Hi Nicholas,

First, we're not experts, on what the documents that other religions consider sacred or authoritative, although we each have some knowledge of what other religions teach. To get a more authoritative answer, you might want to ask a Rabbi, since the Talmud is a Jewish document. 

That said: I'll attempt to answer your question as best I can. 

First, let's talk about what the Talmud is. The Talmud is not the Jewish "Bible."

The Jewish Bible is called the Tanakh and consists of 39 books of the Old Testament. That includes:

1. the Torah (the Law or the first 5 books of Moses)
2. Nevi'im (The Prophets) and
3. Ketuvim (The Writings). 

* The Jewish Old Testament omits 7 books included in the Catholic Old Testament, because no Hebrew Manuscripts existed when the Rabbis decided what books to include. 
 
I went through all that because the Tanakh is what the Jews consider "Divinely Inspired Scripture". 

The Talmud is a collection of writings by Rabbis compiled over hundreds of years, starting around 200 A.D.  It includes all kinds of Rabbinic Teachings, Oral Traditions, debates between Rabbis and so on and has become the central text of "Rabbinic Judaism."  Rabbinic Judaism started to take center stage shortly after 70 A.D. when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed.
 
Without a Temple, they could no longer offer animal sacrifices, so rather than bringing sacrifices to the Temple, certain acts of charity, and so forth became the replacement. People went to the Synagogues where they would listen to Rabbis and so forth.

Learning and studying in order to preserve their Jewish Identity, also became the central part of practicing Judaism.  In fact, Talmud means: "to study" and/or "to learn." 

In addition, here is what I got from A.I. 

Here is some more commentary of mine regarding your question:

So the Talmud does not speak highly of Jesus, quite the opposite. It speaks very negatively but remember, the Talmud is not Sacred Scripture.  It's the opinions of Rabbis and Jewish traditions and folklore compiled centuries after Jesus. 

The Talmud isn't a statement or profession of faith, like the Nicene Creed, Christians profess. 

True, if a Jew comes to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or the Divinity of Jesus, many Jews will consider that person dead to them.  They certainly don't consider them Jews anymore. 

Returning to the Talmud, we have to understand the historical context.

Yes, the Jews first persecuted the early Christians, who were mostly Jews that accepted Jesus after hearing the Apostles preach the Gospel however, after the 4th century, when Christianity first became legal, and then, the state religion of the Roman Empire, Christians started persecuting Jews so there was a lot of bad blood.

Christians accuse Jews of killing Christ. Jews naturally resented this and that influenced their view of Jesus.  None of this was God's Will but, as sinful men, we do sinful, stupid things. 

Today, most Jews, don't necessarily regard Jesus and Christians in a bad light.  Certainly, there are some that do. Just as there are still Christians, even worse Catholic Christians, who are anti-Semites.  But as a rule, this is not the case. So, I'd say most Jews would disagree with many if not all the negative things the Talmud has to say about Jesus.  Some consider Him a Rabbi, who might have been an idealist.  Some Jews really know nothing about Him, except that Christians consider Him God. Jews recoil at such a thought. Then there are nominal Jews in terms of religion. They are Jews by blood line. 

Being a Jew isn't just about a set of religious beliefs. In fact, there are different sects of Judaism with differing beliefs.

• Some keep the laws very rigid.
• Some just keep them out of tradition.
• Some don't even believe in God but they are Jewish by blood.  Actually, better put they are Hebrew.
• They are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, they are:
  • a people
  • a nationality, as well as
  • a religion.

Finally, if you're really interested and want to do more reading on the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, I can recommend two books:

1. Salvation is From the Jews:
By Roy H. Shoeman --- A Catholic Author.

2. Our Father Abraham — Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. 
By Marvin R. Wilson
(Wilson is or was a professor at Gordon Cronwell Theological Seminary.) 

This is written from a Protestant Evangelical perspective so, it should be read critically. Marv was an adjunct Professor at the Bible School I attended (when I was Protestant).  He taught a part of a course by the same name as his book. His student taught the bulk of it. 

There is very good history in it how Christianity first existed within Judaism until the Temple was destroyed. In fact, the Romans first treated Christianity as a Jewish Sect. 

Then it goes on to talk about a series of historical events that each caused more friction and resentment between the two groups.  There is some Evangelical bias, when it comes to the way historical events are interpreted. It's not directed against the Catholic Church but Evangelicals read Church History differently. 

I hope all this helps.

Under His Mercy,

John

Hi, Nicholas —

I don't know what A.I. John used but I find Magisterium A.I. very helpful -- providing insightful information. This is what Magisterium A.I. said:

Brief answer

The Talmud (both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud) does not function as a straightforward historical narrative about Jesus. Rather, in hostile later Jewish rabbinic traditions connected with (or discussed alongside) Talmudic material, Jesus is referenced in polemical ways—especially regarding his origins, public activity, and death. (1, 2)

What the Talmud/rabbinic literature is said to say (in Catholic historical summaries).

In Catholic historical accounts, hostile Jewish literature of later centuries is described as containing “traces” of knowledge about Jesus, including:

• His birth is described as illicit/adulterous (rather than the Christian account). (2)
• His father’s name is given as Panthera (a tradition found in rabbinic discussions as summarized there). (2)
• His activity/memory in Jesus’ story is said to appear in themes such as:

1. knowledge of the Murder of the Holy Innocents, (2)
   
2. the Flight into Egypt (ascribed to Josephus in that summary), (2)
   
3. Jesus’ stay in the Temple at age twelve, (2)
   
4. the call of the disciples, (2)
   
5. miracles, (2)
   
6. a claim to be God, (2)
   
7. betrayal by Judas and his death. (2)

Additionally, a Catholic encyclopedic summary says that, at least at some points in history, the Talmud contained “scurrilous attacks upon Jesus and the Christians.” (3)

What “Talmud” even is (to understand why it doesn't read like a Gospel).

Part of the reason these references are hard to summarize is that the Talmud is a compilation built from:

• the Mishnah (codifying Jewish religious/legal norms),
• and the Gemara (discussions and explanations of those norms). (1)

So when Jesus appears, it tends to be "incidental" — tied to rabbinic disputes, teaching, or interpretation—rather than presented in a continuous biography.

Important caution about certainty and interpretation.

The Catholic sources provided here describe what later hostile rabbinic literature contains and how it may be read as containing “traces” of the Jesus story. (2) However, they do not provide a fully itemized list of every alleged passage in the Talmud (with exact tractate/page details) or an agreed scholarly consensus on which specific Talmud passages definitely refer to Jesus. As a result, an exact “here are the verses” answer isn't something these sources alone can support.

That is what the provided Catholic references say the Talmud/rabbinic tradition contains about Jesus: polemical and indirect references to his origins, ministry (including miracles and divine claims), disciples, betrayal, and death, rather than a systematic account. (2, 3)

References:

1. Catholic Encyclopedia, Talmud
   
   Talmud Talmud Definition Talmud was a post-Biblical substantive formation of Pi'el ("to teach"), and originally signified "doctrine" or "study" In a special sense, however, it meant the justification and explanation of religious and legal norms or Halakhoth ("conduct", signifying "the law in accordance with which the conduct of life is to be regulated") When in the third century the Halakhoth collection of Jehuda I or the recorded Mishna became the chief object of study, the expression "Talmud" was applied chiefly to the discussions and explanations of the Mishna. Finally, it became the general designation for the Mishna itself and the collection of discussions concerned with it. For the latter the designation Gemara, interpreted as "completion" from the Hebrew and Aramaic words meaning "to complete", subsequently became the accepted term. The word first found entrance into the Talmud editions through Christian censorship; manuscripts and the old printed editions use the expression Talmud. We therefore understand by Talmud a compilation consisting of the Mishna, i.e. the codification of Jewish religious and legal norms, and of the Gemara, or the collection of discussions and explanations concerning the Mishna. Origin of the Talmud Since Esdras the foundation of the Jewish religious community was the law.
   
   (Reference.)
   
   
2. Catholic Encyclopedia, Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ
   
   xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers. Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity. All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity. Other Jewish sources The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries.
   
   (Reference.)
   
   
3. Catholic Encyclopedia, Judaism
   
   There remains only to add a few remarks which will explain the apparent severity of certain measures enacted by either popes or councils concerning the Jews, or account for the fact that popular hatred of them so often defeated the beneficent efforts of the Roman pontiffs in their regard. Church legislation against Jewish holding of Christian slaves can be easily understood: as members of Christ, the children of the Church should evidently not be subjected to the power of His enemies, and thereby incur a special danger for their faith; but more particularly, as stated by a recent Jewish writer: "There was good reason for the solicitude of the Church and for its desire to prevent Jews from retaining Christian slaves in their houses. The Talmud and all later Jewish codes forbade a Jew from retaining in his home a slave who was uncircumcised" (Abrahams, "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages"). The obligation of wearing a distinguishing badge was of course obnoxious to the Jews.
   
   At the same time, Church authorities deemed its injunction necessary to prevent effectively moral offences between Jews and Christian women. The decrees forbidding the Jews from appearing in public at Eastertide may be justified on the ground that some of them mocked at the Christian processions at that time; those against baptized Jews retaining distinctly Jewish customs find their ready explanation in the necessity for the Church to maintain the purity of the Faith in its members, while those forbidding the Jews from molesting converts to Christianity are no less naturally explained by the desire of doing away with a manifest obstacle to future conversions. 
   
   (Reference.)
   
   

Hope this helps,

Magisterium A.I.