Reframing Yeshu ha-Notzri:
Apostolic Strategy, Teliya Memory,
and the Pharisaic Redemption of Edom
Introduction: The Enigma of Yeshu ha-Notzri in Jewish Memory
The figure of Yeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus the Nazarene according to Judaism’s majority report) presents a complex challenge in Jewish historical and theological tradition. Rabbinic literature preserves scattered, often cryptic references to “Yeshu,” entwining him with layers of polemic, censorship, and myth. By medieval times, these fragments coalesced into the infamous Toledot Yeshu – a vulgar parody of Jesus’ life – further obscuring historical truth. Yet this “Yeshu” is not the Jesus of Nazareth presented in the canonical Gospels, and the name itself is far removed from his true identity. Still, if we are to engage Judaism and Jewish culture down to today on its own terms, we must take seriously how these memories were preserved and interpreted.
This distortion, however, should not surprise us. A “partial hardening” of Israel, as Paul himself described (Rom 11:25), was bound to take root, and centuries of Christian persecution against Jews only deepened that hardening. Polemical depictions of “Yeshu” became both a defensive strategy and a necessary survival mechanism: a way to resist the pressure of a dominant church that often turned hostile.
Yet beneath the polemics lies a provocative reinterpretation: that the early apostles acted as deliberate agents redirecting the nascent Notzri (Nazarene) movement away from Judaism and toward a separate path for the Gentiles. The “minority report,” although seldom emphasized in scholarship, deserves careful attention. This view, hinted at by the famed Talmud commentator Rashi among others, portrays the founders of the Church not as heresiarchs but as Rabbinic double-agents who sought to protect Israel’s covenant by creating a diversionary outlet for would-be followers of “that man.”
Rashi explicitly writes (in a censored Talmud passage) that John, Paul, and Peter – all Jews – authored “mistaken books” for the Romans and “were not heretics, for they had in mind the good of Israel,” making themselves appear as followers of “that man” in order to isolate Roman religion from Judaism.¹ In this reframing, the Apostolic band – John, Paul, Peter – intentionally “twisted” Christian teachings for the benefit of Israel, setting up a Noahide-like religion for the nations (often identified with Esau/Edom) so as to spare the Jews from both Roman wrath and theological confusion [A1].
In what follows, we will unpack this thesis through several interlocking themes:
1. Apostolic Strategy and the Petter Chamor typology – showing how Peter’s mission enacted a symbolic redemption of Gentiles as “donkeys.”
2. Yerushalmi vs. Bavli – two divergent Talmudic memories that seeded contrasting minhagim regarding Jesus.
3. Netzarim vs. Notzrim – a critical distinction between the true Davidic “branch” and the distorted Nazarene legacy.
4. The Teliya/Toledot Yeshu traditions – their role in preserving, distorting, and polemicizing memory.
5. Torat Edom – the broader theological motif of Jesus’ mission to winnow Israel’s estranged twin, Esau/Edom.
I. Apostolic Redirection and the Petter Chamor Typology
Rashi’s Subversive Claim
In a remarkable commentary long excised by censors, Rashi (1040–1105) offers a glimpse into the early Church’s formation. Commenting on Avodah Zarah 10a, Rashi notes that Rome “has no script or language of its own” and that others composed all its books. In uncensored manuscripts, he identifies these “others” as Yochanan, Paulus, and Petros – John, Paul, and Peter – all Jews.²
These emissaries, Rashi explains, corrupted the Roman priests’ language and brought “twisted” holy books to the Gentiles so as to winnow them out from Israel. Far from being apostates, “these three were not heretics,” Rashi insists, “for they intended the good of Israel.” Seeing the Jewish people in dire straits under Rome, they pretended to side with Oso ha-ish (“that man”) but with the covert aim of redirecting Roman attention and religious fervor away from Jews and Judaism [A2].
This aligns with Rabbenu Yerucham (14th c.), who wrote that whoever first translated the Hebrew Bible for the Gentiles clearly altered the text to mislead them away from Judaism.³ He even catalogs mistranslations that conveniently buttressed Christian doctrines. Such deliberate errors suggest protective motives – keeping Gentiles satisfied with their adapted “scripture” so they would not encroach on Jewish Torah.
Medieval legends even attributed Jewish liturgical treasures to Peter: the Nishmat Kol Chai prayer was rumored to be his composition, yet many oppose this in the ‘majority report’.⁴ Such rumors testify that Peter was remembered as sympathetic to Judaism, even as he appeared to be leading a divergent movement.
Petter Chamor – Redeeming the Donkey
The Torah commands that the firstborn donkey (chamor ), an unclean animal, must be redeemed (peter ) by a lamb, or else its neck must be broken (Exodus 13:13). The sages read symbolic meaning here: the donkey represents materialism or the nations, and only the lamb redeems it.
Peter – Petros – echoes petter (redeemer). His mission to Cornelius (Acts 10) dramatizes this: a Gentile centurion, a “firstborn donkey,” redeemed by the lamb.⁵ Thus, Shimon Kefa ha-Chamor (Peter the Donkey) becomes not an insult but a cryptic honorific: the redeemer of the donkey [A3].
Even pagan mockery inadvertently reflects this. The 3rd-century Alexamenos graffito in Rome shows a man worshiping a crucified figure with a donkey’s head, captioned “Alexamenos worships [his] god.”⁶ Intended as satire, it ironically depicts the crucified one as donkey, redeemed through sacrifice – a crude confirmation of the Petter Chamor typology [A4].
Apostles as Balaam?
This misdirection recalls Balaam, hired to curse Israel but compelled to bless. The Talmud at times uses “Balaam” as a cipher for Jesus.⁷ Just as Balaam’s donkey saw truth first, the apostles – appearing as followers of Balaam/Yeshu – steered Gentiles toward a path that spared Israel. The Sefer Ḥasidim even rules that if Gentiles idolize a Jew, it is a mitzvah to assign derogatory nicknames – explaining “Yeshu” for “Yehoshua,” or “Peter the Donkey.”⁸
In this reading, the apostles’ Great Commission was a Pharisaic-approved Petter Chamor operation: separating Edom from Jacob for survival and ultimate benefit.
II. Yerushalmi and Bavli: Divergent Memories and Minhag
A crucial key to the Jewish counter-memory of Yeshu is the differing editorial temper of the two Talmuds. These seeded distinct minhagim or Jewish cultures and attitudes toward Christianity and Islam.
A crucial key to the Jewish counter-memory of Yeshu is the differing editorial temper of the two Talmuds. These seeded distinct minhagim or Jewish cultures and attitudes toward Christianity and Islam.
Yerushalmi’s Pastoral Boundaries
The Jerusalem Talmud tends to cite “Yeshu ben Pandera” in legal-pastoral contexts. A Christian healer offers a cure in his name; Rabbi Ishmael forbids; Ben Dama dies faithful (y. Avodah Zarah 2:2).⁹ The lesson: do not seek benefit “in that name.” The Yerushalmi voice is sober, juridical, aimed at shepherding communities living cheek-by-jowl with Judeo-Christians [A5].
The Jerusalem Talmud tends to cite “Yeshu ben Pandera” in legal-pastoral contexts. A Christian healer offers a cure in his name; Rabbi Ishmael forbids; Ben Dama dies faithful (y. Avodah Zarah 2:2).⁹ The lesson: do not seek benefit “in that name.” The Yerushalmi voice is sober, juridical, aimed at shepherding communities living cheek-by-jowl with Judeo-Christians [A5].
Bavli’s Hardened Counter-Gospel
The Bavli sharpens into a polemical dossier: “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu … he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray” (b. Sanh. 43a).¹⁰ It appends vignettes of disciples, afterlife punishments (“boiling excrement”), and wayward students.¹¹ Sill the Telyia’s proper reading becomes instructive here.
This Bavli corpus, received in Ashkenaz, produced harsh minhagim: Nittel Nacht (suspending study on Christmas Eve), derogatory kinuyim, and the clipped spelling “Yeshu,” popularly glossed as yimmach shemo (“may his name be blotted out”).¹²
Minhag Shaped by Context
In sum: Yerushalmi remembers to shepherd, Bavli to quarantine. Together they explain why some traditions could imagine a “usable” Jesus for the nations (as Rambam later affirmed) while others emphasized erasure. This divergence lies at the heart of how Jews remembered and managed the figure of Yeshu ha-Notzri [A6] and how the New Testament text was read.
In sum: Yerushalmi remembers to shepherd, Bavli to quarantine. Together they explain why some traditions could imagine a “usable” Jesus for the nations (as Rambam later affirmed) while others emphasized erasure. This divergence lies at the heart of how Jews remembered and managed the figure of Yeshu ha-Notzri [A6] and how the New Testament text was read.
III. Netzarim vs. Notzrim: The Davidic Branch and Hidden Idolatry
The New Testament calls the early movement “the sect of the Nazoraioi” (Acts 24:5).
The New Testament calls the early movement “the sect of the Nazoraioi” (Acts 24:5).
But the Hebrew play between netzer (branch of Jesse) and notzrim (watchmen/idolaters) generated a polemical contrast.
1. Netzarim: the true Davidic branch, Torah-loyal disciples of Jesus, connected to Isaiah 11:1.
2. Notzrim: the distorted heirs of II Kings 17:9, “children of Israel who secretly did things not right against the Lord” from the migdal notzrim.
Epiphanius distinguished Nasaraeans (pre-Christian sects) from Nazoraeans (Jewish Christians).¹³ Pliny the Elder mentions Nazerini in Syria.¹⁴ All this indicates the term predated Christianity.
Rabbinic polemic exploited this: “Notzri” mocked “Netzari.” The Jewish Jesus could be reclaimed as Netzer; the Roman Christ relegated to Notzri – Edom’s twin heresy [A7].
Nazareth itself symbolized ambiguity: absent from Josephus, minor in archaeology, yet theologically loaded in Matthew 2:23 (“He shall be called a Nazarene”) – a text with no exact prophetic source. Some scholars suspect wordplay or sectarian roots. Either way, Nazareth became the liminal space where Netzarim and Notzrim blurred [A8].
IV. The Teliya Tradition: Hanging, Pandera, and Toledot
Teliya in Rabbinic Sources
A “collection of stories about the Notzrim,” modern scholars call the Teliya narrative, emerges across Talmud and Midrash. Key texts:
• b. Sanh. 43a: Yeshu hanged on Passover eve, after 40 days’ herald.¹⁵
• b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sotah 47a: Yeshu as wayward disciple.¹⁶
• y. Avodah Zarah 2:2: healings in Yeshu’s name rejected.
• Medieval glosses: Miriam “Megaddela” (hairdresser), Pandera, ben Stada.¹⁷
The Paris Disputation (1240) saw Nicholas Donin cite these against the Talmud, leading to book burnings. Rabbi Yehiel of Paris defended with a “two Jesuses” theory: one Yeshu of the Talmud, another of the Christians.¹⁸
Toledot Yeshu
The Toledot conflated these threads into a parody: Jesus as bastard son of Miriam and Pandera, sorcerer, executed, disciples mocked. Variants included Mary Magdalene, Pappos ben Yehudah, body theft, and more.¹⁹
The Toledot conflated these threads into a parody: Jesus as bastard son of Miriam and Pandera, sorcerer, executed, disciples mocked. Variants included Mary Magdalene, Pappos ben Yehudah, body theft, and more.¹⁹
This narrative crystallized the Antichrist figure: Yeshu Notzri as Balaam/Belial, the Beast (666).²⁰ It fueled polemical minhagim but also internal Jewish self-understanding: Jesus belonged to Edom, not Israel [A9].
V. Shepherding Edom: The Pharisaic Masterplan
Comparing sources yields a patchwork:
• Josephus: a wise man crucified, James his brother respected.²¹
• New Testament: fissures between Torah-loyal and antinomian currents.
• Epiphanius/Eusebius: Nazoraeans respected, but later absorbed.²²
• Nag Hammadi: diverse, often Torah-indifferent Gnostic Jesuses.
• Rabbinic polemic: Yeshu as Ben Stada/Pandera, hanged, idolatrous.
Comparing sources yields a patchwork:
• Josephus: a wise man crucified, James his brother respected.²¹
• New Testament: fissures between Torah-loyal and antinomian currents.
• Epiphanius/Eusebius: Nazoraeans respected, but later absorbed.²²
• Nag Hammadi: diverse, often Torah-indifferent Gnostic Jesuses.
• Rabbinic polemic: Yeshu as Ben Stada/Pandera, hanged, idolatrous.
From a Pharisaic lens, the divergence was strategic: Yeshu’s mission winnowed Edom. Rambam later affirmed that both Jesus and Muhammad prepared the world for messianic truth.²³ This is Torat Edom – a kosher reframing of the Gospel as Israel’s instrument for shepherding the nations [A10].
The Epistle of Jude itself can be reread here: contending for faith against antinomians, invoking Balaam, preserving covenant. Jude stands as a symbol of covenantal fidelity amidst distortion [A11].
Conclusion: Koshering the Gospel
What emerges is a daring reframing:
• Apostolic strategy: redirecting Gentiles through Petter Chamor typology.
• Rabbinic memory: Yerushalmi shepherding vs. Bavli quarantining.
• Sectarian ambiguity: Netzarim vs. Notzrim.
• Teliya/Toledot: counter-gospel polemics protecting Jewish boundaries.
• Torat Edom: the redirection of Edom/Esau as part of Israel’s vocation.
What emerges is a daring reframing:
• Apostolic strategy: redirecting Gentiles through Petter Chamor typology.
• Rabbinic memory: Yerushalmi shepherding vs. Bavli quarantining.
• Sectarian ambiguity: Netzarim vs. Notzrim.
• Teliya/Toledot: counter-gospel polemics protecting Jewish boundaries.
• Torat Edom: the redirection of Edom/Esau as part of Israel’s vocation.
In this reading, Christianity is not Israel’s conqueror but its crafted twin, channeled by Pharisaic genius to occupy the nations until the fullness of time. Supersession is overturned; covenant remains. The Gospel becomes kosher again: an instrument of Israel’s providential strategy to bless the nations without losing Sinai [A12].
Endnotes
¹ Avodah Zarah 10a; Rashi, uncensored manuscripts.
² Ibid.
³ Rabbenu Yerucham, Toledot Adam ve-Chava.
⁴ Machzor Vitri, Hilkhot Pesaḥ #66.
⁵ Acts 10; Exodus 13:13; Rashi and Tosafists on Petter Chamor.
⁶ Alexamenos graffito, Palatine Hill, Rome.
⁷ b. Sanh. 106b; b. Gittin 57a.
⁸ Sefer Ḥasidim §191.
⁹ y. Avodah Zarah 2:2; y. Shabbat 14:4.
¹⁰ b. Sanh. 43a.
¹¹ b. Gittin 57a; b. Sanh. 107b.
¹² Minhag Nittel Nacht; Sefer Ḥasidim.
¹³ Epiphanius, Panarion 18, 29.
¹⁴ Pliny, Natural History 5.17.
¹⁵ b. Sanh. 43a.
¹⁶ b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sotah 47a.
¹⁷ Tosafot on Shabbat 104b.
¹⁸ Paris Disputation, 1240.
¹⁹ Toledot Yeshu, multiple recensions.
²⁰ Zohar II, 200a; III, 282a.
²¹ Josephus, Ant. 18.3.3; 20.9.1.
²² Epiphanius, Panarion 29; Eusebius, HE.
²³ Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3–4.
⸻
Author’s Cross-References (found in Blog)
[A1] Semper Reformanda Through Kosher Eyes
[A2] Is Jesus in the Talmud? Peter Schäfer, the Evidence, and What It Really Says
[A3] Defending the Talmud
[A4] Gimme that Old Time Religion: Nero as 666 or Yeshu Notzri?
[A5] Yimakh Zikhron U Shemo
[A6] Forgotten Jewish Voices about Christianity
[A7] Torat Edom—Recovering the Other Side of the Covenant
[A8] The Messiah at the Gates of Rome
[A9] Christianity’s Edomite Error
[A10] New Perspectives on Paul? Ask a Pharisee
[A11] The Seed of the Woman from Eden to the New Jerusalem
[A12] The Split: 70–1300 CE (Part 1)
¹ Avodah Zarah 10a; Rashi, uncensored manuscripts.
² Ibid.
³ Rabbenu Yerucham, Toledot Adam ve-Chava.
⁴ Machzor Vitri, Hilkhot Pesaḥ #66.
⁵ Acts 10; Exodus 13:13; Rashi and Tosafists on Petter Chamor.
⁶ Alexamenos graffito, Palatine Hill, Rome.
⁷ b. Sanh. 106b; b. Gittin 57a.
⁸ Sefer Ḥasidim §191.
⁹ y. Avodah Zarah 2:2; y. Shabbat 14:4.
¹⁰ b. Sanh. 43a.
¹¹ b. Gittin 57a; b. Sanh. 107b.
¹² Minhag Nittel Nacht; Sefer Ḥasidim.
¹³ Epiphanius, Panarion 18, 29.
¹⁴ Pliny, Natural History 5.17.
¹⁵ b. Sanh. 43a.
¹⁶ b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sotah 47a.
¹⁷ Tosafot on Shabbat 104b.
¹⁸ Paris Disputation, 1240.
¹⁹ Toledot Yeshu, multiple recensions.
²⁰ Zohar II, 200a; III, 282a.
²¹ Josephus, Ant. 18.3.3; 20.9.1.
²² Epiphanius, Panarion 29; Eusebius, HE.
²³ Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3–4.
⸻
Author’s Cross-References (found in Blog)
[A1] Semper Reformanda Through Kosher Eyes
[A2] Is Jesus in the Talmud? Peter Schäfer, the Evidence, and What It Really Says
[A3] Defending the Talmud
[A4] Gimme that Old Time Religion: Nero as 666 or Yeshu Notzri?
[A5] Yimakh Zikhron U Shemo
[A6] Forgotten Jewish Voices about Christianity
[A7] Torat Edom—Recovering the Other Side of the Covenant
[A8] The Messiah at the Gates of Rome
[A9] Christianity’s Edomite Error
[A10] New Perspectives on Paul? Ask a Pharisee
[A11] The Seed of the Woman from Eden to the New Jerusalem
[A12] The Split: 70–1300 CE (Part 1)
