laible claims a censorship that doesn't exist
on Eruvin 21b; I checked it against the Munich manuscript yesterday.
Laible has three different formats for citing from Yerushalmi, and 8
of the 10 can't be found at the Mechon Mamre site that somebody here
turned me onto (I forget who).
If you check amazon.com you will see that Shafer uses Laible. If it's
yestercentury authors and yestercentury citing, I hope Shafer's book
updates the citations so thiscentury readers can find them.
My website is called Question Authority for a good reason. And it's
the same reason that I read originals and not translations or
commentaries.
Amitai
I don't have a convenient public library. All I have is my private
library at home, sadly depleted since I moved into a retirement
community, and the Internet, which would give me access to the
libraries of Israeli Universities, if I were not too lazy. I even lost
access to the Mechon Mamre DOS version when I stupidly "upgraded" to
Vista.
> Frankly with the mis-citations in Herford and Laible, I don't find
> them reliable sources. Laible claims a censorship that doesn't exist
> on Eruvin 21b; I checked it against the Munich manuscript yesterday.
>
It's there nonetheless. I found it in "Hesronot Hashas". It begins (my
free translation): "Anyone who scoffs at the words of the
Sages .....".
>Laible has three different formats for citing from Yerushalmi, and 8
> of the 10 can't be found at the Mechon Mamre site that somebody here
> turned me onto (I forget who).
>
> If you check amazon.com you will see that Shafer uses Laible. If it's
> yestercentury authors and yestercentury citing, I hope Shafer's book
> updates the citations so thiscentury readers can find them.
>
I've checked. He doesn't "use" Laible I the sense of relying on him.
He cites him and Herford, among others, but I presume he does it
critically. I'll find out when I read his book.
> My website is called Question Authority for a good reason. And it's
> the same reason that I read originals and not translations or
> commentaries.- Hide quoted text -
>
I'll check your website forthwith. By all means question authority. I
do as a matter of principle. However you can't prove a translation to
be faulty if you don't read it.
Amitai
Feldman Astronomy
Once again, what "mis-citations" do you refer to in Herford.
> Laible claims a censorship that doesn't exist
> on Eruvin 21b; I checked it against the Munich manuscript yesterday.
> Laible has three different formats for citing from Yerushalmi, and 8
> of the 10 can't be found at the Mechon Mamre site that somebody here
> turned me onto (I forget who).
8 of the 10 what? You state there are 3 formats, and then that 8 out
of ten of them cannot be found. I assume you left out some
information.
Mechon-mamre does not follow the dappim that printed versions do. All
you get out of MM is chapter and halakha.
> My website is called Question Authority for a good reason. And it's
> the same reason that I read originals and not translations or
> commentaries.
Not every translation is poor. Unless you are fluent in Babylonian
Jewish Academic Aramaic, translations are often very useful.
Jacko