Jesus in the Talmud
4IAjqbGxC
4IAjqbGxC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>
Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, Ms. Munich Cod. hebr. 95, fol. 342r (tractate Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>, fol. 43a–b),with erasures by <strong>the</strong> censor. By courtesy of <strong>the</strong> Bayerische Staatsbiblio<strong>the</strong>k, Munich.
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>Peter SchäferPr<strong>in</strong>ceton University PressPr<strong>in</strong>ceton and Oxford
Copyright © 2007 by Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University PressPublished by Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University Press, 41 William Street, Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, New Jersey 08540In <strong>the</strong> United K<strong>in</strong>gdom: Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, OxfordshireOX20 1SYAll Rights ReservedSchäfer, Peter, 1943–<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> / Peter Schäfer.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and <strong>in</strong>dex.ISBN-13: 978-0-691-12926-6 (alk. paper)ISBN-10: 0-691-12926-6 (alk. paper)1. <strong>Jesus</strong> Christ—Jewish <strong>in</strong>terpretations. 2. <strong>Talmud</strong>—Criticism, <strong>in</strong>terpretation, etc.3. Rabb<strong>in</strong>ical literature—History and criticism. 4. Bible. N.T.—Controversial literature—History and criticism. I. Title.BM620.S27 2007296.1'206—dc22 2006050392British Library Catalog<strong>in</strong>g-<strong>in</strong>-Publication Data is availableThis book has been composed <strong>in</strong> ElectraPr<strong>in</strong>ted on acid-free paper. ∞pup.pr<strong>in</strong>ceton.eduPr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States of America10987654321
For Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengelmentor, colleague, friend
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
ContentsAcknowledgmentsixAbbreviationsxiiiIntroduction 11. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family 152. The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 253. The Frivolous Disciple 344. The Torah Teacher 415. Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 526. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 637. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Disciples 758. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 829. <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 95Appendix: Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 131Notes 145Bibliography 191Index 203
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
AcknowledgmentsThis study has two roots. The first goes back to <strong>the</strong> late 1970s, when Iread Johann Maier’s book <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth <strong>in</strong> der talmudischenÜberlieferung, which appeared <strong>in</strong> 1978. I was stunned by <strong>the</strong> eruditionand meticulous scholarship of my colleague at that time at Cologne University,which never<strong>the</strong>less left me deeply dissatisfied. Hav<strong>in</strong>g worked myway through <strong>the</strong> book’s sophisticated arguments and pa<strong>in</strong>stak<strong>in</strong>gly preparedcharts, I was left wonder<strong>in</strong>g: what an expenditure of time and energy,just to prove that <strong>the</strong>re is no <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>is an unreliable historical source for <strong>Jesus</strong> and early Christianity. Ihad <strong>the</strong> feel<strong>in</strong>g that somehow <strong>the</strong> wrong questions were asked, or ra<strong>the</strong>rthat <strong>the</strong> chimera of a rationalistic and positivistic historicity was evoked,almost as if to evade <strong>the</strong> real questions. True, and to be fair, our notion ofJudaism and Christianity—and of <strong>the</strong>ir mutual relationship—has changedconsiderably over <strong>the</strong> last thirty years, but still <strong>the</strong> sources cry out for amore nuanced approach that takes <strong>in</strong>to consideration <strong>the</strong> difference betweenpure factuality and a longer and complex process of Wirkungsgeschichte(reception history).I always wanted to get back to <strong>the</strong> subject, but it took until <strong>the</strong> spr<strong>in</strong>gterm of 2004 at Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University that I f<strong>in</strong>ally had a chance to realizethis desire. When my friend Israel Yuval of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew University, whospent that term at Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton as a visit<strong>in</strong>g professor <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department ofReligion, suggested that we address <strong>in</strong> a jo<strong>in</strong>t sem<strong>in</strong>ar <strong>the</strong> topic of “HowMuch Christianity <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash?”—<strong>the</strong> larger and much discussedquestion of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic responses to Christianity—I enthusiasticallyagreed and proposed to <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>. Thismemorable sem<strong>in</strong>ar belongs among <strong>the</strong> most excit<strong>in</strong>g and reward<strong>in</strong>gteach<strong>in</strong>g experiences <strong>in</strong> my life, not only because of a uniquely congenialgroup of students (undergraduate and graduate) as well as of colleagues(our Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton colleagues Martha Himmelfarb and John Gager
xAcknowledgmentshonored us with <strong>the</strong>ir presence), but also and above all because of <strong>the</strong>time Israel and I spent toge<strong>the</strong>r prepar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> sem<strong>in</strong>ar. At first we wantedto meet briefly to discuss <strong>the</strong> structure and strategy of <strong>the</strong> sem<strong>in</strong>ar sessions,but soon our meet<strong>in</strong>gs became longer and longer, until we spenthours read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> texts toge<strong>the</strong>r—bra<strong>in</strong>storm<strong>in</strong>g toge<strong>the</strong>r and driv<strong>in</strong>geach o<strong>the</strong>r to ever bolder <strong>in</strong>terpretations and conclusions. Much of whatwill appear on <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g pages, <strong>in</strong> particular with regard to <strong>the</strong> exegesesof <strong>the</strong> talmudic sources, has its root <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se preparations and <strong>the</strong> subsequentsem<strong>in</strong>ar sessions. It would be a fruitless exercise to seek to divideup <strong>the</strong> birthright of certa<strong>in</strong> ideas and suggestions, but I do not hesitate toacknowledge gladly and gratefully that this book <strong>in</strong> its present formcould not have been written without <strong>the</strong> experience of this jo<strong>in</strong>t enterprise.The students’, <strong>the</strong> colleagues’, and above all Israel Yuval’s creativityand <strong>in</strong>genuity contributed greatly to many of <strong>the</strong> ideas developed <strong>in</strong>this book.Research on <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> has considerably advanced recently.Ventur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to a field that is not my primary research area, I had<strong>the</strong> good fortune that Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Jewish Theological Sem<strong>in</strong>aryof America <strong>in</strong> New York was k<strong>in</strong>d enough to read a draft of <strong>the</strong> manuscript.I owe him thanks for his many helpful suggestions, fur<strong>the</strong>r clarificationsof complicated talmudic texts, and corrections of several mistakesor misread<strong>in</strong>gs. With regard to <strong>the</strong> New Testament—a field of which Ican claim even less competence—Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel, my longtime mentor,senior colleague, and friend, generously commented on <strong>the</strong> manuscriptand showered upon me an embarrass<strong>in</strong>gly rich cornucopia of advice, improvement,fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>sights, bibliographical details, and, not least, corrections.(I wish I had taken advantage of his erudition at an earlier stage ofwrit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> manuscript: it would have been considerably improved.) It iswith admiration for his work and with heartfelt gratitude for his cont<strong>in</strong>uoussupport s<strong>in</strong>ce I became his assistant at <strong>the</strong> University of Tüb<strong>in</strong>genthat I dedicate this small volume to him. My Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton colleaguesMartha Himmelfarb and Ela<strong>in</strong>e Pagels read parts of <strong>the</strong> manuscript andmade many helpful suggestions. The two anonymous readers for <strong>the</strong> Presstook <strong>the</strong> trouble of read<strong>in</strong>g an early draft of <strong>the</strong> manuscript and giv<strong>in</strong>g memuch useful advice. I am deeply grateful to all of <strong>the</strong>m. As always, I must
Acknowledgmentsxitake <strong>the</strong> responsibility for any rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g shortcom<strong>in</strong>gs. F<strong>in</strong>ally, I would liketo thank Brigitta van Rhe<strong>in</strong>berg, <strong>the</strong> executive history editor at Pr<strong>in</strong>cetonUniversity Press, for her constructive enthusiasm; Baru Saul, my secretary/assistant,for correct<strong>in</strong>g my English and proofread<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> manuscript;and Molan Goldste<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> copyeditor, for a marvelous job.
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
AbbreviationsAMS Acta Martyrum et SanctorumAnt. Josephus, AntiquitatesApol. Just<strong>in</strong>, Apologyart. articleAZ tractate Avodah Zarahb <strong>Talmud</strong> Bavli (Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>)b. ben (“son of ”)BamR Midrash Bamidbar Rabba (on Numbers)BB tractate Bava BatraBekh tractate BekhorotBell. Josephus, BellumBer tractate BerakhotBerR Midrash Bereshit Rabba (on Genesis)Bes tractate BetzaBM tractate Bava MetziaCol. Letter to <strong>the</strong> Colossianscols. columnsCor. Letter to <strong>the</strong> Cor<strong>in</strong>thiansDan. Book of DanielDeut. DeuteronomyEccl. Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)EJ Encyclopaedia JudaicaEph. Letter to <strong>the</strong> EphesiansEr tractate Eruv<strong>in</strong>Esth. Es<strong>the</strong>rEx. ExodusEz. Ezekielfol. folioGen. GenesisGit tractate Gitt<strong>in</strong>Hag tractate Hagiga
xivAbbreviationsHebr. Letter to <strong>the</strong> HebrewsHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualHul tractate Hull<strong>in</strong>Isa. IsaiahJer. JeremiahJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJosh. JoshuaJPS Jewish Publication SocietyJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJRS Journal of Roman StudiesJSJ Journal for <strong>the</strong> Study of JudaismJSQ Jewish Studies QuarterlyJTS Jewish Theological Sem<strong>in</strong>aryLam. LamentationsLev. LeviticusLit. literallyLk. Gospel of Lukem MishnaMakh tractate Makhshir<strong>in</strong>Men tractate MenahotMGWJ Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft desJudentumsMic. MicahMk. Gospel of MarkMs. ManuscriptMss. ManuscriptsMt. Gospel of Mat<strong>the</strong>wn. notenos. numbersN.S. New SeriesNum. NumbersOTP Old Testament PseudepigraphaPesR Midrash Pesiqta RabbatiPGM Papyri Graecae MagicaeProv. Proverbs
AbbreviationsxvPs. PsalmsQid tractate Qiddush<strong>in</strong>QohR Midrash Qohelet RabbaR. RabbiRAC Reallexikon für Antike und ChristentumRev. RevelationRom. Letter to <strong>the</strong> RomansSam. SamuelSanh tractate Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>Shab tractate ShabbatSot tractate Sotas.v. sub vocet ToseftaTRE Theologische Realenzyklopädiev. versevol. volumey <strong>Talmud</strong> Yerushalmi (Jerusalem <strong>Talmud</strong>)Yev tractate YevamotZech. Zechariah
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
IntroductionThis book is about <strong>the</strong> perception of <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth, <strong>the</strong> founder ofChristianity, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, <strong>the</strong> foundation document of rabb<strong>in</strong>icJudaism <strong>in</strong> Late Antiquity. What do <strong>the</strong>se two—<strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>—have <strong>in</strong> common? The obvious answer is: not much. There is, on <strong>the</strong> onehand, <strong>the</strong> collection of writ<strong>in</strong>gs called <strong>the</strong> New Testament, undisputedlyour major source for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life, teach<strong>in</strong>g, and death, most of it written <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> first century C.E. 1 And <strong>the</strong>re is “<strong>the</strong>” <strong>Talmud</strong>, on<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> most <strong>in</strong>fluential literary product of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism, developedover several centuries <strong>in</strong> its two versions <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>in</strong> Babylonia(<strong>the</strong> first, <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian or Jerusalem <strong>Talmud</strong>, was edited <strong>in</strong> fifthcenturyPalest<strong>in</strong>e, and <strong>the</strong> second, <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, reached itsf<strong>in</strong>al form <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early seventh century <strong>in</strong> Babylonia). Both documents,<strong>the</strong> New Testament and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, could not be more different <strong>in</strong> formand content: <strong>the</strong> one, written <strong>in</strong> Greek, is concerned about <strong>the</strong> mission ofthis <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth, who, regarded as <strong>the</strong> Messiah and <strong>the</strong> Son of God,was rejected <strong>in</strong> this claim by most of his fellow Jews, put to death by <strong>the</strong>Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and resurrected on <strong>the</strong> third day after hiscrucifixion and taken up <strong>in</strong>to heaven; <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, written mostly <strong>in</strong> Aramaic,is a huge collection of ma<strong>in</strong>ly legal discussions that deal with <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>tricacies of a daily life conducted accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>in</strong>terpretationsof Jewish law.
2 IntroductionMoreover, and here th<strong>in</strong>gs become much more complicated, with <strong>the</strong>juxtaposition of “<strong>Jesus</strong>” and <strong>the</strong> “<strong>Talmud</strong>” border<strong>in</strong>g on an oxymoron,both stand <strong>in</strong> a highly charged and antagonistic relationship with eacho<strong>the</strong>r. The Jewish sect triggered by <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e would eventuallyevolve <strong>in</strong>to a religion of its own, a religion to boot that would claim tohave superseded its mo<strong>the</strong>r religion and position itself as <strong>the</strong> newcovenant aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> old and outdated covenant of <strong>the</strong> people of Israel bybirth. And at precisely <strong>the</strong> time when Christianity rose from modest beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gsto its first triumphs, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> (or ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> two <strong>Talmud</strong>im)would become <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g document of those who refused to accept <strong>the</strong>new covenant, who so obst<strong>in</strong>ately <strong>in</strong>sisted on <strong>the</strong> fact that noth<strong>in</strong>g hadchanged and that <strong>the</strong> old covenant was still valid.Yet strangely enough, <strong>the</strong> figure of <strong>Jesus</strong> does appear <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>,as does his mo<strong>the</strong>r Mary—not <strong>in</strong> a coherent narrative, but scatteredthroughout <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature <strong>in</strong> general and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular2 and often dealt with <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> conjunction with ano<strong>the</strong>r subjectpursued as <strong>the</strong> major <strong>the</strong>me. In fact, <strong>Jesus</strong> is mentioned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> sospar<strong>in</strong>gly that <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> huge quantity of literary production culm<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages can be compared to <strong>the</strong>proverbial drop <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> yam ha-talmud (“<strong>the</strong> ocean of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>”). Theearliest coherent narrative about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life from a Jewish viewpo<strong>in</strong>t thatwe possess is <strong>the</strong> (<strong>in</strong>)famous polemical tract Toledot Yeshu (“History of<strong>Jesus</strong>”), which, however, took shape <strong>in</strong> Western Europe <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early MiddleAges, well beyond <strong>the</strong> period of our concern here (although, to besure, some earlier versions may go back to Late Antiquity). 3So why bo<strong>the</strong>r? If <strong>the</strong> rabbis of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism did not care muchabout <strong>Jesus</strong>, why should we care about <strong>the</strong> few details that <strong>the</strong>y do transmit,apart from simply stat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>y did not care much? This isone possible approach, and, as we will see, <strong>the</strong> one that has been taken <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> most recent research on our subject. But I do not th<strong>in</strong>k that it is an appropriateresponse to <strong>the</strong> problem posed by <strong>the</strong> admittedly meager evidence.First, <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> is, of course, part of <strong>the</strong>much larger question of whe<strong>the</strong>r and how <strong>the</strong> nascent Christian movementis reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literary output of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism. And here weare stand<strong>in</strong>g on much firmer ground: <strong>Jesus</strong> may not be directly mentioned,but Christianity, <strong>the</strong> movement that he set <strong>in</strong> motion, may well be
Introduction 3discussed. Second, <strong>the</strong> starkly antagonistic paradigm of “Judaism” versus“Christianity,” forever frozen, as it were, <strong>in</strong> splendid isolation from eacho<strong>the</strong>r, has come under closer scrut<strong>in</strong>y over <strong>the</strong> past two decades. Theoverly simplistic black-and-white model of <strong>the</strong> one sister religion (“Christianity”)emerg<strong>in</strong>g out of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r and almost simultaneously break<strong>in</strong>goff from it and choos<strong>in</strong>g its own and <strong>in</strong>dependent path, and of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r(“Judaism”), remarkably unimpressed by this epoch-mak<strong>in</strong>g event, steer<strong>in</strong>gits own course until be<strong>in</strong>g overcome by <strong>the</strong> historic momentum of <strong>the</strong>stronger “religion,” no longer holds; <strong>the</strong> reality as it transpires from moredetailed and unbiased research is much more complex and perplex<strong>in</strong>g. 4Hence, no matter what <strong>the</strong> accumulation of quantitative evidence, weneed to take very seriously any trace of a discourse between Judaism andChristianity, let alone of a reaction to Christianity’s founder.As a matter of fact, some scholars have taken it exceptionally seriously.The history of research on how <strong>the</strong> Jews of Late Antiquity discussed Christianity<strong>in</strong> general and <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular is impressively rich and deservesa study of its own. 5 It takes as its start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>the</strong> scattered rabb<strong>in</strong>ic evidenceabout <strong>Jesus</strong> and Christianity <strong>in</strong> talmudic sources as well as <strong>the</strong> tractToledot Yeshu, which was widely dissem<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages and<strong>the</strong> early modern period and became <strong>the</strong> major source for Jewish knowledgeabout <strong>Jesus</strong>. One of <strong>the</strong> first landmarks of a Christian exam<strong>in</strong>ationof <strong>the</strong>se Jewish sources, made <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly accessible through Jewish converts,was <strong>the</strong> polemical treatise Pugio fidei (“The Dagger of Faith”) composedby <strong>the</strong> Spanish Dom<strong>in</strong>ican friar Raymond Mart<strong>in</strong>i (d. 1285),which uses many extracts from talmudic and later rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources. It <strong>in</strong>fluencedmost of <strong>the</strong> subsequent polemical, anti-Jewish pamphlets, particularlyafter <strong>the</strong> lost manuscript was rediscovered by <strong>the</strong> humanistscholar Justus Scaliger (d. 1609) and republished <strong>in</strong> 1651 (Paris) and1678 (Leipzig). In 1681 <strong>the</strong> Christian Hebraist and polyhistorian JohannChristoph Wagenseil, a professor at <strong>the</strong> University of Altdorf <strong>in</strong> Germany, 6published his collection of Jewish anti-Christian polemics Tela igneaSatanae. Hoc est: arcani et horribiles Judaeorum adversus Christum Deumet Christianam religionem libri (“Flam<strong>in</strong>g Arrows of Satan; that is, <strong>the</strong> secretand horrible books of <strong>the</strong> Jews aga<strong>in</strong>st Christ, God, and <strong>the</strong> Christianreligion”), also draw<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> talmudic literature and <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu. 7The first book solely devoted to <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> talmudic literature was <strong>the</strong>
4 Introduction1699 dissertation, submitted at <strong>the</strong> University of Altdorf by <strong>the</strong> ProtestantOrientalist Rudolf Mart<strong>in</strong> Meelführer, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>e (“<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Talmud</strong>”). 8 Unlike Wagenseil, who was highly <strong>in</strong>fluential and widelyread, his student Meelführer was almost immediately forgotten; both,however, were surpassed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>fluence by Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’sGerman work <strong>in</strong> two volumes, Entdecktes Judenthum (“JudaismUnmasked”), which would become—until well <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> modern period—a major source for anti-Semitic attacks aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Jews. 9Whereas <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early modern period <strong>the</strong> “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>” paradigmserved almost solely as an <strong>in</strong>exhaustible source for anti-Jewish sentiments,<strong>the</strong> subject ga<strong>in</strong>ed more serious and critical recognition <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>eteenth and twentieth centuries. Among <strong>the</strong> extensive relevant literaturea few authors deserve special attention: 10 Samuel Krauss presented <strong>the</strong>first scholarly analysis of <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu, based on an edition and comprehensiveanalysis of <strong>the</strong> variant versions of <strong>the</strong> text (1902), which eventoday rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> authoritative treatment of <strong>the</strong> subject. 11 A year later, <strong>in</strong>1903, Travers Herford published his Christianity <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash, 12which would become <strong>the</strong> standard book about Christianity and <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources, particularly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> English-speak<strong>in</strong>g world. Herford’s approachcan be called maximalistic <strong>in</strong> every regard: not only are <strong>the</strong> manypassages that mention <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>im (“heretics” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> broadest sense of <strong>the</strong>term) deal<strong>in</strong>g almost without exception with Christians, but he also concludesthat almost all <strong>the</strong> passages <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature that have beenremotely connected with <strong>Jesus</strong> and his life <strong>in</strong>deed refer to <strong>Jesus</strong>. The factthat he is ra<strong>the</strong>r restra<strong>in</strong>ed with regard to <strong>the</strong> value of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sourcesas evidence for <strong>the</strong> attempt to reconstruct <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong> 13 does not detractfrom his generally maximalistic and quite naive approach.The first attempt to exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> relevant rabb<strong>in</strong>ic passages about <strong>Jesus</strong>and Christianity critically and to provide a text critical edition and translationwas made <strong>in</strong> 1910 by <strong>the</strong> Christian German scholar Hermann L.Strack (<strong>the</strong> same Strack who ga<strong>in</strong>ed enormous reputation through hisfamous Introduction to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash) 14 <strong>in</strong> his 1910 monograph<strong>Jesus</strong>, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben. 15Strack set a sober tone, not only with regard to <strong>the</strong> historical value of <strong>the</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic evidence but also with regard to <strong>the</strong> number of <strong>the</strong> relevant passages,that was to become a major trend particularly <strong>in</strong> German-language
Introduction 5research. 16 The first major scholarly book on <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, published <strong>in</strong>1922 by <strong>the</strong> Hebrew University professor Joseph Klausner, 17 follows <strong>in</strong> itsassessment of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages a similar critical tendency: <strong>the</strong> evidenceis scanty and does not contribute much to our knowledge of <strong>the</strong> historical<strong>Jesus</strong>; much of it is legendary and reflects <strong>the</strong> Jewish attempt to counterChristian claims and reproaches. The same is true for Morris Goldste<strong>in</strong>’s<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish Tradition of 1950 18 and a long (and ra<strong>the</strong>r convoluted)essay by Jacob Lauerbach, published <strong>in</strong> 1951. 19The climax of <strong>the</strong> latest development <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scholarly literature concernedwith <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> is Johann Maier’s book of 1978, <strong>Jesus</strong> vonNazareth <strong>in</strong> der talmudischen Überlieferung. 20 This is, <strong>in</strong> many respects,an amaz<strong>in</strong>g and disturb<strong>in</strong>g book. It presents <strong>the</strong> most comprehensive,pa<strong>in</strong>stak<strong>in</strong>gly erudite treatment of <strong>the</strong> subject so far. Maier has siftedthrough all <strong>the</strong> secondary literature, even if only remotely relevant, andshowers <strong>the</strong> reader with excruciat<strong>in</strong>g details about who wrote what, andwhen. More important, all <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources that have ever beenbrought <strong>in</strong>to connection with <strong>Jesus</strong> are analyzed <strong>in</strong> every possible regard,with Maier tak<strong>in</strong>g great pa<strong>in</strong>s not just to discuss bits and pieces ripped outof context but to exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong>m always with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> larger literary structure<strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y are preserved. This is def<strong>in</strong>itely a huge step forward <strong>in</strong> comparisonwith <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r atomistic efforts of his predecessors. But it isachieved at a high price. The reader who has followed Maier through allhis endless and w<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g analyses, peppered with sophisticated charts, isleft with <strong>the</strong> quite unsatisfy<strong>in</strong>g question: what is <strong>the</strong> purpose of all of this?For what Maier ultimately presents is an excess <strong>in</strong> scholarly acumen thatleads nowhere or, to put a slightly more positive sp<strong>in</strong> on it, that leads to<strong>the</strong> frustrat<strong>in</strong>g conclusion of “much ado about noth<strong>in</strong>g.” His book is <strong>the</strong>epitome of a m<strong>in</strong>imalist exercise, just <strong>the</strong> opposite of Herford. Accord<strong>in</strong>gto Maier, <strong>the</strong>re is hardly any passage left <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature that canbe justifiably used as evidence of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of <strong>the</strong> New Testament. Therabbis did not care about <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y did not know anyth<strong>in</strong>g reliable abouthim, and what <strong>the</strong>y might have alluded to is legendary at best and rubbishat worst—not worthy of any serious scholarly attention, at least after Maierhas f<strong>in</strong>ally and successfully deconstructed <strong>the</strong> “evidence.”To be sure, he does not say so <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se words; <strong>in</strong> fact, it is ra<strong>the</strong>r difficultto determ<strong>in</strong>e what he really th<strong>in</strong>ks about <strong>the</strong> results of his exercise.
6 IntroductionClearly, he wants to position himself between or, more precisely, beyond<strong>the</strong> two alternatives of <strong>the</strong> anti-Jewish Christian and <strong>the</strong> apologetic Jewishapproach. Whereas <strong>the</strong> former—charged with emotion—uses as its yardstick<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ological truth of New Testament Christology, and f<strong>in</strong>ds everyth<strong>in</strong>gthat deviates from this “truth” appall<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> latter—pa<strong>in</strong>fully embarrassedby what <strong>the</strong>ir forefa<strong>the</strong>rs might have thought up—opts for amore restra<strong>in</strong>ed attitude and calls for moderation and dist<strong>in</strong>ction. Maier,naturally, dismisses <strong>the</strong> Christian anti-Jewish bias and f<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> Jewish approachmore appeal<strong>in</strong>g because he regards it altoge<strong>the</strong>r as more “critical”and “skeptical” and as capable—<strong>in</strong> what he regards as <strong>the</strong> epitome ofmodern critical scholarship—of dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong>and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Christian faith. But he disapproves of its apologetictendency to tone down <strong>the</strong> anti-Christian polemic <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewishsources, and he even lets himself be carried away <strong>in</strong> this context by <strong>the</strong>highly charged question: why shouldn’t <strong>the</strong> Jews have allowed <strong>the</strong>mselvesto polemicize, s<strong>in</strong>ce, after all, <strong>the</strong> holy Church Fa<strong>the</strong>rs and <strong>the</strong> Christian<strong>the</strong>ologians did precisely this, over and over aga<strong>in</strong>, and with considerablepolitical and social consequences? 21 Indeed, why shouldn’t <strong>the</strong>y have?Maier’s question should have become <strong>the</strong> start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t of a much deeper<strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> subject. But unfortunately, <strong>the</strong>se and very few similar remarksare <strong>the</strong> only “emotional outbursts” that Maier grants himself. Ingeneral he rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> “objective” and “rational” scholar, who has overcome,with his literary deconstruction of <strong>the</strong> sources, Christian anti-Judaism and Jewish apologetics alike.Is this, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> last word? Is <strong>the</strong>re no o<strong>the</strong>r option beyond Christiananti-Judaism, Jewish apologetics, and Maier’s almost “scientific” expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gaway of <strong>the</strong> evidence? I strongly believe <strong>the</strong>re is, and I <strong>in</strong>tend todemonstrate that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> chapters of this book. Before we enter <strong>the</strong> detaileddiscussion of <strong>the</strong> relevant sources, I will set forth some of <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipalconsiderations that will guide me through this discussion.S<strong>in</strong>ce this book is not aimed just at specialists, let me first clarify what Imean by discuss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>. By “<strong>Talmud</strong>” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> broadestsense of <strong>the</strong> term I mean <strong>the</strong> entire corpus of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, that is,<strong>the</strong> literature left to us by <strong>the</strong> rabbis, <strong>the</strong> self-appo<strong>in</strong>ted heroes of <strong>the</strong> Judaismof <strong>the</strong> classical period between <strong>the</strong> first and <strong>the</strong> seventh centuryC.E. 22 This literature <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> Mishna and <strong>the</strong> Tosefta (<strong>the</strong> early tw<strong>in</strong>
Introduction 7collections of legal decisions, edited around 200 C.E. and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> thirdcentury respectively), <strong>the</strong> midrashim (<strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic commentaries on <strong>the</strong>Hebrew Bible <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir manifold form), and—<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> more narrowly def<strong>in</strong>edand technical sense of <strong>the</strong> word—<strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> <strong>in</strong> its two manifestations,<strong>the</strong> Jerusalem or Palest<strong>in</strong>ian <strong>Talmud</strong> (edited <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic academiesof Palest<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fifth century) and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> (edited<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic academies of Babylonia <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> seventh century C.E.). Thelater polemical tract Toledot Yeshu is not part of this <strong>in</strong>vestigation, althoughI do hope to turn to it <strong>in</strong> a follow-up project and, <strong>in</strong> addition toprepar<strong>in</strong>g a modern edition and translation, to clarify fur<strong>the</strong>r its relationshipwith <strong>the</strong> talmudic evidence. 23I follow <strong>the</strong> traditional dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> earlier tannaitic sources(i.e., sources that are ascribed to <strong>the</strong> rabbis of <strong>the</strong> first and second centuries)and <strong>the</strong> later amoraic sources (i.e., sources that are ascribed to rabbisof <strong>the</strong> third through <strong>the</strong> sixth centuries) of <strong>the</strong> relevant talmudic literature.In addition, I put great emphasis on whe<strong>the</strong>r a certa<strong>in</strong> traditionappears <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian and Babylonian sources or solely <strong>in</strong> Babyloniansources, that is, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> alone. Indeed, <strong>in</strong> call<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>book <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> I emphasize <strong>the</strong> highly significant role playedby <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> and Babylonian Jewry.The source material that I have chosen for analysis focuses on <strong>Jesus</strong>and his family. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, I am not claim<strong>in</strong>g to deal with <strong>the</strong> muchbroader subject of how Christianity as such is reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature ofrabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism. One could argue that a book about “<strong>Jesus</strong>” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>cannot adequately be written without tak<strong>in</strong>g this broader context of“Christianity” <strong>in</strong>to full consideration. To a certa<strong>in</strong> extent I agree withsuch an approach (and sometimes I will venture <strong>in</strong>to more comprehensivecategories); yet I never<strong>the</strong>less take <strong>the</strong> risk of limit<strong>in</strong>g myself to thismore narrowly def<strong>in</strong>ed question because I believe that <strong>Jesus</strong>, along withhis family, was <strong>in</strong>deed perceived <strong>in</strong> our sources as a subject of its own.Unlike Maier and many of his predecessors, I start with <strong>the</strong> deliberatelynaive assumption that <strong>the</strong> relevant sources do refer to <strong>the</strong> figure of <strong>Jesus</strong> unlessproven o<strong>the</strong>rwise. Hence, I put <strong>the</strong> heavier burden of proof on thosewho want to decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> validity of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages. More precisely, I donot see any reason why <strong>the</strong> tannaitic <strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pantera/Pandera (“<strong>Jesus</strong> sonof Pantera/Pandera”) and Ben Stada (“son of Stada”) passages should not
8 Introductionrefer to <strong>Jesus</strong>, and I will justify this claim <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> book. Here I substantiallydisagree with Maier who vehemently denies <strong>the</strong> possibility that <strong>the</strong>re areau<strong>the</strong>ntic tannaitic <strong>Jesus</strong> passages and even declares <strong>the</strong> amoraic passagesas all belong<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> post-talmudic ra<strong>the</strong>r than to <strong>the</strong> talmudic period. 24However, we need to make here an important qualification. The factthat I accept most of <strong>the</strong> relevant sources as referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Jesus</strong> (and hisfamily, particularly his mo<strong>the</strong>r), does not, by any means, assume <strong>the</strong> historicityof <strong>the</strong>se sources. As I see it, Maier’s most fateful mistake is <strong>the</strong>way he poses <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> historicity of his texts. He takes it forgranted that <strong>in</strong> hav<strong>in</strong>g purged <strong>the</strong> bulk of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature from <strong>Jesus</strong>and <strong>in</strong> allow<strong>in</strong>g for “au<strong>the</strong>ntic” <strong>Jesus</strong> passages to appear only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> verylate talmudic and preferably <strong>the</strong> post-talmudic sources, he has solved <strong>the</strong>historicity problem once and forever: <strong>the</strong> few au<strong>the</strong>ntic passages, he ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s,are all very late and hence do not contribute anyth<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> historical<strong>Jesus</strong>. For what he is concerned about, almost obsessed with, is <strong>the</strong> historical<strong>Jesus</strong>. This is why he is so fond of <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction, <strong>in</strong> (mostly) Jewishauthors, between <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of <strong>the</strong> faith (follow<strong>in</strong>g,of course, <strong>the</strong> differentiation be<strong>in</strong>g made <strong>in</strong> critical New Testament scholarship).The historical <strong>Jesus</strong> does not appear <strong>in</strong> our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources; <strong>the</strong>ydo not provide any reliable evidence of him, let alone historical “facts”that deviate from <strong>the</strong> New Testament and <strong>the</strong>refore must be taken seriously.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maier, that’s <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> story: s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>icliterature is mean<strong>in</strong>gless <strong>in</strong> our quest for <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong>, it is altoge<strong>the</strong>rworthless for serious scholarly attention with regard to our subjectmatter.I agree that much of our <strong>Jesus</strong> material is relatively late; <strong>in</strong> fact, I willargue that <strong>the</strong> most explicit <strong>Jesus</strong> passages (those passages that deal withhim as a person) appear only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> and can be dated,at <strong>the</strong> earliest, to <strong>the</strong> late third–early fourth century C.E. Yet I strongly disagreewith Maier that this is <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> story. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, I willclaim that it is only here that our real <strong>in</strong>quiry beg<strong>in</strong>s. I propose that <strong>the</strong>se(ma<strong>in</strong>ly) Babylonian stories about <strong>Jesus</strong> and his family are deliberate andhighly sophisticated counternarratives to <strong>the</strong> stories about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life anddeath <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospels—narratives that presuppose a detailed knowledge of<strong>the</strong> New Testament, <strong>in</strong> particular of <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John, presumablythrough <strong>the</strong> Diatessaron and/or <strong>the</strong> Peshitta, <strong>the</strong> New Testament of <strong>the</strong>
Introduction 9Syrian Church. 25 More precisely, I will argue—follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>deed some of<strong>the</strong> older research—that <strong>the</strong>y are polemical counternarratives that parody<strong>the</strong> New Testament stories, most notably <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth anddeath. They ridicule <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth from a virg<strong>in</strong>, as ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong>Gospels of Mat<strong>the</strong>w and Luke, and <strong>the</strong>y contest fervently <strong>the</strong> claim that<strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> Messiah and <strong>the</strong> Son of God. Most remarkably, <strong>the</strong>y counter<strong>the</strong> New Testament Passion story with its message of <strong>the</strong> Jews’ guilt andshame as Christ killers. Instead, <strong>the</strong>y reverse it completely: yes, <strong>the</strong>y ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>,we accept responsibility for it, but <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to feel ashamedbecause we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. <strong>Jesus</strong> deserveddeath, and he got what he deserved. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong>y subvert <strong>the</strong> Christianidea of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ resurrection by hav<strong>in</strong>g him punished forever <strong>in</strong> hell andby mak<strong>in</strong>g clear that this fate awaits his followers as well, who believe <strong>in</strong>this impostor. There is no resurrection, <strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>sist, not for him and not forhis followers; <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>re is no justification whatsoever for thisChristian sect that impudently claims to be <strong>the</strong> new covenant and that ison its way to establish itself as a new religion (not least as a “Church” withpolitical power).This, I will posit, is <strong>the</strong> historical message of <strong>the</strong> (late) talmudic evidenceof <strong>Jesus</strong>. A proud and self-confident message that runs counter toall that we know from Christian and later Jewish sources. I will demonstratethat this message was possible only under <strong>the</strong> specific historical circumstances<strong>in</strong> Sasanian Babylonia, with a Jewish community that lived <strong>in</strong>relative freedom, at least with regard to Christians—quite different fromconditions <strong>in</strong> Roman and Byzant<strong>in</strong>e Palest<strong>in</strong>e, with Christianity becom<strong>in</strong>gan ever more visible and aggressive political power. This is not to saythat <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources are devoid of any knowledge of Christianityand <strong>Jesus</strong>. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong>y are vividly and pa<strong>in</strong>fully aware of <strong>the</strong>spread of Christianity. They are not simply deny<strong>in</strong>g or ignor<strong>in</strong>g it (<strong>in</strong> ak<strong>in</strong>d of Freudian mechanism of denial and repression), as has often beensuggested; ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are acknowledg<strong>in</strong>g Christianity and engaged <strong>in</strong> aremarkably <strong>in</strong>tense exchange with it. But still, <strong>Jesus</strong> as a person, his life,and his fate are much less prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources. So myclaim is that it is not so much <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between earlier and latersources that matters but <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between Palest<strong>in</strong>ian and Babyloniansources, between <strong>the</strong> two major centers of Jewish life <strong>in</strong> antiquity. As
10 Introductionwe shall see, <strong>the</strong> different political and religious conditions under which<strong>the</strong> Jews lived created very different attitudes toward Christianity and itsfounder.F<strong>in</strong>ally, what k<strong>in</strong>d of Jewish society was it that dealt <strong>in</strong> this particularway with <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>Jesus</strong> and Christianity—dar<strong>in</strong>gly self-confident<strong>in</strong> Babylonia, and so much more restra<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e? The answer issimple but probably not very satisfy<strong>in</strong>g for a social historian: it was nodoubt an elitist society of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic academies. The creators and addresseesof this discourse were <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong>ir students, not <strong>the</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>aryJew who did not have access to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic deliberations—although<strong>the</strong> possibility cannot be ruled out that <strong>the</strong> academic discourse also penetrated<strong>in</strong>to sermons delivered <strong>in</strong> synagogues and <strong>the</strong>refore did reach <strong>the</strong>“ord<strong>in</strong>ary man,” but <strong>the</strong>re is no evidence of this. Moreover, it needs to bereemphasized that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> are <strong>the</strong> proverbialdrop of water <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ocean, nei<strong>the</strong>r quantitatively significant nor presented<strong>in</strong> a coherent manner nor, <strong>in</strong> many cases, a subject of <strong>the</strong>ir own.Yet <strong>the</strong>y are much more than just figments of imag<strong>in</strong>ation, scattered fragmentsof lost memory. Adequately analyzed and read <strong>in</strong> conjunction withone ano<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y are powerful evidence of bold discourse with <strong>the</strong> Christiansociety, of <strong>in</strong>teraction between Jews and Christians, which was remarkablydifferent <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e and Babylonia.The chapters of this book follow <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>Jesus</strong> as it emerges from<strong>the</strong> talmudic sources as we comb<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong>m and put <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> sequence.This is to say, I have set up <strong>the</strong> head<strong>in</strong>gs under which I present <strong>the</strong> evidence<strong>in</strong> order to present <strong>the</strong> material <strong>in</strong> a mean<strong>in</strong>gful structure, not justas literary fragments. Although I do not wish to impose on <strong>the</strong> reader <strong>the</strong>notion of a coherent <strong>Jesus</strong> narrative <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, I do want to po<strong>in</strong>t outmajor <strong>the</strong>matic topics with regard to <strong>Jesus</strong> with which <strong>the</strong> rabbis wereconcerned. The first chapter (“<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family”) deals with <strong>the</strong> first cornerstoneof <strong>the</strong> New Testament <strong>Jesus</strong> narrative, his birth from <strong>the</strong> Virg<strong>in</strong>Mary. I will show that <strong>the</strong> rabbis drafted here, <strong>in</strong> just a few words, a powerfulcounternarrative that was meant to shake <strong>the</strong> foundations of <strong>the</strong>Christian message: for, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>Jesus</strong> was not born from a virg<strong>in</strong>,as his followers claimed, but out of wedlock, <strong>the</strong> son of a whore andher lover; <strong>the</strong>refore, he could not be <strong>the</strong> Messiah of Davidic descent, letalone <strong>the</strong> Son of God.
Introduction 11The two follow<strong>in</strong>g chapters focus on a subject of particular importanceto <strong>the</strong> rabbis: <strong>the</strong>ir relationship with <strong>the</strong>ir students. A bad student was oneof <strong>the</strong> worst disasters that could happen to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic elite, not only for<strong>the</strong> poor student but also for his rabbi who was responsible for him. Incount<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> among <strong>the</strong> students who turned out badly, <strong>the</strong> rabbispassed upon him <strong>the</strong>ir harshest judgment. Moreover, I will show that <strong>in</strong><strong>Jesus</strong>’ case, <strong>the</strong> reproach with which <strong>the</strong>y confronted him clearly had sexualundertones and emphasized <strong>the</strong> suspicion of his dubious orig<strong>in</strong>(chapter 2). The same is true for <strong>the</strong> story about <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> frivolous disciple.Not only did he enterta<strong>in</strong> lewd sexual thoughts, but, when rebukedby his rabbi, he became apostate and established a new cult. The message,<strong>the</strong>refore, is that <strong>the</strong> new Christian sect/religion stemmed from afailed and <strong>in</strong>subord<strong>in</strong>ate rabb<strong>in</strong>ical student (chapter 3).The next chapter (“The Torah Teacher”) does not deal with <strong>Jesus</strong> directlybut with a famous late first–early second century C.E. rabbi (Eliezerb. Hyrkanos), whom <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities accused of heresy. The precisek<strong>in</strong>d of heresy is not specified, but I will argue that it is <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> Christianheresy that is at stake and that R. Eliezer was accused of be<strong>in</strong>g closelyassociated with a student of <strong>Jesus</strong>. Moreover, I will demonstrate that aga<strong>in</strong>sexual transgressions are <strong>in</strong>volved because <strong>the</strong> Christian cult was characterizedas entic<strong>in</strong>g its members <strong>in</strong>to secret licentious and orgiastic rites.R. Eliezer became <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic doppelgänger of <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>in</strong>dulg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> sexualexcesses and exercis<strong>in</strong>g magical power. The rabbis needed to punish himwith <strong>the</strong> full thrust of <strong>the</strong> means at <strong>the</strong>ir disposal (excommunication) forthreaten<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong>ir rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authority.Similar mechanisms are at work <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> stories that deal with <strong>the</strong> magicalheal<strong>in</strong>g power connected with <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> (chapter 5). In onestory a rabbi is bitten by a snake and wants to be healed by <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>,spoken over his wound by one of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ followers. His fellow rabbis donot allow <strong>the</strong> Christian heretic to perform his heal<strong>in</strong>g, and <strong>the</strong> poor rabbidies. In ano<strong>the</strong>r story <strong>the</strong> grandson of a famous rabbi, chok<strong>in</strong>g on someth<strong>in</strong>gthat he has swallowed, survives when a Christian heretic manages towhisper <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> upon him. Ra<strong>the</strong>r than be<strong>in</strong>g relieved, however,his grandfa<strong>the</strong>r curses <strong>the</strong> heretic and wishes that his grandson haddied <strong>in</strong>stead of be<strong>in</strong>g healed through <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>. In both cases it isnot <strong>the</strong> magical power as such that poses a problem (for, on <strong>the</strong> contrary,
12 Introduction<strong>the</strong> efficiency of <strong>the</strong> magical power is taken for granted, even if exercisedby a heretic and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>); ra<strong>the</strong>r, what is at stake is aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>wrong magical power: <strong>the</strong> magical power that competes with <strong>the</strong> authorityof <strong>the</strong> rabbis and that <strong>in</strong>vokes ano<strong>the</strong>r authority—<strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Christiancommunity.With <strong>the</strong> sixth chapter (“<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution”) we return to <strong>the</strong> fate of <strong>Jesus</strong>himself. Here, a quite elaborate story—aga<strong>in</strong> only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian<strong>Talmud</strong>—details <strong>the</strong> halakhic procedure of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial and execution: <strong>Jesus</strong>was not crucified but, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish law, stoned to death and<strong>the</strong>n, as <strong>the</strong> ultimate postmortem punishment reserved for <strong>the</strong> worst crim<strong>in</strong>als,hanged on a tree. This took place on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover, which happenedto be Sabbath eve (Friday). The reason for his execution was becausehe was convicted of sorcery and of entic<strong>in</strong>g Israel <strong>in</strong>to idolatry. Asrequired by <strong>the</strong> Jewish law, a herald made <strong>the</strong> announcement of his deathsentence—<strong>in</strong> order to allow for witnesses <strong>in</strong> his favor, <strong>in</strong> case <strong>the</strong>re weresome—but nobody came to his defense. F<strong>in</strong>ally, he was regarded as be<strong>in</strong>gclose to <strong>the</strong> Roman government, but this did not help him ei<strong>the</strong>r. Mycomparison of this rabb<strong>in</strong>ic narrative with <strong>the</strong> Gospels shows some remarkablecongruencies and differences: most conspicuous among <strong>the</strong> formeris <strong>the</strong> day before Passover as <strong>the</strong> day of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial and execution(which concurs with <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John) and among <strong>the</strong> latter is <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic<strong>in</strong>sistence on <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>in</strong>deed sentenced and executedaccord<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish and not to Roman law. I <strong>in</strong>terpret this as a deliberate“misread<strong>in</strong>g” of <strong>the</strong> New Testament, (re)claim<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong>, as it were, for <strong>the</strong>Jewish people, and proudly acknowledg<strong>in</strong>g that he was rightly and legallyexecuted because he was a Jewish heretic.The story about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ five disciples (chapter 7) cont<strong>in</strong>ues such charges.In contrast to <strong>the</strong> futile exercises of most scholars to f<strong>in</strong>d here some darkrem<strong>in</strong>iscences of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ historical disciples, I read <strong>the</strong> story as a highly sophisticatedbattle with biblical verses, a battle between <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong>irChristian opponents, challeng<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Christian claim that he is <strong>the</strong> Messiahand Son of God, that he was resurrected after his horrible death, andthat this death is <strong>the</strong> culm<strong>in</strong>ation of <strong>the</strong> new covenant. Hence, as we shallsee, this story, <strong>in</strong>stead of add<strong>in</strong>g just ano<strong>the</strong>r bizarre facet to <strong>the</strong> fantasticrabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories about <strong>Jesus</strong>, is noth<strong>in</strong>g short of an elaborate <strong>the</strong>ological
Introduction 13discourse that foreshadows <strong>the</strong> disputations between Jews and Christians<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages.The most bizarre of all <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> stories is <strong>the</strong> one that tells how <strong>Jesus</strong>shares his place <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld with Titus and Balaam, <strong>the</strong> notoriousarchenemies of <strong>the</strong> Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for <strong>the</strong>destruction of <strong>the</strong> Temple by be<strong>in</strong>g burned to ashes, reassembled, andburned over and over aga<strong>in</strong>, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitt<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> hot semen, <strong>Jesus</strong>’ fate consists of sitt<strong>in</strong>g forever <strong>in</strong> boil<strong>in</strong>g excrement.This obscene story has occupied scholars for a long time, without anysatisfactory solution. I will speculate that it is aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> deliberate, andquite graphic, answer to a New Testament claim, this time <strong>Jesus</strong>’ promisethat eat<strong>in</strong>g his flesh and dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g his blood guarantees eternal life to hisfollowers. Understood this way, <strong>the</strong> story conveys an ironic message: notonly did <strong>Jesus</strong> not rise from <strong>the</strong> dead, he is punished <strong>in</strong> hell forever; accord<strong>in</strong>gly,his followers—<strong>the</strong> blossom<strong>in</strong>g Church, which ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s to be<strong>the</strong> new Israel—are noth<strong>in</strong>g but a bunch of fools, misled by a cunn<strong>in</strong>gdeceiver.The conclud<strong>in</strong>g chapter (“<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>”) attempts to connect<strong>the</strong> various and multifarious aspects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> narrative <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>icliterature and to place <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong>to historical perspective. Only when <strong>the</strong>fruitless search for fragments of <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong>,hidden <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> “ocean of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>,” has been given up and when <strong>the</strong>right questions are asked, regardless of apologetic, polemic, or o<strong>the</strong>r considerations,can we discover <strong>the</strong> “historical truth” beh<strong>in</strong>d our sources: that<strong>the</strong>y are literary answers to a literary text, <strong>the</strong> New Testament, given undervery concrete historical circumstances. I will address <strong>the</strong> major topics thatappear almost as leitmotifs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> texts—sex, magic, idolatry, blasphemy,resurrection, and <strong>the</strong> Eucharist—and place <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir contemporary,literary as well as historical, context.F<strong>in</strong>ally, s<strong>in</strong>ce one of <strong>the</strong> most strik<strong>in</strong>g results of my <strong>in</strong>quiry is <strong>the</strong> difference<strong>in</strong> attitude of <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian sources, I will pose<strong>the</strong> question of why we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> most significant, radical, and dar<strong>in</strong>g statementsabout <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life and dest<strong>in</strong>y <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r than<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources. In pursu<strong>in</strong>g this question I will try to outl<strong>in</strong>e<strong>the</strong> historical reality of <strong>the</strong> Jews and <strong>the</strong> Christians liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian
14 IntroductionEmpire <strong>in</strong> Late Antiquity, <strong>in</strong> contrast to that of <strong>the</strong> Jews liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>eunder Roman rule and subsequently under Christian rule. Then I willsummarize <strong>the</strong> New Testament evidence as it emerges from our rabb<strong>in</strong>icaltexts and will aga<strong>in</strong> ask <strong>the</strong> concrete question of why <strong>the</strong> Gospel ofJohn takes such a prom<strong>in</strong>ent place among references to <strong>the</strong> New Testament.In an appendix, I will address <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> manuscript traditionof <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> and <strong>the</strong> phenomenon of censorship.A brief technical note: <strong>the</strong> translations of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible and of <strong>the</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ical sources are my own (I checked, however, <strong>the</strong> Jewish PublicationSociety translation of <strong>the</strong> Tanakh, <strong>the</strong> New Oxford Annotated Bible,and <strong>the</strong> Sonc<strong>in</strong>o translation of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and of Midrash Rabba); for <strong>the</strong>New Testament I used <strong>the</strong> New Oxford Annotated Bible, third editionwith <strong>the</strong> Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised StandardVersion, edited by Michael D. Coogan, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001. All translations of o<strong>the</strong>r sources are documented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> notes.For <strong>the</strong> Jerusalem and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew ha-<strong>Talmud</strong>ha-Yerushalmi and ha-<strong>Talmud</strong> ha-Bavli respectively) I use both <strong>the</strong> Englishterms and <strong>the</strong> Hebrew abbreviations Yerushalmi and Bavli.
1. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ FamilyThe rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature is almost completely silent about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ l<strong>in</strong>eageand his family background. The rabbis do not seem to know—or elsedo not care to mention—what <strong>the</strong> New Testament tells us: that he was <strong>the</strong>son of a certa<strong>in</strong> Mary and her husband (or ra<strong>the</strong>r betro<strong>the</strong>d) Joseph, a carpenterof <strong>the</strong> city of Nazareth, and that he was born <strong>in</strong> Bethlehem, <strong>the</strong>city of David, and hence of Davidic orig<strong>in</strong>. It is only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian<strong>Talmud</strong>, and <strong>the</strong>re <strong>in</strong> two almost identical passages, that we do get somestrange <strong>in</strong>formation that may be regarded as a fa<strong>in</strong>t and distorted echo of<strong>the</strong> Gospels’ stories about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ family background and his parents. 1S<strong>in</strong>ce nei<strong>the</strong>r source mentions, however, <strong>the</strong> name “<strong>Jesus</strong>” but <strong>in</strong>stead resortsto <strong>the</strong> enigmatic names “Ben Stada” and “Ben Pandera/Pantera” respectively,<strong>the</strong>ir relationship to <strong>Jesus</strong> is hotly disputed. I will analyze <strong>the</strong>Bavli text <strong>in</strong> detail and demonstrate that it <strong>in</strong>deed refers to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of <strong>the</strong>New Testament and is not just a remote and corrupt echo of <strong>the</strong> New Testamentstory; ra<strong>the</strong>r, it presents—with few words and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> typically discursivestyle of <strong>the</strong> Bavli—a highly ambitious and devastat<strong>in</strong>g counternarrativeto <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant story of <strong>the</strong> New Testament.The version of our story <strong>in</strong> Shab 104b is embedded <strong>in</strong> an exposition of<strong>the</strong> mishnaic law, which regards <strong>the</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g of two or more letters as workand hence forbidden on <strong>the</strong> Sabbath (m Shab 12:4). The Mishna discusses
16 Chapter 1all k<strong>in</strong>d of materials that might be used for writ<strong>in</strong>g, and of objects uponwhich one might write, and states that <strong>the</strong> prohibition of writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cludesalso <strong>the</strong> use of one’s own body as a writ<strong>in</strong>g object. From this <strong>the</strong> logicalquestion arises: But what about tattoos? 2 Are <strong>the</strong>y, too, to be regarded aswrit<strong>in</strong>g and hence forbidden on Sabbath? 3 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to R. Eliezer, <strong>the</strong> answeris yes (<strong>the</strong>y are forbidden on Sabbath), whereas R. Yehoshua allows it(<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tosefta parallel it is <strong>the</strong> Sages).The Tosefta and both <strong>the</strong> Jerusalem and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> elaboratefur<strong>the</strong>r upon this Mishna. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Tosefta, R. Eliezer respondsto <strong>the</strong> Sages: “But did not Ben Satra learn only <strong>in</strong> such a way?” 4 —<strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, did he not use <strong>the</strong> tattoos on his body as an aid to facilitatehis learn<strong>in</strong>g (hence, weren’t <strong>the</strong>y clearly letters and <strong>the</strong>refore forbidden tobe “written” on Sabbath)? This is bad enough, but <strong>the</strong> two <strong>Talmud</strong>imcome up with an even worse explanation of why tattoo<strong>in</strong>g one’s body onSabbath is forbidden, when <strong>the</strong>y have Eliezer ask: “But did not Ben Stadabr<strong>in</strong>g forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches/tattoos (biseritah)upon his flesh?” 5 In all three versions <strong>the</strong> Sages dismiss R. Eliezer’s objectionwith <strong>the</strong> counterargument that Ben Satra/Stada 6 was a fool and that<strong>the</strong>y would not let one fool’s behavior <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> implementation ofSabbath laws.It is with<strong>in</strong> this context that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> (Shab 104b) 7 proceeds with aclarification of <strong>the</strong> enigmatic “fool’s” family background. The text is onlypreserved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> uncensored manuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions of <strong>the</strong>Bavli; I quote accord<strong>in</strong>g to Ms. Munich 95 (written 1342 <strong>in</strong> Paris), withsome variations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> footnotes:(Was he) <strong>the</strong> son of Stada 8 (and not on <strong>the</strong> contrary) <strong>the</strong> son of Pandera?Said Rav Hisda: <strong>the</strong> husband (ba
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family 17This is a typical discourse of <strong>the</strong> Bavli, which tries to clarify <strong>the</strong> contradictionbetween two traditions: accord<strong>in</strong>g to one received tradition, <strong>the</strong>fool/magician is called “son of Stada” and accord<strong>in</strong>g to ano<strong>the</strong>r one he iscalled “son of Pandera.” 15 What, <strong>the</strong>n, is his correct name? 16 In o<strong>the</strong>rwords, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> is concerned about <strong>the</strong> problem that <strong>the</strong> same personis called by two different names and not about <strong>the</strong> question of who thisperson is (<strong>the</strong> answer to this latter question is obviously presupposed:everybody seems to know it). Two different answers are provided.First, Rav Hisda (a Babylonian amora of <strong>the</strong> third generation and an importantteacher at <strong>the</strong> academy of Sura; d. 309 C.E.) suggests that <strong>the</strong> person<strong>in</strong> question had, as it were, two “fa<strong>the</strong>rs” because his mo<strong>the</strong>r had a husbandand a lover, 17 and that he was called “son of Stada,” when referr<strong>in</strong>g to<strong>the</strong> husband and “son of Pandera,” when referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> lover. Aga<strong>in</strong>st this,an anonymous author comes up with a different solution: No, he argues,his mo<strong>the</strong>r’s husband was not some “Stada” but ra<strong>the</strong>r Pappos b. Yehuda, aPalest<strong>in</strong>ian scholar (not portrayed as a sage and without <strong>the</strong> title “Rabbi”)of <strong>the</strong> first half of <strong>the</strong> second century C.E., and <strong>in</strong> fact it was his mo<strong>the</strong>rwho was called “Stada.” 18 If this is so, <strong>the</strong> last step of <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>i-discourse <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Bavli cont<strong>in</strong>ues, we need to expla<strong>in</strong> this strange name “Stada” for hismo<strong>the</strong>r. The answer: His mo<strong>the</strong>r’s true name was Miriam, and “Stada” isan epi<strong>the</strong>t which derives from <strong>the</strong> Hebrew/Aramaic root saṭah/seṭe> (“to deviatefrom <strong>the</strong> right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful”). In o<strong>the</strong>r words, hismo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam was also called “Stada” because she was a soṭah, a womansuspected, or ra<strong>the</strong>r convicted, of adultery. This anonymous explanation islocated <strong>in</strong> Pumbeditha, Sura’s rival academy <strong>in</strong> Babylonia.Hence, it becomes clear that both explanations beg<strong>in</strong> with <strong>the</strong> assumptionthat our hero’s mo<strong>the</strong>r had both a husband and a lover, and that <strong>the</strong>yonly disagree about <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> husband (Stada versus Pappos b.Yehuda). The name Pandera for <strong>the</strong> lover is made explicit only by RavHisda but seems to be accepted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pumbeditha explanation as well, becauseit presupposes <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s adultery and does not suggest ano<strong>the</strong>rname for <strong>the</strong> lover. That Pappos b. Yehuda is identified as <strong>the</strong> husbandorig<strong>in</strong>ates from ano<strong>the</strong>r story <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli, transmitted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name ofR. Meir, that Pappos b. Yehuda, when he went out, used to lock his wife <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong>ir house—obviously because he had reason to doubt her fidelity (b Git90a). This behavior on <strong>the</strong> part of Pappos b. Yehuda is quite drastically
18 Chapter 1compared to that of a man who, if a fly falls <strong>in</strong>to his cup, puts <strong>the</strong> cup asideand does not dr<strong>in</strong>k from it any more—mean<strong>in</strong>g that Pappos b. Yehuda notonly locks away his wife so that she cannot go astray but that he also refra<strong>in</strong>sfrom <strong>in</strong>tercourse with her because she has become doubtful.The dubious reputation of our hero’s mo<strong>the</strong>r is fur<strong>the</strong>r emphasized by<strong>the</strong> statement that she grew her hair to a great length. Whatever <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>almean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> odd phrase, 19 <strong>the</strong> context <strong>in</strong> Shabbat 104b/Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>67a clearly suggests that Miriam’s long and apparently unfastened hairwas <strong>in</strong>dicative of her <strong>in</strong>decent behavior. Ano<strong>the</strong>r passage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>(Er 100b) describes <strong>the</strong> epitome of a “bad woman” as follows: “She growslong hair like Lilith (megaddelt śa
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family 19he [<strong>Jesus</strong>] came from a Jewish village and from a poor countrywoman who earned her liv<strong>in</strong>g by sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g. He [<strong>the</strong> Jew] says that shewas driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as shewas convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been drivenout by her husband and while she was wander<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>in</strong> a disgracefulway she secretly gave birth to <strong>Jesus</strong>. And he says that because he[<strong>Jesus</strong>] was poor he hired himself out as a workman <strong>in</strong> Egypt, and<strong>the</strong>re tried his hand at certa<strong>in</strong> magical powers on which <strong>the</strong> Egyptianspride <strong>the</strong>mselves; he returned full of conceit, because of <strong>the</strong>sepowers, and on account of <strong>the</strong>m gave himself <strong>the</strong> title of God. 26In ano<strong>the</strong>r quotation Celsus repeats <strong>the</strong>se allegations put <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouthof a Jew and even communicates <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ fa<strong>the</strong>r:Let us return, however, to <strong>the</strong> words put <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>the</strong> Jew,where <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>Jesus</strong> is described as hav<strong>in</strong>g been turned out by<strong>the</strong> carpenter who was betro<strong>the</strong>d to her, as she had been convictedof adultery and had a child by a certa<strong>in</strong> soldier named Pan<strong>the</strong>ra(Panthēra). 27This story has much <strong>in</strong> common with <strong>the</strong> short discourse <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>:<strong>the</strong> hero is <strong>the</strong> son of an adulteress, he returned from Egypt with magicalpowers and, most important, <strong>the</strong> name of his mo<strong>the</strong>r’s lover (his fa<strong>the</strong>r)was Pan<strong>the</strong>ra. The only difference between <strong>the</strong> versions <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>and <strong>in</strong> Celsus is <strong>the</strong> fact that Celsus makes it explicit that <strong>the</strong> child, bornfrom <strong>the</strong> poor Jewish adulteress and <strong>the</strong> soldier Pan<strong>the</strong>ra, was <strong>the</strong> very <strong>Jesus</strong>whom <strong>the</strong> Christians regard as <strong>the</strong> founder of <strong>the</strong>ir faith, whereas <strong>the</strong><strong>Talmud</strong> keeps silent about <strong>the</strong> proper name of <strong>the</strong> child. 28 But this doesnot pose a real problem because <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, as we have seen, is not concernedabout <strong>the</strong> identity of <strong>the</strong> child but about <strong>the</strong> strange phenomenonof two different names used for his fa<strong>the</strong>r. Moreover, several rabb<strong>in</strong>icsources do mention <strong>Jesus</strong> as <strong>the</strong> son of Pandera, 29 and it can be safely assumed,<strong>the</strong>refore, that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> presupposes <strong>the</strong> knowledge of thisidentity. The punch l<strong>in</strong>e of this attribution, of course, is <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Jesus</strong>,through his fa<strong>the</strong>r Pan<strong>the</strong>ra/Pandera, becomes not only a bastard buteven <strong>the</strong> son of a non-Jew. 30
20 Chapter 1These congruencies make it highly probable that both <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> andCelsus draw on common sources (most likely orig<strong>in</strong>ally Jewish sources)that relate that <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth was a bastard because his mo<strong>the</strong>r was anadulteress (Miriam) 31 and his fa<strong>the</strong>r was her lover (Pandera/Pan<strong>the</strong>ra).Some scholars, most radically among <strong>the</strong>m Johann Maier, want to concludefrom <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra is relatively common <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>scriptions 32 and that <strong>the</strong> spell<strong>in</strong>g of its equivalent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hebrew sourcesvaries considerably, that <strong>the</strong>re must have been some different <strong>Jesus</strong> with<strong>the</strong> patronymic Pan<strong>the</strong>ra/Pandera/Pantiri (or similar forms) who cannotand should not be traced back to <strong>the</strong> one and only <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth. 33 Althoughsuch a possibility cannot be excluded, it does not seem very likely.The different versions of <strong>the</strong> name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra are still similar enough to beattributed to <strong>the</strong> same person, and such an attribution certa<strong>in</strong>ly does notrequire that all of <strong>the</strong> various forms of <strong>the</strong> name be philologically tracedback to one ur-form (Pan<strong>the</strong>ra). 34 Moreover, and more important, <strong>the</strong>name is not common at all <strong>in</strong> Hebrew or Aramaic, and this fact alonemakes <strong>the</strong> connection with Celsus’ Pan<strong>the</strong>ra obvious.Celsus’ Jew <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> late second century C.E. and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong><strong>in</strong> a presumably early fourth-century tradition refer to <strong>the</strong> samecounternarrative of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ family background, which evidently is an <strong>in</strong>versionof and polemic aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth.Several motifs are characteristic:1. <strong>Jesus</strong> “returns” from Egypt as a magician. In <strong>the</strong> New Testament, <strong>Jesus</strong>’parents Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt with <strong>the</strong> newborn <strong>in</strong>fant becauseK<strong>in</strong>g Herod threatens to kill <strong>the</strong> child (Mt. 2:13ff.). Herod hadheard about <strong>Jesus</strong> from <strong>the</strong> magicians who came from <strong>the</strong> East to pay tributeto <strong>Jesus</strong> as <strong>the</strong> newborn K<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Jews (Mt. 2:2). Egypt was regarded<strong>in</strong> antiquity as <strong>the</strong> classical land of magic, 35 and <strong>Jesus</strong> is portrayed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>New Testament 36 as well as <strong>in</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources 37 as someone with supernaturalpowers (heal<strong>in</strong>g, command<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> demons, etc.). That <strong>Jesus</strong> is labeleda magician <strong>in</strong> a derogatory sense is, <strong>the</strong>refore, an <strong>in</strong>version of <strong>the</strong>New Testament, which connects him (positively) with magicians, withEgypt, and with heal<strong>in</strong>g powers.2. Celsus portrays <strong>Jesus</strong>’ parents as poor: his fa<strong>the</strong>r was a carpenter andhis mo<strong>the</strong>r a poor countrywoman who earned her liv<strong>in</strong>g by sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g. The
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family 21New Testament does not say anyth<strong>in</strong>g about Mary’s family background,but it mentions explicitly that Joseph, her betro<strong>the</strong>d, was a carpenter (Mt.13:55). 38 The <strong>Talmud</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>s silent about his parents’ means—unless onewants to see <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> strange epi<strong>the</strong>t megadla neshayya given to his mo<strong>the</strong>ran allusion not to her long hair but to her profession as a manual worker(<strong>the</strong> Aramaic word megadla can mean “plait<strong>in</strong>g” but also “weav<strong>in</strong>g”).3. The most pungent counterargument aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> evangelists’ narrativeis, of course, <strong>the</strong> assertion of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ illegitimate birth from an adulterousmo<strong>the</strong>r and some <strong>in</strong>significant lover. It parries <strong>the</strong> claim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ nobleDavidic l<strong>in</strong>eage to which <strong>the</strong> New Testament attaches such greatvalue: Mat<strong>the</strong>w starts with his genealogy (Mt. 1) which leads back directlyto David and calls him, as well as his “fa<strong>the</strong>r” Joseph, “son ofDavid” (Mt. 1:1, 20; Lk. 1:27, 2:4); he is born <strong>in</strong> Bethlehem, <strong>the</strong> city ofDavid (Mt. 2:5f.; Lk. 2:4), and hence is <strong>the</strong> Davidic Messiah (Mt. 2:4;Lk. 2:11). No, <strong>the</strong> Jewish counternarrative argues, this is all nonsense; heis anyth<strong>in</strong>g but of noble orig<strong>in</strong>s. His fa<strong>the</strong>r was by no means a descendantof David but <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise unknown Pan<strong>the</strong>ra/Pandera ( just a Romansoldier, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Celsus, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words a non-Jew and a memberof <strong>the</strong> hated Roman Empire that so visibly and horribly oppressed<strong>the</strong> Jews).Much worse, <strong>in</strong> turn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to a bastard, <strong>the</strong> counternarrative takes up<strong>the</strong> contradictions with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament story about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ orig<strong>in</strong>sand ridicules <strong>the</strong> claim that he was born from a virg<strong>in</strong> (par<strong>the</strong>nogenesis).The New Testament itself is remarkably vague about this claim. Mat<strong>the</strong>w,hav<strong>in</strong>g established <strong>Jesus</strong>’ genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph, concludeswith Jacob who “fa<strong>the</strong>red Joseph, <strong>the</strong> husband 39 of Mary, who gavebirth to <strong>Jesus</strong>, who is called Messiah” (Mt. 1:16). This is clear enough: <strong>Jesus</strong>is <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> couple Joseph and Mary, and <strong>the</strong> Davidic l<strong>in</strong>eagecomes from his fa<strong>the</strong>r Joseph, not from his mo<strong>the</strong>r. Only under this premise,that Joseph was his real fa<strong>the</strong>r, does <strong>the</strong> emphasis put on his genealogymake sense. 40 Yet after this dramatic beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g Mat<strong>the</strong>w suddenly revealsthat Mary was not married to Joseph but just betro<strong>the</strong>d and that sheexpected a child before <strong>the</strong>y were legally married (1:18). This discoverytroubled Joseph, 41 who was a just man, and he decided to dismiss her(1:19)—but <strong>in</strong> a dream it was revealed to him that her child was “from <strong>the</strong>
22 Chapter 1Holy Spirit” (1:20). When he woke up from his dream, Joseph took Maryas his legal wife and accepted her son (1:24f.). 42The Jewish counternarrative po<strong>in</strong>ts to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>consistencies with<strong>in</strong>Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s birth story. It does not spend time on <strong>the</strong> legal <strong>in</strong>tricacies of betrothaland marriage but ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that Joseph and Mary were <strong>in</strong>deedmarried, not just betro<strong>the</strong>d. The bizarre idea of hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit <strong>in</strong>terveneto make him <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r of Mary’s child is noth<strong>in</strong>g but a cover-up of<strong>the</strong> truth, it ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s, namely that Mary, Joseph’s legal wife, had a secretlover and that her child was just a bastard like any o<strong>the</strong>r bastard. Joseph’ssuspicion, whe<strong>the</strong>r he was Mary’s husband or her betro<strong>the</strong>d, was absolutelywarranted: Mary had <strong>in</strong>deed been unfaithful to him. He should have dismissedher immediately as was customary accord<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish law.This powerful counternarrative shakes <strong>the</strong> foundations of <strong>the</strong> Christianmessage. It is not just a malicious distortion of <strong>the</strong> birth story (any suchmoraliz<strong>in</strong>g categories are completely out of place here); ra<strong>the</strong>r, it positsthat <strong>the</strong> whole idea of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Davidic descent, his claim to be <strong>the</strong> Messiah,and ultimately his claim to be <strong>the</strong> son of God, are based on fraud. Hismo<strong>the</strong>r, his alleged fa<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>in</strong>sofar as he helped cover<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>the</strong> truth), hisreal fa<strong>the</strong>r, and not least <strong>Jesus</strong> himself (<strong>the</strong> would-be magician) are all impostorsthat deceived <strong>the</strong> Jewish people and deserve to be unmasked, exposedto ridicule, and <strong>the</strong>reby neutralized. Most strik<strong>in</strong>g, this counter–NewTestament <strong>in</strong> a nutshell has been preserved <strong>in</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources only <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, 43 and <strong>the</strong>re almost <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g.I conclude this chapter with yet ano<strong>the</strong>r story from <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>(aga<strong>in</strong>, only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli) that can be read as a parody of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birthfrom a virg<strong>in</strong>. It is part of a long disputation between “<strong>the</strong>” notorious Romanemperor and R. Yehoshua b. Hananya, 44 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> course of whichR. Yehoshua travels to A<strong>the</strong>ns to meet <strong>the</strong> Greek Sages. R. Yehoshua and<strong>the</strong> A<strong>the</strong>nians engage <strong>in</strong> a long discussion that aims at f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g out who iscleverer, <strong>the</strong> Greek Sages or <strong>the</strong> rabbi. Asked to tell <strong>the</strong>m some fiction stories(milei di-bedi>ei), he comes up with <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g tale:There was this mule which gave birth, and [round its neck] washang<strong>in</strong>g a document upon which was written, “<strong>the</strong>re is a claimaga<strong>in</strong>st my fa<strong>the</strong>r’s house of one hundred thousand Zuz.” They [<strong>the</strong>
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family 23A<strong>the</strong>nian Sages] asked him: “Can a mule give birth”? He [R. Yehoshua]answered <strong>the</strong>m: “This is one of <strong>the</strong>se fiction stories”.[Aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> A<strong>the</strong>nian Sages asked:] “When salt becomes unsavory,wherewith is it salted”? He replied: “With <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of a mule.”—“And is <strong>the</strong>re an afterbirth of a mule”?—“And can salt becomeunsavory”? 45These brief stories center around <strong>the</strong> well-known fact that mules, <strong>the</strong> offspr<strong>in</strong>gof a cross between a male donkey and a female horse, almost alwaysare sterile. Both play with a double element of surprise: <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> firstcase <strong>the</strong> allegation that a mule not only can give birth to a cub, but that aparticular cub was even born with a debt document bound around itsneck; and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second case that salt not only can become unsavory, butthat it can rega<strong>in</strong> its flavor with <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of a mule. This, of course,has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong>. But why <strong>the</strong> strange idea of a sterile mulegiv<strong>in</strong>g birth, coupled with <strong>the</strong> not-less-strange idea of unsavory salt, that is,presumably salt that lost its taste? One could argue that what we havehere are remnants of some k<strong>in</strong>d of an early “scientific” discourse about<strong>the</strong> sterility of mules, and this is probably <strong>the</strong> easiest answer. But still, <strong>the</strong>connection of <strong>the</strong> miraculous offspr<strong>in</strong>g of a sterile mule with <strong>the</strong> salt rega<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gits taste by <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of a mule is suspicious. With regard to<strong>the</strong> unsavory—most likely <strong>in</strong>sipid—salt one immediately th<strong>in</strong>ks of <strong>Jesus</strong>’famous dictum <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Mount:You are <strong>the</strong> salt of <strong>the</strong> earth; but if <strong>the</strong> salt has lost its taste, how canits salt<strong>in</strong>ess be restored? It is no longer good for anyth<strong>in</strong>g, but isthrown out and trampled underfoot. 46<strong>Jesus</strong> addresses here his disciples as <strong>the</strong> salt of <strong>the</strong> earth, more precisely as<strong>the</strong> new salt of <strong>the</strong> earth because <strong>the</strong>re is some o<strong>the</strong>r salt that has lost itssalt<strong>in</strong>ess and hence it taste. This o<strong>the</strong>r salt, with no taste anymore, caneasily be understood as <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>the</strong> old covenant which is “nolonger good for anyth<strong>in</strong>g,” “thrown out,” and “trampled under foot.” If wetake this say<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>Jesus</strong> as <strong>the</strong> foil aga<strong>in</strong>st which our Bavli story was construed,<strong>the</strong> brief tale turns <strong>in</strong>to a pungent parody of <strong>the</strong> New Testament
24 Chapter 1claim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ followers as <strong>the</strong> new salt of <strong>the</strong> earth: <strong>the</strong>se Christians, itargues, ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong> salt of <strong>the</strong> old covenant has become <strong>in</strong>sipid, andhence useless, and that its taste was restored by <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>the</strong> newcovenant—through <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of a mule! But we all know that <strong>the</strong>re isno such th<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of a mule because <strong>the</strong> mule does not givebirth, as much as we know that salt does not lose its taste.On this background, <strong>the</strong> miraculous offspr<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> mule <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> firststory (and <strong>the</strong> afterbirth <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second one) gets an even more significantmean<strong>in</strong>g. It can well be understood as a parody of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ miraculous birthfrom a virg<strong>in</strong>: an offspr<strong>in</strong>g from a virg<strong>in</strong> is as likely as an offspr<strong>in</strong>g from amule. 47 The Christians’ claim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth from a virg<strong>in</strong> and without afa<strong>the</strong>r belongs to <strong>the</strong> category of fiction stories, fairy tales just for fun.Moreover, this is <strong>the</strong> punch l<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> second story: <strong>Jesus</strong>’ followers, whoclaim to be <strong>the</strong> new salt of <strong>the</strong> earth, are noth<strong>in</strong>g but <strong>the</strong> afterbirth of thatimag<strong>in</strong>ed offspr<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> mule, a fiction of a fiction. Read this way, ourtwo little Bavli stories become <strong>in</strong>deed much more than an amus<strong>in</strong>g exchangebetween <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong> Greek Sages; ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y offer ano<strong>the</strong>rbit<strong>in</strong>g ridicule of one of <strong>the</strong> cornerstones of Christian <strong>the</strong>ology.
2. The Son/Disciple Who Turned out BadlyThe next stage <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>’ “career,” of which we f<strong>in</strong>d an echo <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>,is his appearance as a quite grown-up son or disciple. To besure, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> does not convey any <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ grow<strong>in</strong>gup <strong>in</strong> his family or his youth, let alone about his education and his teachers;it just mentions him, aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g, as an example of a son or a disciplewho turns out badly—<strong>the</strong> nightmare of any decent parent. Interest<strong>in</strong>glyenough, <strong>the</strong> New Testament, too, does not tell us much about <strong>Jesus</strong>’childhood: Mat<strong>the</strong>w moves directly from his return from Egypt with hisparents after Herod’s death to his baptism as an adult <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jordan byJohn <strong>the</strong> Baptist, his temptation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> desert, and <strong>the</strong>n to his first publicappearance <strong>in</strong> Galilee; Mark starts with his baptism, temptation, and firstpublic appearance; and John opens his narrative with John <strong>the</strong> Baptist’stestimony about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ mission and his first disciples. It is only Luke whorelates <strong>the</strong> story about <strong>the</strong> twelve-year-old <strong>Jesus</strong> who, <strong>in</strong>stead of jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g hisparents on <strong>the</strong>ir trip back from Jerusalem to Nazareth, prefers to staycalmly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple among <strong>the</strong> teachers <strong>in</strong> order to listen to <strong>the</strong>m and toask <strong>the</strong>m questions (Lk. 2:46).The talmudic story about <strong>the</strong> wicked son/disciple is preserved <strong>in</strong> twodifferent contexts. The first, <strong>in</strong> Bavli Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> 103a, presents itself as anexegesis of Psalm 91:10: 1
26 Chapter 2Rav Hisda said <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of R. Yirmeya bar Abba: What is meantby <strong>the</strong> verse: No evil (ra
The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 27literary mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> phrase is “to cause burn<strong>in</strong>g to a dish,” that is, tomake a dish <strong>in</strong>edible by oversalt<strong>in</strong>g 6 or overspic<strong>in</strong>g it. 7 This literal mean<strong>in</strong>gcan hardly be <strong>the</strong> misdeed of which <strong>the</strong> son/disciple is accused.Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> symmetrical structure of Rav Hisda’s exegesis actually requiresthat “burn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dish” has someth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>the</strong> son’s/disciple’s sexualrelationship to his wife, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words that some k<strong>in</strong>d of sexual misconductis at stake here:a. evil: evil (sexual) <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation/plague: doubtful menstrual status of<strong>the</strong> wifeb. evil: bad (sexual) dreams and thoughts/plague: he does someth<strong>in</strong>g tohis wife(?)In order to elucidate <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of our strange phrase fur<strong>the</strong>r, let us lookat some parallels. A similar phrase is used <strong>in</strong> a discussion between <strong>the</strong>houses of Hillel and Shammai regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>the</strong> proper reasonfor a man to divorce his wife: accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> house of Shammai aman should divorce his wife only when he has found her guilty of someunseemly conduct, whereas accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> house of Hillel a man mayhave sufficient grounds for divorce “if she has spoilt his food” (hiqdihatavshilo: m Git 9:10). It does not seem very likely that <strong>the</strong> wife’s spoil<strong>in</strong>g herhusband’s food simply refers to prepar<strong>in</strong>g some oversalted or overspiceddishes. The controversy between Hillel and Shammai rests on a differentunderstand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> biblical proof text for <strong>the</strong>ir legal reason<strong>in</strong>g: “If a mantakes a wife and has <strong>in</strong>tercourse with her, and it happens that she fails toplease him because he f<strong>in</strong>ds some unseemly th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> her—he writes her abill of divorcement, hands it to her and sends her away from his house”(Deut. 24:1). What is translated here as “some unseemly th<strong>in</strong>g” is <strong>in</strong> Hebrew
28 Chapter 2husband can present aga<strong>in</strong>st his wife (like spoil<strong>in</strong>g his d<strong>in</strong>ner), but anyth<strong>in</strong>gthat has to do with fornication.This sexual context becomes even clearer if we take <strong>in</strong>to considerationthat <strong>the</strong> Hebrew word for <strong>the</strong> spoiled “dish” (tavshil) acquires <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavlialso <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>tercourse. Thus <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> relates of Rav Kahana(a Babylonian amora of <strong>the</strong> second generation and student of Rav, whowent to Palest<strong>in</strong>e):Rav Kahana once went <strong>in</strong> and hid under Rav’s bed. He heard himchatt<strong>in</strong>g (with his wife) and jok<strong>in</strong>g and do<strong>in</strong>g what he required (hav<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>tercourse with her). He (Rav Kahana) said to him (Rav): “Onewould th<strong>in</strong>k that Abba’s 9 mouth had never sipped <strong>the</strong> dish before(śaref tavshila).” He (Rav) said to him (R. Kahana): “Kahana, are youhere? Get out because this is not what one is supposed to do!” He (RavKahana) replied: “It is a matter of Torah, and I require to learn!” 10Here <strong>the</strong> phrase “to sip/swallow <strong>the</strong> dish” undoubtedly refers to perform<strong>in</strong>gsexual <strong>in</strong>tercourse. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, if a woman “spoils his [her husband’s]dish,” she does someth<strong>in</strong>g that prohibits him from hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tercoursewith her—most likely some sexual misconduct that compromisesher as well as his reputation. In <strong>the</strong> case of our son or disciple it is <strong>the</strong> manwho spoils his dish, mean<strong>in</strong>g that he does someth<strong>in</strong>g that prohibits herfrom hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tercourse with him—aga<strong>in</strong> presumably some sexual misconductthat compromises his as well as her reputation. The effect of thismisconduct on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> son/disciple is <strong>in</strong>tensified by <strong>the</strong> fact that hedoes so <strong>in</strong> public, mak<strong>in</strong>g it impossible for her to ignore it.Seen with<strong>in</strong> this wider context <strong>the</strong> message of Rav Hisda’s exegesis of<strong>the</strong> Psalm verse seems to be: <strong>the</strong> worst plague is a son or disciple who publiclyleads a licentious life by which he compromises himself and his poorwife. It is hardly by co<strong>in</strong>cidence that this <strong>in</strong>terpretation comes from <strong>the</strong>same Rav Hisda who told us that <strong>Jesus</strong>’ mo<strong>the</strong>r had a husband as well as alover and that <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>the</strong> son of her lover. Now we learn: this <strong>Jesus</strong> isn’tany better than his mo<strong>the</strong>r—it’s <strong>in</strong> his blood. He is so spoiled that he hasbecome <strong>the</strong> proverbial son or disciple who is unfaithful to his wife and adisgrace to his parents or his teachers. 11 This is quite an unexpected turn<strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life that goes far beyond <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative—unless
The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 29one wants to follow <strong>the</strong> later identification of Mary Magdalene with <strong>the</strong>unknown “immoral woman” <strong>in</strong> Luke (7:36–50), 12 who wets <strong>Jesus</strong>’ feetwith her tears, wipes <strong>the</strong>m with her hair, kisses <strong>the</strong>m, and ano<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>the</strong>mwith myrrh (7:38). The Pharisees, who observe this scene, know her as aprostitute (7:39) and want to use this fact as proof that <strong>Jesus</strong> is no realprophet as he claims (because he did not seem to know what k<strong>in</strong>d ofwoman she was), but <strong>Jesus</strong>, see<strong>in</strong>g through <strong>the</strong>ir bad <strong>in</strong>tentions, publiclyforgives <strong>the</strong> woman her s<strong>in</strong>s and thus reveals that he did know of her badreputation. The <strong>Talmud</strong> could aga<strong>in</strong> have <strong>in</strong>verted this New Testamentstory and <strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uated that <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>deed knew her—but not <strong>in</strong> order to forgiveher her s<strong>in</strong>s and to unmask <strong>the</strong> Pharisees; ra<strong>the</strong>r, he knew her forwhat she really was (a prostitute) because he had an affair with her.Ano<strong>the</strong>r, and slightly different, possible background for <strong>the</strong> talmudicstory could be <strong>the</strong> tradition preserved <strong>in</strong> some gnostic texts about MaryMagdalene. This is <strong>the</strong> tradition that has even made it <strong>in</strong>to recent fiction,13 namely that <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>in</strong>deed married—and to no less a personthan Mary Magdalene. The gnostic library from Nag Hammadi conta<strong>in</strong>sa “Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” presumably from <strong>the</strong> second centuryC.E., <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> jealous apostle Peter addresses her as someone whom<strong>Jesus</strong> loved more than <strong>the</strong> rest of women. 14 The “Gospel of Philip” (secondhalf of <strong>the</strong> third century C.E.?) calls her his “companion” 15 and emphasizesthat <strong>Jesus</strong> not only loved her more than all <strong>the</strong> disciples but tha<strong>the</strong> “[used to] kiss her [often] on her [ ...].” 16 Unfortunately <strong>the</strong> last wordis miss<strong>in</strong>g, but it is highly probable that <strong>the</strong> word “mouth” must beadded. 17 With<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> gnostic writ<strong>in</strong>gs it isn’t very likely, however,that a pla<strong>in</strong> conjugal relationship is at stake here. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it seemsthat <strong>the</strong> “companion” (ko<strong>in</strong>onos, a Greek loanword <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Coptic text)refers not to “spouse” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> technical sense of <strong>the</strong> word but to “sister” <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> spiritual sense of <strong>the</strong> gnostic fellowship, just as <strong>the</strong> “kiss” does not referto a sexual relationship but to a kiss of fellowship. 18 Yet one can easilysee how this read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative could be turned—not only <strong>in</strong> modern fiction but already <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> source used by <strong>the</strong><strong>Talmud</strong>—<strong>in</strong>to a tradition about <strong>Jesus</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g married to Mary Magdalene.Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> wicked son/student <strong>Jesus</strong> was unfaithful to his spouse MaryMagdalene or had <strong>in</strong>tercourse with her dur<strong>in</strong>g her Niddah, or whe<strong>the</strong>r<strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> wants to imply that <strong>the</strong> marriage with Mary Magdalene as
30 Chapter 2such was suspicious (because she was a prostitute), or whe<strong>the</strong>r it wants toread its source creatively and to understand “sister” literally (<strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uat<strong>in</strong>gsome k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>in</strong>cestuous relationship)—<strong>the</strong>re is quite a variety of nasty implicationsto choose from. Whichever one wishes to adopt, <strong>the</strong> possibilitythat <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> might respond to a tradition that is preserved only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>gnostic 19 literature is <strong>in</strong> itself remarkable enough.The second context (b Ber 17a–b) <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> presents <strong>the</strong>story of <strong>the</strong> wicked son/disciple is an exegesis of Psalm 144:14: “Our oxenare well loaded (allufenu mesubbalim). There is no breach (peretz) andno go<strong>in</strong>g forth (yotzet), and no outcry (tzewahah) <strong>in</strong> our streets.” Like <strong>the</strong>first one, it is connected with Rav Hisda:When <strong>the</strong> rabbis took leave from <strong>the</strong> school of Rav Hisda—o<strong>the</strong>rssay, from <strong>the</strong> school of R. Shemuel bar Nahmani—<strong>the</strong>y said to him(Rav Hisda):Our oxen are well loaded (Ps. 144:14)—(this means): we are <strong>in</strong>structed,we are well loaded. 20Rav and Shemuel—o<strong>the</strong>rs say, R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar—(givedifferent explanations of this).One says: We are <strong>in</strong>structed (ibid.)—(this means): we are <strong>in</strong>structed<strong>in</strong> Torah.We are well loaded (ibid.)—(this means): we are well loaded withprecepts.The o<strong>the</strong>r says: We are <strong>in</strong>structed—(this means): we are <strong>in</strong>structed<strong>in</strong> Torah and precepts.We are well loaded—(this means): we are well loaded with chastisements.21There is no breach (ibid.)—(this means): may our company notbe like that of David, from whom issued Ahitophel.And no go<strong>in</strong>g forth (ibid.)—(this means): may our company notbe like that of Saul, from whom issued Doeg <strong>the</strong> Edomite.And no outcry (ibid.)—(this means): may our company not belike that of Elisha, from whom issued Gehazi.In our streets (ibid.)—(this means): that we shall not have a son ora disciple who publicly spoils his food/dish (maqdiah tavshilo) like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene (Yeshu ha-Notzri). 22
The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 31Here <strong>Jesus</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ds himself <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> not particularly flatter<strong>in</strong>g company ofAhitophel, Doeg, and Gehazi. What is it that <strong>the</strong>y did and why are <strong>the</strong>yregarded as prime examples of bad company? First of all, <strong>the</strong> emphasis <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> present context is on disciples and not on sons: <strong>the</strong> students leave<strong>the</strong> school of Rav Hisda, are well loaded with Torah and precepts,and dread a “breach,” “go<strong>in</strong>g forth,” and “outcry” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir “streets” (i.e.,among <strong>the</strong>m), mean<strong>in</strong>g someone <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir company who produces an unworthystudent/follower. The examples are taken from no lesser “companions”than David, Saul, and Elisha. David “produced” Ahitophel, hisunfaithful adviser, who advised David’s son Absalom to rebel aga<strong>in</strong>st hisfa<strong>the</strong>r by hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tercourse with his concub<strong>in</strong>es (2 Sam. 16:20–23) andto kill David (2 Sam. 17:2); when his counsel was rejected, he committedsuicide (2 Sam. 17:23). Doeg <strong>the</strong> Edomite was <strong>the</strong> overseer overSaul’s shepherds (1 Sam. 21:8) and loyal to K<strong>in</strong>g Saul: he <strong>in</strong>formed Saulthat <strong>the</strong> priests of Nob had supported David (1 Sam. 22:9f.) and killed<strong>the</strong> priests on Saul’s request (1 Sam. 22:18f.). And f<strong>in</strong>ally Gehazi was <strong>the</strong>servant of <strong>the</strong> prophet Elisha whom Elisha cursed with leprosy becauseof his greed (2 K<strong>in</strong>gs 5:20–27). <strong>Jesus</strong> clearly does not orig<strong>in</strong>ally belong tothis list because he breaks <strong>the</strong> pattern of <strong>the</strong> preced<strong>in</strong>g examples (“mayour company not be like that of X, from which issued Y”): his master isnot mentioned because <strong>the</strong>re was no appropriate candidate <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible;<strong>in</strong>stead he is just <strong>in</strong>troduced as a bad son or disciple with <strong>the</strong> same phraseas <strong>in</strong> b Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>. This makes it quite clear that <strong>the</strong> context <strong>in</strong> b Berakhotis secondary.Such a conclusion based on <strong>the</strong> literary analysis of <strong>the</strong> story does notaffect, however, <strong>the</strong> message of <strong>the</strong> version preserved <strong>in</strong> b Berakhot. 23 Atfirst glance it simply reuses <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> dictum with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of a list of“bad companions” all taken from <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible without add<strong>in</strong>g substantialnew <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>Jesus</strong>. But this is only part of <strong>the</strong> evidence.Look<strong>in</strong>g at it aga<strong>in</strong> and tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to consideration <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al context of<strong>the</strong> “bad companions,” it becomes clear that our version is <strong>in</strong> fact a veryclever remodel<strong>in</strong>g of a much earlier story. Our three “bad companions”are s<strong>in</strong>gled out, toge<strong>the</strong>r with Balaam as <strong>the</strong> fourth and most prom<strong>in</strong>entculprit, already <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> famous passage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna of <strong>the</strong> four “commoners,”who have no portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come. 24 The Mishna, afterhav<strong>in</strong>g stated categorically that “all Israel have a portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to
32 Chapter 2come” (Sanh 10:1), 25 never<strong>the</strong>less lists <strong>the</strong> exceptions of those who “haveno portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come”:1. One who ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that resurrection is not <strong>in</strong>timated [<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Torah]; 26that <strong>the</strong> Torah is not (revealed) from heaven;<strong>the</strong> Apikoros 27 (this part is transmitted anonymously).2. One who reads “external books”; 28one who whispers over a wound (transmitted by R. Aqiva).One who pronounces <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e name accord<strong>in</strong>g to its letters 29(transmitted by Abba Shaul).3. Three k<strong>in</strong>gs: Jeroboam, Ahab, Manasseh;Four commoners: Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi (aga<strong>in</strong> transmittedanonymously).From this Mishna it becomes clear that Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi(and <strong>in</strong> addition Balaam) are listed toge<strong>the</strong>r because <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> onlyfour private <strong>in</strong>dividuals (<strong>in</strong> contrast to three k<strong>in</strong>gs) who are excluded fromwhat is actually, as <strong>the</strong> Mishna ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s, reserved for all of Israel. Theanonymous author of <strong>the</strong> Mishna does not give any justification for hisharsh verdict; we need to turn to <strong>the</strong> Bible to f<strong>in</strong>d out what is so peculiarlydreadful about <strong>the</strong>m that <strong>the</strong>y are excluded from <strong>the</strong> world to come. Wehave seen already what was <strong>the</strong> rabbis’ concern with Doeg, Ahitophel,and Gehazi. Balaam, <strong>the</strong> fourth culprit, is portrayed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> talmudic traditionas a pagan magician who never<strong>the</strong>less, when asked by <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g ofMoab to curse <strong>the</strong> Israelites, did just <strong>the</strong> opposite and uttered div<strong>in</strong>e bless<strong>in</strong>gs(Num. 23; 24). There is noth<strong>in</strong>g wrong with this, and hence <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>praises him as a genu<strong>in</strong>e prophet among <strong>the</strong> nations. 30 On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rhand he is regarded as utterly wicked, because it was he who enticed Israel<strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> idolatry of Baal-Peor (Num. 25; 31:16). 31 That our text <strong>in</strong> bBerakhot leaves Balaam out is a tacit response to a problem apparent already<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna: How is it that <strong>the</strong> Mishna counts Balaam amongthose who have no portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come when discuss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> fateof Israel? Balaam after all was a pagan and not an Israelite! 32Whatever <strong>the</strong> four culprits <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna did—<strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> only four
The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 33commoners <strong>in</strong> history who are bound toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> horrible dest<strong>in</strong>y ofbe<strong>in</strong>g categorically excluded from <strong>the</strong> world to come. Now <strong>the</strong> very factthat our talmudic text puts <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>in</strong>stead of Balaam) <strong>in</strong> this company canonly have <strong>the</strong> purpose of hav<strong>in</strong>g him share <strong>the</strong> dest<strong>in</strong>y of his companions,namely to have no portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come. This, however, is anyth<strong>in</strong>gbut an <strong>in</strong>nocent statement. To be denied an afterlife is bad enough,but to deprive <strong>Jesus</strong>, of all persons, an afterlife reveals quite a wickedsense of humor. Did not his followers claim that he was resurrected(Rom. 8:34) and that <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>the</strong> new Israel would be saved onlythrough him (Rom. 6:3–11)? By <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> among <strong>the</strong> very few of Israelwho are categorically and on pr<strong>in</strong>ciple denied access to <strong>the</strong> world tocome, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> makes a very forceful and bold argument. It is difficultto imag<strong>in</strong>e that such a statement is co<strong>in</strong>cidental and not, on <strong>the</strong> contrary,a deliberate response to <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s claim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ resurrectionand his followers’ participation <strong>in</strong> his dest<strong>in</strong>y. Hence, what <strong>the</strong> talmudicpassage wants to convey <strong>in</strong> reality is <strong>the</strong> message that not only <strong>Jesus</strong> is excludedfrom <strong>the</strong> world to come but that all of his followers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ChristianChurch share this devastat<strong>in</strong>g verdict with him.In transferr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dictum about <strong>Jesus</strong> publicly spoil<strong>in</strong>g his food to <strong>the</strong>tradition of those who have no share <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come (and <strong>in</strong> replac<strong>in</strong>gBalaam with <strong>Jesus</strong>) <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> considerably changes its mean<strong>in</strong>g.The orig<strong>in</strong>ally sexual connotation recedes <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> background; <strong>in</strong>stead, ifwe take <strong>the</strong> Balaam connection seriously, <strong>the</strong> accusation of idolatry becomesprom<strong>in</strong>ent—although, to be sure, <strong>the</strong> idolatry of Baal-Peor, <strong>in</strong>towhich Balaam enticed Israel, is clearly sexually oriented. <strong>Jesus</strong>-Balaam isnow <strong>the</strong> paragon of an idolater, who spoiled his food by entic<strong>in</strong>g all of Israel<strong>in</strong>to idolatry. He did it “<strong>in</strong> our streets,” that is, as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> expla<strong>in</strong>s,publicly and unabashedly—just as Balaam did, his “master” and model.
3. The Frivolous Disciple<strong>Jesus</strong>’ role as a disciple and his relationship with his teacher is <strong>the</strong> subjectof yet ano<strong>the</strong>r colorful story preserved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli. This time <strong>Jesus</strong> hasa teacher explicitly mentioned by name and is coupled only with Gehazi,one of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r ill-behaved disciples known from <strong>the</strong> Bible whom we encountered<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous story. The fate of both Gehazi and <strong>Jesus</strong> is putunder <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic maxim: “Let <strong>the</strong> left hand push away but <strong>the</strong> righthand always draw near!” 1 Their teachers are now presented as prime examplesof (bad) teachers who did not follow this maxim but pushed <strong>the</strong>irstudents away with both <strong>the</strong>ir hands and did not help <strong>the</strong>m to mend <strong>the</strong>irwrongdo<strong>in</strong>g: “Not as Elisha, who pushed Gehazi away with both hands,and not as Yehoshua b. Perahya, who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaywith both hands.” 2We know Elisha as Gehazi’s master/teacher from <strong>the</strong> Bible—but whatabout <strong>the</strong> strange connection of <strong>Jesus</strong> with Yehoshua b. Perahya? The <strong>Talmud</strong>expla<strong>in</strong>s as follows:What was <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cident with Yehoshua b. Perahya? When K<strong>in</strong>g Yannaikilled <strong>the</strong> rabbis, 3 R. Yehoshua b. Perahya 4 fled to EgyptianAlexandria. When <strong>the</strong>re was peace, Shimon b. Shetah sent (<strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>gmessage):
The Frivolous Disciple 35“From Jerusalem, <strong>the</strong> Holy City, to you, Alexandria <strong>in</strong> Egypt. Omy sister, my husband dwells <strong>in</strong> your midst, and I rema<strong>in</strong> desolate!”He [Yehoshua b. Perahya] arose, went and found himself <strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>n. They paid him great respect. He said: “How beautiful isthis <strong>in</strong>n/<strong>in</strong>nkeeper (akhsanya)!” He [one of his disciples/<strong>Jesus</strong>] 5 said:“Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.” 6 He [Yehoshua b. Perahya] replied:“(You) wicked (student), do you occupy yourself with such (athought)?!” He sounded 400 Shofar blasts and excommunicated him.He [<strong>the</strong> disciple] came before him [<strong>the</strong> rabbi] several times (and)said to him: “Receive me!”, but he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] refused totake notice. One day, while he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] was recit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>Shema, he [<strong>the</strong> disciple] came (aga<strong>in</strong>) before him. (This time) he[Yehoshua b. Perahya] wanted to receive him (and) made a sign tohim with his hand. But he [<strong>the</strong> disciple] thought that he [Yehoshua b.Perahya] was aga<strong>in</strong> repell<strong>in</strong>g him. He [<strong>the</strong> disciple] went, set up abrick and worshipped it. He [Yehoshua b. Perahya] said to him [<strong>the</strong>student]: “Repent!”, (but) he answered him: “Thus have I learnedfrom you: Whoever s<strong>in</strong>s and causes o<strong>the</strong>rs to s<strong>in</strong>, is deprived of <strong>the</strong>power of do<strong>in</strong>g penitence.”The master said: “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 7 practiced magic and deceivedand led Israel astray.”This story 8 is situated dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> reign of <strong>the</strong> Hasmonean k<strong>in</strong>g (Alexander)Yannai, who ruled from 103 until 76 B.C.E. and who became entangled<strong>in</strong> a bloody conflict with <strong>the</strong> Pharisees. The Pharisees, who opposedhis rule, <strong>in</strong>stigated an open rebellion aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g that climaxed <strong>in</strong> acivil war. When <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>ally succeeded <strong>in</strong> suppress<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> rebellion,his opponents were ei<strong>the</strong>r executed or forced to leave <strong>the</strong> country. Theseevents are reported <strong>in</strong> detail by <strong>the</strong> Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, 9and <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic story is a fa<strong>in</strong>t echo <strong>the</strong>reof, anachronistically identify<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> Pharisees with <strong>the</strong> much later rabbis. The hero of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic narrative,of which our story is a part, is Shimon b. Shetah.Both Yehoshua b. Perahya and Shimon b. Shetah belong to <strong>the</strong> enigmatic“pairs” (zugot) that are affiliated with <strong>the</strong> famous “cha<strong>in</strong> of tradition,”connect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> leaders of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism with <strong>the</strong> revelation of
36 Chapter 3<strong>the</strong> Torah to Moses on Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai. 10 After hav<strong>in</strong>g established <strong>the</strong> cha<strong>in</strong>of tradition from Moses through <strong>the</strong> members of <strong>the</strong> “Great Assembly,”<strong>the</strong> Mishna proceeds first with certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuals (Shimon <strong>the</strong> Righteous,Antigonos from Sokho) and <strong>the</strong>n with altoge<strong>the</strong>r five “pairs,” all of<strong>the</strong>m shrouded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mists of history, reach<strong>in</strong>g safer historical groundonly with <strong>the</strong> last pair (Hillel and Shammai). Yehoshua b. Perahya belongsto <strong>the</strong> second “pair” (toge<strong>the</strong>r with Nittai ha-Arbeli), whereas Shimonb. Shetah forms (toge<strong>the</strong>r with Yehuda b. Tabbai) <strong>the</strong> third one.Except for Shimon b. Shetah and Hillel/Shammai, little is knownabout <strong>the</strong>se early “pairs,” who are presented as <strong>the</strong> “forefa<strong>the</strong>rs” of <strong>the</strong> rabbis.And why of all possible candidates Yehoshua b. Perahya is chosen as<strong>the</strong> one who fled to Egypt (presumably toge<strong>the</strong>r with his favorite student)rema<strong>in</strong>s dubious. 11 A more plausible (although not necessarily historicallymore reliable) sett<strong>in</strong>g is suggested by <strong>the</strong> parallel version of our story <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> Yerushalmi. 12 There, <strong>the</strong> heroes of <strong>the</strong> story are Yehuda b.Tabbai and Shimon b. Shetah, <strong>the</strong> third “pair,” and it is Yehuda b. Tabbai,who flees to Alexandria—not because of K<strong>in</strong>g Yannai’s persecution of<strong>the</strong> Pharisees/rabbis but for a much more mundane reason: he wanted toescape his appo<strong>in</strong>tment as naśi (Patriarch) of <strong>the</strong> Jewish people. This isbut ano<strong>the</strong>r anachronistic attempt of <strong>the</strong> rabbis to backdate a later (secondcentury C.E.) rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>in</strong>stitution to a much earlier period, but atleast it expla<strong>in</strong>s why Shimon b. Shetah so desperately wanted him to returnto Jerusalem. 13The framework plot of our narrative, <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> Bavli and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Yerushalmi versions, does not help much to understand and to locate historically<strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong> story: <strong>the</strong> strange <strong>in</strong>cident between a teacher(Yehoshua b. Perahya/Yehuda b. Tabbai) and his favorite student (anonymous/<strong>Jesus</strong>).The <strong>in</strong>cident occurs <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>n on <strong>the</strong>ir way back toJerusalem. 14 Satisfied with how <strong>the</strong>y are received, <strong>the</strong> master praises <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>n, but his student, misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g him as prais<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> (female)<strong>in</strong>nkeeper, 15 makes a disparag<strong>in</strong>g remark about <strong>the</strong> less than beautiful appearanceof <strong>the</strong> lady. The master is horrified by his student’s frivolousthoughts 16 and immediately excommunicates him. The poor student triesto appease his master but <strong>in</strong>itially <strong>in</strong> va<strong>in</strong>. When <strong>the</strong> master f<strong>in</strong>ally isready to forgive him, <strong>the</strong> student misunderstands his body language, 17leaves <strong>the</strong> master <strong>in</strong> despair and becomes an idolater. Now <strong>the</strong> master
The Frivolous Disciple 37begs him to repent, but <strong>the</strong> student is conv<strong>in</strong>ced that he has committed acapital s<strong>in</strong>, which forever excludes penitence and forgiveness.This last part of <strong>the</strong> story (<strong>the</strong> excommunication of <strong>the</strong> student and <strong>the</strong>aborted repentance as well as <strong>the</strong> master’s conclusion about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ magic)is completely lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi, where <strong>the</strong> story concludes with<strong>the</strong> remark that <strong>the</strong> master becomes angry and that <strong>the</strong> student leaves himor (<strong>in</strong> one manuscript) 18 dies.It is obvious that <strong>the</strong> identification of <strong>the</strong> student with <strong>Jesus</strong> reflects alater stage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> development of <strong>the</strong> story: it is lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmiversion and attested only <strong>in</strong> some manuscripts of <strong>the</strong> Bavli version. Therecan be no doubt, <strong>the</strong>refore, that Yehoshua b. Perahya, whatever historicalreality stands beh<strong>in</strong>d this figure, has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sensethat <strong>the</strong> story preserves some historically reliable <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>the</strong>founder of Christianity. But this is not what is at stake here. The fact that<strong>Jesus</strong> penetrated <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> story at a later stage does not mean that <strong>the</strong> storydoes not conta<strong>in</strong> any reliable <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s perception of<strong>Jesus</strong>. 19 On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> manuscript evidence clearly shows a tendencydur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> editorial process of <strong>the</strong> Bavli to identify <strong>the</strong> unknownstudent of Yehoshua b. Perahya with <strong>Jesus</strong>, a tendency moreover that ispeculiar to <strong>the</strong> Bavli and must have to do with <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s understand<strong>in</strong>gof <strong>Jesus</strong> and his personality. 20Two features <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> story underl<strong>in</strong>e this assumption. The first is <strong>the</strong>k<strong>in</strong>d of idolatry <strong>the</strong> heretical student adopts when he believes that he hasbeen f<strong>in</strong>ally rejected by his teacher: he worships a brick, a custom thatmarkedly po<strong>in</strong>ts to <strong>the</strong> cultural context of Babylonia. Any attempt to f<strong>in</strong>dbeh<strong>in</strong>d this brick worship some hidden allusions to Christian practices 21is completely misguided and misses <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t. Our Bavli editor did notknow (and did not care) much about Christian worship and identified <strong>the</strong>idolatry of <strong>Jesus</strong> with what he regarded as idolatry <strong>in</strong> his Babylonianmilieu—brick worship. 22The second dist<strong>in</strong>ctively Babylonian feature is <strong>the</strong> explicit reference tomagic <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> conclud<strong>in</strong>g statement by <strong>the</strong> master. We have seen alreadythat <strong>Jesus</strong> was connected with Egyptian magic (rem<strong>in</strong>iscent of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fancystory with <strong>the</strong> magicians com<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> East[!] and <strong>the</strong> subsequentflight of <strong>Jesus</strong> and his parents to Egypt <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospel of Mat<strong>the</strong>w); now weare <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> center of Babylonia, <strong>the</strong> most ancient mo<strong>the</strong>rland of magic,
38 Chapter 3and <strong>Jesus</strong>’ idolatry is identified as what many Babylonian Jews would haveexpected an idolater to do: to practice deviant or forbidden k<strong>in</strong>ds of magic.However, <strong>the</strong> master’s pious condemnation of magic cannot conceal <strong>the</strong>fact that magic was regarded as perfectly acceptable and was widespread,not least <strong>in</strong> Babylonia. The many magical bowls from Mesopotamia,which were written <strong>in</strong> all likelihood by Jewish practitioners of magic, attestto this. 23Most remarkable, among <strong>the</strong> names that appear on <strong>the</strong>se Babylonianmagic bowls are no less famous ones than our Yehoshua b. Perahya and,<strong>in</strong>deed, <strong>Jesus</strong>. Yehoshua b. Perahya issues a letter of divorce to femaledemons <strong>in</strong> order to stop <strong>the</strong>ir evil deeds—<strong>the</strong> prime example of a potentmagician whose decree is sanctioned <strong>in</strong> heaven. 24 Clearly not by co<strong>in</strong>cidence,he appears also <strong>in</strong> some fragments of <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>famous<strong>Jesus</strong> narrative. 25 <strong>Jesus</strong> has been discovered on a magic bowl publishedby Montgomery, 26 and recently Dan Levene has added ano<strong>the</strong>rone from <strong>the</strong> Moussaieff collection. 27 The bowl (a curse) is written <strong>in</strong> JewishBabylonian Aramaic and po<strong>in</strong>ts to <strong>the</strong> cultural context of SasanianPersia: 28By <strong>the</strong> name of I-Am-that-I-Am (ehyeh asher ehyeh), <strong>the</strong> Lord ofHosts (YHWH Tzevaot), and by <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> (> Ishu), who conquered<strong>the</strong> height and <strong>the</strong> depth by his cross, and by <strong>the</strong> name of hisexalted fa<strong>the</strong>r, and by <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> holy spirits forever and <strong>in</strong> eternity.Amen, amen, selah. 29This is a quite common adjuration that uses <strong>the</strong> most powerful names ofGod <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible, <strong>the</strong> “I-Am-that-I-Am” from Exodus 3:14 (<strong>the</strong>name communicated to Moses by God), and <strong>the</strong> tetragrammaton YHWH(<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> frequent comb<strong>in</strong>ation “<strong>the</strong> Lord of Hosts”). What is unique, however,is <strong>the</strong> addition not only of <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> unusual spell<strong>in</strong>g >Ishu) 30 butalso of <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit, 31 that is, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>vocation of <strong>the</strong> ChristianTr<strong>in</strong>ity after <strong>the</strong> God of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible. Shaul Shaked has discussed<strong>the</strong> implications of this reference to <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>in</strong> a bowl written<strong>in</strong> Jewish Aramaic and has conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly concluded that our bowl was <strong>in</strong>deedwritten by a Jew. 32 Yet this does not necessarily mean that <strong>the</strong> bowlwas written for a Jew; ra<strong>the</strong>r, he suggests, that <strong>the</strong> clients who ordered <strong>the</strong>
The Frivolous Disciple 39bowl were Zoroastrians and that <strong>the</strong>ir opponent, aga<strong>in</strong>st whom <strong>the</strong> curseshould be directed, was a Christian. 33 Hence, <strong>the</strong> Jewish writer of <strong>the</strong>bowl used <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> curse <strong>the</strong> most effective magic names he could th<strong>in</strong>k offor a Christian: <strong>the</strong> names of <strong>the</strong> God of <strong>the</strong> Old and New Testaments(from <strong>the</strong> Christian perspective). This does not imply, of course, that <strong>the</strong>Jewish writer believed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity, but it certa<strong>in</strong>ly means tha<strong>the</strong> knew of <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> and believed <strong>in</strong> its magical power.It may well be <strong>the</strong> case, <strong>the</strong>refore, that <strong>the</strong> connection betweenYehoshua b. Perahya and <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli is made through “magic” as <strong>the</strong>common denom<strong>in</strong>ator of both figures: 34 Yehoshua b. Perahya, <strong>the</strong> archmagicianfrom Babylonia and <strong>Jesus</strong>, his master student. The fact that <strong>the</strong>editor of our Bavli sugya turns this <strong>in</strong>to an anti-magic story only proves that<strong>the</strong> connection between <strong>the</strong> two heroes must be older than <strong>the</strong> story <strong>in</strong> itspresent form.F<strong>in</strong>ally, despite <strong>the</strong> critique of <strong>Jesus</strong> and his magic with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> narrativeitself, <strong>the</strong> context <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> Bavli editor puts <strong>the</strong> story is remarkable:he criticizes not <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> magician, but ra<strong>the</strong>r his teacher Yehoshuab. Perahya, who pushes <strong>the</strong> poor student away with both his hands, thatis, f<strong>in</strong>ally and irrevocably, <strong>in</strong>stead of first punish<strong>in</strong>g him (with one hand)and <strong>the</strong>n forgiv<strong>in</strong>g him (with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r). This read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> story by <strong>the</strong>editor is all <strong>the</strong> more ironical as, <strong>in</strong> fact, Yehoshua b. Perahya does wantto receive <strong>Jesus</strong> (wav<strong>in</strong>g with one hand!), and it is <strong>Jesus</strong> who misunderstandsthis gesture as <strong>the</strong> ultimate rejection. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> teachermakes ano<strong>the</strong>r effort to conv<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> student to repent (even after he hasset up his brick worship), and it is aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> student, not <strong>the</strong> teacher, whoconcludes that he is not eligible for repentance because of <strong>the</strong> magnitudeof his s<strong>in</strong>.Altoge<strong>the</strong>r, we observe a strik<strong>in</strong>g sequence of literary layers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavl<strong>in</strong>arrative: first, <strong>the</strong> story of an orig<strong>in</strong>ally anonymous disciple, reprimandedfor his frivolous behavior, who is later identified as <strong>Jesus</strong>. This story is extendedby <strong>the</strong> abortive attempt on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> student to be forgiven byhis teacher (which turns out to be a misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g) and <strong>the</strong> student’sbrick worship as a result of this. A last attempt on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> teacher tosave <strong>the</strong> student fails because of <strong>the</strong> student’s <strong>in</strong>sight that his s<strong>in</strong> forfeits repentance.In what clearly looks like an addendum, <strong>the</strong> “master” identifiesthis s<strong>in</strong> as magic and once aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> student as <strong>Jesus</strong>. F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> Bavli
40 Chapter 3editor puts <strong>the</strong> blame on <strong>the</strong> teacher (Yehoshua b. Perahya), who is ultimatelyresponsible for <strong>the</strong> student’s (<strong>Jesus</strong>’) idolatry. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, accord<strong>in</strong>gto <strong>the</strong> latest editorial layer <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli, it is a dist<strong>in</strong>guished rabbi(no less a figure than one of <strong>the</strong> famous “pairs”), who is responsible for<strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> of Christianity.
4. The Torah TeacherThe <strong>Talmud</strong> does not relate anyth<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life until his veryend, his violent death. It does have, however, some vague notion ofhim as a Torah teacher, and this is quite <strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>Jesus</strong>’ portrayal<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament (see <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> so-called Sermon on <strong>the</strong>Mount <strong>in</strong> Mat<strong>the</strong>w 5–7; accord<strong>in</strong>g to Luke 19:47, <strong>Jesus</strong> was teach<strong>in</strong>g everyday <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple, and “<strong>the</strong> chief priests, <strong>the</strong> scribes, and <strong>the</strong> leaders of <strong>the</strong>people kept look<strong>in</strong>g for a way to kill him”). 1 One story <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli presents<strong>Jesus</strong> as such a Torah teacher, <strong>in</strong> dialogue with <strong>the</strong> contemporary rabbis,and even preserves his halakhic exegesis. In <strong>the</strong> typical rabb<strong>in</strong>ic fashion, histeach<strong>in</strong>g is transmitted through <strong>the</strong> mouth of one of his faithful students.However, what is strik<strong>in</strong>g here is <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> story is not concernedwith <strong>Jesus</strong> himself (and also very little with his student) but ra<strong>the</strong>r with asupposed rabb<strong>in</strong>ic follower of <strong>Jesus</strong> and his teach<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, that itattacks <strong>the</strong> Christian sect through <strong>the</strong> mirror of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic perception ofChristianity. The story appears <strong>in</strong> Bavli Avodah Zarah 16b–17a, but thistime we are <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> possession of earlier Palest<strong>in</strong>ian parallels. 2 I translate <strong>the</strong>Bavli version accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Vilna edition and will refer to <strong>the</strong> variantread<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli manuscripts as well as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parallels where necessary:Our rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of heresy(m<strong>in</strong>ut), <strong>the</strong>y brought him up to <strong>the</strong> tribune to be judged. The
42 Chapter 4[Roman] Governor (hegemon) said to him: “How can an old manlike you occupy himself with such idle th<strong>in</strong>gs?” He [R. Eliezer] answered:“I acknowledge <strong>the</strong> judge as reliable (ne>eman)!” 3 S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>Governor thought that he referred to him—though he really referredto his Fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> Heaven—he said to him: “Because you have acknowledgedme as reliable, 4 dimissus: 5 you are acquitted!”When he [R. Eliezer] came home, his disciples arrived to comforthim, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Aqiva to him:“Master, will you permit me to say one th<strong>in</strong>g of what you have taughtme?” He answered: “Say it!” He [Aqiva] said to him: “Master, perhapsyou encountered (some k<strong>in</strong>d of ) heresy (m<strong>in</strong>ut) and you enjoyedit and because of that you were arrested?” He [R. Eliezer] answeredhim: “Aqiva, you have rem<strong>in</strong>ded me! Once I was walk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> upper market of Sepphoris when I came across 6 someone/one of<strong>the</strong> disciples of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene, 7 and Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah 8was his name.He [Jacob] said to me: 9 It is written <strong>in</strong> your Torah: You shall notbr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> hire of <strong>the</strong> harlot [or <strong>the</strong> pay of a dog <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> house of <strong>the</strong>Lord, your God] (Deut. 23:19). May such money be used for mak<strong>in</strong>ga latr<strong>in</strong>e for <strong>the</strong> High Priest? To which I made no reply.He [Jacob] said to me: Thus was I taught [by <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene]: 10For from <strong>the</strong> hire of a harlot was it ga<strong>the</strong>red 11 and to <strong>the</strong> hire of a harlotshall it 12 return (Mic. 1:7)—it came from a place of filth, and let it returnto a place of filth.This word pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrestedfor heresy (m<strong>in</strong>ut). Because I transgressed what is written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Torah: Keep your way far from her (Prov. 5:8)—this refers to heresy(m<strong>in</strong>ut); and do not come near to <strong>the</strong> door of her house (ibid.)—thisrefers to <strong>the</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g power (rashut).”There are some who say: Keep your way far from her (Prov. 5:8)—this refers to heresy and <strong>the</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g power; 13 and do not come near to<strong>the</strong> door of her house (ibid.)—this refers to <strong>the</strong> harlot. 14And how far (is one to keep away)? Rav Hisda said: Four cubits.This strange story, marked by its <strong>in</strong>troductory formula as a Baraita andhence an early Palest<strong>in</strong>ian tradition, leaves more questions open than it
The Torah Teacher 43answers. First of all, it rema<strong>in</strong>s completely unclear why R. Eliezer was arrestedand what <strong>the</strong> heresy was of which <strong>the</strong> Roman governor suspectedhim. R. Eliezer is <strong>the</strong> famous Eliezer b. Hyrkanos (late first–early secondcentury C.E.), <strong>the</strong> favored disciple of Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai and <strong>the</strong>paragon of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic zeal and determ<strong>in</strong>ation. 15 The Roman authorities,however, certa<strong>in</strong>ly did not arrest him for noth<strong>in</strong>g, yet <strong>the</strong> only accusationwe hear from <strong>the</strong> trial is that he was occupy<strong>in</strong>g himself with “such idleth<strong>in</strong>gs.” 16 The accused even does not bo<strong>the</strong>r to defend himself; he simplyputs his fate <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> hands of <strong>the</strong> heavenly judge. The earthly judge, believ<strong>in</strong>gthat <strong>the</strong> accused refers to him, acquits <strong>the</strong> rabbi.What can <strong>the</strong> “idle th<strong>in</strong>gs” have been with which <strong>the</strong> rabbi was occupy<strong>in</strong>ghimself and which provoked <strong>the</strong> wrath of <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities?Strangely enough, R. Eliezer does not know himself of what he was accusedand he needs one of his students (Aqiva) to rem<strong>in</strong>d him. Evenworse, <strong>the</strong> rabbi seems to accept <strong>the</strong> accusation because—<strong>in</strong>stead of be<strong>in</strong>ghappy about his obviously unexpected release—he needs to be comfortedfor what he did. A clue to <strong>the</strong> mysterious accusation may be found<strong>in</strong> an addition that is preserved only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tosefta Hull<strong>in</strong> version of ourstory. There, <strong>the</strong> governor says: “S<strong>in</strong>ce you have deemed me reliable foryourself, so thus I have said (= ruled): [...] dimissus: you are acquitted!”Unfortunately, what precisely <strong>the</strong> governor says before he reaches his conclusionof dimissus is difficult to understand. The Hebrew text reads: efsharšhsybw hallalu to
44 Chapter 4These [accusers] err with regard to <strong>the</strong>se matters, <strong>the</strong>refore: dimissus:you are acquitted!” 19 Interpreted this way, <strong>the</strong> Roman governor acquitsR. Eliezer of participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a forbidden meal (symposium), ei<strong>the</strong>r aChristian agape or some k<strong>in</strong>d of orgiastic cult (Bacchanalia) or both because<strong>the</strong> Christian meal could easily be misunderstood as a mysteriousand conspiratorial cult with orgiastic rites. 20 The heresy (m<strong>in</strong>ut) of whichhe was accused by some anonymous <strong>in</strong>formers could <strong>the</strong>refore have beenmembership <strong>in</strong> a forbidden cult/Christianity, a serious accusation demand<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention of <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities.If this was <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> case, noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> supposedly heretical teach<strong>in</strong>gthat R. Eliezer hears from Jacob <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> (ben Pandera)and enjoys so much supports such an accusation. Let us have a closerlook at <strong>the</strong> version <strong>in</strong> Qohelet Rabba, which is more detailed and morecoherent. There, Jacob—<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>—argues as follows: 21[Jacob:] “It is written <strong>in</strong> your Torah: You shall not br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> hire of aharlot or <strong>the</strong> pay of a dog 22 <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> house of <strong>the</strong> Lord, your God [<strong>in</strong>payment] for any vow [for both of <strong>the</strong>se are abhorrent to <strong>the</strong> Lord,your God] (Deut. 23:19). What is to be done with <strong>the</strong>m (<strong>the</strong> money)?”I [R. Eliezer] told him: “They are prohibited [for every use].”He [Jacob] said to me: “They are prohibited as an offer<strong>in</strong>g, but itis permissible to dispose of <strong>the</strong>m.”I answered: “In that case, what is to be done with <strong>the</strong>m?”He said to me: “Let bath-houses and privies be made with <strong>the</strong>m.”I answered: “You have well spoken because [this particular] Halakha23 escaped my memory for <strong>the</strong> moment.”When he saw that I acknowledged his words, he said to me: “Thussaid So-and-so (ploni): From filth <strong>the</strong>y came and to filth shall <strong>the</strong>y goout (= on filth <strong>the</strong>y should be expended), as it is said: For from <strong>the</strong>hire of a harlot was it ga<strong>the</strong>red, and to <strong>the</strong> hire of a harlot shall it return(Mic. 1:7)—Let <strong>the</strong>m be spent on privies for <strong>the</strong> public!”This [<strong>in</strong>terpretation] pleased me, and on that account I was arrestedfor heresy (m<strong>in</strong>ut).This is a well argued and perfectly acceptable Halakha: The Bible prohibitsthat money ga<strong>in</strong>ed from prostitution 24 may be used to buy an offer<strong>in</strong>g
The Torah Teacher 45<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple (<strong>in</strong> order to redeem a vow). The question that arises iswhe<strong>the</strong>r this money is forbidden only for cultic purposes but can be usedfor some o<strong>the</strong>r purposes, or whe<strong>the</strong>r it is prohibited altoge<strong>the</strong>r. R. Eliezer,express<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> more str<strong>in</strong>gent halakhic view, prohibits <strong>the</strong> prostitutionmoney altoge<strong>the</strong>r, whereas <strong>Jesus</strong>/Jacob takes <strong>the</strong> more lenient approachand permits <strong>the</strong> money to be spent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> public <strong>in</strong>terest: to build with itbathhouses and privies. Both bathhouses and privies are <strong>in</strong>stitutions thatdeal with <strong>the</strong> disposal of filth—and what better use could be made withmoney that owes its orig<strong>in</strong>s to filth (<strong>the</strong> Bavli almost ironically goes a stepfur<strong>the</strong>r: <strong>the</strong> money may even be used for build<strong>in</strong>g a privy for <strong>the</strong> HighPriest, presumably on <strong>the</strong> site of <strong>the</strong> Temple)? R. Eliezer not only acceptsJacob/<strong>Jesus</strong>’ halakhic rul<strong>in</strong>g but enjoys <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> biblical proof textMicah 1:7 and its application to <strong>the</strong> present case.There is noth<strong>in</strong>g peculiarly Christian about this halakhic discourse.That one rabbi expresses a more str<strong>in</strong>gent and his opponent a more lenientview is commonplace, as is <strong>the</strong> result that <strong>the</strong> more lenient decisionbecomes <strong>the</strong> accepted one. So shall we dismiss R. Eliezer’s own “discovery”—tha<strong>the</strong> was convicted of heresy because he enjoyed this particularhalakhic exposition—as completely unreliable? Two answers to this questionare possible that do not exclude but mutually supplement each o<strong>the</strong>r.The first, and quite obvious, answer is that <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r or not<strong>the</strong> contents of <strong>the</strong> Halakha as such po<strong>in</strong>t to Christianity is irrelevant. Thebiblical command “Remove your way far from her, and do not come nearto <strong>the</strong> door of her house” (Prov. 5:8) refers, accord<strong>in</strong>g to R. Eliezer’s own<strong>in</strong>terpretation, to heresy and <strong>the</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g Roman power. He transgressedthis verdict <strong>in</strong> gett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volved with someone who was known as a studentof <strong>Jesus</strong> and notorious for his heretical views. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, it is not importantwhat has been said and taught but ra<strong>the</strong>r who did it. Even if <strong>the</strong>teach<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> heretic are concordant with <strong>the</strong> rabbis and hence halakhicallycorrect—this does not matter: <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>valid and dangerousbecause <strong>the</strong>y come from a heretic.But still, even if any contact with a heretic is forbidden (<strong>the</strong> correctnessof <strong>the</strong>ir halakhic deductions notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g), this does not seem to be <strong>the</strong>full story. If we take a closer look at <strong>the</strong> biblical verse from Proverbs (5:8),we may discover a deeper mean<strong>in</strong>g. This verse, with which R. Eliezer concludeshis self-search<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> all three versions of our story, orig<strong>in</strong>ally refers
46 Chapter 4to <strong>the</strong> “strange” or “loose woman,” <strong>the</strong> prostitute, whose lips drip honeybut whose end is death (5:3–5). The Tosefta version does not <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong>verse explicitly, 25 but both <strong>the</strong> Bavli and Qohelet Rabba relate one part of<strong>the</strong> verse to heresy and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r part to prostitution. 26 In o<strong>the</strong>r words, if wetake <strong>the</strong> proof text literally, R. Eliezer admits 27 that his guilt consists ofheresy that is connected to prostitution. This <strong>in</strong>terpretation re<strong>in</strong>forces <strong>the</strong>read<strong>in</strong>g of Tosefta Hull<strong>in</strong> where R. Eliezer was suspected of gett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volvednot just with prostitutes (bad enough for such a strict and piousrabbi) but of participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> sexual orgies.The cont<strong>in</strong>uation of <strong>the</strong> “loose woman’s” description <strong>in</strong> Proverbs iseven more conspicuous. In chapter 7 she is explicitly called a prostitutewho lies <strong>in</strong> wait for <strong>the</strong> young man to seduce him (Prov. 7:11–15):She is loud and wayward; her feet do not stay at home;now <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> street, now <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> squares, and at every corner she lies <strong>in</strong>wait.She seizes him and kisses him, and with impudent face she says tohim:I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows;so now I have come out to meet you, to seek you eagerly, and I havefound you!This colorful description of a prostitute is all <strong>the</strong> more remarkable <strong>in</strong> ourcontext, as it establishes a quite unexpected connection between her seductivebehavior and <strong>the</strong> Temple offer<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> very connection Deuteronomy23:19 prohibits and to which Jacob/<strong>Jesus</strong>’ halakhic exegesis <strong>in</strong> ourstory refers. This can hardly be by co<strong>in</strong>cidence. It seems <strong>the</strong>refore that <strong>the</strong>editor of our story wants to imply two th<strong>in</strong>gs: first, R. Eliezer was <strong>in</strong>deedaccused of be<strong>in</strong>g a member of a forbidden (orgiastic) sect; and second, <strong>in</strong>(allegedly) gett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volved with a prostitute, who pays with her whore’swages for her Temple offer<strong>in</strong>g, he <strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>ges <strong>Jesus</strong>’ (and his own) Halakhaaccord<strong>in</strong>g to which such money must not be used for purposes related to<strong>the</strong> Temple.Scholars have tried hard to connect <strong>the</strong> historical R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanoswith nascent Christianity at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> first and <strong>the</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>
The Torah Teacher 47second century C.E. 28 They assume that Jacob, <strong>the</strong> disciple of <strong>Jesus</strong>,could have been ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Jesus</strong>’ bro<strong>the</strong>r James (Mk. 6:3; Mt. 13:55) or <strong>Jesus</strong>’disciple James, <strong>the</strong> son of Alphaeus (Mk. 3:18; Mt. 10:3; Lk. 6:15; Acts1:13; 15:13) and that Eliezer’s trial has to do with persecutions of <strong>the</strong>Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early second century C.E. 29 This, however, presupposesquite a chronological stretch because <strong>the</strong> encounter with Jacob/James <strong>in</strong>Sepphoris must have taken place much earlier than <strong>the</strong> trial (if Jacob isJames, <strong>the</strong> son of Alphaeus, <strong>the</strong> latter was stoned around 62 C.E.): notonly must much time have passed between <strong>the</strong> heretical conspiracy <strong>in</strong>Sepphoris and <strong>the</strong> trial, but R. Eliezer must have lived to a very old agewhen he f<strong>in</strong>ally was put on trial (not to mention <strong>the</strong> fact that it took <strong>the</strong>Roman authorities unseemly long to prosecute his crime).Such a historical reconstruction of R. Eliezer’s heresy and <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ationtoward Christianity is not very likely and an easy victim for Maier’s scholarlyacumen. 30 It is highly improbable that our story reflects an encounterbetween <strong>the</strong> historical R. Eliezer and a historical disciple of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>city of Sepphoris <strong>in</strong> Galilee, let alone that <strong>the</strong> halakhic decision with regardto <strong>the</strong> hire of <strong>the</strong> harlot refers to an au<strong>the</strong>ntic say<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>Jesus</strong>. Butaga<strong>in</strong>, this is not what is at stake here. The refutation of such crude andpositivistic historicity does not mean that <strong>the</strong> story does not reflect somek<strong>in</strong>d of reality, more precisely some rabb<strong>in</strong>ic awareness of <strong>Jesus</strong> andChristianity. The name of <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pandera/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene) iswell attested <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> manuscripts, and Maier’s attempts to throw it out of<strong>the</strong> text or to declare it as later additions 31 are ra<strong>the</strong>r forced. It is <strong>the</strong>reforeplausible to argue that <strong>the</strong> story has <strong>in</strong>deed someth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong>(<strong>Jesus</strong>’ teach<strong>in</strong>gs) and that R. Eliezer’s heresy does refer to Christianity.The real question, <strong>the</strong>refore, is: what precisely is this reality with regardto Christianity that <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources reveal? Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Boyar<strong>in</strong>—who boldly and without fur<strong>the</strong>r ado takes it for granted that R. Eliezer wasarrested for Christianity 32 —our story reflects <strong>the</strong> early rabb<strong>in</strong>ic discoursewith <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g Christianity (which was still regarded as part of Judaism),its simultaneous attraction to and repulsion from Christianity. 33R. Eliezer is <strong>the</strong> “very figure of lim<strong>in</strong>ality,” who personifies <strong>the</strong> tension betweenrabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism and Christianity; through him <strong>the</strong> rabbis are“both recogniz<strong>in</strong>g and deny<strong>in</strong>g at one and <strong>the</strong> same time that Christians areus, mark<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> virtual identity between <strong>the</strong>mselves and <strong>the</strong> Christians
48 Chapter 4<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir world at <strong>the</strong> same time that <strong>the</strong>y are very actively seek<strong>in</strong>g to establishdifference.” 34This is certa<strong>in</strong>ly correct, and Boyar<strong>in</strong> takes great pa<strong>in</strong>s to assure <strong>the</strong>reader that he does not follow oversimplistic positivistic models but ra<strong>the</strong>r“new methodologies,” accord<strong>in</strong>g to which R. Eliezer “no longer is a historicalcharacter <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first century, but a ‘fictional’ character <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> thirdcentury,” and that he draws historical conclusions “not about events butabout ideologies, social movements, cultural constructions, and particularlyrepressions.” 35 Nobody would want to object to such an approach today:not <strong>the</strong> event as <strong>the</strong> firm and provable historical “fact” is at stake butwhat has developed around <strong>the</strong> event <strong>in</strong> all its complexity and historicalramifications. 36 Yet we should not draw too firm a l<strong>in</strong>e between <strong>the</strong> “historical”and <strong>the</strong> “fictional” character, between <strong>the</strong> “event” and <strong>the</strong> “culturalconstruction.” Both belong closely toge<strong>the</strong>r, and even at <strong>the</strong> risk ofrelaps<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> bad habits of positivism I want to posit that <strong>the</strong> rabbiswith <strong>the</strong>ir stories, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> present one, reveal more than just <strong>the</strong>awareness (and recognition) of <strong>the</strong> break<strong>in</strong>g-off of Christianity from <strong>the</strong>common ground of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, this awareness and recognitionare not abstract constructs but deeply grounded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> reality and <strong>the</strong>experience of what happened. Both can and need to be described <strong>in</strong> fullerdetail. As far as <strong>the</strong> stories about <strong>Jesus</strong> and his followers are concerned,<strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>deed reveal some knowledge of <strong>the</strong> Christian sect and of its hero,and this knowledge is not just a distorted and vague hodgepodge of thisand that, but a well-designed attack aga<strong>in</strong>st what <strong>the</strong> rabbis experiencedas <strong>the</strong> reality of <strong>the</strong> Jewish-Christian message. 37Keep<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se methodological considerations <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, let us briefly review<strong>the</strong> Eliezer story aga<strong>in</strong>. It comb<strong>in</strong>es two strands that both <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>irown way respond to <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative.(1) The first strand, <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong> story, is <strong>the</strong> charge aga<strong>in</strong>st R. Eliezer,<strong>the</strong> alleged Christian heretic, of prostitution/sexual orgies. This accusationfits <strong>in</strong> very well with what we have heard so far about <strong>Jesus</strong> himself:that he was <strong>the</strong> illegitimate child of his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam’s liaison with <strong>the</strong>Roman soldier Pandera, that he himself led quite an <strong>in</strong>decent life andthat he was excommunicated by his teacher because of his frivolousthoughts. <strong>Jesus</strong> and sexual offense seem to be a recurrent <strong>the</strong>me <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>(later) talmudic treatment of Christianity, and <strong>the</strong> Eliezer story is <strong>the</strong> ear-
The Torah Teacher 49liest evidence of this motif. 38 There, it is not directed, however, aga<strong>in</strong>st<strong>Jesus</strong> himself but aga<strong>in</strong>st his followers. We will see that this particular variationtallies with <strong>the</strong> fragments of anti-Christian polemics quoted by earlyChristian authors of <strong>the</strong> second century C.E. 39 In any case, this strand of<strong>the</strong> Eliezer story is very close to what was perceived as <strong>the</strong> historical realityof <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Christianity.(2) The second strand—aptly emphasized by Boyar<strong>in</strong>, follow<strong>in</strong>g Lieberman40 and Guttmann 41 —is more <strong>in</strong>direct and becomes obvious only whenwe have a closer look at <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic persona of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos.R. Eliezer is famous for his clash with his rabb<strong>in</strong>ic colleagues regard<strong>in</strong>g acomplicated but relatively m<strong>in</strong>or halakhic question, <strong>the</strong> structure of <strong>the</strong>Akhnai oven. When his colleagues disapprove of his argument, he resortsto some “unorthodox” methods:It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer used every imag<strong>in</strong>able argument,but <strong>the</strong>y [his colleagues] did not accept <strong>the</strong>m from him.He said to <strong>the</strong>m: “If <strong>the</strong> Halakha agrees with me, let this carobtreeprove it!” [Whereupon] <strong>the</strong> carob-tree was uprooted from itsplace a hundred cubits—o<strong>the</strong>rs report, four hundred cubits. They retorted:“No proof can be brought from a carob-tree!”Aga<strong>in</strong> he said to <strong>the</strong>m: “If <strong>the</strong> Halakha agrees with me, let <strong>the</strong>stream of water prove it!” [Whereupon] <strong>the</strong> stream of water flowedbackwards. They retorted: “No proof can be brought from a streamof water!”Aga<strong>in</strong> he said to <strong>the</strong>m: “If <strong>the</strong> Halakha agrees with me, let <strong>the</strong>walls of <strong>the</strong> schoolhouse prove it!” [Whereupon] <strong>the</strong> walls of <strong>the</strong>schoolhouse <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed to fall. But R. Yehoshua rebuked <strong>the</strong>m, say<strong>in</strong>g:“When <strong>the</strong> scholars are engaged <strong>in</strong> a halakhic dispute, what haveyou to <strong>in</strong>terfere?” Hence <strong>the</strong>y did not fall, <strong>in</strong> honor of R. Yehoshua,nor did <strong>the</strong>y resume <strong>the</strong> upright, <strong>in</strong> honor of R. Eliezer; and <strong>the</strong>y arestill stand<strong>in</strong>g thus <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed.Aga<strong>in</strong> he said to <strong>the</strong>m: “If <strong>the</strong> Halakha agrees with me, let it beproved from heaven!” [Whereupon] a heavenly voice (bat qol) criedout: “Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer—because <strong>in</strong> all matters<strong>the</strong> Halakha agrees with him!” [Whereupon] R. Yehoshua arose andsaid: “She [<strong>the</strong> Torah] is not <strong>in</strong> heaven” (Deut. 30:12). What does it
50 Chapter 4mean: She is not <strong>in</strong> heaven? R. Yirmeya said: “S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> Torah hasalready been given at Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai we pay no attention to a heavenlyvoice, because you [God] have long s<strong>in</strong>ce written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Torah atMount S<strong>in</strong>ai: After <strong>the</strong> majority must one <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>e (Ex. 23:2).” 42What is go<strong>in</strong>g on here? An <strong>in</strong>itially rout<strong>in</strong>e halakhic dispute among rabbison a not particularly important question veers off course. R. Eliezer cannotassert himself <strong>in</strong> this dispute and resorts to <strong>the</strong> strongest means that hehas at his disposal: magic. 43 He moves a carob tree, lets a stream of waterflow backward, threatens to destroy <strong>the</strong> schoolhouse <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> rabbisare ga<strong>the</strong>red, and f<strong>in</strong>ally gets an approval from heaven. But to no avail.His colleagues are not impressed by his magic and declare coolly that halakhicmatters are not decided by magic. And as far as <strong>the</strong> heavenly voiceis concerned, <strong>the</strong>y declare even more coolly that God better does not <strong>in</strong>terfere<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se matters because he has given <strong>the</strong> Torah to his creatures—and <strong>the</strong> power to decide <strong>in</strong> case of conflict to <strong>the</strong> rabbis. 44So what is at stake here is sober halakhic reason<strong>in</strong>g accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> decisionof <strong>the</strong> majority versus magic, and <strong>the</strong> message is: rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authorityrests on rabb<strong>in</strong>ic rules of <strong>the</strong> game, not on magic, not even when approvedby heaven. In try<strong>in</strong>g to overrule <strong>the</strong> halakhic consensus of his colleagueswith his magical tricks and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention of heaven, R. Eliezer <strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>ges<strong>the</strong> essence of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authority. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, he is most severely punishedwith <strong>the</strong> worst punishment <strong>the</strong> rabbis have at <strong>the</strong>ir disposal (andwhich, as many scholars have observed, is completely out of proportion to<strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong> halakhic dispute)—excommunication: “It was said:On that very day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean werebrought and burnt <strong>in</strong> fire (as unclean). Then <strong>the</strong>y took a vote and excommunicatedhim.” 45 The rabbis send R. Aqiva, one of <strong>the</strong> greatest scholars ofhis generation, to <strong>in</strong>form R. Eliezer of <strong>the</strong>ir horrible decision becausesomeone less respected and tactful might provoke his unbridled wrath andcause him to release his magical powers and to destroy <strong>the</strong> world. R. Aqivadoes a great job <strong>in</strong> carry<strong>in</strong>g out his delicate mission, but still, whenR. Eliezer realizes what his colleagues did to him,he too rent his garments, 46 put off his shoes, removed [his seat], saton <strong>the</strong> earth, and tears streamed from his eyes. The world was <strong>the</strong>n
The Torah Teacher 51smitten: a third of <strong>the</strong> olive crop, a third of <strong>the</strong> wheat, and a third of<strong>the</strong> barley crop. Some say, even <strong>the</strong> dough <strong>in</strong> women’s handsswelled up.It has been taught: Great was <strong>the</strong> calamity that befell that day, foreveryth<strong>in</strong>g at which [R. Eliezer] cast his eyes was burned up. 47Even <strong>in</strong> his defeat, R. Eliezer proved once more his magical power—andthat <strong>the</strong> rabbis were right <strong>in</strong> excommunicat<strong>in</strong>g him unless <strong>the</strong>y wanted toyield <strong>the</strong>ir authority to miracle workers and magicians. R. Eliezer’s unrulymagical power, which threatened <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong>refore(<strong>in</strong> this sequence) <strong>the</strong> existence of <strong>the</strong> world, needed to be kept <strong>in</strong>check—and <strong>in</strong>deed was kept <strong>in</strong> check, until his death. 48 In portray<strong>in</strong>ghim as <strong>the</strong> dangerous arch-magician, <strong>the</strong> rabbis model R. Eliezer along<strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r arch-magician, who threatened <strong>the</strong>ir authority—<strong>Jesus</strong>. In o<strong>the</strong>r words: R. Eliezer becomes <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic doppelgänger of<strong>Jesus</strong>. He comb<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> his person and life two major strands of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>icperception of <strong>Jesus</strong> and his followers: sexual excesses and magicalpower. Hence, it is not just <strong>the</strong> pa<strong>in</strong>ful process of <strong>the</strong> break<strong>in</strong>g-off of“Christianity” from “Judaism,” which becomes apparent here; ra<strong>the</strong>r, weget a glimpse at <strong>the</strong> weapons that <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Jews used <strong>in</strong> order not onlyto demarcate <strong>the</strong>mselves from Christian Jews but to fight aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong>mwith all <strong>the</strong> means at <strong>the</strong>ir disposal. And a fight to <strong>the</strong> death it was, becauseeven <strong>the</strong> Roman governor acquitted R. Eliezer of <strong>the</strong> charge of sexualorgies and even heaven approved of his use of magic aga<strong>in</strong>st rabb<strong>in</strong>icreason<strong>in</strong>g, of anarchic and destructive power aga<strong>in</strong>st sober <strong>in</strong>terpretationof <strong>the</strong> Torah, of “Christianity” aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic version of “Judaism”!Indeed, “<strong>the</strong> Christians are us,” as Boyar<strong>in</strong> says, but, this is <strong>the</strong> message of<strong>the</strong> Eliezer story, <strong>the</strong>y need to be unmasked and defeated once and for all.
5. Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong>The mysterious heretic by <strong>the</strong> name of Jacob makes yet ano<strong>the</strong>r appearance<strong>in</strong> a story preserved aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian as well as <strong>in</strong> Babyloniansources. This time he does not seduce a rabbi by his conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gBible exegesis and expose <strong>the</strong> poor rabbi’s hidden lean<strong>in</strong>gs toward Christianitybut <strong>in</strong>troduces himself as <strong>the</strong> proverbial miraculous healer whowhispers a potent magical word or phrase over a wound/illness and,through <strong>the</strong> power of <strong>the</strong> word(s) used, heals <strong>the</strong> patient.Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism seems to be ambiguous about <strong>the</strong> custom of “whisper<strong>in</strong>gover a wound” for heal<strong>in</strong>g purposes. In <strong>the</strong> famous Mishna Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>10:2, 1 R. Aqiva counts such miraculous healers among thosewho “have no portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come”: “one who whispers over awound and says: I will not br<strong>in</strong>g upon you any of <strong>the</strong> diseases that Ibrought upon <strong>the</strong> Egyptians, for I <strong>the</strong> Lord am your healer (Ex. 15:26).”This sounds like a def<strong>in</strong>ite prohibition. The Tosefta, however, is muchless strict. There it is stated clearly: “[It is permitted to] whisper over aneye, a serpent, and a scorpion (= over <strong>the</strong> bite <strong>in</strong>flicted by a serpent or ascorpion) and to pass [a remedy] over <strong>the</strong> eye on <strong>the</strong> Sabbath,” 2 and thistradition is repeated <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> Jerusalem and <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>. 3The Tosefta and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>im take it for granted, <strong>the</strong>refore, that peoplewhisper over wounds for heal<strong>in</strong>g purposes and even allow this practiceon Sabbath. With a certa<strong>in</strong> sense of irony, <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi mentions
Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 53R. Aqiva, of all people, as someone over whose sick eye a (heal<strong>in</strong>g) objectwas passed.The <strong>Talmud</strong>im do not resolve <strong>the</strong> contradiction between Aqiva’s strictprohibition <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna and <strong>the</strong> fact, documented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tosefta andrelated traditions, that such customs were not only (reluctantly) toleratedby <strong>the</strong> rabbis but commonplace and even explicitly permitted on Sabbath.An easy way out of this dilemma may be <strong>the</strong> suggestion made byRashi (and followed by <strong>the</strong> Sonc<strong>in</strong>o translation of <strong>the</strong> Bavli): whisper<strong>in</strong>gover a serpent or a scorpion does not mean whisper<strong>in</strong>g over <strong>the</strong> bite <strong>in</strong>flictedby <strong>the</strong>se venomous animals but ra<strong>the</strong>r whisper<strong>in</strong>g over <strong>the</strong> animals<strong>the</strong>mselves (= charm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m) <strong>in</strong> order to “render <strong>the</strong>m tame and harmless”;4 accord<strong>in</strong>gly, “pass<strong>in</strong>g an object over <strong>the</strong> eye (ma
54 Chapter 5supposed to trade with heretics, to teach <strong>the</strong>ir sons a craft, or to seek heal<strong>in</strong>gfrom <strong>the</strong>m, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> matters of <strong>the</strong>ir property or of <strong>the</strong>ir personal welfare.11 Then a case story follows (Hul 2:22f.): 12A case story (ma
Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 55verse: This book of <strong>the</strong> Torah shall not depart out of your mouth, butyou shall meditate on it day and night (Josh. 1:8). Go <strong>the</strong>n and f<strong>in</strong>d atime that is nei<strong>the</strong>r day nor night and learn <strong>the</strong>n Greek wisdom!From this story it becomes clear that much as Ishmael disliked pagan culture,his nephew must have had some <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation toward it. This fits <strong>in</strong>very well with <strong>the</strong> story about his unfortunate death: Eleazar b. Damakeeps company with a heretic and wants to be healed by him and his potentcharm, but his merciless uncle prefers <strong>the</strong> beloved nephew to diera<strong>the</strong>r than to be healed by a heretic. The bitter irony of Ishmael’s behaviorcan hardly be missed. Instead of justify<strong>in</strong>g his refusal to accept <strong>the</strong>heretic’s heal<strong>in</strong>g power with an appropriate verse from <strong>the</strong> Bible, Ishmaelresorts to <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong> rabbis: what a happy death did you die, BenDama—not because you did not transgress <strong>the</strong> commandments of <strong>the</strong>Torah, no, because you did not transgress <strong>the</strong> commandments of us, yourfellow rabbis. For transgress<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> hedge or fence that we erected around<strong>the</strong> Torah <strong>in</strong>evitably results <strong>in</strong> death. We, <strong>the</strong> rabbis, are much more powerfulthan any of <strong>the</strong>se heretics because it is we who ultimately decideabout life and death.But <strong>the</strong> irony goes even fur<strong>the</strong>r. The very verse from <strong>the</strong> Bible that Ishmaelquotes to prove <strong>the</strong> bad dest<strong>in</strong>y that awaits <strong>the</strong> transgressor of <strong>the</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic commandments (he will be bitten by a snake), exposes hishypocrisy: Eleazar b. Dama was bitten by a snake, before he had a chanceto break down <strong>the</strong> hedge of <strong>the</strong> rabbis—he did not transgress <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>iccommandments and never<strong>the</strong>less was bitten by a snake! The editors ofour story <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi and <strong>the</strong> Bavli did not miss <strong>the</strong> bitter ironybut give different responses. The pious editor of <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi answers<strong>the</strong> obvious question: “And did not a snake already bite him?” with referr<strong>in</strong>gto Eleazar’s salvation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come: Yes, it is true, he was bittenby a snake, but s<strong>in</strong>ce he did not transgress <strong>the</strong> commandments of <strong>the</strong>rabbis “a snake will not bite him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come.” 28The Bavli gives a different and much more pungent answer: 29The master said: You did not transgress <strong>the</strong> words of your colleagueswho have said: He who breaks down a hedge (geder) is bitten by asnake (Eccl. 10:8)?!
56 Chapter 5But a serpent did <strong>in</strong>deed bite him!—[This is] <strong>the</strong> serpent of <strong>the</strong>rabbis, which can never be cured!Now, what is it that he might have said?—One shall live by <strong>the</strong>m(Lev. 18:5), not that one should die by <strong>the</strong>m! 30The Bavli editor is clearly a match for R. Ishmael: not only does he notice<strong>the</strong> obvious contradiction <strong>in</strong> Ishmael’s hypocritical reason<strong>in</strong>g (Eleazar b.Dama was already bitten by a snake), he exposes <strong>the</strong> real snake that bitpoor Eleazar: <strong>the</strong> rabbis. 31 Not <strong>the</strong> bite of <strong>the</strong> snake caused his death but<strong>the</strong> bite of <strong>the</strong> rabbis who put <strong>the</strong>ir rul<strong>in</strong>gs above <strong>the</strong> Torah. The verse,which Eleazar did not have time to quote, states: “You shall keep my lawsand my rules; by do<strong>in</strong>g so one shall live: I am <strong>the</strong> Lord” (Lev. 18:5); <strong>in</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> Torah provides life and <strong>the</strong> rabbis death. This is a devastat<strong>in</strong>gcritique of <strong>the</strong> rabbis that ultimately holds R. Ishmael—one of <strong>the</strong>most respected heroes of tannaitic Judaism—accountable for his nephew’sdeath. The rabbis, accord<strong>in</strong>g to this critique, are only <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>irown importance, not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Torah—and could not care less about <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual’sdest<strong>in</strong>y.Moreover, <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s 32 critique of R. Ishmael implies that R. Eleazar b.Dama, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> true mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Torah (as opposed to <strong>the</strong> hypocriticalrabb<strong>in</strong>ic “fence”), was correct and should <strong>in</strong>deed have beenhealed by <strong>the</strong> heretic Jacob. Hence, <strong>the</strong> Bavli editor disagrees with <strong>the</strong>view that only nonheretical Jews should be allowed to heal by “whisper<strong>in</strong>gover a wound”: he po<strong>in</strong>tedly <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> heretic. 33 Jacob’s attempt toheal R. Eleazar was perfectly legitimate because <strong>in</strong> a life-threaten<strong>in</strong>g situationsuch as happened to <strong>the</strong> rabbi, it did not matter whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>healer was suspected to be a heretic. What only mattered was whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>word(s) he whispered were potent enough to save <strong>the</strong> patient. And obviouslynone of <strong>the</strong> players <strong>in</strong> our story ever doubted <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of <strong>the</strong>word to be used by Jacob: <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pantera/Pandera.We encountered <strong>the</strong> name of Pan<strong>the</strong>ra as <strong>Jesus</strong>’ fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> Celsus’polemical treatise written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> second century C.E.and (as Pandera) <strong>in</strong> Bavli Shabbat/Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>; <strong>the</strong> Tosefta (with Pandera<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Qohelet Rabba parallel) is <strong>the</strong> earliest attestation of this name <strong>in</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources. As I have argued above, noth<strong>in</strong>g prevents us from assum<strong>in</strong>gthat <strong>the</strong> name <strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pantera/Pandera refers to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of <strong>the</strong>
Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 57New Testament. The fact that <strong>the</strong> Bavli version of our story does not mention<strong>the</strong> name by which Jacob attempted to heal Eleazar is conspicuousbut does not necessarily mean that ano<strong>the</strong>r (earlier) version without <strong>the</strong>name of <strong>Jesus</strong> was circulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e and that it was this versionwhich reached Babylonia 34 —after all, <strong>the</strong> Bavli does know <strong>the</strong> name <strong>Jesus</strong>ben Pandera, and <strong>the</strong>re may have been o<strong>the</strong>r reasons for this particularomission. Moreover, Celsus’ reference explicitly mentions <strong>the</strong> connectionbetween <strong>Jesus</strong> and magical powers (acquired <strong>in</strong> Egypt) and concludesthat because of <strong>the</strong>se powers <strong>Jesus</strong> was conv<strong>in</strong>ced to be God: “He[<strong>Jesus</strong>] hired himself out as a workman <strong>in</strong> Egypt, and <strong>the</strong>re tried his handat certa<strong>in</strong> magical powers on which <strong>the</strong> Egyptians pride <strong>the</strong>mselves; hereturned full of conceit, because of <strong>the</strong>se powers, and on account of <strong>the</strong>mgave himself <strong>the</strong> title of God.” 35The identity of <strong>the</strong> magician with <strong>the</strong> god whom he conjures up is wellknown from Greek as well as from Jewish sources. In <strong>the</strong> Greek magicalpapyri from Greco-Roman Egypt(!), <strong>the</strong> magician secures for himself <strong>the</strong>power of <strong>the</strong> god Hermes by say<strong>in</strong>g: “For you are I, and I am you; yourname is m<strong>in</strong>e, and m<strong>in</strong>e is yours. For I am your image. ... I know you,Hermes, and you know me. I am you, and you are I. And so, do everyth<strong>in</strong>gfor me, and may you turn to me with Good Fortune and Good Daimon,immediately, immediately; quickly, quickly.” 36 Similarly, he <strong>in</strong>vokes<strong>the</strong> magical power of <strong>the</strong> heptagramm, <strong>the</strong> name consist<strong>in</strong>g of seven letters(part of which is <strong>the</strong> name Iao, 37 a common abbreviation of <strong>the</strong> tetragrammatonYHWH): 38 “For you are I, and I, you. Whatever I say musthappen, for I have your name as a unique phylactery <strong>in</strong> my heart, and noflesh, although moved, will overpower me; no spirit will stand aga<strong>in</strong>stme—nei<strong>the</strong>r daimon nor visitation nor any o<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> evil be<strong>in</strong>gs ofHades, because of your name, which I have <strong>in</strong> my soul and <strong>in</strong>voke.” 39In Jewish sources, it is above all <strong>the</strong> figure of <strong>the</strong> man-angel Enoch-Metatron, who is conspicuous for his close relationship with Godthrough <strong>the</strong> power of his name. The antediluvian hero Enoch, who accord<strong>in</strong>gto <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible did not die but was taken up <strong>in</strong>to heaven(Gen. 5:24: “Enoch walked with God; <strong>the</strong>n he was no more, for God tookhim”), was <strong>in</strong> fact—as <strong>the</strong> Third (Hebrew) Book of Enoch, one of <strong>the</strong>texts of Merkava mysticism, expla<strong>in</strong>s—physically transformed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>highest angel Metatron, seated on a throne similar to God’s throne of
58 Chapter 5Glory, clo<strong>the</strong>d <strong>in</strong> a majestic robe, crowned with a k<strong>in</strong>gly crown, andcalled “The lesser YHWH” (YHWH ha-qatan), as it is written: “S<strong>in</strong>ce myname is <strong>in</strong> him” (Ex. 23:21). 40 This verse refers to <strong>the</strong> angel of <strong>the</strong> Lord, 41who is identical with God because God’s name is <strong>in</strong> him, that is, becausehe bears God’s name. Whereas <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible <strong>the</strong> “angel of <strong>the</strong> Lord” is <strong>in</strong>deedGod himself, Metatron <strong>in</strong> 3 Enoch becomes <strong>the</strong> highest be<strong>in</strong>g nextto God, due to <strong>the</strong> power of God’s name resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his name.But where do we f<strong>in</strong>d God’s name <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name “Metatron”? Scores ofscholars have tried to expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> enigmatic name “Metatron” 42 —<strong>the</strong>most likely explication is probably (ho) meta thronon = “(<strong>the</strong> throne) nextto <strong>the</strong> (div<strong>in</strong>e) throne”—but none of all <strong>the</strong> possible derivations expla<strong>in</strong>s<strong>the</strong> relationship between God’s name and <strong>the</strong> name Metatron (unless weaccept <strong>the</strong> not very likely explanation that “Metatron” conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> Greektetra—“four,” hence an allusion to <strong>the</strong> tetragrammaton). It seems safer toassume that <strong>the</strong> story as we have it <strong>in</strong> 3 Enoch and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> reflects alater development and that an earlier version conta<strong>in</strong>ed a name that moreclosely resembles <strong>the</strong> name of God. And, <strong>in</strong>deed, among <strong>the</strong> many namesthat Metatron has absorbed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> esoteric literature, appears most prom<strong>in</strong>ently<strong>the</strong> name “Yahoel,” 43 a name we know from o<strong>the</strong>r and earliersources, <strong>in</strong>dependently of <strong>the</strong> Enoch-Metatron tradition. In <strong>the</strong> Apocalypseof Abraham, preserved only <strong>in</strong> Slavonic but written presumably <strong>in</strong>Hebrew sometime after 70 C.E., 44 <strong>the</strong> angel Iaoel plays an important role.There, he says of himself: “I am Iaoel and I was called so by him whocauses those with me [<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r angels <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> seventh heaven] ...toshake, a power through <strong>the</strong> medium of his <strong>in</strong>effable name <strong>in</strong> me.” 45 Thismakes much better sense: <strong>the</strong> name “Iaoel/Yahoel” <strong>in</strong>deed conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong>div<strong>in</strong>e name “Iao/Yaho,” <strong>the</strong> abbreviation of <strong>the</strong> tetragrammaton YHWH,which is also used <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greek magical papyri. It seems, <strong>the</strong>refore, that itwas orig<strong>in</strong>ally <strong>the</strong> angel Iaoel/Yahoel to whom Exodus 23:21 was appliedand who later, after Metatron had absorbed Yahoel, was replaced by <strong>the</strong>man-angel Metatron. 46The godlike magician, <strong>in</strong> assum<strong>in</strong>g God’s name, exercises powerthrough <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>urgical use of this name. Not by co<strong>in</strong>cidence, it is <strong>the</strong>name of <strong>the</strong> Jewish God that appears quite prom<strong>in</strong>ently <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman magical texts of late antiquity. 47 The Jews were regarded as particularlypowerful magicians (did not Moses already outdo <strong>the</strong> magicians of
Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 59<strong>the</strong> Pharaoh <strong>in</strong> Egypt?), and what better name, <strong>the</strong>n, could be used formagical purposes than <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong>ir God? The fact that <strong>the</strong> Jews<strong>the</strong>mselves avoided pronounc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> tetragrammaton, <strong>the</strong> holiest name ofGod, may have contributed to this predilection for <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> JewishGod. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus refers to this prohibition <strong>in</strong>his Antiquities, 48 and accord<strong>in</strong>g to rabb<strong>in</strong>ic tradition <strong>the</strong> tetragrammatonwas pronounced only once a year by <strong>the</strong> High Priest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy of Holiesdur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> service of <strong>the</strong> Day of Atonement. 49 Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, Greek magicaltexts evoke <strong>the</strong> name that cannot be pronounced: “I call on you, eternaland unbegotten, who are one, who alone holds toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> whole creationof all th<strong>in</strong>gs, whom none understands, whom <strong>the</strong> gods worship,whose name not even <strong>the</strong> gods can utter,” 50 or: “I conjure you up with <strong>the</strong>holy name that cannot be uttered.” 51This is <strong>the</strong> background aga<strong>in</strong>st which <strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>ben Pantera <strong>in</strong> our story must be seen. Jacob, <strong>the</strong> magical healer, regarded<strong>Jesus</strong>’ name as a most powerful div<strong>in</strong>e name and, as we have seen,not only Eleazar b. Dama followed him <strong>in</strong> this belief, but also Ishmael,<strong>the</strong> spokesman of those who prohibited <strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>g through a supposedheretic. Such a belief refers directly back to <strong>the</strong> New Testament or, to putit differently, <strong>the</strong> New Testament is an important source for <strong>the</strong> belief <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> magical power of <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e name—and most likely <strong>the</strong> direct sourcefor our story. 52 The Gospel of Mark relates <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g exchange between<strong>the</strong> apostle John and <strong>Jesus</strong>:(38) John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone cast<strong>in</strong>g outdemons <strong>in</strong> your name (en tō onomati sou), and we tried to stop him,because he was not follow<strong>in</strong>g us.” (39) But <strong>Jesus</strong> said: “Do not stophim; for no one who does a deed of power <strong>in</strong> my name (hos poiēseidynam<strong>in</strong> epi tō onomati mou) will be able soon afterward to speakevil of me. Whoever is not aga<strong>in</strong>st us is for us.” 53Cast<strong>in</strong>g out demons through <strong>the</strong> power of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ name does not just meanthrough <strong>Jesus</strong>’ authority (exousia), 54 but, literally, through us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> power(dynamis) <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>’ name. The name “<strong>Jesus</strong>” was <strong>the</strong>refore believedto conta<strong>in</strong> magical power that allowed <strong>the</strong> magician, who was <strong>in</strong>possession of this name, to cast out demons and thus to heal <strong>the</strong> possessed
60 Chapter 5person. Moreover, it becomes clear from John’s question and <strong>Jesus</strong>’ answerthat us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> powerful name of <strong>Jesus</strong> had noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with believ<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> magician, although not follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong>,was never<strong>the</strong>less successful <strong>in</strong> cast<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> demons by us<strong>in</strong>g his name.In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> magical use of <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> worked automatically,no matter whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> magician believed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>. This is just<strong>the</strong> reversal of our rabb<strong>in</strong>ical story where <strong>the</strong> follower of <strong>Jesus</strong> attempts toheal <strong>the</strong> nonbeliever. The heal<strong>in</strong>g power of <strong>the</strong> name does not depend onei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> magician’s or <strong>the</strong> patient’s belief. <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>in</strong> explicitly allow<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> use of his name even by nonfollowers, acknowledges <strong>the</strong> magicalpower <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> his name. 55Hence, what our story is ultimately concerned about is not <strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>gpower of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ name—which is taken for granted—but aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> questionof authority. R. Ishmael (<strong>the</strong> hero of <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g rabb<strong>in</strong>ic elite), <strong>in</strong> erect<strong>in</strong>ga hedge or a fence around <strong>the</strong> Torah, has a larger goal <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d: he notjust fends off transgressions of <strong>the</strong> Torah by followers of his own group (<strong>the</strong>rabbis); ra<strong>the</strong>r, he aims at fend<strong>in</strong>g off people that do not belong to Judaismas def<strong>in</strong>ed by him and his fellow rabbis. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, what we have hereis an (early) attempt to establish boundaries, to del<strong>in</strong>eate Judaism by elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>gheretics—<strong>in</strong> this particular case clearly heretics belong<strong>in</strong>g to agroup that def<strong>in</strong>ed itself by its belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth.It is only <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources (Yerushalmi and Midrash QoheletRabba) that we f<strong>in</strong>d yet ano<strong>the</strong>r heal<strong>in</strong>g story connected with <strong>Jesus</strong>. Thistime, <strong>the</strong> dramatis personae are R. Yehoshua b. Levi and his grandson: 56He [R. Yehoshua b. Levi] had a grandson, who swallowed (someth<strong>in</strong>gdangerous). Someone (had) 57 came and whispered to him <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pandera, 58 and he was healed. 59 When he[<strong>the</strong> magician] left, he [R. Yehoshua] said to him: “What did you sayover him?”He answered: “Such and such a word.” 60He [R. Yehoshua] said to him [<strong>the</strong> magician]: “How much (better)would it have been for him 61 if he had died and had not heardthis word!” 62And so it happened to him: like an error (shegaga) committed by aruler (Eccl. 10:5).
Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong> 61R. Yehoshua b. Levi is one of <strong>the</strong> most important Palest<strong>in</strong>ian rabbis, liv<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> Lydda <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first half of <strong>the</strong> third century and famous for his aggadicteach<strong>in</strong>g. His grandson, who was obviously close to suffocation, washealed by some anonymous heretic, a follower of <strong>Jesus</strong>. Hence, we havehere <strong>the</strong> opposite of <strong>the</strong> Eleazar b. Dama story: whereas Eleazar b.Dama’s heal<strong>in</strong>g was prevented (by R. Ishmael) and he was dest<strong>in</strong>ed todie—but ga<strong>in</strong>ed his life <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come, Yehoshua’s grandson washealed—but lost his life <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come; his heal<strong>in</strong>g was <strong>in</strong>advertentbut never<strong>the</strong>less valid, like an error committed by a ruler, as <strong>the</strong> versefrom Qohelet expla<strong>in</strong>s. A very unfortunate error, <strong>in</strong>deed, accord<strong>in</strong>g to hisgrandfa<strong>the</strong>r, because it cost him his eternal life. 63Unlike <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eleazar b. Dama story, where we hear only of <strong>the</strong> (attempted)heal<strong>in</strong>g “<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pantera/Pandera,” we learnhere that <strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> is accompanied by utter<strong>in</strong>g, on<strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> magician, certa<strong>in</strong> words: most likely verses or parts of versesfrom <strong>the</strong> Bible. Maier, <strong>in</strong> his usual zeal to play down <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>Jesus</strong>’name on <strong>the</strong> magical procedure, puts <strong>the</strong> emphasis on <strong>the</strong> Bible verse(s)<strong>in</strong> which he sees <strong>the</strong> real offensive behavior ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong>name of <strong>Jesus</strong>. 64 This is aga<strong>in</strong> a reductionist <strong>in</strong>terpretation that misses <strong>the</strong>po<strong>in</strong>t: it is <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> that gives <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> Bible verse(s) <strong>the</strong> authorityand efficacy; without <strong>Jesus</strong>’ authority <strong>the</strong> whisper<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Bibleverse(s) would have been mean<strong>in</strong>gless and <strong>in</strong>effective. So it was <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>end <strong>Jesus</strong> who healed R. Yehoshua’s grandson and not just <strong>the</strong> applicationof some verses from <strong>the</strong> Bible (and it is <strong>the</strong>refore also quite unimportantwhich precise verses <strong>the</strong> magician used). Aga<strong>in</strong>, we do not learn muchabout <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong> as a person and a teacher, but we are affirmed—<strong>in</strong> concordance with <strong>the</strong> New Testament—that he was a potent magicianwhose magical power worked <strong>in</strong>dependently of <strong>the</strong> object to which it wasapplied. Once uttered, <strong>the</strong> magical charm took effect, and <strong>the</strong> poorgrandfa<strong>the</strong>r was doomed to watch<strong>in</strong>g helplessly how his grandson kept hisphysical existence at <strong>the</strong> expense of his eternal life.We can even go a step fur<strong>the</strong>r. The story about Yehoshua b. Levi and hisgrandson is not just an affirmation of <strong>the</strong> automatic effectiveness of magic;ra<strong>the</strong>r, it presents an ironical critique of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ and his followers’ belief <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong>ir magical power. True, it argues, <strong>the</strong>ir magical power is undeniable: itworks, and one cannot do anyth<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st its effectiveness. But it is an
62 Chapter 5unauthorized and misused power. It is just shegaga—a mistake, an unfortunateerror. 65 Hence, our story ultimately conveys <strong>the</strong> message: this <strong>Jesus</strong>and his followers claim to have <strong>the</strong> keys to heaven, 66 to use <strong>the</strong>ir magicalpower with div<strong>in</strong>e authorization—but <strong>the</strong>y are dead wrong! The fact tha<strong>the</strong>aven accepts what <strong>the</strong>y do does not mean that it approves of it. On <strong>the</strong>contrary, <strong>the</strong>y are tricksters and impostors who abuse <strong>the</strong>ir power. The realpower and authority still rest with <strong>the</strong>ir opponents, <strong>the</strong> rabbis.
6. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ ExecutionThat <strong>Jesus</strong> was condemned to death by <strong>the</strong> Roman governor PontiusPilate, subsequently tortured and crucified, and on <strong>the</strong> third day afterhis crucifixion was resurrected and ascended to heaven is <strong>the</strong> foundationnarrative of Christianity. His trial by <strong>the</strong> Roman authority and hisdeath on <strong>the</strong> cross are described <strong>in</strong> all four Gospels, albeit with considerablevariations (Mt. 27–28; Mk. 15–16; Lk. 22–24; John 18–21), and <strong>the</strong>ologically<strong>in</strong>terpreted by <strong>the</strong> apostle Paul. What familiarity do <strong>the</strong> rabbis,<strong>the</strong> heroes of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism, show with <strong>the</strong> evangelists’ <strong>in</strong>terpretationsof this event, or ra<strong>the</strong>r, more carefully formulated: what do <strong>the</strong>y care totell us about it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir literature?The immediate and unambiguous answer is: very little. With<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vastcorpus of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, we f<strong>in</strong>d but one reference to <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial andexecution, and only <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g, as part of a broader halakhic discussionthat has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong> as a historical figure. Hardly unexpectedly(after <strong>the</strong> evidence discussed so far), this reference is preserved only<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli. There, <strong>the</strong> Mishna <strong>in</strong> tractate Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> is discussed, whichdeals with <strong>the</strong> procedure of <strong>the</strong> capital punishment. The Bible knowsfour legal modes of execut<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> death penalty; namely, ston<strong>in</strong>g, burn<strong>in</strong>g,hang<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>the</strong> latter is actually a postmortem hang<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> personstoned to death, a form of publication that a capital sentence has been
64 Chapter 6executed), 1 and slay<strong>in</strong>g by <strong>the</strong> sword. The talmudic law drops hang<strong>in</strong>g andadds strangl<strong>in</strong>g as an <strong>in</strong>dependent death penalty, 2 but <strong>the</strong> discussions <strong>in</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature are largely academic s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> rabbis did not have <strong>the</strong>power of <strong>in</strong>flict<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> death sentence. 3 With regard to ston<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> mostcommon death penalty, <strong>the</strong> Mishna expla<strong>in</strong>s: 4If <strong>the</strong>y f<strong>in</strong>d him [<strong>the</strong> accused] <strong>in</strong>nocent, <strong>the</strong>y discharge him, and ifnot, he goes forth to be stoned. And a herald goes before him[herald<strong>in</strong>g]:So and so, <strong>the</strong> son of so and so, is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned becausehe committed such and such a crime, and so and so are his witnesses.Whoever knows anyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his defense, may come and state it.It is on this Mishna that <strong>the</strong> Bavli comments: 5Abaye said: He [<strong>the</strong> herald] must also say: On such and such a day,on such and such an hour, and <strong>in</strong> such and such a place (<strong>the</strong> crimewas committed), 6 <strong>in</strong> case <strong>the</strong>re are some who know (to <strong>the</strong> contrary),so that <strong>the</strong>y can come forward and prove (<strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al witnesses)to be false witnesses (hav<strong>in</strong>g deliberately given false testimony).And a herald goes before him etc.: 7 <strong>in</strong>deed before him, 8 but notbeforehand! 9However, (<strong>in</strong> contradiction to this) it was taught (tanya):On (Sabbath eve and) 10 <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 11was hanged (tela>uhu). 12 And a herald went forth before him 40 days(herald<strong>in</strong>g): <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 13 is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned becausehe practiced sorcery (kishshef ) and <strong>in</strong>stigated (hissit) and seduced(hiddiah) Israel (to idolatry). Whoever knows anyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his defense,may come and state it. But s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>y did not f<strong>in</strong>d anyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his defense,<strong>the</strong>y hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) 14 <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover.Ulla said: Do you suppose that <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 15 was one forwhom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who <strong>in</strong>stigatedIsrael to idolatry), concern<strong>in</strong>g whom <strong>the</strong> Merciful [God] says:Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9).
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 65With <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 16 it was different, for he was close to <strong>the</strong>government (malkhut).This is a remarkable Bavli sugya. It starts with a comment by Abaye, aBabylonian amora of <strong>the</strong> early fourth century, argu<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> Mishna’svague “such and such a crime” must be made more precise: <strong>the</strong> heraldshould not just mention <strong>the</strong> crime but add <strong>the</strong> day, hour, and location of<strong>the</strong> crime. Only this more detailed description of <strong>the</strong> crime’s circumstancesguarantees <strong>the</strong> validity of <strong>the</strong> testimony of new witnesses who contradict<strong>the</strong> testimony of <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al witnesses which had led to <strong>the</strong> defendant’scondemnation. 17 The clear purpose of Abaye’s statement is tofacilitate <strong>the</strong> acquittal of <strong>the</strong> accused.The Bavli <strong>the</strong>n returns to <strong>the</strong> Mishna lemma that regulates <strong>the</strong> procedureundertaken by <strong>the</strong> herald. The anonymous Bavli author clarifies <strong>the</strong>unambiguous-look<strong>in</strong>g “before him [<strong>the</strong> convicted]” and specifies: physicallybefore <strong>the</strong> convicted on his way to <strong>the</strong> execution and not (chronologically)some o<strong>the</strong>r time before <strong>the</strong> day of <strong>the</strong> execution. This specification, whichclearly conforms to <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Mishna, meets with a contradict<strong>in</strong>gteach<strong>in</strong>g which proves itself to be an early Baraita, <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong>formula tanya: <strong>the</strong> precedent was set, it argues, of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene, <strong>in</strong>whose case <strong>the</strong> herald did not go out just before <strong>the</strong> execution but ra<strong>the</strong>rforty days beforehand (mean<strong>in</strong>g ei<strong>the</strong>r forty consecutive days before <strong>the</strong> dayof his execution or just <strong>the</strong> fortieth day before <strong>the</strong> execution was carriedout). Whatever <strong>the</strong> precise mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>se forty days is (most likely <strong>the</strong> latter),it becomes clear that this Baraita contradicts <strong>the</strong> Mishna as it is understoodby <strong>the</strong> anonymous author of <strong>the</strong> Bavli, allow<strong>in</strong>g for a considerable <strong>in</strong>tervalbetween <strong>the</strong> announcement of <strong>the</strong> herald and <strong>the</strong> actual execution.This tension between <strong>the</strong> Mishna/Bavli and <strong>the</strong> Baraita is “solved” by an exchangebetween Ulla (also a Babylonian amora of <strong>the</strong> early fourth century)and his anonymous respondent(s): S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>Jesus</strong> had friends <strong>in</strong> high places,<strong>the</strong> Jews took extra precautions before execut<strong>in</strong>g him: <strong>the</strong>y went beyond <strong>the</strong>letter of <strong>the</strong> law so none of his powerful friends could accuse <strong>the</strong>m of execut<strong>in</strong>gan <strong>in</strong>nocent man. 18 Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, this exchange seems to conclude,his case was not a halakhically valid precedent but ra<strong>the</strong>r a real exception; 19<strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> Baraita dos not contradict <strong>the</strong> Mishna.
66 Chapter 6It is with<strong>in</strong> this halakhic discourse that some details of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ condemnationand execution are reported:• He was hanged on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to one manuscript,happened to be Sabbath eve.• The herald made <strong>the</strong> announcement required by <strong>the</strong> law forty daysbefore <strong>the</strong> execution took place.• <strong>Jesus</strong> was executed because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel<strong>in</strong>to idolatry.• Nobody came to his defense.• He was close to <strong>the</strong> government.Several of <strong>the</strong>se details can be easily expla<strong>in</strong>ed aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> backgroundof <strong>the</strong> relevant Mishna <strong>in</strong> tractate Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>. There, <strong>the</strong> standard procedureaccord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic law is expla<strong>in</strong>ed as follows: 20All who are stoned are also hanged (nitl<strong>in</strong>) [afterwards] [on a tree]: 21(<strong>the</strong>se are) <strong>the</strong> words of R. Eliezer.However <strong>the</strong> Sages said: only <strong>the</strong> blasphemer (ha-megaddef ) and<strong>the</strong> idolater (ha-
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 67curse aga<strong>in</strong>st God (qilelat elohim), etc. (Deut. 21:23). That is to say,on what account has this [man] been hanged? Because he cursed 22<strong>the</strong> Name, and <strong>the</strong> Name of Heaven 23 turned out to be profaned.The Mishna systematically, and <strong>in</strong> its usual beautifully structured way,sets out to clarify <strong>the</strong> procedure of “hang<strong>in</strong>g”: who is hanged, how ishe/she hanged, and for how long? The question of “who” is answered differentlyby R. Eliezer and <strong>the</strong> Sages: whereas R. Eliezer, as a rule, haseverybody hanged who has been stoned to death, <strong>the</strong> Sages limit this procedureto <strong>the</strong> capital crimes of blasphemy and idolatry. Both R. Eliezerand <strong>the</strong> Sages, however, presuppose that “hang<strong>in</strong>g” is a postmortem punishment(after <strong>the</strong> convicted crim<strong>in</strong>al has been stoned to death), follow<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> biblical <strong>in</strong>struction, which, after relat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ston<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> rebelliousson, cont<strong>in</strong>ues: “If someone is convicted of a crime punishable bydeath and is executed (namely by ston<strong>in</strong>g), and you hang him on a tree”(Deut. 21:22, cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g with v. 23: “you must not leave his corpse on <strong>the</strong>tree”). In a similarly broader def<strong>in</strong>ition, R. Eliezer extends <strong>the</strong> hang<strong>in</strong>g afterston<strong>in</strong>g equally on men and women (dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between <strong>the</strong> sexesonly with regard to whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y face <strong>the</strong> crowd witness<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> execution),whereas <strong>the</strong> Sages exclude women from hang<strong>in</strong>g altoge<strong>the</strong>r.As to <strong>the</strong> “how,” <strong>the</strong> Mishna def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> “tree” and <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> convictedcrim<strong>in</strong>al is hanged on it. The biblical “tree” is ambiguous and canmean a “pole” (e.g., Gen. 40:19) or “gallows” or even impalement upon astake (e.g., Esth. 9:13). The Mishna gives two explanations of <strong>the</strong> “tree”:<strong>the</strong> first (anonymous) description comes closest to gallows—a post driven<strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> ground and a beam jutt<strong>in</strong>g from it, presumably close to <strong>the</strong> top—whereas R. Yose has a post <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, <strong>the</strong> lower end of which rests on <strong>the</strong>earth and <strong>the</strong> upper end leans aga<strong>in</strong>st a wall. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first case<strong>the</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al is hanged on <strong>the</strong> beam and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second case he/she hangson <strong>the</strong> post like butchers do with slaughtered animals—presumably hang<strong>in</strong>gupside down, with <strong>the</strong>ir feet attached to <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> post.The third question, how long, is answered unequivocally and with referenceto <strong>the</strong> biblical command: <strong>the</strong> public exposure of <strong>the</strong> corpse of <strong>the</strong>executed crim<strong>in</strong>al must be term<strong>in</strong>ated by <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> day of <strong>the</strong> executionbecause he/she must be buried <strong>the</strong> same day; <strong>the</strong> corpse must notstay on <strong>the</strong> “tree” overnight. And <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> second
68 Chapter 6part of <strong>the</strong> biblical verse, <strong>the</strong> Mishna returns to <strong>the</strong> question of who ishanged and why. The phrase qilelat elohim is aga<strong>in</strong> ambiguous 24 and here<strong>in</strong>terpreted as a “curse aga<strong>in</strong>st God,” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that <strong>the</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al has uttereda curse aga<strong>in</strong>st God by curs<strong>in</strong>g God’s name. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, he is<strong>the</strong> blasphemer (megaddef ) who, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Sages (and of coursealso to R. Eliezer), deserves to be hanged.Aga<strong>in</strong>st this background, it is clear for <strong>the</strong> authors of our Bavli narrativethat <strong>Jesus</strong> was first stoned and <strong>the</strong>n hanged. 25 This is fully concurrent with<strong>the</strong> mishnaic Halakha. The same is true of <strong>the</strong> reason for his ston<strong>in</strong>g andhang<strong>in</strong>g: he was a sorcerer and enticed Israel <strong>in</strong>to idolatry. Both crimes areexpla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> full detail <strong>in</strong> Mishna Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>: whereas <strong>the</strong> above-quotedMishna mentions only <strong>the</strong> blasphemer and <strong>the</strong> idolater, later on <strong>the</strong>Mishna gives a much longer list of crimes that deserve <strong>the</strong> capital punishment,among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> mesit, <strong>the</strong> maddiah, and <strong>the</strong> mekhashshef (sorcerer)26 —precisely as listed <strong>in</strong> our Bavli narrative. The mesit is someonewho seduces an <strong>in</strong>dividual to idolatry, 27 whereas <strong>the</strong> maddiah is understoodas someone who publicly entices many <strong>in</strong>to idolatry. 28 <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong><strong>Talmud</strong> tells us, was both: he not only enticed some <strong>in</strong>dividual but all ofIsrael to become idolaters. To make th<strong>in</strong>gs worse, he was also a sorcerer <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> sense def<strong>in</strong>ed more precisely <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna: someone who reallypractices magic and not just “holds people’s eyes” (ha->ohez et ha-
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 69Jews <strong>in</strong>terpret this claim as his declaration to be <strong>the</strong> Son of God (andhence as blasphemy), 32 whereas Pilate concludes from it that <strong>Jesus</strong> wantsto be <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Jews/of Israel (and hence is to be regarded as a politicaltroublemaker). 33 The New Testament does not explicitly mention <strong>the</strong>charge of sorcery, but <strong>the</strong> first charge brought aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Jesus</strong> by <strong>the</strong> (false)witnesses is <strong>the</strong> alleged claim that he is able to destroy <strong>the</strong> Temple and torebuild it <strong>in</strong> three days: 34 this claim could easily be understood by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>editors as sorcery. Moreover, <strong>Jesus</strong>’ practice of cast<strong>in</strong>g out demons isexplicitly connected with <strong>the</strong> messianic claim 35 and may <strong>in</strong>deed be presupposed<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial before <strong>the</strong> High Court. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, whenCelsus portrays <strong>Jesus</strong> as return<strong>in</strong>g with “certa<strong>in</strong> magical powers” fromEgypt, he concludes that “because of <strong>the</strong>se powers, and on account of<strong>the</strong>m [he] gave himself <strong>the</strong> title of God,” 36 clearly connect<strong>in</strong>g sorcery with<strong>the</strong> claim to be God. It is futile, <strong>the</strong>refore, to contrast too narrowly <strong>the</strong>charge of blasphemy (New Testament) with <strong>the</strong> charge of idolatry/sorcery(Bavli). 37 The narratives <strong>in</strong> both <strong>the</strong> New Testament and <strong>the</strong> Bavli aremuch more complex and “thicker” than so m<strong>in</strong>imalist an approach isable to reveal. Aga<strong>in</strong>, it is not a (alleged) talmudic source for <strong>the</strong> trial of<strong>Jesus</strong> that is at stake here (and needs to be refuted) but <strong>the</strong> talmudic read<strong>in</strong>gand <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative. As far as <strong>the</strong>charge is concerned, both are closer than one might expect at first glance.As to <strong>the</strong> procedure of <strong>the</strong> execution, <strong>the</strong> Gospel narrative clearlyagrees with <strong>the</strong> mishnaic procedure accord<strong>in</strong>g to which <strong>the</strong> witnesses,particularly <strong>in</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al cases, must be <strong>in</strong>vestigated most thoroughly <strong>in</strong> orderto avoid false testimony. 38 Both Mat<strong>the</strong>w and Mark <strong>in</strong>form us that <strong>the</strong>Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> needed witnesses to proceed with <strong>the</strong> trial, 39 but that <strong>the</strong> legalprocedure was a farce from <strong>the</strong> outset—and hence <strong>in</strong> disagreement with<strong>the</strong> Mishna—<strong>in</strong>sofar as <strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> was deliberately look<strong>in</strong>g for falsewitnesses. 40 F<strong>in</strong>ally <strong>the</strong> members of <strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> did f<strong>in</strong>d two concurrentwitnesses, as required by <strong>the</strong> law, who put forward <strong>the</strong> accusation of<strong>the</strong> destruction and rebuild<strong>in</strong>g (with<strong>in</strong> three days) of <strong>the</strong> Temple. 41 S<strong>in</strong>ce<strong>Jesus</strong> did not respond to this obviously fabricated accusation, <strong>the</strong> HighPriest came up with <strong>the</strong> most devastat<strong>in</strong>g charge of <strong>the</strong> alleged blasphemy:<strong>Jesus</strong>’ claim to be <strong>the</strong> Messiah and Son of God, which <strong>Jesus</strong> answeredaffirmatively (Mark) 42 or at least ambiguously (Mat<strong>the</strong>w). 43 In viewof this evident mistrial, it is a matter of course that <strong>the</strong> Gospel narrative
70 Chapter 6leaves out <strong>the</strong> procedure of <strong>the</strong> herald seek<strong>in</strong>g additional witnesses whomight <strong>in</strong>validate <strong>the</strong> testimony of <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al witnesses that led to <strong>the</strong>conviction. The High Priest, only too happy with <strong>Jesus</strong>’ acceptance of <strong>the</strong>charge of blasphemy, has <strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> condemn him to death 44 and,with no fur<strong>the</strong>r ado, hand him over to <strong>the</strong> Roman governor to confirmand to execute <strong>the</strong> sentence—a procedure such as prescribed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Mishna for <strong>the</strong> herald might only have disturbed this carefully orchestratedmistrial.But why does <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> <strong>in</strong>sist on <strong>the</strong> strange detail of <strong>the</strong> herald announc<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> execution forty days before it takes place? The pla<strong>in</strong> answerit gives is to leave enough time for prospective witnesses <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>’ defenseto come forward and to argue aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> accusation. But <strong>the</strong>re might beano<strong>the</strong>r subtext here that aga<strong>in</strong> subtly, or ra<strong>the</strong>r not so subtly, responds to<strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative. 45 There, <strong>Jesus</strong> foretells his disciples threetimes that he will be killed and resurrected with<strong>in</strong> three days, 46 <strong>the</strong> lasttime on his way to Jerusalem before <strong>the</strong> Passion beg<strong>in</strong>s, that is shortly beforePassover:(32) They were on <strong>the</strong> road, go<strong>in</strong>g up to Jerusalem, and <strong>Jesus</strong> waswalk<strong>in</strong>g ahead of <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong>y were amazed, and those who followedwere afraid. He took <strong>the</strong> twelve aside aga<strong>in</strong> and began to tell <strong>the</strong>mwhat was to happen to him, (33) say<strong>in</strong>g, “See we are go<strong>in</strong>g up toJerusalem, and <strong>the</strong> Son of Man will be handed over to <strong>the</strong> HighPriests and <strong>the</strong> scribes, and <strong>the</strong>y will condemn him to death; <strong>the</strong>n<strong>the</strong>y will hand him over to <strong>the</strong> Gentiles; (34) <strong>the</strong>y will mock him,and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three dayshe will rise aga<strong>in</strong>.” 47In emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> herald announced <strong>Jesus</strong> execution, and not justimmediately before it took place but precisely forty days <strong>in</strong> advance, <strong>the</strong>Bavli directly contradicts <strong>Jesus</strong>’ own prediction. Why all this fuss abouthim play<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> prophet by dramatically prophesy<strong>in</strong>g his trial, sentence,and death—not only once but three times, <strong>the</strong> last time even a few daysbefore it was about to happen? We all know, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> counters, that hewas go<strong>in</strong>g to be executed: because our (<strong>the</strong> Jewish) court had made thisdecision <strong>in</strong> public proceed<strong>in</strong>gs—as is customary <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish law—and
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 71moreover had sent out a herald to proclaim this sentence publicly fortydays before <strong>the</strong> execution (an unusually long period, not required <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Mishna), so that everybody could know it and, if necessary, had ampletime to come up with exonerat<strong>in</strong>g evidence to prevent a wrong judgment.Hence, <strong>in</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> forty-day period <strong>the</strong> Bavli <strong>in</strong>tends to expose <strong>Jesus</strong>once more as a sw<strong>in</strong>dler and false prophet who makes a fool of himself <strong>in</strong>claim<strong>in</strong>g to predict what everybody already knew.Now <strong>the</strong> death penalty and execution. Here we have a major discrepancybetween <strong>the</strong> New Testament and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>: accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> NewTestament <strong>Jesus</strong> was crucified (obviously follow<strong>in</strong>g Roman law), 48 whereasaccord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> he was stoned and subsequently hanged (follow<strong>in</strong>grabb<strong>in</strong>ic law). The reason for this, of course, was <strong>the</strong> simple fact that<strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> could not impose and execute <strong>the</strong> death penalty but had torely on <strong>the</strong> Roman authority, which followed Roman and not rabb<strong>in</strong>ic law.So shall we conclude from this that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> does not preserve any reliableevidence about <strong>the</strong> (historical) trial and execution of <strong>Jesus</strong>, and <strong>in</strong>steadimposes on him later rabb<strong>in</strong>ic law? 49 Yes, of course, but aga<strong>in</strong>, thisis <strong>the</strong> wrong question. Not <strong>the</strong> historical execution—crucifixion versusston<strong>in</strong>g/hang<strong>in</strong>g—is at stake here but <strong>the</strong> question of why <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>regards it as a matter of course, or ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>sists, that <strong>Jesus</strong> was executedaccord<strong>in</strong>g to rabb<strong>in</strong>ic law.To answer this question, <strong>the</strong> rabbis were certa<strong>in</strong>ly aware that crucifixionwas <strong>the</strong> standard Roman death penalty, 50 that <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>in</strong>deed crucifiedand not stoned and hanged. Hence, why <strong>the</strong>ir stubborn <strong>in</strong>sistence on <strong>the</strong>latter? Because this is precisely <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong>ir polemical counternarrativeto <strong>the</strong> Gospels. The author of our Bavli Baraita does not need to distort <strong>the</strong>New Testament report as such: <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Jesus</strong> was put on trial and executedlike an ord<strong>in</strong>ary crim<strong>in</strong>al was devastat<strong>in</strong>g enough—such a story canhardly be made any worse. Instead, of <strong>the</strong> two (and <strong>in</strong>deed conflict<strong>in</strong>g) storiesabout <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament he chooses <strong>the</strong> “Jewish” oneand completely ignores <strong>the</strong> “Roman” one. Unlike Pilate, who emphasizes<strong>the</strong> political part of <strong>the</strong> charge aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Jesus</strong>, our Bavli author adopts and<strong>in</strong>terprets <strong>the</strong> version of <strong>the</strong> trial before <strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>, comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g it with<strong>the</strong> mishnaic law: <strong>the</strong> accusation and condemnation of a blasphemer andidolater, who leads astray all of Israel. We, <strong>the</strong> Jews, he argues, have puthim on trial and executed him for what he was: a blasphemer, who
72 Chapter 6claimed to be God and deserved <strong>the</strong> capital punishment accord<strong>in</strong>g to ourJewish law. With this deliberate “misread<strong>in</strong>g” of <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative,<strong>the</strong> Bavli (re)claims <strong>Jesus</strong> for <strong>the</strong> Jewish people—but only to fend offonce and for all any claim by himself or his followers. Yes <strong>in</strong>deed, <strong>the</strong> Bavliadmits, <strong>Jesus</strong> was a Jewish heretic, who was quite successful <strong>in</strong> seduc<strong>in</strong>gmany of us. But he was taken care of accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Jewish law, got wha<strong>the</strong> deserved—and that’s <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> story.The Baraita <strong>in</strong> our Bavli narrative about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution adds yet ano<strong>the</strong>rremarkable detail that needs closer <strong>in</strong>spection. All <strong>the</strong> uncensoredmanuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions of <strong>the</strong> Bavli reveal <strong>the</strong> precise day of hisexecution: he was hanged on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover, that is, <strong>the</strong> day beforePassover. The same is true for <strong>the</strong> only rabb<strong>in</strong>ic parallel to our story (also <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Bavli), where it is said that <strong>the</strong> son of Stada was hanged <strong>in</strong> Lod/Lyddaon <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover. 51 This conspicuously precise date is concordantwith John, whose Gospel contradicts <strong>the</strong> three synoptic Gospels: WhereasMat<strong>the</strong>w, Mark, and Luke are quite vague about <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> trial andexecution but clearly state that <strong>Jesus</strong> eats <strong>the</strong> Passover meal (<strong>the</strong> “Last Supper”)with his disciples before he is arrested (Mt. 26:3f. even states explicitlythat <strong>the</strong> high priests and <strong>the</strong> elders of <strong>the</strong> people postpone <strong>Jesus</strong>’ arrest untilafter Passover <strong>in</strong> order to avoid a riot among <strong>the</strong> people) 52 and was crucifiedon <strong>the</strong> first day of <strong>the</strong> feast (<strong>the</strong> fifteenth day of <strong>the</strong> month of Nisan),John declares that <strong>the</strong> Last Supper is not <strong>the</strong> Passover meal but takes placebefore Passover. 53 Instead, <strong>the</strong> trial before Pilate takes place about noon on<strong>the</strong> very day on which (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> even<strong>in</strong>g) Passover beg<strong>in</strong>s (<strong>the</strong> fourteenth ofNisan). 54 Hence, whereas <strong>the</strong> synoptic Gospels agree that <strong>Jesus</strong> was executedon <strong>the</strong> fifteenth of Nisan (<strong>the</strong> first day of Passover), it is only Johnwho says that <strong>the</strong> execution took place on <strong>the</strong> fourteenth of Nisan (<strong>the</strong> daybefore Passover). 55 Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, it is <strong>the</strong> particular hol<strong>in</strong>ess ofPassover fall<strong>in</strong>g on a Sabbath that John gives as <strong>the</strong> reason for <strong>the</strong> Jewishrequest to have <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> two o<strong>the</strong>r crim<strong>in</strong>als buried on that very Friday:<strong>the</strong> Jews did not want <strong>the</strong> bodies of <strong>the</strong> executed left on <strong>the</strong> cross overSabbath. 56 This seems to be a (slightly distorted) reference to <strong>the</strong> biblicaland rabb<strong>in</strong>ic law that <strong>the</strong> body of an executed crim<strong>in</strong>al must not rema<strong>in</strong>on <strong>the</strong> tree/cross overnight (any night, not just <strong>the</strong> Sabbath night). 57F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> Bavli has preserved a fur<strong>the</strong>r conspicuous detail that betraysan <strong>in</strong>timate knowledge of <strong>the</strong> New Testament Passion narrative: that
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution 73<strong>Jesus</strong> was close to <strong>the</strong> government (and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> herald went out fortydays before <strong>the</strong> execution to ask for o<strong>the</strong>r witnesses); this detail does notbelong to <strong>the</strong> Baraita but is <strong>the</strong> answer to Ulla’s (later) objection. In allfour Gospels, Pilate, <strong>the</strong> Roman governor, tries to save <strong>Jesus</strong> and to haveBarabbas crucified <strong>in</strong>stead of him. 58 Thus, one can <strong>in</strong>deed get <strong>the</strong> impressionthat <strong>Jesus</strong> had no less powerful a protector than <strong>the</strong> governor himself.59 Pilate explicitly makes a great effort to conv<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> Jews that hehasn’t found any case aga<strong>in</strong>st him and wants to release him, but <strong>the</strong> Jewswon’t give <strong>in</strong>. It is aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John that is particularly specific <strong>in</strong>this regard. There, when Pilate tries to release <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Jews cry out: “Ifyou release this man, you are no friend of <strong>the</strong> emperor. Everyone whoclaims to be a k<strong>in</strong>g sets himself aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> emperor!” 60 So <strong>the</strong> Jews play<strong>the</strong> Roman governor off aga<strong>in</strong>st his master, <strong>the</strong> emperor—and that was<strong>the</strong> last th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world that Pilate needed: to be accused of disloyaltyto <strong>the</strong> emperor. <strong>Jesus</strong> does not ga<strong>in</strong> time, as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> has it, but is immediatelysentenced and executed.The very fact that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>’s claim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ closeness to <strong>the</strong> Romangovernment reflects some knowledge—certa<strong>in</strong>ly not of <strong>the</strong> historicalcourse of events 61 but of <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative, particularly ofJohn’s version of it—does not come as a surprise anymore. What is moreamaz<strong>in</strong>g is that this detail exonerates <strong>the</strong> Roman government from <strong>the</strong>blame of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ condemnation and consequently, adopt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Gospels’message, puts <strong>the</strong> thrust of <strong>the</strong> accusation on <strong>the</strong> Jews. I have no def<strong>in</strong>iteanswer to this ra<strong>the</strong>r odd conclusion, but it may well have to do with <strong>the</strong>fact that this element of our story is not part of <strong>the</strong> (early Palest<strong>in</strong>ian?)Baraita 62 but of <strong>the</strong> fourth-century C.E. Babylonian discourse upon it.Could it be that <strong>the</strong> Babylonian Jews had a more relaxed attitude toward<strong>the</strong> Roman government <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e than <strong>the</strong>ir Palest<strong>in</strong>ian brethren, whosuffered <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly from <strong>the</strong> Christian variety of Roman government?But <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> Babylonia must have known pretty well what was go<strong>in</strong>g on<strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early fourth century—Ulla, although a Babylonianamora, had moved from Palest<strong>in</strong>e to Babylonia and frequently travelledback and forth between Babylonia and Palest<strong>in</strong>e. Moreover, it is one th<strong>in</strong>gto follow <strong>the</strong> New Testament version that Pilate tried very hard to rescue<strong>Jesus</strong>, but it is quite ano<strong>the</strong>r to accept <strong>the</strong> message that—<strong>the</strong>refore—<strong>the</strong>Jews are to be blamed for his death. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, we should not
74 Chapter 6forget that it was also <strong>the</strong> gist of <strong>the</strong> Baraita’s narrative that <strong>the</strong> Jews tookupon <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> responsibility for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution. So <strong>the</strong> later Babyloniandiscourse may not want to accept <strong>the</strong> Gospels’ blame for <strong>Jesus</strong>’death; ra<strong>the</strong>r, like <strong>the</strong> Baraita but with different reason<strong>in</strong>g, it may want toconvey <strong>the</strong> message: yes, <strong>the</strong> Roman governor wanted to set him free, butwe did not give <strong>in</strong>. He was a blasphemer and idolater, and although <strong>the</strong>Romans probably could not care less, we <strong>in</strong>sisted that he get what he deserved.We even conv<strong>in</strong>ced <strong>the</strong> Roman governor (or more precisely:forced him to accept) that this heretic and impostor needed to beexecuted—and we are proud of it.What we <strong>the</strong>n have here <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli is a powerful confirmation of <strong>the</strong>New Testament Passion narrative, a creative reread<strong>in</strong>g, however, that notonly knows some of its dist<strong>in</strong>ct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibilityfor <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution. Ultimately and more precisely, <strong>the</strong>refore,it turns out to be a complete reversal of <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s message ofshame and guilt: we do accept, it argues, responsibility for this heretic’sdeath, but <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to be ashamed of it and feel guilty for it. Weare not <strong>the</strong> murderers of <strong>the</strong> Messiah and Son of God, nor of <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of<strong>the</strong> Jews as Pilate wanted to have it. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, we are <strong>the</strong> rightful executionersof a blasphemer and idolater, who was sentenced accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> fullweight, but also <strong>the</strong> fair procedure, of our law. If this <strong>in</strong>terpretation is correct,we are confronted here with a message that boldly and even aggressivelychallenges <strong>the</strong> Christian charges aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Jews as <strong>the</strong> killers ofChrist. For <strong>the</strong> first time <strong>in</strong> history, we encounter Jews who, <strong>in</strong>stead of react<strong>in</strong>gdefensively, raise <strong>the</strong>ir voice and speak out aga<strong>in</strong>st what would become<strong>the</strong> perennial story of <strong>the</strong> triumphant Church.
7. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ DisciplesOne of <strong>the</strong> most characteristic features of <strong>the</strong> Gospels is <strong>the</strong> fact that<strong>Jesus</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>red a circle of disciples around him. The selection of hisdisciples was a gradual process, which seems to have begun with four (SimonPeter and his bro<strong>the</strong>r Andrew, James son of Zebedee and his bro<strong>the</strong>rJohn) 1 and ultimately led to <strong>the</strong> number twelve, clearly allud<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>twelve tribes of Israel. 2 The twelve disciples accompanied him until his arrest<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> garden of Gethsemane, celebrated <strong>the</strong> Last Supper with him,witnessed <strong>the</strong> betrayal of one of <strong>the</strong>m (Judas) who delivered him to <strong>the</strong>authorities, and <strong>the</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g eleven saw him after his resurrection. 3It is <strong>the</strong>refore hardly surpris<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> Bavli, immediately after <strong>the</strong> accountof <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution, adds ano<strong>the</strong>r story about his disciples. It is aga<strong>in</strong>transmitted as an (early) Baraita: 4Our Rabbis taught: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene 5 had five disciples, and <strong>the</strong>seare <strong>the</strong>y:Mattai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.When <strong>the</strong>y brought Mattai (before <strong>the</strong> court), he [Mattai] said to<strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> judges]: Mattai shall be executed? It is written: When(matai) shall I come and appear before God? (Ps. 42:3). They [<strong>the</strong>judges] answered him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is written:When (matai) will he die and his name perish? (Ps. 41:6).
76 Chapter 7When <strong>the</strong>y brought Naqqai (before <strong>the</strong> court), he [Naqqai] saidto <strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> judges]: Naqqai shall be executed? It is written: Youshall not execute <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>nocent (naqi) and <strong>the</strong> righteous (Ex. 23:7).They [<strong>the</strong> judges] answered him: Yes, Naqqai shall be executed,s<strong>in</strong>ce it is written: From a covert (be-mistar<strong>in</strong>) 6 he executes <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>nocent(naqi) (Ps. 10:8).When <strong>the</strong>y brought Netzer (before <strong>the</strong> court), he [Netzer] said to<strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> judges]: Netzer shall be executed? It is written: An offshoot(netzer) shall grow forth out of his roots (Isa. 11:1). They [<strong>the</strong>judges] answered him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is written:You shall be cast forth away from your grave like an abhorred offshoot(netzer) (Isa. 14:19).When <strong>the</strong>y brought Buni (before <strong>the</strong> court), he [Buni] said to<strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> judges]: Buni shall be executed? It is written: My son(beni), my firstborn is Israel (Ex. 4:22). They [<strong>the</strong> judges] answeredhim: Yes, Buni shall be executed, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is written: Behold I will executeyour firstborn son (b<strong>in</strong>kha) (Ex. 4:23).When <strong>the</strong>y brought Todah (before <strong>the</strong> court), he [Todah] said to<strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> judges]: Todah shall be executed? It is written: A psalm forThanksgiv<strong>in</strong>g (todah) (Ps. 100:1). They [<strong>the</strong> judges] answered him:Yes, Todah shall be executed, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is written: He who sacrifices<strong>the</strong> sacrifice of Thanksgiv<strong>in</strong>g (todah) honors me (Ps. 50:23).This is a highly sophisticated fight with biblical verses, <strong>in</strong>deed a fight to <strong>the</strong>death. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> whole unit is an early tannaitic Baraita or a Babylonianfabrication, or whe<strong>the</strong>r only <strong>the</strong> list of <strong>the</strong> names is <strong>the</strong> Baraita and <strong>the</strong>follow<strong>in</strong>g exegeses are a later Babylonian addition 7 —this does not reallymatter for our purpose. 8 We are clearly deal<strong>in</strong>g here with a Babylonian traditionthat may or may not rely on some earlier Palest<strong>in</strong>ian elements. Norshould we be concerned with <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> Bavli lists only five studentsof <strong>Jesus</strong> whereas <strong>the</strong> New Testament has twelve. One could refer to <strong>the</strong>gradual process of <strong>Jesus</strong> acquir<strong>in</strong>g his disciples and argue that <strong>the</strong> Bavli reflectsan earlier stage, before <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al number of twelve was reached, 9 orthat a rabbi like Yohanan b. Zakkai had five prom<strong>in</strong>ent students 10 —butthis would be a pseudo-historical explanation of a text 11 that has no <strong>in</strong>tentionof provid<strong>in</strong>g historical <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong> and his
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Disciples 77disciples. What is important is only <strong>the</strong> message that <strong>the</strong> author/editor ofour text wants to convey.First of all, <strong>the</strong> Bavli takes it for granted that <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples were executedlike <strong>the</strong>ir master. There was, however, no meticulous trial, nocharge, no conviction, and no formal death sentence—<strong>the</strong> five were simplyput to death, and we aren’t even told what k<strong>in</strong>d of execution awaited<strong>the</strong>m. We may just presume that <strong>the</strong>y were charged with <strong>the</strong> same crimewith which <strong>Jesus</strong> was charged: blasphemy and idolatry. And it may be safeto add that <strong>the</strong>y were put to trial and executed immediately after <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution.These strange circumstances already suggest <strong>the</strong> suspicion that ourauthor/editor somehow has deliberately blurred <strong>the</strong> boundaries between<strong>Jesus</strong> and his disciples: it seems as if <strong>the</strong>y/<strong>the</strong>ir fate were/was just <strong>the</strong> same.Except for Mattai, whose name may or may not allude to <strong>the</strong> apostleMat<strong>the</strong>w 12 (<strong>the</strong> alleged author of <strong>the</strong> Gospel bear<strong>in</strong>g his name), <strong>the</strong> namesof <strong>the</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g four disciples are not rem<strong>in</strong>iscent of any of <strong>the</strong> twelveapostles. But this aga<strong>in</strong> should not be taken as historical <strong>in</strong>formation becauseit becomes immediately clear that all five names (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Mattai)are designed accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Bible verses used for <strong>the</strong> disciples’ defenseand sentenc<strong>in</strong>g. Mattai is a play on words with <strong>the</strong> Hebrew word matai(“when”) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two verses, <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g Psalm 42:3 (<strong>the</strong> defense) as “Mattaiwill come and appear 13 before <strong>the</strong> Lord” and Psalm 41:6 (<strong>the</strong> condemnation)as “Mattai will die and his name perish.” The same is true for <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r four disciples: For Naqqai, <strong>the</strong> defense verse Exodus 23:7 is <strong>in</strong>terpretedas “You shall not execute Naqqai 14 and <strong>the</strong> righteous” and <strong>the</strong> condemnationverse Psalm 10:8 as “From a cover/<strong>in</strong> secret/<strong>in</strong> a mysterious wayis Naqqai executed.” 15 For Netzer, <strong>the</strong> defense verse Isaiah 11:1 is understoodas “Netzer shall grow forth out of his roots,” that is, he shall cont<strong>in</strong>ueto flourish, and <strong>the</strong> condemnation verse Isaiah 14:19 as: “The abhorredNetzer will be cast forth from his grave.” The name Buni is derived from<strong>the</strong> Hebrew word beni (“my son”), and whereas Buni applies Exodus 4:22to himself (Buni is <strong>the</strong> firstborn of Israel and <strong>the</strong>refore cannot be executed),<strong>the</strong> judges quote <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g verse Exodus 4:23, which refers to <strong>the</strong> firstbornof Egypt (Buni, Egypt’s firstborn, must be executed). The defenseverse Psalm 100:1 for Todah is understood as “A psalm for Todah” (henceTodah is go<strong>in</strong>g to be praised and not executed) and <strong>the</strong> condemnation versePsalm 50:23 as “He who sacrifices = executes Todah honors me.”
78 Chapter 7If we now look more closely at <strong>the</strong> Bible verses be<strong>in</strong>g used by <strong>the</strong> opponents,we discover some remarkable allusions. Mattai is most <strong>in</strong>trigu<strong>in</strong>gbecause he quotes Psalm 42, a text which could easily be applied to <strong>Jesus</strong>on <strong>the</strong> cross, desperately ask<strong>in</strong>g for God’s help and be<strong>in</strong>g mocked by <strong>the</strong>people pass<strong>in</strong>g by. Compare Psalm 42:10f. (“I say to God, my rock: Whyhave you forgotten me, why must I walk <strong>in</strong> gloom because <strong>the</strong> enemy oppressesme? With a shatter<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> my bones [be-retzah be-
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Disciples 79which <strong>the</strong> New Testament establishes (most prom<strong>in</strong>ently <strong>in</strong> Mt. 1, where<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Davidic l<strong>in</strong>eage is spelled out: <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Messiah, <strong>the</strong> son of David,<strong>the</strong> son of Jesse). Aga<strong>in</strong>st this Davidic claim <strong>the</strong> judges set up quite ano<strong>the</strong>rnarrative: You, Netzer, are not from Davidic l<strong>in</strong>eage, God forbid, but <strong>the</strong>“abhorred offshoot,” who will be left unburied, “pierced with <strong>the</strong> sword”—ano<strong>the</strong>r reference to <strong>the</strong> Gospels 20 —“like a trampled corpse” (Isa. 14:19).This is a direct allusion or ra<strong>the</strong>r counternarrative to <strong>the</strong> New Testament’sclaim of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ resurrection. You will not only die, <strong>the</strong> judges argue, butyou will be left unburied, <strong>the</strong> most horrible fate that can await someonebecause, as we know from <strong>the</strong> Mishna, even <strong>the</strong> worst crim<strong>in</strong>al deserves tobe taken from <strong>the</strong> tree/cross and to be properly buried. <strong>Jesus</strong> is worse than<strong>the</strong> worst crim<strong>in</strong>al because, as Isaiah cont<strong>in</strong>ues, “you destroyed your country,killed your people” (Isa. 14:20), that is, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s read<strong>in</strong>g, you blasphemedGod and seduced your people <strong>in</strong>to idolatry. And this dest<strong>in</strong>y appliesnot only to <strong>Jesus</strong> himself but also to his followers. When Isaiahcont<strong>in</strong>ues: “Prepare a slaughter for his sons because of <strong>the</strong> guilt of <strong>the</strong>ir fa<strong>the</strong>r.21 Let <strong>the</strong>m not arise to possess <strong>the</strong> earth!” (Isa. 14:21), it becomesclear that, for <strong>the</strong> Bavli, <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples are executed because of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ guiltand that <strong>the</strong>ir hope to be resurrected is futile, as futile as <strong>Jesus</strong>’ own expectationwas. They will never arise and possess <strong>the</strong> earth as Mat<strong>the</strong>w has <strong>Jesus</strong>promise his disciples after his resurrection: “All authority <strong>in</strong> heaven andon earth has been given to me. Go <strong>the</strong>refore and make disciples of all nations,baptiz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r and of <strong>the</strong> Son and of <strong>the</strong>Holy Spirit, and teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m to obey everyth<strong>in</strong>g that I have commandedyou.” 22 No, our Bavli narrative ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s, nei<strong>the</strong>r was <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Messiahnor does his message live among his followers. They are all dead.With regard to Buni’s claim to be Israel, God’s firstborn son, <strong>the</strong> implicationsare even bolder. First, Buni <strong>in</strong>sists on be<strong>in</strong>g God’s son. This is butano<strong>the</strong>r reference to a Bible verse with highly messianic overtones, namelyPsalm 2:7: “He [<strong>the</strong> Lord] said to me: You are my son (beni), today I havebegotten you.” In <strong>the</strong> New Testament, when <strong>Jesus</strong> is baptized by John, <strong>the</strong>heavens open, <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit descends as a dove, and a heavenly voice declares“You are my son, <strong>the</strong> beloved!” 23 —a clear allusion to Psalm 2:7. Thesame is true for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ transfiguration on <strong>the</strong> mount, where a voice fromheaven (clearly God’s voice) declares: “This is my son, <strong>the</strong> beloved!” 24Even more explicitly, when Paul, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> synagogue of Antioch <strong>in</strong> Pisidia,
80 Chapter 7summarizes <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life and death (<strong>the</strong> Jews asked Pilate to execute<strong>Jesus</strong>, although <strong>the</strong>y did not f<strong>in</strong>d a cause for a death sentence; after hewas killed he was taken down “from <strong>the</strong> tree” 25 and buried <strong>in</strong> a tomb, butGod raised him from <strong>the</strong> dead), 26 he beg<strong>in</strong>s his series of biblical proof textswith a full quotation of Psalm 2:7: “You are my son; today I have begottenyou!” F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> epistle to <strong>the</strong> Hebrews, <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> asGod’s son and hence superior to <strong>the</strong> angels, aga<strong>in</strong> quotes Psalm 2:7 to bolsterhis claim. 27Second, Buni <strong>in</strong>sists on be<strong>in</strong>g God’s firstborn. This is obviously an allusionto <strong>the</strong> claim, expressed frequently by Paul, that <strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> true firstbornof and before all creation: “He [<strong>Jesus</strong>] is <strong>the</strong> image of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>visibleGod, <strong>the</strong> firstborn of all creation; for <strong>in</strong> him all th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> heaven and onearth were created, ...all th<strong>in</strong>gs have been created through him and forhim.” 28 S<strong>in</strong>ce he is also <strong>the</strong> “firstborn from <strong>the</strong> dead,” 29 all his followerswill live through him: “But <strong>in</strong> fact Christ has been raised from <strong>the</strong> dead,<strong>the</strong> first fruits of those who have died. For s<strong>in</strong>ce death came through a humanbe<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> resurrection of <strong>the</strong> dead has also come through a humanbe<strong>in</strong>g; for as all die <strong>in</strong> Adam, so all will be made alive <strong>in</strong> Christ.” 30 <strong>Jesus</strong>and his followers form <strong>the</strong> new Israel, <strong>the</strong> “children of <strong>the</strong> promise” as opposedto <strong>the</strong> “children of flesh”: “This means that it is not <strong>the</strong> children of<strong>the</strong> flesh who are <strong>the</strong> children of God, but <strong>the</strong> children of <strong>the</strong> promise arecounted as descendants.” 31 And Paul cont<strong>in</strong>ues, quot<strong>in</strong>g Hosea: “Thosewho were not my people I will call my people, and <strong>the</strong> unloved I will callbeloved.” 32 Therefore, when Buni ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s he is God’s (beloved) son,his (true) firstborn, he expresses <strong>the</strong> claim of <strong>the</strong> Christian Church tohave superseded <strong>the</strong> “old Israel” of <strong>the</strong> Jews. And it is to this supersessionistclaim that <strong>the</strong> judges reply: You fool, you are not God’s but <strong>the</strong>Pharaoh’s firstborn, <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> wicked, who tried <strong>in</strong> va<strong>in</strong> to destroy Israel.The self-appo<strong>in</strong>ted Messiah turns out to be <strong>the</strong> descendant of <strong>the</strong>worst of all of Israel’s oppressors, <strong>the</strong> archenemy of Israel.F<strong>in</strong>ally, Todah, <strong>the</strong> last of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples. The Hebrew word todahmeans “thanks” and “thanksgiv<strong>in</strong>g,” more specifically also “thank offer<strong>in</strong>g,”and it is this latter mean<strong>in</strong>g with which our text plays. Todah, <strong>the</strong>“disciple,” ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s: “I am <strong>the</strong> thank offer<strong>in</strong>g for Israel and as such to bepraised ra<strong>the</strong>r than to be executed,” but <strong>the</strong> judges counter with: “On <strong>the</strong>contrary, your execution—which is by no means a sacrifice <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cultic
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Disciples 81sense of <strong>the</strong> word—is unavoidable, and those who execute you fulfillGod’s will.” Hence, <strong>the</strong> judges deny <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s claim that <strong>Jesus</strong>is <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of <strong>the</strong> new covenant, <strong>the</strong> new Passover lamb, which “takesaway <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> world.” 33 Paul explicitly calls <strong>Jesus</strong> a “fragrant offer<strong>in</strong>gand sacrifice to God,” 34 presumably allud<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> burnt offer<strong>in</strong>g with apleas<strong>in</strong>g odor <strong>in</strong> Exodus 29:18, and a “sacrifice of atonement by hisblood.” 35 The burnt offer<strong>in</strong>g, more precisely <strong>the</strong> whole burnt offer<strong>in</strong>g(
8. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> HellAccord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> New Testament, <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>in</strong>deed resurrected on <strong>the</strong>third day after his crucifixion, as he had predicted, and appeared tohis disciples. The synoptic Gospels do not relate what happened to himafter his resurrection (<strong>in</strong> Luke he blesses <strong>the</strong> disciples and simply disappears),1 and only <strong>the</strong> appendix <strong>in</strong> Mark adds that he was “taken up <strong>in</strong>toheaven and sat down at <strong>the</strong> right hand of God” (Mk. 16:19). The <strong>in</strong>troductionto <strong>the</strong> Acts of <strong>the</strong> Apostles, however, knows more details: There,<strong>Jesus</strong> presents himself alive after his Passion dur<strong>in</strong>g forty days(!) 2 and, athis last appearance, promises <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> power of <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit to spread<strong>the</strong> new faith over <strong>the</strong> whole earth:(9) When he had said this, as <strong>the</strong>y were watch<strong>in</strong>g, he was lifted up,and a cloud took him out of <strong>the</strong>ir sight. (10) While he was go<strong>in</strong>g and<strong>the</strong>y were gaz<strong>in</strong>g up toward heaven, suddenly two men <strong>in</strong> whiterobes stood by <strong>the</strong>m. 3 (11) They said: “Men of Galilee, why do youstand look<strong>in</strong>g up toward heaven? This <strong>Jesus</strong>, who has been taken upfrom you <strong>in</strong>to heaven, will come <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same way as you saw him go<strong>in</strong>to heaven.” 4In a reverse movement of <strong>the</strong> “Son of Man” <strong>in</strong> Daniel, who comes downwith <strong>the</strong> clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13), <strong>the</strong> resurrected <strong>Jesus</strong> ascends to
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 83heaven on a cloud, and <strong>the</strong> angels expla<strong>in</strong> to <strong>the</strong> amazed disciples that hewill later return from where he has gone, that is from heaven. Hence it issafe to assume that he will stay <strong>in</strong> heaven until his last and f<strong>in</strong>al appearanceon earth.It is aga<strong>in</strong> reserved to <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> to tell a counternarrative to<strong>the</strong> New Testament’s message, <strong>in</strong> fact <strong>the</strong> exact opposite of what <strong>the</strong> NewTestament proclaims, namely a most graphic and bizarre story about <strong>Jesus</strong>’descent to and punishment <strong>in</strong> hell. The context is a large aggadic complexabout <strong>the</strong> destruction of Jerusalem and <strong>the</strong> Temple dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> first JewishWar and of Bethar, <strong>the</strong> last stronghold of <strong>the</strong> rebels, dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> second JewishWar (<strong>the</strong> so-called Bar Kokhba revolt). The purpose of <strong>the</strong> story is to figureout why Jerusalem and Bethar were destroyed. Bethar is not our concernhere, but with regard to Jerusalem, <strong>the</strong> argument goes as follows. 5A certa<strong>in</strong> Bar Qamtza was offended at a banquet and, hold<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> rabbispartly responsible for this offense, denounces <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> authorities <strong>in</strong>Rome. He tells <strong>the</strong> Roman emperor that <strong>the</strong>y are prepar<strong>in</strong>g a rebellion andoffers, as a proof for this accusation, that <strong>the</strong>y will refuse to offer <strong>the</strong> customarysacrifice for <strong>the</strong> emperor <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple. 6 When <strong>the</strong> emperor sends hisanimal for <strong>the</strong> sacrifice, Bar Qamtza renders it halakhically unfit (adduc<strong>in</strong>ga t<strong>in</strong>y bodily blemish) to be offered at <strong>the</strong> Temple. The rabbis are never<strong>the</strong>less<strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed to sacrifice <strong>the</strong> unfit animal, <strong>in</strong> order not to offend <strong>the</strong> Romangovernment, but one of <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues conv<strong>in</strong>ces <strong>the</strong>m that such a poorcompromise wouldn’t be acceptable. Hence, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> concludes, becauseof this uncompromis<strong>in</strong>g halakhic rigidity <strong>the</strong> Temple was destroyed.At first, and historically quite anachronistically, <strong>the</strong> Romans send <strong>the</strong>Emperor Nero aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Jews, but Nero, when he realizes that Godwants to use him as his tool to punish his people, flees and becomes aproselyte (from whom, grotesquely enough, R. Meir is descendent). Then<strong>the</strong> Romans dispatch Vespasian, who, when he learns that he is electedemperor, sends Titus <strong>in</strong> his stead (historically quite correct). Titus defiles<strong>the</strong> Temple by enter<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Holy of Holies (which is <strong>the</strong> privilege of <strong>the</strong>high priest only) and fornicat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>re with a whore on a Torah scroll.The burn<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Temple is not explicitly mentioned; only that Titusrobs <strong>the</strong> utensils of <strong>the</strong> Temple for his triumph <strong>in</strong> Rome. 7 However, as apunishment for <strong>the</strong> arrogant and wicked emperor, God sends a gnat,which enters his bra<strong>in</strong> through his nostril and feeds upon his bra<strong>in</strong> for
84 Chapter 8seven years. 8 When <strong>the</strong> poor emperor f<strong>in</strong>ally dies and <strong>the</strong>y open his skull<strong>the</strong>y f<strong>in</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> gnat had grown <strong>in</strong>to someth<strong>in</strong>g like a sparrow or even ayoung dove with a beak of brass and talons of iron. Before he dies, Titusdecrees: “Burn me and scatter my ashes over <strong>the</strong> seven seas so that <strong>the</strong>God of <strong>the</strong> Jews will not f<strong>in</strong>d me and br<strong>in</strong>g me to trial.” 9 After this, <strong>the</strong>Bavli narrator proceeds with <strong>the</strong> story of a certa<strong>in</strong> Onqelos <strong>the</strong> son ofQaloniqos who considers convert<strong>in</strong>g to Judaism, presumably follow<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> example of Emperor Nero: 10Onqelos <strong>the</strong> son of Qaloniqos, <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> sister of Titus, wantedto convert to Judaism. He went and brought up Titus out of his graveby necromancy and asked him: Who is important <strong>in</strong> that world [<strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> world of <strong>the</strong> dead]?He [Titus] answered: Israel!He [Onqelos] answered: What <strong>the</strong>n about jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m?[Titus:] Their (religious) requirements are many, and you will notbe able to carry <strong>the</strong>m (all) out. Go and attack <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> that world [onearth] and you will be on top, as it is written: Her adversaries havebecome <strong>the</strong> head (Lam. 1:5), [mean<strong>in</strong>g] whoever harasses Israel becomeshead.[Onqelos:] What is your punishment [<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld]?[Titus:] What I decreed upon myself: Every day my ashes are collectedand <strong>the</strong>y pass sentence on me, and I am burned and my ashesare scattered [aga<strong>in</strong>] over <strong>the</strong> seven seas.He [Onqelos] went and brought up Balaam out of his grave bynecromancy and asked him: Who is important <strong>in</strong> that world?He [Balaam] answered: Israel![Onqelos:] What <strong>the</strong>n about jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m?[Balaam:] You shall not seek <strong>the</strong>ir peace nor <strong>the</strong>ir prosperity allyour days for ever (Deut. 23:7).[Onqelos:] What is your punishment?[Balaam:] With boil<strong>in</strong>g semen.He [Onqelos] went and brought up <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene (Yeshu hanotzri)/<strong>the</strong>s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel (posh< e Yisrael) 11 out of his/<strong>the</strong>ir grave(s)
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 85by necromancy and asked him/<strong>the</strong>m: Who is important <strong>in</strong> thatworld?He/<strong>the</strong>y [<strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel] answered: Israel![Onqelos:] What <strong>the</strong>n about jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m?[<strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel:] Seek <strong>the</strong>ir welfare, seek not <strong>the</strong>irharm. Whoever touches <strong>the</strong>m is as though he touches <strong>the</strong> apple ofhis [God’s] eye! 12[Onqelos:] What is your punishment?[<strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel:] With boil<strong>in</strong>g excrement.For <strong>the</strong> master has said: Whoever mocks <strong>the</strong> words of <strong>the</strong> Sages ispunished with boil<strong>in</strong>g excrement.Come and see <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel and <strong>the</strong>prophets of <strong>the</strong> gentile nations! 13It has been taught (tanya): R. Eleazar 14 said: Come and see how greatis <strong>the</strong> power of humiliation. For <strong>the</strong> Holy One, Blessed be He, sidedwith Bar Qamtza and destroyed His house and burnt His Temple!The story opens with Onqelos, who is well known as <strong>the</strong> alleged translatorof <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible <strong>in</strong>to Aramaic (and sometimes confused with Akylas/Aquila, <strong>the</strong> translator of <strong>the</strong> Bible <strong>in</strong>to Greek). The Bavli makes him <strong>the</strong>son of Titus’ sister, ponder<strong>in</strong>g whe<strong>the</strong>r he should convert to Judaism, presumablybecause Titus himself did not convert (unlike his “predecessor”Nero) but <strong>in</strong>stead preferred to destroy <strong>the</strong> Temple of <strong>the</strong> Jews. 15 This Onqelosbr<strong>in</strong>gs up by means of necromancy three arch villa<strong>in</strong>s of Jewish historyout of <strong>the</strong>ir graves to get <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>formed advice: Titus, <strong>the</strong> destroyer of<strong>the</strong> second Temple; Balaam, <strong>the</strong> prophet of <strong>the</strong> nations; and <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>Nazarene, who is quite dubious, however, because <strong>in</strong> some versions of <strong>the</strong>Bavli he is replaced by <strong>the</strong> broad category of <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel.” Allthree are obviously <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld (<strong>the</strong> biblical She’ol or Geh<strong>in</strong>nom)where <strong>the</strong>y are punished for <strong>the</strong>ir grave misdeeds.The background of our story is <strong>the</strong> famous passage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna thatlists those terrible s<strong>in</strong>ners who have no portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come. 16Among <strong>the</strong>m are certa<strong>in</strong> heretics and Balaam as one of <strong>the</strong> four “commoners”(toge<strong>the</strong>r with Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi). As we have seen,
86 Chapter 8<strong>the</strong> Bavli Berakhot story about <strong>the</strong> wicked disciple replaces Balaam with<strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uat<strong>in</strong>g by this bold move that <strong>Jesus</strong>, like Balaam, did not havea share <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come. 17 In our Bavli Gitt<strong>in</strong> story, <strong>Jesus</strong> appears explicitly<strong>in</strong> this context of <strong>the</strong> afterlife, toge<strong>the</strong>r with Balaam (and with Titus).The Tosefta parallel to <strong>the</strong> Mishna addresses <strong>the</strong> question, which isnot dealt with <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna and <strong>the</strong> Bavli (but probably presupposed <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> latter), of how long <strong>the</strong>se s<strong>in</strong>ners are punished <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom: <strong>the</strong>“s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel” and <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations” are supposed to stay <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom for twelve months only: “after twelve months <strong>the</strong>ir soulsperish, <strong>the</strong>ir bodies are burnt, Geh<strong>in</strong>nom discharges <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong>y areturned <strong>in</strong>to ashes, and <strong>the</strong> w<strong>in</strong>d blows <strong>the</strong>m and scatters <strong>the</strong>m under <strong>the</strong>feet of <strong>the</strong> righteous.” In regard to <strong>the</strong> various k<strong>in</strong>ds of heretics, however,and <strong>the</strong> destroyers of <strong>the</strong> first and second Temples (<strong>the</strong> Assyrians and <strong>the</strong>Romans): “<strong>the</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom is locked beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong>y are judged<strong>the</strong>re<strong>in</strong> for all generations.” 18 So presumably <strong>the</strong> punishment <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nomof Balaam (who belongs to <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations”) and of <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel is term<strong>in</strong>ated—after twelve months <strong>the</strong>y will cease toexist—whereas Titus (<strong>the</strong> destroyer of <strong>the</strong> second Temple) will be punished<strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom forever: even “She>ol will perish, but <strong>the</strong>y [<strong>the</strong> destroyersof <strong>the</strong> Temple] will not perish.” 19All three s<strong>in</strong>ners be<strong>in</strong>g punished <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom give <strong>the</strong> same answer toOnqelos’ question of who is held <strong>in</strong> highest regard <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld: it isundoubtedly Israel. Now that <strong>the</strong>se arch-villa<strong>in</strong>s f<strong>in</strong>ally are where <strong>the</strong>y belong,<strong>the</strong>y realize to whom <strong>the</strong>y should have showed due respect on earth.Yet <strong>the</strong>y diverge with regard to <strong>the</strong> subsequent question of whe<strong>the</strong>r oneshould strive to jo<strong>in</strong> Israel’s fold as long as one enjoys liv<strong>in</strong>g on earth. Titus,dismiss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> model of his predecessor Nero, has decided for himself that<strong>the</strong>re is no po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> try<strong>in</strong>g to emulate <strong>the</strong> Jews; <strong>in</strong>stead, he opts for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rpossibility, to persecute <strong>the</strong>m, and hence to become <strong>the</strong> ruler of <strong>the</strong> world(if, sadly, only temporarily)—and this is <strong>the</strong> advice he gives to <strong>the</strong> son of hissister. Balaam, <strong>the</strong> prophet of <strong>the</strong> nations, gives quite a surpris<strong>in</strong>g answer:<strong>the</strong> verse that he quotes from <strong>the</strong> Bible (Deut. 23:7) does not refer to Israelat all but to <strong>the</strong> Ammonites and Moabites, <strong>the</strong> archenemies of Israel. TheAmmonites and Moabites must forever be excluded from <strong>the</strong> “congregationof <strong>the</strong> Lord,” <strong>the</strong> Bible demands (Deut. 23:4–7), because <strong>the</strong>y hired Balaamto curse Israel. However, as we know from Numbers 22–23, Balaam did not
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 87curse Israel as requested by Balak, <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of Moab, but <strong>in</strong>stead blessed<strong>the</strong>m. Never<strong>the</strong>less, Balaam is held responsible for <strong>in</strong>itially want<strong>in</strong>g tocarry out Balak’s request and to curse Israel. 20 Therefore, ironically, <strong>the</strong> authorof <strong>the</strong> Bavli narrative puts <strong>the</strong> verse orig<strong>in</strong>ally referr<strong>in</strong>g to Ammon andMoab <strong>in</strong>to Balaam’s mouth, turn<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong>to an advice aga<strong>in</strong>st Israel. So <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> end Balaam gets what he always wanted: to curse Israel. And f<strong>in</strong>ally <strong>Jesus</strong>or <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel, respectively: They are <strong>the</strong> only ones who actuallyadvise Onqelos to seek Israel’s welfare and not <strong>the</strong>ir harm, that is, <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> present context, to <strong>in</strong>deed jo<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. The stark warn<strong>in</strong>g “Whoevertouches <strong>the</strong>m is as though he touches <strong>the</strong> apple of his eye” is an allusion toZechariah 2:12, obviously <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g “his eye” not as “his own eye” but as“His [God’s] eye.” Hence, <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel come out on top ofthis “contest” between <strong>the</strong> wicked of <strong>the</strong> wicked—but still, <strong>the</strong>y are punished<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld for what <strong>the</strong>y did <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lifetime.What is it <strong>the</strong>n that our arch-villa<strong>in</strong>s of Jewish history did, and how are<strong>the</strong>y punished (because, obviously, <strong>the</strong> punishment stands <strong>in</strong> direct relationshipto <strong>the</strong>ir crime committed aga<strong>in</strong>st Israel)? Titus’ case is <strong>the</strong> simplestof <strong>the</strong> three: He has burned <strong>the</strong> Temple to ashes and has fitt<strong>in</strong>gly decreedthat after his death he shall be burned and his ashes be scatteredover <strong>the</strong> seas. In an ironical enactment of his will, his punishment consistsof his body be<strong>in</strong>g reassembled and burnt and his ashes be<strong>in</strong>g scatteredover <strong>the</strong> seas over and over aga<strong>in</strong>—literally forever, as <strong>the</strong> Tosefta tells us.Balaam’s s<strong>in</strong>, of course, is his attempt to curse Israel (unfortunately, hecannot take <strong>the</strong> credit for <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> curse failed and was transformed<strong>in</strong>to a bless<strong>in</strong>g), but what about his punishment <strong>in</strong> boil<strong>in</strong>g semen?This can be <strong>in</strong>ferred from <strong>the</strong> biblical account of Israel attach<strong>in</strong>g itself to<strong>the</strong> Moabite god Baal-Peor, whose worship entailed, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>Bible, whor<strong>in</strong>g with Moabite women (Num. 25:1–3) and eat<strong>in</strong>g sacrificesoffered to <strong>the</strong> dead (Ps. 106:28). The former is regarded as <strong>in</strong>dulg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>sexual orgies connected to <strong>the</strong> worship of Baal-Peor, and s<strong>in</strong>ce Balaamenticed Israel <strong>in</strong>to this sexual transgression (Num. 31:16), he is appropriatelypunished <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld by sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> boil<strong>in</strong>g semen.Now <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel: We do not hear anyth<strong>in</strong>g about his/<strong>the</strong>ircrime and cannot, <strong>the</strong>refore, expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> punishment (which is bizarreenough) as a consequence of any particular crime. The <strong>Talmud</strong> editor,<strong>in</strong> his first comment on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>/s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel part of our narrative,
88 Chapter 8encounters <strong>the</strong> same problem. The anonymous “master” alludes to <strong>the</strong>only parallel from <strong>the</strong> Bavli which mentions boil<strong>in</strong>g excrement as a punishment:21And much study (lahag) is a wear<strong>in</strong>ess of <strong>the</strong> flesh (yegi
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 89We can hardly take for granted that <strong>the</strong> master’s explanation of <strong>the</strong> crime(ridicul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> words of <strong>the</strong> Sages) is presupposed <strong>in</strong> our Bavli narrative 26and hence that <strong>the</strong> crime committed by <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel was <strong>in</strong>deedridicul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Sages. Tempt<strong>in</strong>g as this <strong>in</strong>terpretation may be—notleast <strong>in</strong> view of <strong>the</strong> talmudic story portray<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> as a bad disciple 27 —it ismore likely that our <strong>Talmud</strong> editor uses <strong>the</strong> parallel from Bavli Eruv<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> orderto expla<strong>in</strong> a weird punishment for a crime <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al circumstances ofwhich were unknown to him. 28 Nor can we take it for granted that <strong>the</strong> second(anonymous) comment <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli (“Come and see <strong>the</strong> difference between<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel and <strong>the</strong> prophets of <strong>the</strong> gentile nations”) belongsto <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al core of our narrative or, more precisely, that it reflects <strong>the</strong>orig<strong>in</strong>al core and that <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel” were <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al subjectof our story and not <strong>Jesus</strong>. 29 No doubt that <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al Bavli editor wanted<strong>the</strong> text to be understood this way, but he may have had his own agenda. Ofcourse, he refers to <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> prophets of <strong>the</strong> gentiles (Balaam)and <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel with regard to <strong>the</strong> advice <strong>the</strong>y give Onqelosand not with regard to <strong>the</strong>ir punishment and <strong>the</strong>ir presumed crime: Balaamspeaks aga<strong>in</strong>st Israel, whereas <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel speak <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir favor. Theirpunishment, <strong>in</strong> contrast, is strik<strong>in</strong>gly similar because it hardly makes muchof a difference whe<strong>the</strong>r one sits <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld <strong>in</strong> boil<strong>in</strong>g semen or <strong>in</strong>boil<strong>in</strong>g excrement. Hence, despite <strong>the</strong>ir very different attitudes toward Israel,<strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>flicted with almost <strong>the</strong> same punishment, or to put it differentlyand more precisely: <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel’s positive attitude toward Israel,acquired postmortem <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld, did not change <strong>the</strong>ir fateand did not affect <strong>the</strong>ir punishment <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom (<strong>the</strong>y have to serve <strong>the</strong>irtime, no matter what <strong>the</strong>y th<strong>in</strong>k of Israel now). It may well be that this ironyis what <strong>the</strong> Bavli editor wants to convey with his remark.Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, if we consider <strong>the</strong> Tosefta’s statement about <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong>different categories of s<strong>in</strong>ners spend <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld, <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners ofIsrael” and <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations” fall <strong>in</strong>to one category (after twelvemonths <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom <strong>the</strong>y cease to exist), and <strong>the</strong> heretics and <strong>the</strong> destroyersof <strong>the</strong> Temple <strong>in</strong>to ano<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>the</strong>y are punished forever). So withregard to <strong>the</strong>ir punishment (and <strong>the</strong> presumed crime related to it) <strong>the</strong>re isno difference between <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel and <strong>the</strong> prophets of <strong>the</strong> nations(Balaam). This makes <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s remark, with its emphasis on <strong>the</strong> advicegiven to Onqelos, even more obscure or forced. It is not at all <strong>in</strong>congruous,
90 Chapter 8<strong>the</strong>refore, to argue that <strong>in</strong> an earlier editorial layer <strong>Jesus</strong> was <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong>third s<strong>in</strong>ner, conjured up from <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld by Onqelos, and that alater Bavli editor changed “<strong>Jesus</strong>” to <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel,” add<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> twocomments by <strong>the</strong> “master” and <strong>the</strong> anonymous author. This also fits muchbetter with <strong>the</strong> logic of <strong>the</strong> narrative with three <strong>in</strong>dividuals punished <strong>in</strong>Geh<strong>in</strong>nom (Titus, Balaam, <strong>Jesus</strong>) and <strong>the</strong> similar punishment for <strong>the</strong> lattertwo (sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> boil<strong>in</strong>g semen and excrement, respectively).This conclusion, however, does not yet solve <strong>the</strong> enigma of <strong>the</strong> crimecommitted by <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> deeper mean<strong>in</strong>g of his punishment (presum<strong>in</strong>gthat <strong>the</strong>re was one, as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of Titus and Balaam). If we followaga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tosefta’s categorization, we have Balaam as <strong>the</strong> representative of<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations and Titus as <strong>the</strong> representative of <strong>the</strong> destroyersof <strong>the</strong> Temple. This leaves us with ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel or <strong>the</strong>heretics as <strong>the</strong> appropriate category for <strong>Jesus</strong>. If we forgo <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s artificialand probably secondary identification of <strong>Jesus</strong> with <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners ofIsrael, we can put <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> category of <strong>the</strong> heretics and <strong>the</strong>n haveTitus for <strong>the</strong> destroyers of <strong>the</strong> Temple, Balaam for <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations,and <strong>Jesus</strong> for <strong>the</strong> heretics (<strong>the</strong> first and <strong>the</strong> third punished <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nomforever, <strong>the</strong> second released <strong>in</strong>to nonexistence after twelve months).With this solution we f<strong>in</strong>ally arrive at a crime for <strong>Jesus</strong>: he has no portionof <strong>the</strong> world to come and is accord<strong>in</strong>gly punished <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom becausehe is one of <strong>the</strong> worst heretics that <strong>the</strong> people of Israel have ever produced.Moreover, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Tosefta’s taxonomy, he is punished <strong>in</strong>Geh<strong>in</strong>nom forever (like Titus). And this is clearly <strong>the</strong> essence of <strong>the</strong>Bavli’s statement about <strong>Jesus</strong>: it claims (as <strong>in</strong> b Berakhot, but much moreforcefully) that <strong>Jesus</strong> was not only never resurrected from <strong>the</strong> dead butthat he still sits <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r s<strong>in</strong>ners who are deniedan afterlife, and is punished <strong>the</strong>re forever. This, of course, sends alsoa strong message to his followers, tell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m that <strong>the</strong>y better give up anyhope for an afterlife for <strong>the</strong>mselves: as with <strong>the</strong>ir hero, <strong>the</strong>re is no afterlifereserved for <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong>y will be punished <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom forever.But what <strong>the</strong>n about <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment—if <strong>the</strong>re isany connection with his crime and if it is not merely modeled along <strong>the</strong>l<strong>in</strong>e of Balaam’s punishment with no deeper mean<strong>in</strong>g? In Titus’ case wehave <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between burn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Temple and burn<strong>in</strong>g Titus’ body, and<strong>in</strong> Balaam’s case <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between entic<strong>in</strong>g Israel <strong>in</strong>to sexual orgies and
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 91sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> hot semen. So what could be <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between <strong>Jesus</strong>’ heresy andhis sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> hot excrement? S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> text does not give any clue (as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>case of Titus) and s<strong>in</strong>ce we cannot use <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Bible to fill <strong>the</strong> gap left<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli text (as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of Balaam), we can only speculate—andthis is what I am prepared to do. We are look<strong>in</strong>g for a connection between<strong>Jesus</strong>’ heresy and his punishment (hot excrement), and I propose a connectionas bizarre as <strong>the</strong> punishment. The <strong>Talmud</strong> does not tell us what<strong>the</strong> heresy was that <strong>Jesus</strong> propagated, but we can safely assume—with ourknowledge of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r texts discussed—that it must have to do with idolatryand blasphemy. The first and obvious possibility that comes to m<strong>in</strong>d is<strong>Jesus</strong>’ discussion with <strong>the</strong> Pharisees <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament when <strong>the</strong> Phariseesask why <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples do not wash <strong>the</strong>ir hands before <strong>the</strong>y eat. <strong>Jesus</strong>expla<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> crowd follow<strong>in</strong>g him that “it is not what goes <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of <strong>the</strong> mouth that defiles.”30 The disciples get <strong>the</strong> more detailed explanation:(17) Do you not see that whatever goes <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouth enters <strong>the</strong>stomach, and goes out <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> sewer? (18) But what comes out of<strong>the</strong> mouth proceeds from <strong>the</strong> heart, and this is what defiles. (19) Forout of <strong>the</strong> heart come evil <strong>in</strong>tentions, murder, adultery, fornication,<strong>the</strong>ft, false witness, slander. (20) These are what defile a person, butto eat with unwashed hands does not defile. 31Hence, what <strong>Jesus</strong> apparently argues is that <strong>the</strong> Pharisaic purity rules donot really matter. What is important is not <strong>the</strong> purity of <strong>the</strong> hands and of<strong>the</strong> food—because food is processed with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> body, and any <strong>in</strong>herentimpurity will be excreted and ends up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sewer—but <strong>the</strong> purity of <strong>the</strong>“heart” (because it is processed through <strong>the</strong> mouth and, when uttered,starts a fatal life of its own). In o<strong>the</strong>r words, not food is impure but human<strong>in</strong>tentions and actions are impure. The rabb<strong>in</strong>ic counternarrative about<strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment would <strong>the</strong>n ironically <strong>in</strong>vert his attack on <strong>the</strong> Pharisaicpurity laws by hav<strong>in</strong>g him sit <strong>in</strong> excrement and teach<strong>in</strong>g him (as well ashis followers) <strong>the</strong> lesson: you believe that only what comes out of <strong>the</strong>mouth defiles, well, you will sit forever <strong>in</strong> your own excrement and willf<strong>in</strong>ally understand that also what goes <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouth and comes out of<strong>the</strong> stomach defiles.
92 Chapter 8It is certa<strong>in</strong>ly possible that our Bavli story refers to this particular NewTestament discussion with <strong>the</strong> Pharisees. I would like, however, to go astep fur<strong>the</strong>r and put up for discussion an (admittedly ra<strong>the</strong>r speculative)<strong>in</strong>terpretation that focuses on <strong>the</strong> accusation of blasphemy and idolatry,<strong>in</strong> close parallel to Titus and Balaam (<strong>Jesus</strong>’ attack on <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic puritylaws can hardly be understood as blasphemy and idolatry). Let us lookaga<strong>in</strong> at <strong>the</strong> analogy to Balaam. Semen, <strong>in</strong> Balaam’s case, is what sexual<strong>in</strong>tercourse produces. Similarly, excrement is what eat<strong>in</strong>g produces:everyone who eats produces excrement. Balaam <strong>in</strong>cited Israel to sexualorgies—and hence is punished by sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> semen. <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>cited Israel toeat<strong>in</strong>g—and hence is punished by sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> what eat<strong>in</strong>g produces: excrement.And what is <strong>the</strong> “eat<strong>in</strong>g” that <strong>Jesus</strong> imposed upon his followers?No less a food than himself—his flesh and blood. 32 As he has told his disciplesdur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Last Supper:(26) While <strong>the</strong>y were eat<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>Jesus</strong> took a loaf of bread, and afterbless<strong>in</strong>g it he broke it, gave it to <strong>the</strong> disciples, and said: “Take, eat;this is my body.” (27) Then he took a cup, and after giv<strong>in</strong>g thanks hegave it to <strong>the</strong>m, say<strong>in</strong>g: “Dr<strong>in</strong>k from it, all of you; (28) for this is myblood of <strong>the</strong> (new) covenant, which is poured out for many for <strong>the</strong>forgiveness of s<strong>in</strong>s.” 33What we have, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>in</strong> our Bavli narrative is a devastat<strong>in</strong>g and quite maliciouspolemic aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Gospels’ message of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ claim that whoeverfollows him and, literally, eats him becomes a member of <strong>the</strong> newcovenant that superseded <strong>the</strong> old covenant with <strong>the</strong> Jews. How early <strong>the</strong>Eucharist was understood realistically as consum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> flesh and bloodof <strong>Jesus</strong> is controversial, but it seems as if already Ignatius of Antioch(martyred soon after 110 C.E.?) attacks heretics who do not accept thisview. 34 More important, <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John (composed around 100 C.E.)provides us with a discussion between <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Jews about preciselythis problem of how to understand <strong>the</strong> eat<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ flesh: 35(48) “I am <strong>the</strong> bread of life. (49) Your ancestors ate <strong>the</strong> manna <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>wilderness, and <strong>the</strong>y died. (50) This is <strong>the</strong> bread that comes downfrom heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (51) I am <strong>the</strong> liv-
<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell 93<strong>in</strong>g bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this breadwill live forever; and <strong>the</strong> bread that I will give for <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> worldis my flesh.”(52) The Jews <strong>the</strong>n disputed among <strong>the</strong>mselves, say<strong>in</strong>g: “Howcan this man give us his flesh to eat?” (53) So <strong>Jesus</strong> said to <strong>the</strong>m:“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat <strong>the</strong> flesh of <strong>the</strong> Son of Man anddr<strong>in</strong>k his blood, you have no life <strong>in</strong> you. (54) Those who eat myflesh and dr<strong>in</strong>k my blood have eternal life, and I will raise <strong>the</strong>m upon <strong>the</strong> last day; (55) for my flesh is true food and my blood is truedr<strong>in</strong>k. ... (57) Just as <strong>the</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g Fa<strong>the</strong>r sent me, and I live becauseof <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, so whoever eats me will live because of me. (58) Thisis <strong>the</strong> bread that came down from heaven, not like that which yourancestors ate, and <strong>the</strong>y died. But <strong>the</strong> one who eats this bread willlive forever.”Here we have it all. First, <strong>the</strong> clear equation of eat<strong>in</strong>g bread and eat<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> flesh of <strong>Jesus</strong> as well as dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g (presumably w<strong>in</strong>e) and dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>blood of <strong>Jesus</strong>. Second, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>credulous Jews contest<strong>in</strong>g precisely thisgrotesque claim that <strong>Jesus</strong> can demand from his followers to eat his flesh:How can someone, who is not out of his m<strong>in</strong>d, seriously offer his flesh toeat? Third, <strong>the</strong> unambiguous juxtaposition of <strong>the</strong> old and <strong>the</strong> newcovenant: The Jews ate <strong>the</strong> bread from heaven, <strong>the</strong> manna; <strong>the</strong> followersof <strong>Jesus</strong> eat <strong>the</strong> real bread from heaven, his flesh. Moreover, and mostconspicuously, eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> manna leads to death; eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong>’ flesh (anddr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g his blood) leads to life—not just to a prolongation of life but toeternal life.It is this claim, not accidentally made explicit aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospel ofJohn, which our Bavli narrative attacks or ra<strong>the</strong>r parodies. No, it argues,<strong>Jesus</strong> is dead and rema<strong>in</strong>s dead, and eat<strong>in</strong>g his flesh won’t lead to life. Notonly that those who follow his advice and eat his flesh will not live forever,as he has promised; ra<strong>the</strong>r, he is punished <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld forever andnot granted <strong>the</strong> milder punishment of those who will be released aftertwelve months <strong>in</strong>to merciful nonexistence. And <strong>the</strong> peak of irony: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatorof this bizarre heresy is appropriately punished by sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> what hisfollowers excrete, after allegedly hav<strong>in</strong>g eaten him: excrement! With thisexplanation we f<strong>in</strong>ally have a crime (<strong>the</strong> heresy of <strong>the</strong> Eucharist) and a
94 Chapter 8fitt<strong>in</strong>g punishment. And not least we have a case analogous to Balaam andto Titus.One last remark: If my conclusion is correct that an earlier layer of <strong>the</strong>Bavli story <strong>in</strong>deed refers to <strong>Jesus</strong> (and not to <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel), it isstrik<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> advice to Onqelos (“Seek <strong>the</strong>ir welfare, seek not <strong>the</strong>irharm. Whoever touches <strong>the</strong>m is as though he touches <strong>the</strong> apple of hiseye”) is put <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>Jesus</strong>. Obviously, our author wants to convey<strong>the</strong> message: despite his horrendous and disgust<strong>in</strong>g heresy, <strong>Jesus</strong> is still differentfrom <strong>the</strong> destroyer of <strong>the</strong> Temple and from <strong>the</strong> prophet of <strong>the</strong> nations.He is still one of us, a s<strong>in</strong>ner of Israel, and it may be that he haseven come to his senses while be<strong>in</strong>g punished <strong>in</strong> Geh<strong>in</strong>nom. Althoughtoo late for him—he cannot be rescued, and he knows it, because of <strong>the</strong>gravity of his crime—by his advice to Onqelos he may want to give thismessage to his followers: do not believe any longer <strong>in</strong> my heresy, do notpersecute(?) <strong>the</strong> Jews; repent and return to <strong>the</strong> “old covenant” because<strong>the</strong> alleged “new covenant” is fake and folly. 36 If this is <strong>the</strong> case, our Bavlieditor not just parodies <strong>Jesus</strong> life and death and an essential aspect of <strong>the</strong>Christian faith; he addresses <strong>the</strong> contemporary Christians and calls upon<strong>the</strong>m to follow <strong>the</strong> advice of <strong>the</strong>ir founder issued from <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld.
9. <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>The <strong>Jesus</strong> passages <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, most prom<strong>in</strong>ently <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, reveal a colorful kaleidoscope of manyfragments—often dismissed as figments—of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life, teach<strong>in</strong>gs, and notleast his death. They are not told as an <strong>in</strong>dependent and coherent narrativebut are scattered all over <strong>the</strong> large corpus of literature left to us by <strong>the</strong>rabbis. Even worse, only very rarely do <strong>the</strong>y address <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> object ofour <strong>in</strong>quiry, directly; <strong>in</strong> many cases <strong>the</strong> immediate subject of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>icdiscourse has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong> and his life: he is mentioned just <strong>in</strong>pass<strong>in</strong>g, as a (m<strong>in</strong>or) detail of an o<strong>the</strong>rwise different and more importantsubject, or else he and his sect are carefully disguised beh<strong>in</strong>d some codesthat need to be deciphered. Never<strong>the</strong>less, our close read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> relevanttexts yields a number of results that can be summarized and put <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong>ir appropriate context.First and foremost, <strong>the</strong> fact must be emphasized that our texts, despite<strong>the</strong>ir scattered and fragmentary presentation, cannot be rejected as nonsenseand sheer fiction, as <strong>the</strong> fantasies 1 of some remote rabbis who did notknow and did not want to know anyth<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>the</strong> Christian sect and itshero. Such a rash judgment can only be reached—and <strong>in</strong>deed has beenreached much too often—if <strong>the</strong> wrong standard is applied, that is, if <strong>the</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories are combed for scraps of <strong>the</strong>ir historicity, for <strong>the</strong> historicaltruth concealed under <strong>the</strong> rubble and rubbish of lost or misunderstood
96 Chapter 9<strong>in</strong>formation. Time and aga<strong>in</strong> I have argued that such an approach doesnot yield much (if anyth<strong>in</strong>g at all), that it is simply <strong>the</strong> wrong question addressedto <strong>the</strong> wrong texts. Our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic texts do not preserve, and did not<strong>in</strong>tend to preserve, historical <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>Jesus</strong> and Christianity thatcan be compared to <strong>the</strong> New Testament and that throws new (and different)light on <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative. Such a naive attitude—whichdom<strong>in</strong>ates most, if not all, of <strong>the</strong> relevant research literature, although todifferent degrees and with different conclusions—must be dismissed onceand for all. This applies to <strong>the</strong> positivistic attempt to rediscover and justify<strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ical texts as historical sources for <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>Jesus</strong> (for whichstands, as <strong>the</strong> most prom<strong>in</strong>ent exponent, Travers Herford) as well as to <strong>the</strong>no less positivistic attempt to prove <strong>the</strong> opposite and to conclude from thisthat <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories are worthless and <strong>in</strong> most cases do not even referto <strong>Jesus</strong> at all (for which stands, as <strong>the</strong> most extreme proponent, JohannMaier)—nei<strong>the</strong>r approach leads very far and is a futile exercise <strong>in</strong> sterilescholarly erudition.Moreover, ei<strong>the</strong>r approach misjudges <strong>the</strong> literary character of both <strong>the</strong>New Testament and <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources and underestimates <strong>the</strong> acumenof <strong>the</strong>ir authors. It has long been accepted <strong>in</strong> most camps of New Testamentscholarship (except for its fundamentalist and evangelical branches)that <strong>the</strong> New Testament is anyth<strong>in</strong>g but a report of “pure” historical facts,of what has “really” happened—although, of course, this does not meanthat it presents just fiction. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it is a retell<strong>in</strong>g of “what happened” <strong>in</strong>its own way or, more precisely, <strong>in</strong> quite different ways by its different authors.And it has been equally accepted by most scholars of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaismthat <strong>the</strong> same is true for rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, namely that <strong>the</strong> rabbiswere not particularly <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> “what happened”—for such a historisticand positivistic approach <strong>the</strong>y reserved <strong>the</strong> disparag<strong>in</strong>g judgment maide-hawa hawa (“what happened happened”)—but tell a story of <strong>the</strong>irown: also, not just fiction but <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terpretation of “what happened” <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong>ir peculiar and highly idiosyncratic way. 2This is precisely what takes place <strong>in</strong> our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories about <strong>Jesus</strong>and <strong>the</strong> Christian sect. These stories are a deliberate and carefullyphrased retell<strong>in</strong>g—not of what “really happened” but of what has come toor captured <strong>the</strong> rabbis’ attention. And <strong>the</strong> source to which <strong>the</strong>y refer is notsome <strong>in</strong>dependent knowledge of <strong>Jesus</strong>, his life, and his followers that has
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 97reached <strong>the</strong>m through some hidden channels; ra<strong>the</strong>r, as I could show <strong>in</strong>detail, it is <strong>the</strong> New Testament (almost exclusively <strong>the</strong> four Gospels) as weknow it or <strong>in</strong> a form similar to <strong>the</strong> one we have today. Hence, <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>icstories <strong>in</strong> most cases are a retell<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative, a literaryanswer to a literary text. 3 Let us now summarize <strong>the</strong> major motifsthat appear <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources and that <strong>the</strong> rabbis obviously regardedas representative of <strong>the</strong> Christian sect and its founder <strong>Jesus</strong>.SexThe most prom<strong>in</strong>ent characteristic that dom<strong>in</strong>ates quite a number of <strong>the</strong>rabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories is sex, more precisely sexual promiscuity. Sexual promiscuityis already presented as <strong>the</strong> foundation story of <strong>the</strong> Christian sect: itshero is <strong>the</strong> son of a certa<strong>in</strong> Miriam and her lover Pandera—a mamzer,born out of wedlock (because his mo<strong>the</strong>r was married to a certa<strong>in</strong> Stadaor Pappos b. Yehuda). The legal status of <strong>the</strong> bastard is def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Bible as such: “No bastard (mamzer) shall be admitted <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> congregationof <strong>the</strong> Lord; even to <strong>the</strong> tenth generation shall he not be admitted<strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> congregation of <strong>the</strong> Lord” (Deut. 23:3), a fate that he shares with<strong>the</strong> eunuchs and <strong>the</strong> Ammonites and Moabites: he is excluded from <strong>the</strong>congregation of Israel for <strong>the</strong> foreseeable future. 4 His adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>rdeserves—accord<strong>in</strong>g to biblical and rabb<strong>in</strong>ical law—<strong>the</strong> death penalty ofston<strong>in</strong>g or strangulation, as <strong>the</strong> Bible decrees for our case, <strong>the</strong> adultery betweena married woman and her lover: “If a man is found ly<strong>in</strong>g with ano<strong>the</strong>rman’s wife, both of <strong>the</strong>m shall die, <strong>the</strong> man who lay with <strong>the</strong>woman as well as <strong>the</strong> woman; so you shall purge <strong>the</strong> evil from Israel”(Deut. 22:22). 5 Hence, under strict application of biblical law, <strong>Jesus</strong>’mo<strong>the</strong>r should have been stoned. The <strong>Talmud</strong> does not seem to be <strong>in</strong>terested<strong>in</strong> her subsequent fate, but her son does fall under <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provisionof <strong>the</strong> Mishna (idolatry) and will <strong>in</strong>deed be stoned. So <strong>in</strong> a highlyironical sense, <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth from an adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r po<strong>in</strong>ts to his own violentdeath.As we have seen, this story of <strong>the</strong> adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r and her bastard sonis <strong>the</strong> perfect counternarrative to <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s claim that <strong>Jesus</strong> was
98 Chapter 9born from a virg<strong>in</strong> betro<strong>the</strong>d to a descendant of <strong>the</strong> house of David.Aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> New Testament story (with its <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong>consistency between“husband” and “betro<strong>the</strong>d”) <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> concocts its drastic counternarrativeof <strong>the</strong> adulteress and her bastard son (presumably from a Romansoldier), demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> complete absurdity of any Davidic (and henceMessianic) claim. As a bastard, <strong>Jesus</strong> belongs to <strong>the</strong> community of Israelonly <strong>in</strong> a limited sense. One of <strong>the</strong> restrictions of his status implies that hecannot enter a legitimate marriage with a Jewish woman and fa<strong>the</strong>r Jewishchildren—let alone found a congregation that claims to be <strong>the</strong> “newIsrael.”This scath<strong>in</strong>g attack on <strong>the</strong> Christian claim of par<strong>the</strong>nogenesis maywell expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> strange name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra/Pantera/Pandera/Pantiri<strong>in</strong> most of its variations 6 for Miriam’s lover and <strong>Jesus</strong>’ real fa<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>in</strong> Greekas well as <strong>in</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources). The last derivation among all <strong>the</strong> possibilitiesthat Maier discusses, and that he f<strong>in</strong>ds “captivat<strong>in</strong>g at first glance” butnever<strong>the</strong>less dismisses, 7 is <strong>the</strong> assumption of an <strong>in</strong>tentional distortion ofpar<strong>the</strong>nos (“virg<strong>in</strong>”) to pan<strong>the</strong>ros (“pan<strong>the</strong>r”). This explanation, first suggestedby F. Nitzsch 8 and followed by quite a number of scholars, 9 is <strong>in</strong>deedmore plausible than <strong>the</strong> derivation from porneia (“fornication”)which is philologically difficult (Pan<strong>the</strong>ra/Pandera as a corruption ofpornos/pornē/porneia?). 10 In fact, it is <strong>the</strong> perfect deliberate distortion of <strong>the</strong>word par<strong>the</strong>nos s<strong>in</strong>ce it is a reverse read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> letters “r,” “th,” and “n”:pan<strong>the</strong>ros. So Boyar<strong>in</strong> is absolutely right <strong>in</strong> argu<strong>in</strong>g that what we encounterhere is <strong>the</strong> well-known rabb<strong>in</strong>ic practice of mock<strong>in</strong>g pagan orChristian holy names by chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m pejoratively, 11 such as penei elah(“face of god”) that becomes penei kelev (“face of <strong>the</strong> dog”). 12 But <strong>the</strong>punch l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> our case is <strong>the</strong> reverse read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> consonants with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Greek word—not by co<strong>in</strong>cidence follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> magical(!) practice of read<strong>in</strong>ga word backwards (le-mafrea< ): by chang<strong>in</strong>g par<strong>the</strong>nos to pan<strong>the</strong>ros, <strong>the</strong>rabbis do not just practice a case of “cacophemism”; 13 ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y utter amagical spell, or an exorcism, and “transform” <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth from a virg<strong>in</strong> tothat of a common Roman soldier named Pan<strong>the</strong>r. Maier’s major argumentaga<strong>in</strong>st this derivation (who could understand such a sophisticated pun?) 14grossly underestimates <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong>ir readers. All that we know fromrabb<strong>in</strong>ic as well as from pagan sources po<strong>in</strong>ts to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> unk<strong>in</strong>dcountermessage to <strong>the</strong> New Testament—Miriam/Mary was a whore and
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 99her son a bastard—was <strong>the</strong> Jewish answer to <strong>the</strong> Christian propaganda of<strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>Jesus</strong>.The o<strong>the</strong>r allusions <strong>in</strong> our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic texts to sexual promiscuity refer to<strong>the</strong> bad son, to <strong>the</strong> frivolous disciple, and to <strong>the</strong> understand<strong>in</strong>g of Christianityas an orgiastic cult. The bad son who spoils his food by lead<strong>in</strong>g an<strong>in</strong>decent life turns out to be <strong>the</strong> true son of his adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r, accord<strong>in</strong>gto <strong>the</strong> motto: what else could be expected from him? Aga<strong>in</strong>, thisaccusation may have been upholstered with <strong>the</strong> New Testament story of<strong>Jesus</strong>’ acqua<strong>in</strong>tance with <strong>the</strong> immoral woman, later identified with MaryMagdalene—or else with <strong>the</strong> gnostic story of <strong>Jesus</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> “lover” ofMary Magdalene, of all women. 15 With such a family history, no wonderthat also <strong>the</strong> grown-up student (<strong>Jesus</strong>) of a pious rabbi (Yehoshua b. Perahya)gets silly ideas and <strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uates to his teacher immodest thoughts (<strong>the</strong>notorious female hostess of an <strong>in</strong>n), 16 which <strong>the</strong> rabbi <strong>in</strong>dignantly rejectsand <strong>the</strong>rewith un<strong>in</strong>tentionally br<strong>in</strong>gs about <strong>the</strong> birth of <strong>the</strong> Christian sect.And f<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> accusation aga<strong>in</strong>st R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos of clandest<strong>in</strong>elypractic<strong>in</strong>g Christianity which is understood as an orgiastic cult connectedwith prostitution. Here we enter different territory: we are nolonger deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>Jesus</strong> himself, his orig<strong>in</strong>s, behavior, and fate, but witha prom<strong>in</strong>ent rabbi who becomes, as it were, <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic prototype of anearly Christian, modeled along <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es of sexual promiscuity (andmagic). Both sexual promiscuity and magic are often closely <strong>in</strong>tertw<strong>in</strong>ed(I will return to <strong>the</strong> latter soon). The sexual misconduct brought up hereis not that of an <strong>in</strong>dividual (<strong>Jesus</strong>) but, much worse, that of his followerswho <strong>in</strong>dulge <strong>in</strong> sexual mass orgies: <strong>the</strong> adherents of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ sect follow hisadvice to such an extreme that sexual orgies have become, so to speak, <strong>the</strong>“trademark” of <strong>the</strong> believers <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>. This accusation can be found earlyon <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pagan and Christian literature, and it should not come as a surprisethat R. Eliezer was charged with it by <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities. It appearsalready <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Christian apologist Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr’s Dialogue withTrypho, written <strong>in</strong> Rome around <strong>the</strong> mid-second century C.E. There,Just<strong>in</strong> addresses his Jewish <strong>in</strong>terlocutors as follows:My friends, is <strong>the</strong>re any accusation you have aga<strong>in</strong>st us o<strong>the</strong>r thanthis, that we do not observe <strong>the</strong> law, nor circumcise <strong>the</strong> flesh as ourforefa<strong>the</strong>rs did, nor observe <strong>the</strong> Sabbath as you do? Or do you also
100 Chapter 9condemn our customs and morals? This is what I say, lest you, too,believe that we eat human flesh and that after our banquets we ext<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>the</strong> lights and <strong>in</strong>dulge <strong>in</strong> unbridled sensuality? Or do you onlycondemn us for believ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> such doctr<strong>in</strong>es and hold<strong>in</strong>g op<strong>in</strong>ionswhich you consider false? 17Hav<strong>in</strong>g first referred to <strong>the</strong> obvious and well-known dist<strong>in</strong>ction between<strong>the</strong> Jews and <strong>the</strong> new Christian sect (<strong>the</strong>y do not circumcise <strong>the</strong>mselvesand do not observe <strong>the</strong> Sabbath), Just<strong>in</strong> gets to talk<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>the</strong> slandersspread about: that <strong>the</strong> Christians celebrate orgies dur<strong>in</strong>g which <strong>the</strong>y practicecannibalism and promiscuous sex. The Jew Trypho’s brief answer(“This last charge is what surprises us, replied Trypho. Those o<strong>the</strong>rcharges which <strong>the</strong> rabble lodge aga<strong>in</strong>st you are not worthy of belief, for<strong>the</strong>y are too repulsive to human nature”) reveals that <strong>the</strong>se horrible slandersare <strong>in</strong>deed widespread but that he does not take <strong>the</strong>m very seriously:<strong>the</strong> subsequent discussion shows that he is ma<strong>in</strong>ly concerned about <strong>the</strong>Christian habit of not observ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Sabbath and <strong>the</strong> festivals and notpractic<strong>in</strong>g circumcision. Moreover, he seems to ignore <strong>the</strong> question ofwho is <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>ator of <strong>the</strong>se slanders—or else takes <strong>the</strong> answer forgranted—and simply dismisses <strong>the</strong>m as repulsive. However, later <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>dialogue Just<strong>in</strong> does not leave any doubt that he holds <strong>the</strong> Jews responsiblefor <strong>the</strong> slanders: “And you [<strong>the</strong> Jews] accuse him [<strong>Jesus</strong>] of hav<strong>in</strong>gtaught those irreverent, riotous, and wicked th<strong>in</strong>gs, of which you everywhereaccuse all those who look up to and acknowledge him as <strong>the</strong>irChrist, <strong>the</strong>ir teacher, and <strong>the</strong> Son of God.” 18No doubt, <strong>the</strong> “irreverent, riotous, and wicked th<strong>in</strong>gs” refer to <strong>the</strong> orgiesof cannibalism and sex mentioned earlier, and no doubt ei<strong>the</strong>r that<strong>the</strong> Jews not only are presented here as <strong>the</strong> source of <strong>the</strong> slanders but asthose who spread it about <strong>the</strong> whole civilized world, send<strong>in</strong>g out “certa<strong>in</strong>men chosen by vote” <strong>in</strong>to every part of <strong>the</strong> empire as official representatives,“proclaim<strong>in</strong>g that a godless and lawless sect has been started by a deceiver,one <strong>Jesus</strong> of Galilee.” 19 But what precisely is this strange ritual ofcannibalism and sex? Tertullian, Just<strong>in</strong>’s younger colleague (second halfof <strong>the</strong> second century C.E.) reports more graphic details. In his Apology,written 197 C.E., he writes:
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 101We are said to be <strong>the</strong> most crim<strong>in</strong>al of men (sceleratissimi), on <strong>the</strong>score of our sacramental baby-kill<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> baby-eat<strong>in</strong>g that goeswith it (sacramento <strong>in</strong>fanticidii et pabulo <strong>in</strong>de) and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cest that follows<strong>the</strong> banquet, where <strong>the</strong> dogs are our pimps <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> dark, forsooth,and make a sort of decency for guilty lusts by overturn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lamps.That, at all events, is what you always say about us; and yet you takeno pa<strong>in</strong>s to br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> daylight what you have been say<strong>in</strong>g aboutus all this long time. Then, I say, ei<strong>the</strong>r br<strong>in</strong>g it out, if you believe allthis, or refuse to believe it after leav<strong>in</strong>g it un<strong>in</strong>vestigated. 20And even more drastic is Tertullian’s malicious parody of <strong>the</strong> allegedChristian ritual <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g chapter, ironically <strong>in</strong>vit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Jewish <strong>in</strong>terlocutorto jo<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> with <strong>the</strong> Christians:Come, plunge <strong>the</strong> knife <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> baby, nobody’s enemy, guilty ofnoth<strong>in</strong>g, everybody’s child; or, if that is ano<strong>the</strong>r man’s job, do youjust stand by (that is all), by this human creature dy<strong>in</strong>g before it haslived; watch for <strong>the</strong> young soul as it escapes; catch <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant blood,steep your bread with it; eat and enjoy it. Meanwhile, as you recl<strong>in</strong>eon your couch, reckon <strong>the</strong> places where your mo<strong>the</strong>r, your sister,may be; make a careful note so that, when <strong>the</strong> darkness of <strong>the</strong> dogs’contriv<strong>in</strong>g shall fall, you can make no mistake. You will be guilty of as<strong>in</strong>, unless you have committed <strong>in</strong>cest. So <strong>in</strong>itiated, so sealed, youlive for ever. ...You must have a baby, still tender, that can know noth<strong>in</strong>g ofdeath, that can smile under your knife; item a loaf, to catch its juicyblood; add lampstands and lamps, a dog or two, and some sops to set<strong>the</strong> dogs tumbl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lamps over; above all, you must come withyour mo<strong>the</strong>r and sister. 21This story, as Elias Bickerman has demonstrated <strong>in</strong> a famous article, 22 isnoth<strong>in</strong>g but <strong>the</strong> anti-Christian adaptation of an orig<strong>in</strong>ally anti-Jewish propagandanarrative that accuses <strong>the</strong> Jews of ritualistic cannibalism. Its mostprom<strong>in</strong>ent anti-Jewish propagandist is Apion, <strong>the</strong> Greek scholar of Egyptianorig<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> first century C.E. Alexandria, who, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Josephus,
102 Chapter 9relates <strong>the</strong> “malicious slander” about <strong>the</strong> Jews, captur<strong>in</strong>g, fatten<strong>in</strong>g, slaughter<strong>in</strong>g,and f<strong>in</strong>ally consum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> flesh of a foreigner (Greek) <strong>in</strong> a bizarreritual. 23 In our anti-Christian version, <strong>the</strong> clandest<strong>in</strong>e symposium consistsof <strong>the</strong> two elements of cannibalism and sexual orgies among <strong>the</strong> participants,more precisely (<strong>in</strong> Tertullian) <strong>in</strong>cestuous sexual orgies. The moredetailed description <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second quotation from Tertullian, with <strong>the</strong>blood of <strong>the</strong> slaughtered child collected by <strong>the</strong> bread and <strong>the</strong>n shared byall <strong>the</strong> participants, is clearly a parody of <strong>the</strong> w<strong>in</strong>e and bread of <strong>the</strong> Eucharist.24 And <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cestuous sexual orgy seems to be an <strong>in</strong>version of <strong>the</strong>Christian command to love one ano<strong>the</strong>r. 25 Hence, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> earlyChurch Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> Jews take up a propaganda narrative that was orig<strong>in</strong>allydirected aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong>m and turn it <strong>in</strong>to a powerful anti-Christianweapon with <strong>the</strong> declared goal to discredit <strong>the</strong> new sect once and forever.Ironically, <strong>in</strong> our Eliezer b. Hyrkanos story, it is <strong>the</strong> Jewish rabbis whoadopt this anti-Christian propaganda and apply (part of ) it to one of<strong>the</strong>m—to mark, and elim<strong>in</strong>ate, him as <strong>the</strong> arch-heretic.MagicThe o<strong>the</strong>r strik<strong>in</strong>g feature of <strong>the</strong> Christian sect and its founder is magic.Only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> figure of <strong>the</strong> student of Yehoshua b. Perahya) it isconnected directly with <strong>the</strong> person of <strong>Jesus</strong>: this student (<strong>Jesus</strong>) was notonly <strong>in</strong>decent and prone to sex; he also set up an idolatrous brick worshipand, as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> expla<strong>in</strong>s, led Israel astray by his magical practices.The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g allusions to magic are preserved <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources:first <strong>in</strong>directly, <strong>in</strong> R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos’ <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation to support<strong>in</strong>g his argumentby miracles; and second and most prom<strong>in</strong>ently, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two storiesabout <strong>the</strong> Christian magicians (Jacob of Kefar Sama and <strong>the</strong> anonymoushealer) who heal <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>.That <strong>Jesus</strong> was a magician is, next to or (often) toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> accusationof sexual promiscuity, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r “trademark” of Christianity as reflected<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early pagan and Christian sources. As we have seen, <strong>the</strong>Neoplatonic philosopher Celsus has <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> adulterous countrywoman acquire magical powers <strong>in</strong> Egypt and imag<strong>in</strong>e, because of <strong>the</strong>se
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 103powers, that he is God. Before him (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> second century)it is aga<strong>in</strong> Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr, who gives a full description, clearly <strong>in</strong>spired by<strong>the</strong> New Testament, of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ magical deceit:As I said before, you [Jews] chose certa<strong>in</strong> men by vote and sent <strong>the</strong>mthroughout <strong>the</strong> whole civilized world, proclaim<strong>in</strong>g that a godless andlawless sect (hairesis) has been started by a deceiver (apo...planou), one <strong>Jesus</strong> of Galilee, whom we nailed to <strong>the</strong> cross, butwhose body, after it was taken from <strong>the</strong> cross, was stolen at nightfrom <strong>the</strong> tomb by his disciples, who now try to deceive men (planōsi)by affirm<strong>in</strong>g that he has risen from <strong>the</strong> dead and has ascended <strong>in</strong>toheaven. 26Here we have <strong>the</strong> full thrust of <strong>the</strong> accusation of magic: a hairesis, literallya “school” or a “sect” that deviates from a common orig<strong>in</strong>, caused by a “deceiver.”The Greek word for “deceiver” or “impostor” (planos) is closelyassociated with magic, as becomes clear from <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g quotation fromJust<strong>in</strong>’s Dialogue:The founta<strong>in</strong> of liv<strong>in</strong>g water 27 which gushed forth from God upon aland devoid of <strong>the</strong> knowledge of God (that is, <strong>the</strong> land of <strong>the</strong> Gentiles)was our Christ, who made his appearance on earth <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> midstof your people, and healed those who from birth were bl<strong>in</strong>d and deafand lame. He cured <strong>the</strong>m by his word, caus<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m to walk, tohear, and to see. By restor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dead to life, he compelled <strong>the</strong> menof that day to recognize him. Yet though <strong>the</strong>y [<strong>the</strong> Jews] witnessed<strong>the</strong>se miraculous deeds with <strong>the</strong>ir own eyes, <strong>the</strong>y attributed <strong>the</strong>m tomagical art; <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong>y dared to call him a magician (magos), a deceiverof <strong>the</strong> people (laoplanos). 28The true <strong>Jesus</strong>, as Just<strong>in</strong> sees him, is <strong>the</strong> healer, who heals <strong>the</strong> cripplesand revives <strong>the</strong> dead—but <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>credulous Jews pervert his au<strong>the</strong>nticheal<strong>in</strong>g power <strong>in</strong>to deceiv<strong>in</strong>g magic. They claim—when he was crucified,died on <strong>the</strong> cross, and was put <strong>in</strong> a grave—that his followers (<strong>the</strong> deceiversof <strong>the</strong> deceiver) clandest<strong>in</strong>ely stole his body from <strong>the</strong> tomb and assertedthat he had risen from <strong>the</strong> dead and ascended <strong>in</strong>to heaven. This is
104 Chapter 9clearly a reference to Mat<strong>the</strong>w 27:63f., where <strong>the</strong> High Priests and <strong>the</strong>Pharisees make <strong>the</strong> same argument to Pilate:(63) Sir, we remember what that deceiver (planos) said while he wasstill alive: After three days I will rise aga<strong>in</strong>. (64) Therefore command<strong>the</strong> tomb to be made secure until <strong>the</strong> third day; o<strong>the</strong>rwise his disciplesmay go and steal him away, and tell <strong>the</strong> people: He has been raisedfrom <strong>the</strong> dead, and <strong>the</strong> last deception would be worse than <strong>the</strong> first.Pilate follows <strong>the</strong> advice of <strong>the</strong> High Priests and <strong>the</strong> Pharisees and sendssoldiers to guard <strong>the</strong> tomb. When <strong>the</strong> guards report to <strong>the</strong> High Priestswhat <strong>the</strong>y have seen (<strong>the</strong> empty tomb and an angel guard<strong>in</strong>g it), <strong>the</strong> HighPriests bribe and <strong>in</strong>struct <strong>the</strong>m:(13) You must say: His disciples came by night and stole him awaywhile we were asleep. (14) If this comes to <strong>the</strong> governor’s ears, we willsatisfy him and keep you out of trouble. (15) So <strong>the</strong>y took <strong>the</strong> moneyand did as <strong>the</strong>y were directed. And this story is still told among <strong>the</strong>Jews to this day. 29The last remark by <strong>the</strong> evangelist (“this story is told among <strong>the</strong> Jews to thisday”) makes two th<strong>in</strong>gs clear. First, that <strong>the</strong> Jews, already accord<strong>in</strong>g toMat<strong>the</strong>w, were regarded as <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>ators of this defamatory version of<strong>the</strong> events after <strong>the</strong> crucifixion, and second, that this counternarrative to<strong>the</strong> New Testament had a long career because it was aggressively spreadby <strong>the</strong> Jews. No wonder that Just<strong>in</strong> dreads <strong>the</strong> question, obviously put <strong>in</strong>to<strong>the</strong> mouth of a Jew: “What excludes [<strong>the</strong> supposition] that this personwhom you call Christ was a man, of human orig<strong>in</strong>, and did <strong>the</strong>se miraclesyou speak of by magic arts (magikē technē), and so appeared to be <strong>the</strong> Sonof God (hyion <strong>the</strong>ou)?” 30It is certa<strong>in</strong>ly not by co<strong>in</strong>cidence that here Just<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> exactly <strong>the</strong> sameway as Celsus, connects magical deception with <strong>the</strong> hubris of be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>Son of God. Magical deception leads to idolatry, and this is what is atstake here. 31 Magic as such, although strictly forbidden <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible 32 butnever<strong>the</strong>less practiced, 33 was handled quite tolerantly by <strong>the</strong> rabbis, as amatter of fact even practiced by some of <strong>the</strong>m (not least by R. Eliezer
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 105b. Hyrkanos). 34 Hence, it is not so much <strong>the</strong> practice of magic that disturbs<strong>the</strong> rabbis; ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y attack <strong>the</strong> claim that comes with it: compet<strong>in</strong>gauthority and power. Not by co<strong>in</strong>cidence, <strong>the</strong> master <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli storyabout Yehoshua b. Perahya and his student concludes from <strong>Jesus</strong>’ brickworship that he “practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.” 35And this is precisely <strong>the</strong> reproach that some Jews express aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Gospel of John: “And <strong>the</strong>re was considerable compla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g about him[<strong>Jesus</strong>] among <strong>the</strong> crowds. While some were say<strong>in</strong>g: He is a good man,o<strong>the</strong>rs were say<strong>in</strong>g: No, he is lead<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> people astray!” (John 7:12, 47).A prime example of this magical power struggle between compet<strong>in</strong>g authoritiesis preserved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament story about Simon Magus: 36(9) Now a certa<strong>in</strong> man named Simon had previously practicedmagic (mageuōn) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> city and amazed <strong>the</strong> people of Samaria, say<strong>in</strong>gthat he was someone great. (10) All of <strong>the</strong>m, from <strong>the</strong> least to <strong>the</strong>greatest, listened to him eagerly, say<strong>in</strong>g: This man is <strong>the</strong> power ofGod called “Great” (hē dynamis tou <strong>the</strong>ou hē kaloumenē Megalē).(11) And <strong>the</strong>y listened eagerly to him because for a long time he hadamazed <strong>the</strong>m with his magic (tais mageiais). (12) But when <strong>the</strong>y believedPhilip, 37 who was proclaim<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> good news about <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdomof God and <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> Christ, <strong>the</strong>y were baptized, bothmen and women. (13) Even Simon himself believed. After be<strong>in</strong>gbaptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when hesaw <strong>the</strong> signs and great miracles that took place.Simon, <strong>the</strong> great magician and, because of his magical powers, <strong>the</strong> directoutflow of div<strong>in</strong>e power (some o<strong>the</strong>r candidate for <strong>the</strong> “Son of God”) follows<strong>the</strong> message of <strong>the</strong> apostles and becomes baptized. Why? Not onlybecause of <strong>the</strong> Christian message but also (and probably ma<strong>in</strong>ly) becausehe is conv<strong>in</strong>ced of <strong>the</strong> superior magical power of <strong>the</strong> apostles. Even afterhis baptism he cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be impressed by <strong>the</strong>ir magical performances(which, of course, are miracles). The better magic “leads him astray,”namely seduces him <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> idolatry of <strong>the</strong> new Jewish sect.The danger <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exercise of magical power (idolatry) is<strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> rabbis <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos react soallergically and uncompromis<strong>in</strong>gly to his magical <strong>in</strong>tervention. R. Eliezer
106 Chapter 9plays off his magical power aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> authority of his fellow rabbis 38 —andloses this power struggle until his death: rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authority cannot andmust not be compromised by magic. 39 The same is true for Jacob of KefarSama and his anonymous colleague: <strong>the</strong>ir magical heal<strong>in</strong>g works, evenbetter than <strong>the</strong> rabbis wish (<strong>the</strong>y cannot prevent it, unless <strong>the</strong>y forestall itby lett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> poor victim die), but still, it is unauthorized magic and mustbe fought aga<strong>in</strong>st at all costs. The magical power displayed by <strong>Jesus</strong> and hisfollowers threatens <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong> rabbis and <strong>the</strong>ir claim to lead <strong>the</strong>people of Israel. Hence, what is at stake here is <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong> rabbisversus <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>Jesus</strong>, reason<strong>in</strong>g—and decid<strong>in</strong>g—among equal partners40 versus unbridled <strong>in</strong>dividual power. For <strong>the</strong> rabbis, <strong>the</strong> keys to <strong>the</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gdom of heaven have been given to <strong>the</strong>m (through <strong>the</strong> Torah, whichGod did not want to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> heaven but decided to hand over to <strong>the</strong>m);for <strong>the</strong> Christians, <strong>the</strong> keys are now <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> hands of <strong>the</strong> new Israel, whohave access to God not least through <strong>the</strong>ir magical power.Idolatry and BlasphemyHow closely magic and idolatry are connected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish perception of<strong>Jesus</strong> becomes apparent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s story of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution. There, <strong>the</strong>herald summarizes his crime: he practiced sorcery and <strong>in</strong>stigated (hesit)and seduced (hediah) Israel. As we have seen, mesit and maddiah aretechnical terms for someone who seduces an <strong>in</strong>dividual secretly, or manypublicly, <strong>in</strong>to idolatry, and <strong>Jesus</strong> was explicitly accused of both: he did hisdisastrous and abhorrent work <strong>in</strong> secret as well as openly and hence deserves<strong>the</strong> death penalty even twice. His particular variety of idolatryaffected—and threatened—<strong>the</strong> whole community of Israel.The worst idolater is someone who propagates not just some pagangods—horrible enough, but only too well known to <strong>the</strong> rabbis—but declareshimself God or <strong>the</strong> Son of God. 41 This falls under <strong>the</strong> category ofblasphemy, which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Bible, deserves <strong>the</strong> death penalty ofston<strong>in</strong>g: “And he who blasphemes (noqev) <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> Lord, he shallsurely be put to death, and all <strong>the</strong> congregation shall stone him; as well <strong>the</strong>
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 107stranger, as he who is born <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> land, when he blasphemes <strong>the</strong> name of<strong>the</strong> Lord, shall be put to death” (Lev. 24:16). In <strong>the</strong> Mishna, 42 even utter<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> name of God (<strong>the</strong> tetragrammaton) is punished by <strong>the</strong> death penalty ofston<strong>in</strong>g—how much more does this apply to <strong>the</strong> blasphemer who uses <strong>the</strong>name of God for himself? Hence <strong>the</strong> great <strong>in</strong>dignation of <strong>the</strong> High Priest,who tears his clo<strong>the</strong>s upon hear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong>’ blasphemy (Mt. 26:63–65): 43(63) Then <strong>the</strong> High Priest said to him: I adjure you by <strong>the</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>gGod, tell us if you are <strong>the</strong> Messiah, <strong>the</strong> Son of God! (64) <strong>Jesus</strong> said tohim: You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see <strong>the</strong>Son of Man seated at <strong>the</strong> right hand of Power [God] and com<strong>in</strong>g on<strong>the</strong> clouds of heaven. (65) Then <strong>the</strong> High Priest tore his clo<strong>the</strong>s andsaid: He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? Youhave now heard his blasphemy.Here, <strong>Jesus</strong> connects his expected resurrection and ascension to heavenwith his claim to be <strong>the</strong> Son of God: <strong>the</strong> son will return to his orig<strong>in</strong>alplace, his throne next to his fa<strong>the</strong>r’s throne <strong>in</strong> heaven. This unth<strong>in</strong>kableblasphemy demands <strong>the</strong> immediate action of <strong>the</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>: <strong>the</strong> impositionof <strong>the</strong> death penalty.The same is true for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ “disciples,” who, as I have argued, serve ascodes for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ claim to be <strong>the</strong> Messiah and Son of God. The rabb<strong>in</strong>icjudges make sure that <strong>Jesus</strong> will not ascend to heaven and appear beforeGod (Mattai), that he is not an <strong>in</strong>nocent victim of <strong>the</strong> Jews (Naqqai), tha<strong>the</strong> is not <strong>the</strong> Davidic Messiah (Netzer), that he is not God’s son and firstborn(Buni), and that he is not <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of <strong>the</strong> new covenant (Todah):ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>Jesus</strong> deserves to die, will be dead, and, most certa<strong>in</strong>ly, will not risefrom <strong>the</strong> dead and guarantee his disciples-followers eternal life.This devastat<strong>in</strong>g critique of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ claim of div<strong>in</strong>e orig<strong>in</strong> is most explicit<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, but it was not unique. Although we do notf<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature o<strong>the</strong>r sources that so directly and bluntly referto <strong>Jesus</strong>, we do have a couple of texts that obviously allude to his blasphemousclaim. One is preserved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jerusalem <strong>Talmud</strong>, where <strong>the</strong>follow<strong>in</strong>g dictum is attributed to R. Abbahu, a Palest<strong>in</strong>ian rabbi of <strong>the</strong> latethird/early fourth century: 44
108 Chapter 9If a man tells you:I am God (el ani)—he is a liar;I am (<strong>the</strong>) Son of Man (ben adam)—he will regret it;I go up to <strong>the</strong> heavens—he has said, but he shall not do it. 45This midrash is an <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Balaam’s oracle <strong>in</strong> Numbers 23:18–24:“God is not a man, that he should lie; nor a son of man, that he should repent.Has he said, and shall he not do it? Or has he spoken, and shall henot fulfill it?” In <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al context of <strong>the</strong> Balaam oracle, this means thatdespite Balak’s order to curse Israel, Balaam must follow God’s commandto bless Israel, a command that cannot be revoked. I have highlighted <strong>the</strong>relevant terms <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible verse and <strong>in</strong> R. Abbahu’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation, and wecan easily see how well <strong>the</strong>y correspond to each o<strong>the</strong>r (Bible : midrash):(1) God is not a man who lies : a man who tells you that he is God is aliar;(2) God is not a Son of man who repents (= revokes his decree) : aman who tells you that he is <strong>the</strong> Son of Man will regret it;(3) God does what he says : a man who tells you that he goes up toheaven will not perform what he has promised. 46Maier has meticulously collected all <strong>the</strong> biblical and midrashic parallelsto this text and wants to prove that <strong>in</strong> its orig<strong>in</strong>al context it refers to <strong>the</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> nations (most prom<strong>in</strong>ently Hiram), who elevated <strong>the</strong>mselvesto gods and were punished for <strong>the</strong>ir hubris. 47 This is no doubt correct. Butis it equally correct that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> “orig<strong>in</strong>al” midrash <strong>the</strong> term “son of man”does not represent a title but simply refers to a human be<strong>in</strong>g? True, <strong>in</strong>Ezekiel 28:2 Hiram, <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g of Tyre, claims to be a god and is rebukedfor this hubris (“yet you are a man [adam] and no god”)—but what iswrong with claim<strong>in</strong>g that he is a “son of man,” and why will he regret
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 109tell<strong>in</strong>g us this? 48 Hiram is called a “man” and not a “son of man” (<strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>glyenough, <strong>in</strong> Ez. 28:2 it is <strong>the</strong> prophet who is called “son of man”),and <strong>the</strong> Hiram <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>the</strong>refore belongs to <strong>the</strong> first part of ourmidrash (man-god) and not to <strong>the</strong> second part referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> “son ofman.” If we take <strong>the</strong> sophisticated structure of <strong>the</strong> midrash seriously, “Sonof Man” directly corresponds to “God”: a man who tells you that he isGod is a liar, and a man who tells you that he is <strong>the</strong> Son of Man will regretit. 49 Hence, R. Abbahu’s midrash is <strong>in</strong>deed much more than just a reflectionof <strong>the</strong> well-documented Hiram traditions. It is very likely that itgoes much fur<strong>the</strong>r and does understand <strong>the</strong> “Son of Man” as a title referr<strong>in</strong>gto <strong>Jesus</strong>, as frequently attested to <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospels 50 (I <strong>the</strong>refore capitalizedit <strong>in</strong> my translation). This <strong>in</strong>terpretation goes well with <strong>the</strong> fact thatR. Abbahu lived <strong>in</strong> Caesarea, <strong>the</strong> very center of Roman rule and Palest<strong>in</strong>ianChristianity; some scholars even argue that he may well have been acqua<strong>in</strong>tedwith <strong>the</strong> Church Fa<strong>the</strong>r Origen (d. 253 C.E.) or at least with histeach<strong>in</strong>gs. 51F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> third and last part of <strong>the</strong> midrash. Here, <strong>the</strong> claim of go<strong>in</strong>gup to heaven is not covered by <strong>the</strong> biblical verse Numbers 23:19 (<strong>the</strong>Bible just confirms, without giv<strong>in</strong>g an example, that God always fulfillswhat he has promised). Aga<strong>in</strong>, one could argue that our midrash rejects(this time not Hiram’s but) Nebuchadnezzar’s hubris, of whom Isaiah says(Isa. 14:13f.): “For you have said <strong>in</strong> your heart: I will ascend to heaven, Iwill exalt my throne above <strong>the</strong> stars of God. ... I will ascend above <strong>the</strong>heights of <strong>the</strong> clouds and will be like <strong>the</strong> most High,” and who gets <strong>the</strong> deservedrebuff (Isa. 14:15): “Yet you shall be brought down to She>ol, to <strong>the</strong>sides of <strong>the</strong> pit.” 52 But this is only part of <strong>the</strong> answer. With<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sequenceGod—Son of Man—ascent to heaven, it makes much more sense to concludethat R. Abbahu uses a complex midrash tradition <strong>in</strong> order to apply itto <strong>Jesus</strong> and his movement: <strong>Jesus</strong> is a common human be<strong>in</strong>g, not God,not <strong>the</strong> Son of Man, and he certa<strong>in</strong>ly did not ascend to heaven to returnto his div<strong>in</strong>e fa<strong>the</strong>r.The o<strong>the</strong>r relevant midrash is also preserved <strong>in</strong> a Palest<strong>in</strong>ian source,<strong>the</strong> homiletic midrash Pesiqta Rabbati. It is attributed to R. Hiyya barAbba, a Babylonian-born amora, aga<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> late third/early fourth century,who, however, spent most of his life <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e: 53
110 Chapter 9If <strong>the</strong> whore’s son (bera di-zeneta) tells you:There are two gods,answer him:I am <strong>the</strong> one from <strong>the</strong> sea—and I am <strong>the</strong> one from S<strong>in</strong>ai! [ ...]And if <strong>the</strong> whore’s son tells you:There are two gods,answer him:It is not written here (<strong>in</strong> Deut. 5:4): “Gods 54 spoke (dibberu elohim) [toyou] face to face,” but “The Lord 55 spoke (dibber YHWH) [to you]face to face on <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong>.”As was <strong>the</strong> case with <strong>the</strong> previous midrash, <strong>the</strong> two answers given to <strong>the</strong>heretical question are standard rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>the</strong>ology. The first refers to <strong>the</strong> famousmidrash about God who, despite his various historical manifestations(exemplified by his appearance at <strong>the</strong> Red Sea and on MountS<strong>in</strong>ai), always rema<strong>in</strong>s one and <strong>the</strong> same. Although at <strong>the</strong> Red Sea he appearedas a warrior, and hence a young man, and on Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai as <strong>the</strong>wise and serene giver of <strong>the</strong> Torah, and hence an old man, God is and rema<strong>in</strong>salways <strong>the</strong> same God. He does not change, and one certa<strong>in</strong>ly cannotconclude from his various appearances that <strong>the</strong>re is more than oneGod. 56 Similarly, that God is referred to <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible verse about <strong>the</strong> revelationon Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular and not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> plural is clear proofthat he is one God and not two or more. 57However, this use of traditional midrashic material does not necessarilymean that our text has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong>. 58 Nor does <strong>the</strong> possibilitythat we may <strong>in</strong>stead be deal<strong>in</strong>g with anti-gnostic polemics pose a persuasivecounterargument. 59 Quite on <strong>the</strong> contrary, “gnosticism” is too vague alabel to be of much value—and should not be played off aga<strong>in</strong>st “Christianity”anyhow, s<strong>in</strong>ce often enough nei<strong>the</strong>r can be neatly separated <strong>in</strong> ourrabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources. And <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> argument <strong>in</strong> favor of anti-<strong>Jesus</strong> polemic, ofcourse, is <strong>the</strong> programmatic open<strong>in</strong>g “If <strong>the</strong> whore’s son tells you.” Whoelse could be <strong>the</strong> “son of <strong>the</strong> whore” o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> bastard, bornfrom an adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r, who dist<strong>in</strong>guishes himself from his fellow rabbisby lead<strong>in</strong>g a life of sexual promiscuity and frivolity? The proposal thatthis disparag<strong>in</strong>g epi<strong>the</strong>t refers, <strong>in</strong>stead of to <strong>Jesus</strong>, just to pagan idolaters 60 is
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 111an exceptionally feeble <strong>in</strong>terpretation that does not expla<strong>in</strong> anyth<strong>in</strong>g. Nodoubt, it is <strong>Jesus</strong> whom R. Hiyya attacks as <strong>the</strong> “son of <strong>the</strong> whore” whoclaims to be God, of equal rank with <strong>the</strong> God of whom <strong>the</strong> Jews say that heis <strong>the</strong> only and s<strong>in</strong>gle one.Resurrection and EucharistThe prerequisite for <strong>Jesus</strong>’ claim to be <strong>the</strong> Son of God is <strong>the</strong> belief <strong>in</strong> hisresurrection: it is only through his resurrection and subsequent ascent toheaven that <strong>the</strong> executed crim<strong>in</strong>al can prove that he is <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> Son ofGod. Our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic texts, all <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli, emphasize that <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> newBalaam, does not have a portion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to come: his fate is that hemust be punished <strong>in</strong> hell forever, with no chance of redemption—and<strong>the</strong> same is true for his followers: <strong>the</strong>y better give up any hope of earn<strong>in</strong>geternal life <strong>in</strong> his succession, as his apostles promise.We have seen how Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr puts a similar attack on <strong>Jesus</strong>’ allegedresurrection (it was a magical deceit concocted by his disciples) <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>mouth of <strong>the</strong> Jews. But <strong>the</strong> Jews do not stand alone <strong>in</strong> such an assessmentof <strong>the</strong> Christian belief <strong>in</strong> resurrection. Lucian of Samosata (ca. 120–ca.180 C.E.), <strong>the</strong> great Greek satirist, ridicules <strong>the</strong> Christians’ hope of be<strong>in</strong>gimmortal. In his Death of Peregr<strong>in</strong>us Lucian exposes Peregr<strong>in</strong>us—a Cynicphilosopher, for some time sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to <strong>the</strong> cause of <strong>the</strong> Christians,who burned himself alive <strong>in</strong> order to demonstrate his <strong>in</strong>difference topa<strong>in</strong>—as a sw<strong>in</strong>dler, and <strong>in</strong> this context he gets to talk<strong>in</strong>g about a similarlystupid belief of <strong>the</strong> Christians: “You see, for one th<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> poor devilshave conv<strong>in</strong>ced <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong>y’re all go<strong>in</strong>g to be immortal and live forever,which makes most of <strong>the</strong>m take death lightly and voluntarily give<strong>the</strong>mselves up to it.” 61Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not this satirical answer to one of <strong>the</strong> core beliefs of Christianityis <strong>in</strong>spired by Jewish polemical sources (although this possibilitycannot be ruled out: his native language was Syriac), 62 it clearly reflectshow widespread it was <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish as well as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman world.It is left to <strong>the</strong> vicious acumen of Tertullian to summarize what <strong>the</strong> Jewsth<strong>in</strong>k of <strong>Jesus</strong>. When he vividly imag<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> last day of judgment—with
112 Chapter 9<strong>the</strong> emperors who claimed to have been taken up to heaven, <strong>the</strong> governorsof <strong>the</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>ces who persecuted <strong>the</strong> Christians, <strong>the</strong> philosophers,<strong>the</strong> poets, <strong>the</strong> tragedians, <strong>the</strong> wrestlers, and f<strong>in</strong>ally <strong>the</strong> Jews “whose furyvented itself aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Lord,” all burn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fire of hell—<strong>the</strong>n he willgive his triumphant answer to <strong>the</strong> Jews: 63This is he, I shall say,that carpenter’s or prostitute’s (quaestuaria) son,that Sabbath-breaker,that Samaritan and demon-possessed!This is he, whom you bought from Judas!This is he, who was struck with reed and fist,who was defiled with spittle,who was given gall and v<strong>in</strong>egar to dr<strong>in</strong>k!This is he, whom his disciples secretly stole away that it might be saidhe had risen,unless it was <strong>the</strong> gardener who removed him,lest his lettuces be damaged by <strong>the</strong> crowd of sightseers!Most of <strong>the</strong>se polemical <strong>in</strong>vectives are directly taken from <strong>the</strong> New Testament,64 with <strong>the</strong> exception of <strong>the</strong> Samaritan and <strong>the</strong> gardener: <strong>the</strong> formermay be an attempt to identify <strong>Jesus</strong> with Simon Magus, who was located<strong>in</strong> Samaria (aga<strong>in</strong> emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> as magician), 65 <strong>the</strong> latter may referto John 20:15, where Mary Magdalene mistakes <strong>the</strong> risen <strong>Jesus</strong> for <strong>the</strong>gardener who had carried <strong>Jesus</strong>’ body away. No doubt, <strong>the</strong> climax of all<strong>the</strong> Jewish perversions of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life and fate, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uationthat he was born as <strong>the</strong> son of a whore, is his disciples’ plot to steal hisbody from <strong>the</strong> tomb <strong>in</strong> order to feign his resurrection. Tertullian is <strong>the</strong>first author who surpasses and ironically <strong>in</strong>tensifies this New Testamentmotif by <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> gardener so concerned about his vegetables. 66The Eucharist, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r central element of Christian practice, is mentioned<strong>in</strong> our rabb<strong>in</strong>ical sources only once, and also only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli. Interest<strong>in</strong>glyenough, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> does not connect it with <strong>the</strong> nasty motif ofcannibalism that was so prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pagan and Christian sources.But what <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> does relate, reveals no less a wicked sense of humor:
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 113<strong>Jesus</strong> is punished by forever sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> hell <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> excrement of his followers,who believe that through eat<strong>in</strong>g his flesh and dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g his blood, <strong>the</strong>ywill live forever. This presents, as we have seen, a satirical <strong>in</strong>version of <strong>Jesus</strong>’promise to his disciples that he is <strong>the</strong> bread of life and that whoevereats his flesh and dr<strong>in</strong>ks his blood will earn eternal life. Already <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>New Testament <strong>the</strong> Jews expressed <strong>the</strong>ir disbelief <strong>in</strong> such a bizarre claim;now, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, this disbelief materializes itself <strong>in</strong> a bizarre story unequaled<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman literature.Palest<strong>in</strong>ian versus Babylonian SourcesLet us now have a closer look at <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources that offer us <strong>the</strong>irview about <strong>Jesus</strong> and Christianity, more specifically, at <strong>the</strong> relationshipbetween <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian and Babylonian sources. Here <strong>the</strong> distribution isquite reveal<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>the</strong> texts that most graphically and bluntly refer to <strong>Jesus</strong>’life and fate are preserved only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli. This applies to• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> bastard, son of a whore: although Ben Stada/Satra does appear<strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources (Tosefta, Yerushalmi)—not by accident assomeone who imports sorcery from Egypt (Yerushalmi)—<strong>the</strong> identificationwith <strong>the</strong> bastard (<strong>Jesus</strong>), and accord<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>the</strong> counternarrativeto <strong>the</strong> New Testament birth story, is reserved for <strong>the</strong> Bavli• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> bad son/disciple, guilty of sexual promiscuity• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> frivolous disciple who practices magic and becomes anidolater (<strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi parallel leaves out any reference to <strong>Jesus</strong>)• <strong>the</strong> graphic and detailed description of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples (as codes for his own dest<strong>in</strong>y)• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment <strong>in</strong> hellThis is an impressive list, which, most conspicuously, <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> twomajor counternarratives about <strong>the</strong> cornerstones of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ life <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New
114 Chapter 9Testament—his birth and his Passion. No doubt, <strong>the</strong>refore, that <strong>the</strong> gist of<strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>Jesus</strong> narrative is preserved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>. Wecan even go a step fur<strong>the</strong>r: it is Rav Hisda, <strong>the</strong> Babylonian amora of <strong>the</strong>third generation (d. beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> fourth century C.E.), who transmits<strong>the</strong> traditions about both <strong>Jesus</strong>’ adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>the</strong> bad son/discipleas well as adds, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eliezer b. Hyrkanos story, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction tokeep away four cubits from <strong>the</strong> prostitute. Rav Hisda taught at <strong>the</strong> academyof Sura, and it may well be that this academy was a “center” of <strong>the</strong>Babylonian <strong>Jesus</strong> tradition (which by no means, however, was restricted toSura s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> rabbis of Pumbeditha take part <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussion about <strong>Jesus</strong>’mo<strong>the</strong>r and her husband/lover).By contrast, a very different picture emerges from <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>iansources. There, <strong>Jesus</strong> is not addressed directly; <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> focus is put on<strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>g powers of his disciples (most prom<strong>in</strong>ently <strong>the</strong> enigmatic Jacobof Kefar Sekhaniah/Sama) and hence <strong>the</strong> heretical character of <strong>the</strong> sectfounded by him. The Palest<strong>in</strong>ian texts center around magic: <strong>the</strong> power <strong>in</strong>herent<strong>in</strong> magic, how it works, and <strong>the</strong> authority connected to it. On thisbackground, R. Eliezer is portrayed as someone who sets up his magicalauthority aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> authority of his fellow rabbis and who accord<strong>in</strong>glyneeds to be elim<strong>in</strong>ated. The charges brought aga<strong>in</strong>st him by <strong>the</strong> Romangovernment seem to refer to orgiastic rites that are well known from paganand Christian sources.Hence, <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources are aimed at <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Christiansect, emerg<strong>in</strong>g out of <strong>the</strong> common ground of Judaism—<strong>the</strong>y reveal <strong>the</strong>threat that <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian rabbis must have felt, <strong>the</strong>ir fear, but also <strong>the</strong>mechanisms of <strong>the</strong>ir defense. As such, <strong>the</strong>y reflect <strong>the</strong> “simultaneous rabb<strong>in</strong>icattraction to and repulsion from Christianity,” 67 <strong>the</strong>y describe <strong>the</strong>very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> “part<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> ways”—a part<strong>in</strong>g, however, thatshould take several more generations. But it needs to be emphasized thatthis “snapshot” is frozen, as it were, predom<strong>in</strong>antly <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources.There, <strong>the</strong> new sect seems to have been caught <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process of tak<strong>in</strong>gshape as a movement aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> rabbis, <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic form of Judaism,aga<strong>in</strong>st rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authority, a movement moreover that came under <strong>the</strong>suspicion of Christian libert<strong>in</strong>age.In sum, whereas <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian rabbis’ (few) statements reveal a relativecloseness to <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g Christian sect, to its very orig<strong>in</strong> and “local
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 115color,” <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s attention is focused on <strong>the</strong> person of <strong>Jesus</strong>, particularlyhis birth and death. 68 In o<strong>the</strong>r words, it is, amaz<strong>in</strong>gly enough, only <strong>the</strong>later source—and moreover <strong>the</strong> one that is geographically much fur<strong>the</strong>rremoved from <strong>the</strong> scene of action—that explicitly and openly deals with<strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> character of <strong>the</strong> events. This strik<strong>in</strong>g result deserves our attention,all <strong>the</strong> more so s<strong>in</strong>ce it has been largely ignored by most of <strong>the</strong> scholarsdeal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>.Why <strong>the</strong> Bavli?First, <strong>the</strong> question needs to be addressed: why not <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources?Why are <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi and <strong>the</strong> midrashim so restra<strong>in</strong>ed with traditionsabout or reactions to <strong>the</strong> person of <strong>Jesus</strong>? The answer to this question isrelatively easy. Palest<strong>in</strong>ian Judaism was under <strong>the</strong> direct and cont<strong>in</strong>uouslygrow<strong>in</strong>g impact of Christianity <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy Land. When <strong>the</strong> emperor of<strong>the</strong> West, Constant<strong>in</strong>e, defeated <strong>the</strong> emperor of <strong>the</strong> East, Lic<strong>in</strong>ius, <strong>in</strong> 324C.E., it was <strong>the</strong> first time a Christian would become <strong>the</strong> ruler ofPalest<strong>in</strong>e—with profound and long-last<strong>in</strong>g consequences not least for <strong>the</strong>Jews. Already <strong>in</strong> 313 C.E., Constant<strong>in</strong>e had issued <strong>the</strong> edict of Milan <strong>in</strong>which he granted legal status to Christianity, officially end<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> persecutionof Christians. Now, after <strong>the</strong> victory over his rival <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> East, Constant<strong>in</strong>ecould promulgate—and carry through—<strong>the</strong> edict also <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> eastof his empire, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Palest<strong>in</strong>e. Now began <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>escapable and <strong>in</strong>exorableprocess that would lead to <strong>the</strong> eventual triumph of Christianity <strong>in</strong>Palest<strong>in</strong>e, a triumph that clearly did not leave <strong>the</strong> Jews unaffected. Christiancommunities spread throughout Palest<strong>in</strong>e, Christian churches werebuilt, a Christian <strong>in</strong>frastructure was set up, and Christian pilgrims wereattracted from all parts of <strong>the</strong> empire. Helena, <strong>the</strong> emperor’s mo<strong>the</strong>r, visitedPalest<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> 327 C.E. and founded a number of churches, most importantand magnificent among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> Church of <strong>the</strong> Holy Sepulchre<strong>in</strong> Jerusalem and <strong>the</strong> Church of <strong>the</strong> Nativity <strong>in</strong> Bethlehem (although <strong>the</strong>construction of <strong>the</strong> former had already began before she arrived <strong>in</strong>Jerusalem: no doubt, <strong>the</strong> emperor did not need much persuasion by hismo<strong>the</strong>r). Relics were found <strong>in</strong> great numbers, not least <strong>the</strong> relic of <strong>the</strong>
116 Chapter 9cross, allegedly and timely discovered by <strong>the</strong> Queen herself, which servedas <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> attraction of <strong>the</strong> Church of <strong>the</strong> Holy Sepulchre.The rise of Christianity <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e does not mean that <strong>the</strong> Jews weredeprived of all <strong>the</strong>ir rights and under <strong>the</strong> constant threat of persecution;such a bleak picture 69 certa<strong>in</strong>ly does not do justice to <strong>the</strong> never<strong>the</strong>lessflourish<strong>in</strong>g religious and cultural Jewish life, predom<strong>in</strong>antly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Galilee after <strong>the</strong> Bar Kokhba revolt. But <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt, ei<strong>the</strong>r,that <strong>the</strong> religious and political freedom of <strong>the</strong> Jews was more and morelimited by a grow<strong>in</strong>g anti-Jewish legislation and that <strong>the</strong> Jews graduallybecame a m<strong>in</strong>ority aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly aggressive majority of <strong>the</strong>Christians <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e. That such a climate was not propitious for an unbiaseddebate between Jews and Christians, let alone for a Jewish critiqueof <strong>the</strong> hero of <strong>the</strong> Christian faith, can hardly come as a surprise.If we compare <strong>the</strong> situation of <strong>the</strong> Jews and <strong>the</strong> Christians <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ewith <strong>the</strong> conditions under which both lived <strong>in</strong> Babylonia, we get a differentpicture. Under <strong>the</strong> dynasty of <strong>the</strong> Sasanians, which <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> third centuryC.E. replaced <strong>the</strong> Parthian Arsacids, <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian religion with its strongantagonism between good and evil and its fire worship became <strong>the</strong> unit<strong>in</strong>greligious force <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vast and multiethnic Persian Empire. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or notZoroastrianism can be described as a state religion, as some scholars suggest,70 <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt that it was closely related to <strong>the</strong> claim topower of <strong>the</strong> Sasanian k<strong>in</strong>gs, who promoted it and used it ma<strong>in</strong>ly for <strong>the</strong>irpolitical purposes. 71 They gave <strong>the</strong> magians (magi), <strong>the</strong> priests of <strong>the</strong>Zoroastrian religion, almost unlimited power (when <strong>the</strong>y saw fit politically),and from this higher po<strong>in</strong>t of view of national policy it did not make muchof a difference to which deviant religion a victim of <strong>the</strong> magians’ religiouszeal belonged. A graphic example of this Zoroastrian fervor aga<strong>in</strong>st anyo<strong>the</strong>r religion can be found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> famous <strong>in</strong>scription put up by Katir, oneof <strong>the</strong> most powerful magians dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> reign of Bahram II (276–293):And for <strong>the</strong> love of Ohrmazd 72 and <strong>the</strong> gods, and for <strong>the</strong> sake of hisown soul, he [Bahram II] raised my [Katir’s] rank and my titles <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> empire. . . . And <strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>ces, <strong>in</strong> every part of <strong>the</strong> empire,<strong>the</strong> acts of worshipp<strong>in</strong>g Ohrmazd and <strong>the</strong> gods were enhanced.And <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian religion and <strong>the</strong> Magi were greatly honored <strong>in</strong>
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 117<strong>the</strong> empire. And <strong>the</strong> gods, “water,” “fire” and “domestic animals” atta<strong>in</strong>edgreat satisfaction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> empire, but Ahriman 73 and <strong>the</strong> idolssuffered great blows and great damages. And <strong>the</strong> [false] doctr<strong>in</strong>es ofAhriman and of <strong>the</strong> idols disappeared from <strong>the</strong> empire and lost credibility.And <strong>the</strong> Jews (yahūd), Buddhists (šaman), H<strong>in</strong>dus (brāman),Nazarenes (nāsrā), Christians (kristiyān), Baptists (makdag) andManichaeans (zandīk) were smashed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> empire, <strong>the</strong>ir idols destroyed,and <strong>the</strong> habitations of <strong>the</strong> idols annihilated and turned <strong>in</strong>toabodes and seats of <strong>the</strong> gods. 74This is a powerful declaration of <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian faith—and a declarationof war aga<strong>in</strong>st all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r major religions <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Persian Empire. Jewsand Christians 75 are, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r heresies, on an equal foot<strong>in</strong>gas far as <strong>the</strong> chief magian’s wrath is concerned, with no difference whatsoever(<strong>the</strong> Jews are even mentioned first). Yet this official attitude, or ra<strong>the</strong>r<strong>the</strong> desired ideal, of <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian clergy does not convey <strong>the</strong> full picture.The reality was quite different.In reality <strong>the</strong> Christians were much worse off than <strong>the</strong> Jews, 76 and thisfor very concrete political reasons: when Christianity became an officiallyrecognized and patronized religion under Constant<strong>in</strong>e and his successors,<strong>the</strong> major enemy of <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire suddenly turned out to bea Christian—and this did not leave <strong>the</strong> status of <strong>the</strong> Sasanians’ Christiansubjects unaffected. The Christians became suspected of be<strong>in</strong>g disloyal to<strong>the</strong> state and favor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> enemy, of be<strong>in</strong>g Rome’s “fifth column” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>midst of <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire. 77 Large-scale persecutions of <strong>the</strong> Christiansbroke out, first under Shapur II (309–379), <strong>the</strong>n under Yazdgard I(399–421), Bahram V (421–439), and Yazdgard II (439–457).When Constant<strong>in</strong>e, shortly before his death <strong>in</strong> 337 C.E., <strong>in</strong>tervened <strong>in</strong>newly Christianized Armenia, Shapur II was forced <strong>in</strong>to a direct confrontationwith his Christian opponent. This threat just at <strong>the</strong> front doorof <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire (with its barely controllable border) clearly didnot rema<strong>in</strong> unnoticed by <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Christians and may have arousedcerta<strong>in</strong> expectations. We do know that still <strong>in</strong> 337, 78 Aphrahat, <strong>the</strong> SyrianChurch Fa<strong>the</strong>r, triumphantly proclaimed <strong>in</strong> his Demonstration V <strong>the</strong> ultimatevictory of Constant<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> Christians:
118 Chapter 9The people of God have received prosperity, and success awaits <strong>the</strong>man who has been <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>strument of that prosperity [Constant<strong>in</strong>e];but disaster threatens <strong>the</strong> army which has been ga<strong>the</strong>red toge<strong>the</strong>r by<strong>the</strong> efforts of a wicked and proud man puffed up with vanity [Shapur].... The [Roman] Empire will not be conquered, for <strong>the</strong> herowhose name is <strong>Jesus</strong> is com<strong>in</strong>g with his power, and his armor will uphold<strong>the</strong> whole army of <strong>the</strong> Empire. 79Such expectations certa<strong>in</strong>ly did not escape <strong>the</strong> attention of Shapur, 80 all<strong>the</strong> more so as Constantius, Constant<strong>in</strong>e’s son and successor <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> East,cont<strong>in</strong>ued to <strong>in</strong>terfere <strong>in</strong> Armenia <strong>in</strong> favor of <strong>the</strong> pro-Christian party.When Shapur, <strong>in</strong> 338, unsuccessfully besieged <strong>the</strong> border city of Nisibis,he f<strong>in</strong>ally took action aga<strong>in</strong>st his Christian subjects and started <strong>the</strong> firstand prolonged persecution (of about forty years) of <strong>the</strong> Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Sasanian Empire. We are well <strong>in</strong>formed about this persecution by a largecollection of texts <strong>in</strong> Syriac, dat<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> time of Shapur II and called<strong>the</strong> Acts of <strong>the</strong> Martyrs. 81 They are of vary<strong>in</strong>g historical value but on <strong>the</strong>whole give a vivid picture of <strong>the</strong> situation. 82One of <strong>the</strong> most prom<strong>in</strong>ent texts, <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of Mar Simon, <strong>the</strong>Katholikos of <strong>the</strong> Oriental Church, sets <strong>the</strong> tone and displays <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>extricablemixture of political and religious issues <strong>in</strong>volved. When Shapurpromulgated an edict impos<strong>in</strong>g on his Christian subjects double taxes,Simon refused to obey and got caught, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Acts of <strong>the</strong> Martyrs,<strong>in</strong> a long debate with <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g and his dignitaries that f<strong>in</strong>ally resulted<strong>in</strong> his martyrdom. Simon’s refusal was duly recorded by <strong>the</strong> Persian officialsand reported to <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g, who, react<strong>in</strong>g with anger and fury, exclaimed:“Simon wants to make his followers and his people rebelaga<strong>in</strong>st my k<strong>in</strong>gdom and convert <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong>to servants of Caesar (kaisar),<strong>the</strong>ir coreligionist. Therefore he does not obey my order!” 83 The “Caesar,”of course, is <strong>the</strong> Christian emperor Constantius, and what is at stakehere, at <strong>the</strong> very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> controversy, is not so much a religiousdispute (although, to be sure, this was to follow soon) but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> loyaltyof his Christian subjects to <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g. Unlike <strong>the</strong> Jews, who had everyreason to distrust <strong>the</strong> Christian emperor (because of his rule <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e)and to be loyal to <strong>the</strong>ir Sasanian k<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> Christians aroused <strong>the</strong> suspicionof treason.
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 119And this is precisely how <strong>the</strong> Acts of Simon cont<strong>in</strong>ues. The Jews, it argues,are not only aware of <strong>the</strong> Christians’ disloyalty to <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong>y effectivelytake advantage of it and blacken <strong>the</strong> Christians’ name beforeShapur. Us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> full arsenal of Christian anti-Jewish stereotypes (<strong>the</strong>Jews have always been aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Christians, <strong>the</strong>y killed <strong>the</strong> prophets,crucified <strong>Jesus</strong>, stoned <strong>the</strong> apostles, and are thirsty for <strong>the</strong> Christians’blood), it claims that <strong>the</strong> Jews slander Simon as follows: when Shapur, <strong>the</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of k<strong>in</strong>gs, sends long and wise missives to <strong>the</strong> Christian emperor(kaisar), toge<strong>the</strong>r with resplendent gifts, <strong>the</strong>y are received dismissively;but when Simon sends him a puny letter, <strong>the</strong> emperor immediately getsup to his feet, welcomes <strong>the</strong> letter with both hands and grants Simon’s requests.“Moreover,” <strong>the</strong> Acts cont<strong>in</strong>ue, “you [Shapur] do not have a statesecret that he [Simon] does not immediately write down and communicateto <strong>the</strong> Caesar!” 84 So that’s what it is all about: even if <strong>the</strong>y did not <strong>in</strong>stigate<strong>the</strong> Sasanians’ persecution of <strong>the</strong> Christians, <strong>the</strong> Jews, <strong>the</strong> perennialenemies of <strong>Jesus</strong> and his followers, actively supported it. 85If we look at <strong>the</strong> more concrete religious issues brought up <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Actsof <strong>the</strong> Martyrs, we f<strong>in</strong>d a number of <strong>the</strong>mes that are frequently emphasized.First and foremost is <strong>the</strong> refusal of <strong>the</strong> Christians to worship <strong>the</strong>sun and <strong>the</strong> fire, <strong>the</strong> most holy objects of <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian cult. 86 The earliestmartyrdom described <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Acts, <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of <strong>the</strong> bishopShapur and his coreligionists, 87 opens with <strong>the</strong> accusation of <strong>the</strong> magiansthat <strong>the</strong>y cannot practice <strong>the</strong>ir religion because of <strong>the</strong> Nazarenes, who“despise <strong>the</strong> fire, revile <strong>the</strong> sun and do not honor <strong>the</strong> water.” 88 O<strong>the</strong>r accusationsare that <strong>the</strong> Christians refuse to eat blood (i.e., ritually slaughteredmeat), bury <strong>the</strong>ir dead <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> earth, and often refuse to marry but<strong>in</strong>stead proclaim <strong>the</strong> ideal of virg<strong>in</strong>ity. 89 Much as <strong>the</strong>se Christian customshave been abhorrent to <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrians, most of <strong>the</strong>m must havefound <strong>the</strong> approval of <strong>the</strong> Jews; <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, with regard to many of<strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian religious sensibilities, <strong>the</strong>re cannot have been much of adifference between Christians and Jews (and Katir was <strong>the</strong>refore right toput both on an equal foot<strong>in</strong>g). The conspicuous exception is <strong>the</strong> ideal ofvirg<strong>in</strong>ity, which appears <strong>in</strong> almost all of <strong>the</strong> martyrdoms of women. 90This is clearly someth<strong>in</strong>g of which <strong>the</strong> Jews did not approve of, ei<strong>the</strong>r,and which immediately rem<strong>in</strong>ds us of <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s attack on <strong>the</strong> New Testament’sbirth narrative (<strong>Jesus</strong> born from a virg<strong>in</strong>). We do not know
120 Chapter 9whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Jews stand beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> Zoroastrian critique of <strong>the</strong> Christians’claim that God was born of a human woman (whose conduct moreoverwas not beyond any doubt), 91 but <strong>the</strong> possibility can certa<strong>in</strong>ly not beruled out.More important, <strong>the</strong> fate of <strong>the</strong> many Christian martyrs, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gwith <strong>the</strong> long persecution under Shapur II, did not escape <strong>the</strong> notice of<strong>the</strong> Sasanian Jews; <strong>in</strong> fact, as we have seen, <strong>the</strong>y may have even played anactive role <strong>in</strong> nourish<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> suspicion of <strong>the</strong> Sasanian authorities with regardto <strong>the</strong> political implications connected with <strong>the</strong> dissident Christiansect. Jes Asmussen has po<strong>in</strong>ted to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> martyrologies preserved<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Acts of <strong>the</strong> Syrian Martyrs follow <strong>the</strong> ideal of a “conscious imitatioChristi to make <strong>the</strong> details of <strong>the</strong> martyr’s death conform as much as possibleto <strong>the</strong> Passion of <strong>Jesus</strong>,” 92 and of <strong>the</strong> various characteristics that helists, two are particularly illum<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> our context: that Friday is <strong>the</strong>preferred day of martyrdom and that <strong>the</strong> corpse of <strong>the</strong> dead martyr istaken away <strong>in</strong> secret. As to <strong>the</strong> former, <strong>the</strong> Acts mentions explicitly that Simonand his friends were sentenced and killed on a Friday, between <strong>the</strong>sixth and <strong>the</strong> n<strong>in</strong>th hour, <strong>the</strong> very time that <strong>Jesus</strong> carried <strong>the</strong> cross and wasf<strong>in</strong>ally crucified. 93 Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, Guhashtazad, a high Persian officialand Christian, who first denies his Christian faith and only <strong>in</strong> a secondattempt accepts its consequences, is deemed worthy of be<strong>in</strong>g martyredonly on Thursday, <strong>the</strong> thirteenth of Nisan; 94 and some later—andpresumably less important—martyrs die just on any Friday, not <strong>the</strong> Fridayof <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution. 95With regard to secretly tak<strong>in</strong>g away <strong>the</strong> corpse of <strong>the</strong> martyr, we are rem<strong>in</strong>dedof <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative (only <strong>in</strong> Mat<strong>the</strong>w) that <strong>the</strong> HighPriests and Pharisees demand of Pilate to guard <strong>Jesus</strong>’ tomb carefully forthree days lest <strong>the</strong> Jews secretly steal his corpse and claim that he has risenfrom <strong>the</strong> dead after three days, as he had promised. 96 In a clear imitation of<strong>Jesus</strong>’ fate, <strong>the</strong> Acts frequently mentions that <strong>the</strong> Christian coreligionists of<strong>the</strong> martyr secretly take away or “steal” <strong>the</strong> body and bury it. For example,after bishop Shapur was martyred, his Christian brethren came, “stole <strong>the</strong>body, and buried it secretly.” 97 In Akebshema’s case <strong>the</strong> torturers have hisunburied body guarded, but after three days(!) an Armenian (hence Christian)hostage secretly takes it away. 98 Ano<strong>the</strong>r martyr, by <strong>the</strong> name ofJoseph, was taken away and, as <strong>the</strong> text explicitly says, “hidden—whe<strong>the</strong>r
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 121by God or a human be<strong>in</strong>g, we do not know because it [his corpse] was notseen and not known <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> place.” 99 Similarly, <strong>the</strong> corpse of <strong>the</strong> monk MarGiwargis is displayed for three days and three nights on <strong>the</strong> cross, guardedby many soldiers, “lest <strong>the</strong> Christians come and secretly take away his pureand holy body.” 100 This is not just an imitatio Christi but moreover an <strong>in</strong>versionof <strong>the</strong> Mat<strong>the</strong>w narrative: what Mat<strong>the</strong>w puts <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouth of<strong>the</strong> Jews—<strong>the</strong> fear that <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples or someone else might steal hisbody <strong>in</strong> order to claim that he was resurrected—is now adopted by <strong>the</strong>Christians and turned positively. Yes, <strong>the</strong> martyrologies argue, <strong>the</strong> corpsesof <strong>the</strong> deceased martyrs are <strong>in</strong>deed secretly taken away, however by usChristians, <strong>in</strong> order not to fake but to facilitate resurrection (<strong>the</strong> case ofJoseph is particularly reveal<strong>in</strong>g because <strong>the</strong> text bluntly h<strong>in</strong>ts at <strong>the</strong> possibilitythat he was immediately resurrected). So, <strong>in</strong> an ironic sense, <strong>the</strong>Jews f<strong>in</strong>ally prove to be right: even though <strong>the</strong> early Christians ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>that <strong>the</strong>y did not steal <strong>the</strong> body of <strong>Jesus</strong> because he was (allegedly) resurrected,<strong>the</strong>ir Sasanian brethren admittedly do have <strong>the</strong> habit of steal<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> bodies of <strong>the</strong>ir martyrs—to make precisely <strong>the</strong> same claim: that <strong>the</strong>yare resurrected.S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>se and similar patterns appear <strong>in</strong> many of <strong>the</strong> martyrologies,101 it is hard to avoid <strong>the</strong> conclusion that <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Jews must havebeen aware of <strong>the</strong>m. To be sure, such patterns are—to different degrees—literary devices that belong to <strong>the</strong> genre of <strong>the</strong>se particular martyrologiesand not necessarily historical facts. Clearly, not all of <strong>the</strong> martyrs died ona Friday, but <strong>the</strong> pattern of <strong>the</strong> imitatio Christi is too prom<strong>in</strong>ent to be simplydisregarded as fiction (let alone that noth<strong>in</strong>g speaks aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> possibilitythat <strong>the</strong>/some Sasanian Jews could and <strong>in</strong>deed read <strong>the</strong> Acts of <strong>the</strong>Martyrs, which after all was written <strong>in</strong> Syriac, an East Aramaic dialect veryclose to Babylonian Aramaic). And that <strong>the</strong> Christians were very eager totake away (and hide) <strong>the</strong> corpses of <strong>the</strong> martyrs to <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>the</strong>ir resurrectionis an element of <strong>the</strong> martyrologies that even factually makes a lot ofsense.In sum, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly precarious status of <strong>the</strong> Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> SasanianEmpire, with <strong>the</strong> waves of persecutions break<strong>in</strong>g out under Shapur IIand cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g under some of his successors, makes it highly likely that acultural climate could develop <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> Jews felt not only free but evenencouraged to express <strong>the</strong>ir anti-Christian sentiments—and that <strong>the</strong>y could
122 Chapter 9expect to be supported <strong>in</strong> this endeavor by <strong>the</strong> Persian government. 102Hence, it should not come as a surprise that we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> most graphicpolemic aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> (and not <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>iansources). 103 There, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli, a conflict emerges that is not a conflict anymore between Jews and Jewish Christians or Christian Jews (i.e., Christianity<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g), but between Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> very process ofdef<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>mselves (i.e., <strong>the</strong> Christian Church). The polemic that <strong>the</strong>Bavli shares with us is scanty and has unfortunately been tampered with byChristian censors, but it never<strong>the</strong>less allows us a glimpse of a very vivid andfierce conflict between two compet<strong>in</strong>g “religions” under <strong>the</strong> suspicious eyeof <strong>the</strong> Sasanian authorities.The New TestamentAno<strong>the</strong>r strik<strong>in</strong>g result of our <strong>in</strong>quiry was that <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources (aga<strong>in</strong>,particularly <strong>the</strong> Bavli) do not refer to some vague ideas about <strong>Jesus</strong> andChristianity but that <strong>the</strong>y reveal knowledge—more often than not a preciseknowledge—of <strong>the</strong> New Testament. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>y respond to aliterary source, not to some vague or lost oral traditions. We cannot reconstructwhat <strong>the</strong> New Testament looked like that <strong>the</strong> rabbis had <strong>in</strong> front of<strong>the</strong>m and we even cannot be sure, of course, that <strong>the</strong>y did have access to<strong>the</strong> New Testament at all. But still, <strong>the</strong> sometimes quite specific referencespresented <strong>in</strong> our sources make it much more feasible that <strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>deedhad some version of <strong>the</strong> New Testament available.What k<strong>in</strong>d of New Testament might this have been? We do know that<strong>the</strong> “Harmony” of <strong>the</strong> four Gospels (Diatessaron) composed by Tatian<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second century C.E. became <strong>the</strong> authoritative New Testament textof <strong>the</strong> Syrian Church until it was replaced (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fifth century) by <strong>the</strong>Syrian translation of <strong>the</strong> four separate Gospels (<strong>the</strong> New TestamentPeshitta). 104 The Diatessaron provides a cont<strong>in</strong>uous narrative of <strong>the</strong> NewTestament message, composed almost exclusively from <strong>the</strong> three synopticGospels and from John; its orig<strong>in</strong>al language most likely was Syriac (andnot Greek). In present<strong>in</strong>g his cont<strong>in</strong>uous narrative, <strong>in</strong>stead of four differentversions, Tatian could not leave <strong>the</strong> structure of <strong>the</strong> four Gospels un-
touched, but he beg<strong>in</strong>s, conspicuously, not only with <strong>the</strong> prologue <strong>in</strong>John but normally follows <strong>the</strong> order of <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John and <strong>in</strong>serts <strong>in</strong>toit <strong>the</strong> passages from <strong>the</strong> synoptic Gospels. 105 Unfortunately, <strong>the</strong>re hasn’trema<strong>in</strong>ed any s<strong>in</strong>gle full text of <strong>the</strong> Diatessaron, but it can largely be reconstructedthrough quotations from <strong>the</strong> Syrian Church Fa<strong>the</strong>r Ephrem(especially <strong>in</strong> his Syriac commentary on <strong>the</strong> Diatessaron) and a numberof translations <strong>in</strong>to several languages. 106 In any case, it is highly probablethat <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Jews had access to <strong>the</strong> New Testament through <strong>the</strong> SyriacDiatessaron and later on through <strong>the</strong> Peshitta.If we review <strong>the</strong> allusions to <strong>the</strong> New Testament <strong>in</strong> detail, it becomesimmediately clear that <strong>the</strong> rabbis must have been familiar primarily withall <strong>the</strong> four Gospels. The follow<strong>in</strong>g picture emerges: 107• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ family: beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> parody of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth stands Mat<strong>the</strong>w <strong>in</strong>particular, with <strong>the</strong> Davidic genealogy and <strong>the</strong> claim that he wasborn from a virg<strong>in</strong>. His mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam, <strong>the</strong> long-haired woman, mayrefer to <strong>the</strong> later identification of Mary Magdalene with <strong>the</strong> “immoralwoman” of Luke.• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> bad son/disciple: possibly also an allusion to Mary Magdalene/<strong>the</strong>immoral woman (Luke, but also John)• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> frivolous disciple: no parallel<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 123• <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Torah teacher: Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Mount (Mat<strong>the</strong>w); <strong>Jesus</strong>teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple (Luke, but also John)• Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>: cast<strong>in</strong>g out demons <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of<strong>Jesus</strong> (Mark and Luke)• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution: all four Gospels, but that <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial and executiontook place on <strong>the</strong> fourteenth of Nisan, <strong>the</strong> day before <strong>the</strong> first day ofPassover, is mentioned only <strong>in</strong> JohnPilate tries to save <strong>Jesus</strong>: <strong>in</strong> all four Gospels, with specific emphasison John<strong>Jesus</strong> on <strong>the</strong> cross: all four Gospels• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples: all four Gospels, with particular emphasis on John(<strong>the</strong> crush<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> bones), Mat<strong>the</strong>w (<strong>the</strong> Davidic Messiah), possibly
124 Chapter 9also Acts and Letter to <strong>the</strong> Hebrews (reference to Ps. 2:7), Paul(God’s firstborn, <strong>the</strong> sacrifice of <strong>the</strong> new covenant)• <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment: eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> flesh and dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> blood of <strong>Jesus</strong>(John)This is quite a colorful picture, but still, <strong>the</strong> familiarity of our (Babylonian)sources with John stands out. 108 So why this sometimes astonish<strong>in</strong>gproximity to <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John <strong>in</strong> particular?Why John?To answer this question we need to have a closer look at <strong>the</strong> Gospel ofJohn. As with all <strong>the</strong> New Testament writ<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>the</strong> elementary questions ofauthorship, time, place, and circumstances are hotly disputed. The detailsof this controversy do not affect our present discussion, but <strong>in</strong> orderto put th<strong>in</strong>gs straight I am prepared to reveal that I sympathize with thosewho see <strong>in</strong> John, who claimed to be <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciple, <strong>the</strong> head of a schoolthat flourished between 70 and 100/110 C.E. <strong>in</strong> Asia M<strong>in</strong>or and that wasresponsible for <strong>the</strong> edition of <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John soon after 100 C.E. 109 Nodoubt, <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John is <strong>the</strong> last of <strong>the</strong> four Gospels that took shape.More important for our present <strong>in</strong>vestigation: it enjoyed wide circulation,it is <strong>the</strong> most unambiguous and as such <strong>the</strong> most “Christian,” and, notleast, <strong>the</strong> most strongly anti-Jewish Gospel of <strong>the</strong> four Gospels.From its very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John makes crystal clear whomit is talk<strong>in</strong>g about: <strong>the</strong> Word that “became flesh and lived among us” andthat is no one else but <strong>the</strong> “only Son from <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r” (1:14). Hence,when John <strong>the</strong> Baptist sees <strong>Jesus</strong>, he immediately declares: “Here is <strong>the</strong>Lamb of God” (1:29, 36), who is <strong>the</strong> “Son of God” (1:34). That this <strong>Jesus</strong>,who is subsequently identified as <strong>the</strong> Messiah (1:41), this “<strong>Jesus</strong> ofNazareth, <strong>the</strong> son of Joseph” (1:45), is <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> “Son of God” (1:49)—as well as <strong>the</strong> “K<strong>in</strong>g of Israel” (ibid.) and <strong>the</strong> “Son of Man” (1:51)—issolemnly proclaimed from <strong>the</strong> outset and becomes <strong>the</strong> leitmotif of <strong>the</strong>whole Gospel. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong> author of our Gospel does not wait until
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 125<strong>the</strong> bitter end of his narrative but reveals very early on that his hero wasraised from <strong>the</strong> dead (2:22) and that he will ascend <strong>in</strong>to heaven:(13) No one has ascended <strong>in</strong>to heaven except <strong>the</strong> one who descendedfrom heaven, <strong>the</strong> Son of Man. (14) And just as Moses lifted up <strong>the</strong>serpent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> wilderness, so must <strong>the</strong> Son of Man be lifted up, (15)that whoever believes <strong>in</strong> him may have eternal life. (16) For God soloved <strong>the</strong> world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes<strong>in</strong> him may not perish but may have eternal life (3:13–16). 110It is this eternal life, bestowed upon him by <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, that <strong>Jesus</strong> constantlypromises to those who follow him. When he heals <strong>the</strong> paralyzedman, he explicitly refers to <strong>the</strong> “Fa<strong>the</strong>r”:(21) Indeed, just as <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r raises <strong>the</strong> dead and gives <strong>the</strong>m life, soalso <strong>the</strong> Son gives life to whomever he wishes. (22) The Fa<strong>the</strong>rjudges no one but has given all judgment to <strong>the</strong> Son, (23) so that allmay honor <strong>the</strong> Son just as <strong>the</strong>y honor <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r. Anyone who doesnot honor <strong>the</strong> Son does not honor <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r who sent him. (24)Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes himwho sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment,but has passed from death to life (5:21–24).This, he claims, is what Moses told <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> reality and which <strong>the</strong>ystubbornly refuse to accept (5:46). 111A long series of miracles that <strong>Jesus</strong> performs is always aimed at prov<strong>in</strong>ghis claim that he acts as <strong>the</strong> Son of God who provides eternal life. Themiracle of feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> five thousand with bread climaxes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> announcementthat <strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> bread of life:(51) I am <strong>the</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g bread that came down from heaven. Whoevereats of this bread will live forever; and <strong>the</strong> bread that I will give for<strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> world is my flesh. ... (53) Very truly, I tell you, unlessyou eat <strong>the</strong> flesh of <strong>the</strong> Son of Man and dr<strong>in</strong>k his blood, you have nolife <strong>in</strong> you. (54) Those who eat my flesh and dr<strong>in</strong>k my blood haveeternal life, and I will raise <strong>the</strong>m up on <strong>the</strong> last day (6:51–54).
126 Chapter 9After <strong>Jesus</strong> has healed him (aga<strong>in</strong> on a Sabbath), <strong>the</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>d man believes<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Son of Man, and, as John cont<strong>in</strong>ues, “worship[s] him” (9:38). Similarly,when he awakes <strong>the</strong> dead Lazarus out of his “sleep,” <strong>Jesus</strong> proclaims:“I am <strong>the</strong> resurrection and <strong>the</strong> life. Those who believe <strong>in</strong> me,even though <strong>the</strong>y die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes <strong>in</strong> mewill never die. Do you believe this?” (11:25f.)—whereupon Martha answersfrom <strong>the</strong> bottom of her heart: “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are <strong>the</strong>Messiah, <strong>the</strong> Son of God, <strong>the</strong> one com<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> world!” (11:27).The approach<strong>in</strong>g hour of his Passion and death is depicted not only as<strong>the</strong> fulfillment of his mission on earth but also as <strong>the</strong> return to his Fa<strong>the</strong>r(12:23, 27f.; 13:1, 31f.), and this is also <strong>the</strong> leitmotif <strong>in</strong> his farewell speechto his disciples (chs. 14–16): “I came from <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r and have come <strong>in</strong>to<strong>the</strong> world; aga<strong>in</strong>, I am leav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> world and am go<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r”(16:28). Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, he opens his prayer to <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r before he entershis Passion with <strong>the</strong> words:“(1) Fa<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> hour has come; glorify your Son that <strong>the</strong> Son mayglorify you, (2) s<strong>in</strong>ce you have given him authority over all flesh, togive eternal life to all whom you have given him. (3) And this is eternallife, that <strong>the</strong>y may know you, <strong>the</strong> only true God, and <strong>Jesus</strong> Christwhom you have sent” (17:1–3).The counterpo<strong>in</strong>t to this constant and dramatic <strong>in</strong>sist<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>Jesus</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> Son of God is <strong>the</strong> no less constant and dramatic opposition of “<strong>the</strong>Jews” (as <strong>the</strong>y are often called uniformly), an <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g exacerbation of<strong>the</strong>ir hatred for <strong>Jesus</strong>. At first <strong>the</strong>y are curious, but <strong>the</strong> more <strong>the</strong>y hear andunderstand from him and his claim—and <strong>the</strong> more he attracts a grow<strong>in</strong>gnumber of <strong>the</strong>ir fellow Jews—<strong>the</strong> more impatient and furious <strong>the</strong>y getwith him. The heal<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> paralyzed man is offensive <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir eyes notonly because it took place on a Sabbath but also and ma<strong>in</strong>ly because it isan immediate consequence of his claim to be <strong>the</strong> Son of God: “For thisreason <strong>the</strong> Jews were seek<strong>in</strong>g all <strong>the</strong> more to kill him, because he was notonly break<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Sabbath, but was also call<strong>in</strong>g God his own Fa<strong>the</strong>r,<strong>the</strong>reby mak<strong>in</strong>g himself equal to God” (5:18). The feed<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> fivethousand impresses “<strong>the</strong> people” (whoever this is, but obviously a largenumber of <strong>the</strong> Jews)—who acknowledge him as a prophet and want to
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 127<strong>in</strong>stall him as <strong>the</strong>ir k<strong>in</strong>g (6:14f.)—but “<strong>the</strong> Jews” rema<strong>in</strong> skeptical and ask:“Is not this <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> son of Joseph, whose fa<strong>the</strong>r and mo<strong>the</strong>r we know?How can he now say: I have come down from heaven?” (6:42). And <strong>the</strong>nfollows <strong>the</strong> heated exchange regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong>’ flesh and blood, which ishard to swallow not only for “<strong>the</strong> Jews” (6:52) but even for his disciples(6:60). Similarly, when he teaches <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple and impresses <strong>the</strong> crowdlisten<strong>in</strong>g to him, it is <strong>the</strong> Pharisees and <strong>the</strong> High Priests (<strong>the</strong> “authorities”)who turn out to be his chief enemies and who actively seek to arrest andkill him (7:32ff.).Some of <strong>the</strong> confrontations are portrayed as direct discussions between<strong>Jesus</strong> and “<strong>the</strong> Jews” or <strong>the</strong> Pharisees. When <strong>Jesus</strong> prevents <strong>the</strong> ston<strong>in</strong>g of<strong>the</strong> adulterous woman, <strong>the</strong> Pharisees argue that it is only his testimony thatacquits <strong>the</strong> woman (<strong>in</strong>stead of <strong>the</strong> halakhically required two witnesses).His answer—“In your law it is written that <strong>the</strong> testimony of two witnesses isvalid. I testify on my own behalf, and <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r who sent me testifies onmy behalf ” (8:17f.)—must have sounded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ears of <strong>the</strong> Jews like a parodyof this Halakha. The discussion ga<strong>in</strong>s almost unparalleled bitternesswhen <strong>the</strong>y quarrel over <strong>the</strong> Jews’ claim to be descendants of Abraham. “Iknow that you are descendants of Abraham,” <strong>Jesus</strong> retorts, “yet you look foran opportunity to kill me, because <strong>the</strong>re is no place <strong>in</strong> you for my word. Ideclare what I have seen <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r’s presence; as for you, you should dowhat you have heard from <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r” (8:37f.). Abraham, this is his dar<strong>in</strong>gargument, did not seek to kill someone; hence, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir attempt to kill him,<strong>the</strong>y cannot be <strong>the</strong> children of Abraham but must be <strong>the</strong> offspr<strong>in</strong>g of a differentfa<strong>the</strong>r. Who can this be? His Jewish opponents seem to have a premonitionof what he is after, because when he accuses <strong>the</strong>m: “You are <strong>in</strong>deeddo<strong>in</strong>g what your fa<strong>the</strong>r does,” <strong>the</strong>y reply: “We are not illegitimatechildren; we have one fa<strong>the</strong>r, God himself!” (8:41). But <strong>Jesus</strong> does not giveup and f<strong>in</strong>ally reveals whom he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d:(43) Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannotaccept my word. (44) You are from your fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> devil, and youchoose to do your fa<strong>the</strong>r’s desires. He was a murderer from <strong>the</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gand does not stand <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> truth, because <strong>the</strong>re is no truth <strong>in</strong>him. When he lies, he speaks accord<strong>in</strong>g to his own nature, for he is aliar and <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r of lies (8:43f.).
128 Chapter 9<strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Son of God, with his followers, <strong>the</strong> children of God, versus <strong>the</strong>Jews, <strong>the</strong> children not of Abraham but of Satan—this is <strong>the</strong> message of<strong>the</strong> Gospel of John (which, not surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, is concordant with <strong>the</strong> Bookof Revelation—attributed also to John—where those who claim to beJews are exposed as <strong>the</strong> “synagogue of Satan”). 112 Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong> Jewsnot only try to stop <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> deceiver of <strong>the</strong>ir people, and to kill him;<strong>the</strong>y moreover beg<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process of elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g his followers from <strong>the</strong>irsynagogue. 113The resurrection of <strong>the</strong> dead Lazarus was to become <strong>the</strong> last straw <strong>in</strong><strong>Jesus</strong>’ encounter with “<strong>the</strong> Jews” accord<strong>in</strong>g to John. When <strong>the</strong>y hear ofthis new provocation, <strong>the</strong> Pharisees and <strong>the</strong> High Priests ga<strong>the</strong>r and discuss<strong>the</strong> situation, which threatens to get out of control. Whereas <strong>the</strong> majorityfears that “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe <strong>in</strong> him,and <strong>the</strong> Romans will come and destroy both our holy place [<strong>the</strong> Temple]and our nation,” Caiaphas, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cumbent High Priest, rebukes <strong>the</strong>m:“You know noth<strong>in</strong>g at all! You do not understand that it is better for you tohave one man die for <strong>the</strong> people than to have <strong>the</strong> whole nation destroyed”(11:48–50). This was <strong>the</strong> death sentence, and <strong>Jesus</strong>’ fate should take itscourse: “So from that day on <strong>the</strong>y planned to put him to death” (11:53).<strong>Jesus</strong> must and will die because he is a blasphemer and “has claimed tobe <strong>the</strong> Son of God” (19:7).There exists hardly any o<strong>the</strong>r New Testament text that is more unambiguousand firm <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>’ mission on earth and his div<strong>in</strong>e orig<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong>deedhis identification with God, 114 and that is sterner <strong>in</strong> its attitude toward <strong>the</strong>Jews than <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John. Hav<strong>in</strong>g been written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish Diasporaof Asia M<strong>in</strong>or, it bears all <strong>the</strong> characteristics of a bitter struggle between<strong>the</strong> established Jewish and <strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g Christian communities, a strugglemoreover that was waged by both sides with <strong>the</strong> gloves off. The Christiansare unspar<strong>in</strong>g with nasty <strong>in</strong>vectives (<strong>the</strong> Jews have Satan as fa<strong>the</strong>r),and <strong>the</strong> Jews answer with <strong>the</strong> last and most cruel resort at <strong>the</strong>ir disposal:<strong>the</strong>y persecute <strong>the</strong> “would-be God” and force <strong>the</strong> Roman governor to executehim aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> evidence and aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> governor’s own will. Thereis every reason to believe that <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John was spread and wellknown <strong>in</strong> Babylonia, if not separately <strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> version of Tatian’s Diatessaronwith its predilection for John. 115 With its strongly anti-Jewishbias it presents <strong>the</strong> perfect Christian narrative aga<strong>in</strong>st which ano<strong>the</strong>r
<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> 129Jewish Diaspora community could argue—a new and self-confident Diasporacommunity, far removed <strong>in</strong> time and place from both <strong>the</strong> turmoil of<strong>the</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g Christianity <strong>in</strong> Asia M<strong>in</strong>or <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> late first and early secondcenturies C.E. and of <strong>the</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uously streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g Christian power <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>the</strong> fourth and fifth centuries. The Babylonian Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Sasanian Empire, liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a non-Christian and even progressively anti-Christian environment, could easily take up, and cont<strong>in</strong>ue, <strong>the</strong> discourseof <strong>the</strong>ir brethren <strong>in</strong> Asia M<strong>in</strong>or; and it seems as if <strong>the</strong>y were no less timid<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir response to <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s message and <strong>in</strong> particular to <strong>the</strong>anti-Jewish bias that is so prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John. They foughtback with <strong>the</strong> means of parody, <strong>in</strong>version, deliberate distortion, and notleast with <strong>the</strong> proud proclamation that what <strong>the</strong>ir fellow Jews did to this<strong>Jesus</strong> was right: that he deserved to be executed because of his blasphemy,that he will sit <strong>in</strong> hell forever, and that those who follow his example upuntil today will not, as he has promised, ga<strong>in</strong> eternal life but will share hishorrible fate. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> texts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, althoughfragmentary and scattered, become a dar<strong>in</strong>g and powerful counter-Gospel to <strong>the</strong> New Testament <strong>in</strong> general and to John <strong>in</strong> particular.
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
Appendix: Bavli Manuscripts and CensorshipWe are still far away from a complete history of <strong>the</strong> textual transmission of<strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, but considerable progress has been made recently,thanks to <strong>the</strong> new technology of collect<strong>in</strong>g huge amounts of dataand putt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m electronically at <strong>the</strong> research community’s disposal.Most notable <strong>in</strong> this regard are <strong>the</strong> Saul Lieberman Institute for <strong>Talmud</strong>icResearch at <strong>the</strong> Jewish Theological Sem<strong>in</strong>ary of America <strong>in</strong> New Yorkthat provides scholars with a computerized databank (<strong>the</strong> Sol and EvelynHenk<strong>in</strong>d <strong>Talmud</strong> Text Data Bank) of talmudic manuscripts 1 and <strong>the</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>edatabank of talmudic manuscripts ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> HebrewUniversity’s Department of <strong>Talmud</strong>, by <strong>the</strong> Jewish National andUniversity Library <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem (<strong>the</strong> David and Fela Shapell Family DigitizationProject). 2 I have been able to utilize <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g Bavli manuscriptsand pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions (arranged accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> presumed date of<strong>the</strong> respective manuscripts): 3Firenze II-I-7-9: Ashkenazi, 1177Oxford Heb. d. 20 (Neubauer-Cowley 2675): Sephardic, Geniza,13th century(?)Karlsruhe Reuchl<strong>in</strong> 2: square Ashkenazi, 13th centuryNew York JTS Rab. 15: Sephardic, 1291Vatican ebr. 487/9: square Ashkenazi, 13th century(?)Vatican ebr. 108: Sephardic, 13th–14th centuryMunich Cod. Hebr. 95: Ashkenazi, 1342 4Vatican ebr. 110: square Ashkenazi, 1380
132 AppendixVatican ebr. 130: square Ashkenazi, 1381Vatican ebr. 140: square Ashkenazi, 14th centuryOxford Opp. Add. fol. 23: square Sephardic, 14th–15th centuryParis heb. 1337: square Sephardic, 14th–15th centuryParis heb. 671/4: Byzant<strong>in</strong>e, 15th centuryHerzog 1: Yemenite, after 1565Sonc<strong>in</strong>o pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition: pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Sonc<strong>in</strong>o, Barco, and Pesaro between1484 and 1519Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition: 1880–1886Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this list, <strong>the</strong> earliest available evidence for our <strong>Jesus</strong> textsis <strong>the</strong> Firenze manuscript from <strong>the</strong> late twelfth century. The latest manuscriptis a Yemenite manuscript from <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> sixteenthcentury. Altoge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> transmission history of <strong>the</strong> Bavli text is hamperedby <strong>the</strong> fact that many of <strong>the</strong> earlier manuscripts are lost because of<strong>the</strong> aggressive policy of <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, whichculm<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> many burn<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> ordered by <strong>the</strong> Church (atfirst 1242 <strong>in</strong> Paris). Moreover, after <strong>the</strong> (<strong>in</strong>)famous Christian-Jewish disputationof Barcelona <strong>in</strong> 1263, <strong>the</strong> Church began (often rely<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong>“expertise” of Jewish converts) to censor <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> text and to elim<strong>in</strong>ate(erase, blacken, etc.) all <strong>the</strong> passages that <strong>the</strong> experts found objectionableor offensive to <strong>the</strong> Christian doctr<strong>in</strong>e. It goes without say<strong>in</strong>g thatpassages referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Jesus</strong> became <strong>the</strong> prime victim of such activity. Inlater pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions, many such supposedly <strong>in</strong>crim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g passageswere left out by <strong>the</strong> Jewish pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>in</strong> order not to jeopardize<strong>the</strong> publication of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> (or of o<strong>the</strong>r Hebrew books).In <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g charts, I have summarized <strong>the</strong> references about <strong>Jesus</strong> as<strong>the</strong>y appear <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> manuscripts and some pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions, arranged accord<strong>in</strong>gto <strong>the</strong> topics and <strong>the</strong> sequence <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y are discussed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>book.
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 1331. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ familyb Shab 104b/Sanh 67ab Shab 104bOxford 23Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stara (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Vatican 108Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Vatican 487 son of Siteda 5Munich 95Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Sonc<strong>in</strong>oWas he <strong>the</strong> son of Stara (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?VilnaWas he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?b Sanh 67aHerzog 1Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stara (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Munich 95Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Firenze II.1.8–9 Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?Karlsruhe 2Was he <strong>the</strong> son of Stara (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?BarcoWas he <strong>the</strong> son of Stara (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?VilnaWas he <strong>the</strong> son of Stada (and not) <strong>the</strong> son ofPandera?b Shab 104bOxford 23Vatican 108Munich 95Sonc<strong>in</strong>oVilnahusband Stara, lover Panderahusband Stada, lover Panderahusband Stada, lover Panderahusband Stara, lover Panderahusband Stada, lover Pandera
134 Appendixb Sanh 67aHerzog 1husband Stara, lover PanderaMunich 95husband Stada, lover PanderaFirenze II.1.8–9 husband Stada, lover PanderaKarlsruhe 2 [husband Stara, lover Pandera] 6Barcohusband Stara, lover PanderaVilnahusband Stada, lover Panderab Shab 104bOxford 23Vatican 108Munich 95Sonc<strong>in</strong>oVilnab Sanh 67aHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2BarcoVilnab Shab 104bOxford 23Vatican 108Munich 95Sonc<strong>in</strong>oVilnab Sanh 67aHerzog 1husband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stara, fa<strong>the</strong>r Panderahusband/lover 7 Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stada, [he is<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene] 8husband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stadahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Starahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stadahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Starahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stadahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stadalover/husband 9 Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Starahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Starahusband Pappos, mo<strong>the</strong>r Stadahis mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)[his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam and his fa<strong>the</strong>rPr<strong>in</strong>ce/Naśi?] 10his mo<strong>the</strong>r was lett<strong>in</strong>g grow (her) women’s(hair)his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’shairhis mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 135Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2Vilnahis mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)his mo<strong>the</strong>r Miriam who let grow (her) women’s(hair)2. The son/disciple who turned out badlyb Sanh 103a/b Ber 17bb Sanh 103aHerzog 1that you will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneMunich 95that you will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneFirenze II.1.8–9 that you will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneKarlsruhe 2that you will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneBarcothat you will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneVilna that you will not have a son or disciple ...[censored]b Ber 17bOxford 23that we will not have a son or disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneMunich 95that we will not have a son or disciple ...[texterased]Firenze II.1.7 that we will not have a son or disciple ...[texterased]Paris 671that <strong>the</strong>re will not be a son or a disciple ...like<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene
136 AppendixSonc<strong>in</strong>othat we will not have a son or a disciple ...[notlegible; censored]Vilna that we will not have a son or a disciple ...[censored]3. The frivolous discipleb Sanh 107b/b Sot 47ab Sanh 107bHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9BarcoVilnab Sot 47aOxford 20Vatican 110Munich 95Vilnab Sanh 107bHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9BarcoVilnanot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed [texterased] awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong>awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene awaynot as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed one ofhis disciples away<strong>Jesus</strong> said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrowHe said to him: Rabbi [text erased] her eyes arenarrowHe said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrowHe said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrowHe said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrow
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 137b Sot 47aOxford 20Vatican 110Munich 95Vilna<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene said to him: Rabbi, her eyesare narrowHe said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrowHe said to him: Rabbi, her eyes are narrowOne of his disciples said to him: Rabbi, her eyesare narrowb Sanh 107bHerzog 1The master said: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene goes out tobe stoned because of magic ...Munich 95 The master said: he practiced magic ...Firenze II.1.8–9 The master said: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene practicedmagic ...BarcoThe master said: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene practicedmagic ...Vilna The master said: <strong>Jesus</strong> practiced magic ...b Sot 47aOxford 20As <strong>the</strong>y said: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene practicedmagic ...Vatican 110As <strong>the</strong> master said: because he practicedmagic ...Munich 95The master said: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene because hepracticed magic ...Vilna As <strong>the</strong> master said: he practiced magic ...4. The Torah teacherb AZ 17a/t Hul 2:24/QohR 1:8 (3)b AZ 17aMunich 95Paris 1337New York 15One of <strong>the</strong> disciples of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarenefound meOne of <strong>the</strong> disciples of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarenefound meOne of <strong>the</strong> disciples of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarenefound me
138 Appendixt Hul 2:24QohR 1:8 (3) 11Vatican 291Oxford 164Pesaro 1519Constant<strong>in</strong>ople 1520VilnaJerusalemb AZ 17aMunich 95Paris 1337New York 15He told me a word of heresy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of<strong>Jesus</strong> son of PantiriHe told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son ofPanderaHe told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> son ofPanderaHe told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son ofPanderaHe told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son ofPanderaHe told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of [emptyspace]Her told me a word <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of so-and-soThus was I taught by <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneThus was I taught by <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneThus taught him <strong>Jesus</strong> his Master5. Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>t Hul 2:22f./y AZ 2:2/12/y Shab 14:4/13/QohR 1:8 (3)/b AZ 27bt HulJacob...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>son of Panteray AZJacob ...came to heal him. He said to him: wewill speak to you <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son ofPandera 12y Shab Jacob ...came <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> Pandera 13to heal himQohR 14Vatican 291Jacob...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>son of PanderaOxford 164Jacob...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>son of PanderaPesaro 1519Jacob...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>son of Pandera
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 139VilnaJacob ...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of[empty space]JerusalemJacob ...came to heal him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name ofso-and-sob AZ 27bNew York 15 Jacob ...came to heal him 15Munich 95Jacob <strong>the</strong> heretic ...came to heal himParis 1337 Jacob ...came to heal him 16Pesaro Jacob ...came to heal him 17Vilna Jacob ...came to heal him 18y AZ 2:2/7/y Shab 14:4/8/QohR 10:5y AZy ShabQohR 21someone ...whispered to him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of<strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pandera 19aman...whispered to him <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>Pandera 20he went and brought one of those from <strong>the</strong> sonof Pandera6. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ executionb Sanh 43a–bb Sanh 43a–bHerzog 1on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>the</strong>y hanged <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>NazareneMunich 95on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>the</strong>y hanged [nameerased]Firenze II.1.8–9 on Sabbath eve and <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>the</strong>yhanged <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneKarlsruhe 2on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>the</strong>y hanged <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>NazareneBarco on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover <strong>the</strong>y hanged [???] 22Vilna[whole passage deleted by censor]
140 Appendixb Sanh 43a–bHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2BarcoVilnab Sanh 43a–bHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2BarcoVilnab Sanh 43a–bHerzog 1Munich 95Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2BarcoVilna<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned[name erased] is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned[???] 23 is go<strong>in</strong>g forth to be stoned[deleted by censor]Do you suppose <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene was one forwhom a defense could be made?Do you suppose [name erased] was one forwhom a defense could be made?Do you suppose <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene was one forwhom a defense could be made?Do you suppose <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene was one forwhom a defense could be made?Do you suppose [???] 24 was one for whom adefense could be made?[deleted by censor]With <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene it was different[name erased] it was differentWith <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene it was differentWith <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene it was different[???] 25 it was different[deleted by censor]7. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciplesb Sanh 43a–bb Sanh 43a–bHerzog 1Munich 95<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene had five disciples[text erased]
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 141Firenze II.1.8–9Karlsruhe 2BarcoVilna<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene had five disciples<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene had five disciples[???] 26 had five disciples[whole passage deleted by censor]8. <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment <strong>in</strong> hellb Git 57ab Git 57aVatican 130he went and brought up <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> NazareneVatican 140he went and brought up <strong>Jesus</strong>Munich 95he went and brought up <strong>Jesus</strong>Sonc<strong>in</strong>o he went and brought up 27Vilnahe went and brought up <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ners of IsraelFrom this overview a number of conclusions can be drawn:(1) The son of Stada/Stara–son of Pandera passage <strong>in</strong> b Shabbat/Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> (chapter 1) is very stable. Most remarkably, this is <strong>the</strong> only passage<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli which mentions <strong>the</strong>se two names <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>the</strong>copyist of Ms. Vatican 108, <strong>the</strong>refore, feels compelled to expla<strong>in</strong> that weare <strong>in</strong>deed talk<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>Jesus</strong>). Hence, it seems very likely that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>responds to a Palest<strong>in</strong>ian tradition about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ names (son of Stada and sonof Pandera respectively). All <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r son of Pandera/Pantera/Pantiri referencesappear solely <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources: t Hull<strong>in</strong> and Qohelet Rabba <strong>in</strong>chapter 4; and t Hull<strong>in</strong>, y Avodah Zarah, y Shabbat, and Qohelet Rabba<strong>in</strong> chapter 5. Here aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> textual tradition is very stable: whereas <strong>the</strong>Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources have son of Pandera, etc., this time clearly identifiedas <strong>Jesus</strong>, 28 <strong>the</strong> Bavli manuscripts have exclusively <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene. 29Moreover, none of <strong>the</strong> Bavli manuscripts mention<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazareneis censored. The only conspicuous result of this overview is <strong>the</strong> fact that<strong>the</strong> Bavli <strong>in</strong> chapter 5, unlike <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources, does not say explicitlythat Jacob came to heal <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong>: accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Bavlipattern, we would expect its editor to substitute “<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>Nazarene” for <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian “<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pandera” (as <strong>in</strong>chapter 4). But this certa<strong>in</strong>ly cannot be taken as proof that <strong>the</strong> Bavli did
142 Appendixnot know of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> connection <strong>in</strong> this passage—on <strong>the</strong> contrary, it mayhave taken it for granted (and note that Ms. Munich makes clear that Jacobis a “heretic”).(2) The “<strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” tradition <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> stories unique to<strong>the</strong> Bavli is surpris<strong>in</strong>gly stable, although here <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> textby <strong>the</strong> censors becomes more visible. In chapter 2 all <strong>the</strong> b Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>manuscripts have “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene,” <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> old Firenze manuscript,but <strong>the</strong> name is left out, not surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> late Vilna edition.In <strong>the</strong> b Berakhot parallel, <strong>the</strong> censor was at work (or was preempted by<strong>the</strong> Jewish pr<strong>in</strong>ters) not only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions Sonc<strong>in</strong>o and Vilnabut also <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Firenze and Munich manuscripts.A similar picture emerges from chapter 3 (b Sanh and b Sot). All manuscripts<strong>in</strong> both <strong>Talmud</strong> passages agree that “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” 30 waspushed away by R. Yehoshua; but <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, <strong>the</strong> name is erased<strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich 95 only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> b Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> version and not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> b Sotaparallel (clear <strong>in</strong>dication of how sloppily <strong>the</strong> censor worked). Aga<strong>in</strong>, only<strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition Vilna has <strong>in</strong>stead of “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” <strong>the</strong> obviouslyemended phrase “one of his disciples.” However, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> encounter betweenR. Yehoshua and <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>n, it is only Ms. Oxford 20 and Ms.Herzog that explicitly identify <strong>the</strong> disciple as “<strong>Jesus</strong>”; <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r manuscriptsas well as <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions have “he/one of his disciples.” Yet it is wor<strong>the</strong>mphasiz<strong>in</strong>g that Ms. Oxford Heb. d.20 seems to belong to <strong>the</strong> earliestmanuscripts we possess and confirms <strong>the</strong> rule that <strong>the</strong> Yemenite manuscripttradition (to which Ms. Herzog belongs), despite be<strong>in</strong>g ra<strong>the</strong>r late,preserves older textual evidence that has often not survived <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r(and earlier) manuscripts. In any case, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> conclud<strong>in</strong>g statement by <strong>the</strong>master most manuscripts return to “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” (aga<strong>in</strong>, Ms. Munich95 <strong>in</strong> b Sanh has just “he,” whereas <strong>in</strong> b Sota <strong>the</strong> same manuscripthas no trouble <strong>in</strong> spell<strong>in</strong>g out “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene”).F<strong>in</strong>ally, as to <strong>the</strong> narratives about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ execution, <strong>the</strong> fate of his disciples,and <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment <strong>in</strong> hell, <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt that <strong>the</strong>y aretalk<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene. In b Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> (chapter 6) it isonly Ms. Munich that deletes “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene.” The pr<strong>in</strong>ted editionsBarco and Vilna clearly reflect <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention of censorship or ra<strong>the</strong>rpreempt<strong>in</strong>g self-censorship: Vilna has left out <strong>the</strong> whole passage, andBarco shows a (nonlegible) later addition, obviously of <strong>the</strong> previously
Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 143deleted name of <strong>Jesus</strong>. A similar picture emerges from <strong>the</strong> story about<strong>Jesus</strong>’ disciples (chapter 7): Munich has larger parts of <strong>the</strong> story erased,Vilna leaves <strong>the</strong> whole passage out, whereas Barco tries to mend <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terventionof <strong>the</strong> censorship. With regard to <strong>Jesus</strong>’ punishment <strong>in</strong> hell(chapter 8), all <strong>the</strong> manuscripts have <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gMunich 95), as opposed to <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions, which simply leave <strong>the</strong>name out (Sonc<strong>in</strong>o) or prefer <strong>the</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g “s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel” (Vilna).(3) From this it can be concluded that <strong>the</strong> unabashed “<strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>Nazarene” tradition is absent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources and unique to <strong>the</strong>Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>. Instead, <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian sources refer to <strong>Jesus</strong> as “<strong>Jesus</strong>son of Pandera/<strong>Jesus</strong> Pandera/son of Pandera” (and this ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>frequentlyas well as <strong>in</strong>directly: only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> story about R. Eliezer and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> two heal<strong>in</strong>gstories). In <strong>the</strong> only passage <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> Bavli mentions <strong>the</strong> “son ofStada/Stara” and <strong>the</strong> “son of Pandera,” it takes up Palest<strong>in</strong>ian nomenclatureand discusses it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> typical Babylonian way. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>manuscript evidence supports <strong>the</strong> claim that it is <strong>the</strong> Bavli, and solely <strong>the</strong>Bavli, that takes <strong>the</strong> liberty of discuss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> and his fate freely and unimpededby <strong>the</strong> exertion of Christian power.To be sure, however, <strong>the</strong> manuscript evidence of <strong>the</strong> Bavli does not leadus back <strong>in</strong> time any closer to <strong>the</strong> historical orig<strong>in</strong> of our narratives. Theearliest available manuscript was written, as we have seen, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> secondhalf of <strong>the</strong> twelfth century. The question arises, <strong>the</strong>refore, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> uncensoredmanuscripts reflect, not an urtext of <strong>the</strong> Bavli (any attempts to reconstructsuch an urtext are as impossible as <strong>the</strong>y are fruitless because suchan ideal construct never existed), but an early form of <strong>the</strong> text of our narratives,as close as possible to <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong>ir orig<strong>in</strong> or at least to <strong>the</strong> timewhen <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> was regarded as a more or less f<strong>in</strong>ally edited work(around <strong>the</strong> eighth century). One major result of our survey of <strong>the</strong> talmudicmanuscripts was <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages abound <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> manuscriptsnot only before <strong>the</strong> implementation of Christian censorship buteven <strong>the</strong>reafter. This evidence strongly suggests that <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>Jesus</strong> ofNazareth is <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al hero of our Bavli stories and that <strong>the</strong> availablemanuscripts do reflect <strong>the</strong> earliest possible form of our stories.This ra<strong>the</strong>r natural conclusion was contested by Maier, <strong>in</strong> his zeal tocleanse <strong>the</strong> “orig<strong>in</strong>al” Bavli stories of any reference to <strong>Jesus</strong> and to postpone<strong>the</strong> (sometimes <strong>in</strong>disputable) <strong>in</strong>trusion of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>
144 Appendixtext to <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages. Instead of a two-tiered transmission history of<strong>the</strong> Bavli stories (<strong>Jesus</strong>, at first an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> narratives,was later gradually removed, due to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>volvement of Christian censorship),he suggests a three-tiered transmission history: (1) an orig<strong>in</strong>alstage, <strong>Talmud</strong> stories without any reference to <strong>Jesus</strong>; (2) gradual andlate <strong>in</strong>trusion of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> stories as part of <strong>the</strong> textual history of <strong>the</strong>Bavli before <strong>the</strong> implementation of censorship but not as part of <strong>the</strong>“orig<strong>in</strong>al” Bavli text; (3) removal of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> passages by Christian censorship.31This reconstruction of <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s textual history is hard to comprehend.Maier starts from oversimplified assumptions when he seems tosuggest that <strong>the</strong>re is no manuscript evidence for <strong>Jesus</strong> at all for <strong>the</strong> timebefore <strong>the</strong> implementation of Christian censorship (<strong>the</strong>re is) and that<strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> manuscripts that were exposed to <strong>the</strong> censorshipdeleted <strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>the</strong>y do not). The textual tradition of <strong>the</strong> Bavli is far morecomplex than Maier wants to admit. True, we do not have much manuscriptevidence for <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship period, but we do have some.More important: To take it for granted that all <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship manuscriptsdid not conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> 32 is a much bolder claim than to concludefrom <strong>the</strong> manuscript evidence we possess (and some of which does goback to <strong>the</strong> pre-censorship period) that <strong>the</strong> lost earlier manuscripts also<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>Jesus</strong>. The latter assumption proposes an essentially unbrokentext history with regard to <strong>Jesus</strong> that starts with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> earlier stages of <strong>the</strong>Bavli transmission, whereas Maier’s reconstruction presupposes a majorbreak <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early Middle Ages, when some later editors suddenly felt freeto sneak <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>—only to be repudiated, almost simultaneously,by <strong>the</strong>ir Christian censors. This does not make much sense. I <strong>the</strong>reforepropose to hold on to <strong>the</strong> traditional view that <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s manuscripttransmission, so far as we can presently reconstruct it, reflects <strong>the</strong> Bavli’sdiscussion with <strong>the</strong> founder of Christianity.
NotesIntroduction1. When us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> term “New Testament” here and throughout <strong>the</strong> book, Ido not imply that <strong>the</strong> specific traditions discussed are characteristic of “<strong>the</strong>” NewTestament as a whole; ra<strong>the</strong>r, I am aware that <strong>the</strong> New Testament is a quite diversecollection of writ<strong>in</strong>gs and I will be more specific when necessary andwhere applicable.2. Although, with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re are obvious clusters <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> tractate thatdeals with capital punishment, <strong>the</strong> tractate Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>.3. The history of <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu and its relationship with <strong>the</strong> talmudic literatureneeds to be reevaluated; see <strong>the</strong> book by Krauss mentioned below. Pr<strong>in</strong>cetonUniversity’s library has acquired a collection of some of <strong>the</strong> relevant manuscript,and we are prepar<strong>in</strong>g a new edition with English translation and commentary.4. A very good summary of <strong>the</strong> state of <strong>the</strong> art is provided by Annette YoshikoReed and Adam H. Becker <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>troduction to <strong>the</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton conference volumeedited by <strong>the</strong>m: The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong> Late Antiquityand <strong>the</strong> Early Middle Ages, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003,pp. 1–33.5. See <strong>the</strong> survey <strong>in</strong> Johann Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth <strong>in</strong> der talmudischenÜberlieferung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978, pp. 18–41.6. The University of Altdorf (a German city not far from Nuremberg) wasfounded <strong>in</strong> 1623 and became one of <strong>the</strong> most famous European universities <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was closed <strong>in</strong> 1809; <strong>the</strong> Wagenseilcollection of Hebrew writ<strong>in</strong>gs is now located at <strong>the</strong> Friedrich-Alexander Universityof Erlangen-Nuremberg (founded 1743).7. A similar work, written <strong>in</strong> German, is Johann Schmid’s Feuriger Drachen-Gifft und wütiger Ottern-Gall, Augsburg, 1683.8. Submitted <strong>in</strong> two parts: <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>e, Sive Dissertatio PhilologicaPrior/Posterior, De iis locis, <strong>in</strong> quibus per <strong>Talmud</strong>icas Pandectas Jesu cujusdam men-
146 Notes to Introductiontio <strong>in</strong>jicitur, Altdorf, 1699. The second part even carries <strong>the</strong> Hebrew abbreviationv”gc (be-
Notes to Introduction 14713. Herford, Christianity <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash, pp. 344ff. (see <strong>in</strong> particularp. 347: although <strong>the</strong> historical <strong>Jesus</strong> is def<strong>in</strong>itely referred to <strong>in</strong> talmudic literature,“it is remarkable how very little <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> does say about <strong>Jesus</strong>”), as emphasizedalso by Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 28.14. First published under <strong>the</strong> title E<strong>in</strong>leitung <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> und Midrasch <strong>in</strong>1887, and subsequently <strong>in</strong> many editions; first English edition 1931.15. Leipzig: J. C. H<strong>in</strong>richs’sche Buchhandlung, 1910. Almost twenty yearsearlier, He<strong>in</strong>rich Laible published <strong>Jesus</strong> Christus im Thalmud, Berl<strong>in</strong>: H.Reu<strong>the</strong>r’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1891, to which Strack added a brief preface;deeply imbued with <strong>the</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>ty of Christianity’s superiority to Judaism (but notanti-Semitic), Laible provides a <strong>the</strong>matically structured narrative, full of creativeand by no means just absurd or far-fetched suggestions. It is obvious that Strack’ssober and reserved approach f<strong>in</strong>ds much more favor <strong>in</strong> Maier’s eyes than Laible(Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 27f.), but Laible should not be underestimated.16. An even more reductionist approach can be found <strong>in</strong> Kurt Hruby, DieStellung der jüdischen Gesetzeslehrer zur werdenden Kirche, Zürich: TheologischerVerlag, 1971.17. Joseph Klausner, Yeshu ha-Notzri (“<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene”), Jerusalem:Shtibl, 1922; English translation, <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teach<strong>in</strong>g,trans. Herbert Danby, New York: Macmillan, 1925. The entry “<strong>Jesus</strong> vonNazareth” <strong>in</strong> EJ 9, 1932, cols. 52–77, is written by Joseph Klausner, but does notrefer to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources; <strong>the</strong>y are dealt with <strong>in</strong> a brief and quite balanced appendix,written by Jehoschua Gutmann (cols. 77–79). The popular book about<strong>Jesus</strong> by <strong>the</strong> Israeli New Testament scholar David Flusser (<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Selbstzeugnissenund Bilddokumenten, Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968) does not mention <strong>the</strong> Jewishreferences to <strong>Jesus</strong>. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, <strong>the</strong> entry “<strong>Jesus</strong>” <strong>in</strong> EJ 10, 1971,cols. 10–14, is written by Flusser, but <strong>the</strong> appendix “In <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash”(cols. 14–17) is translated from Joseph Klausner’s article <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> EncyclopediaHebraica (vol. 9, 1959/60, cols. 746–750).18. Morris Goldste<strong>in</strong>, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish Tradition, New York: Macmillan, 1950.19. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>,” <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Essays, C<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>nati:Hebrew Union College Press, 1951 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Ktav, 1951), pp. 473–570.20. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978. It was followed bya companion: Johann Maier, Jüdische Ause<strong>in</strong>andersetzung mit dem Christentum<strong>in</strong> der Antike, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. For a cautiousyet firm critique, see William Horbury, Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong> Controversy,Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 19f., 104ff.
148 Notes to Chapter 121. <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 34; see also p. 32.22. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, I use “talmudic literature” synonymously with “rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature.”23. I strongly believe that any serious reevaluation of this question must startwith an evaluation of <strong>the</strong> full manuscript evidence and a literary analysis of <strong>the</strong>text.24. See his results, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 268ff. (especially p. 273).25. Methodologically, <strong>the</strong>refore, I am <strong>in</strong>terested solely <strong>in</strong> what is called <strong>the</strong>Wirkungsgeschichte (“reception history”) of <strong>the</strong> New Testament’s narratives, i.e.,how <strong>the</strong>y are mirrored <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> talmudic sources and how <strong>the</strong> rabbis might have readand understood <strong>the</strong>m. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, I am nei<strong>the</strong>r concerned about <strong>the</strong> complexquestion of <strong>the</strong> historicity of <strong>the</strong> New Testament stories as such nor about <strong>the</strong> possiblecontribution of <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic texts to <strong>the</strong> historical evaluation of <strong>the</strong> events described<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament (although I do agree that <strong>the</strong> latter is nil).Chapter 1<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Family1. b Shab 104b; b Sanh 67a.2. Lit. “who scratches (a mark) on his flesh/<strong>in</strong>cised his flesh (ha-mesaret
Notes to Chapter 1 1498. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, some manuscripts (Ms. Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 <strong>in</strong>Shab 104b and Mss. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1 and Karlsruhe Reuchl<strong>in</strong> 2 <strong>in</strong> Sanh67a) as well as pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions (Sonc<strong>in</strong>o <strong>in</strong> Shab 104b and Barco <strong>in</strong> Sanh 67a)cont<strong>in</strong>uously call him/<strong>the</strong> husband/his mo<strong>the</strong>r “Stara” <strong>in</strong>stead of “Stada.” Theword stara can also be vocalized as sitra (lit. “side”), and sitra could be a play onwords with seritah, <strong>the</strong> “scratches/tattoos” through which Ben Stada brought hiswitchcraft from Egypt. I do not want to suggest that “Sitra” could be an allusionto <strong>the</strong> kabbalistic notion of sitra ahra, <strong>the</strong> “o<strong>the</strong>r side” of evil, particularly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Zohar. The Karlsruhe manuscript (13th century) might be too early for such akabbalistic read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> story.9. ela hu ela immo <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich is clearly a dittography; <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Mss. ofShab 104b read as follows:Ms. Oxford 23: “<strong>the</strong> husband was this Pappos ben Yehuda, and ra<strong>the</strong>rhis mo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada and his fa<strong>the</strong>r Pandera”;Ms. Vatican 108: “<strong>the</strong> husband [variant read<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>the</strong> cohabiter] was Papposben Yehuda, (and) his mo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada [addition: (and) he is <strong>Jesus</strong><strong>the</strong> Nazarene]”;Ms. Vatican 487: after <strong>the</strong> name “Ben Siteda” <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g part is miss<strong>in</strong>g;pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition Sonc<strong>in</strong>o: “<strong>the</strong> husband was Pappos ben Yehuda and hismo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada.”The Mss. of Sanh 67a: Ms. Munich 95: “<strong>the</strong> husband was Pappos benYehuda, but ra<strong>the</strong>r say: Stada was his mo<strong>the</strong>r”;Ms. Firenze II.1.8–9: “<strong>the</strong> husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, but ra<strong>the</strong>rsay: his mo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada”;Ms. Karlsruhe (Reuchl<strong>in</strong> 2): “<strong>the</strong> husband/cohabiter was Pappos benYehuda, but ra<strong>the</strong>r say: his mo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada”;Ms. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1: “<strong>the</strong> husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, butra<strong>the</strong>r say: his mo<strong>the</strong>r was Stada.”10. “Miriam” <strong>in</strong> most manuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions, but <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munichonly <strong>in</strong> Sanh 67a.—Ms. Vatican 108 has <strong>the</strong> unique and strange addition: hismo<strong>the</strong>r was Miriam “and his fa<strong>the</strong>r (? avoya/e ?) Pr<strong>in</strong>ce/Nasi (? naśi/neśiya?).”11. “Hair” (se
150 Notes to Chapter 1Siebeck), 1995, pp. 85–92. Visotzky compares our passage with <strong>the</strong> one <strong>in</strong> b Hag4b (see below, n. 19) and argues that se
Notes to Chapter 1 15125. This “Jew” is an important l<strong>in</strong>k between <strong>the</strong> Gospel traditions, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>,and <strong>the</strong> later Toledot Yeshu, and <strong>the</strong> traditions that he presents are clearlyolder than <strong>the</strong> sixties and seventies of <strong>the</strong> second century C.E.26. Origen, Contra Celsum I:28; translation accord<strong>in</strong>g to Origen: Contra Celsum,trans., <strong>in</strong>trod., and notes by Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1953, pp. 28–31.27. Ibid. I:32. See also Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae III:10 (Eusebii PamphiliEpiscopi Caesariensis Eclogae Propheticae, ed. Thomas Gaisford, Oxford1842, p. 11): <strong>the</strong> Jews argue maliciously that <strong>Jesus</strong> “was fa<strong>the</strong>red from a pan<strong>the</strong>r(ek panthēros).”28. Only Ms. Vatican 108 identifies <strong>the</strong> child as “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” (seeabove, n. 9).29. t Hul 2:22 (y Shab 14:4, fol. 14d; y AZ 2:2, fol. 40d); t Hul 2:24; seebelow, pp. 42, n. 9, 54.30. Hence it does not come as a surprise that Ernst Haeckel <strong>in</strong> his notoriousWelträthsel uses <strong>Jesus</strong>’ non-Jewish fa<strong>the</strong>r as “proof ” that he was not “purely” Jewishbut partly descended from <strong>the</strong> “superior Aryan race” (Ernst Haeckel, DieWelträthsel. Geme<strong>in</strong>verständliche Studien über Monistische Philosophie, Bonn:Emil Strauß, 9th ed., 1899, p. 379).31. Ano<strong>the</strong>r almost contemporary author, <strong>the</strong> Christian <strong>the</strong>ologian Tertullian(second and early third century C.E.), calls <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> son of a carpenter and aprostitute (quaestuaria: De Spectaculis, 30); see above, p. 112.32. Adolf Deissmann, “Der Name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra,” <strong>in</strong> Orientalische Studien Th.Nöldeke zum Siebzigsten Geburtstag, vol. 2, Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1906, pp.871–875; idem, Licht vom Osten, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 4th ed.,1923, p. 57.33. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 243, 264ff.34. As Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 265, seems to suggest.35. A tradition that obviously starts with <strong>the</strong> Egyptian magicians contend<strong>in</strong>gwith Moses (Ex. 7–12). On ancient Egyptian magic, see Jan Assmann, “Magicand Theology <strong>in</strong> Ancient Egypt,” <strong>in</strong> Envision<strong>in</strong>g Magic: A Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton Sem<strong>in</strong>ar andSymposium, ed. Peter Schäfer and Hans G. Kippenberg, Leiden—New York—Köln: Brill, 1997, pp. 1–18. The epitome of syncretistic, Greco-Egyptian magicare <strong>the</strong> magical papyri from Egypt; see Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek MagicalPapyri <strong>in</strong> Translation: Includ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Demotic Spells, Chicago and London: Universityof Chicago Press, 1986, and his <strong>in</strong>troduction, pp. xlivff. On <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>’sassessment of Egyptian magic see b Qid 49b: “Ten kabs [measure of capacity] of
152 Notes to Chapter 1witchcraft (keshafim) descended to <strong>the</strong> world: n<strong>in</strong>e were taken by Egypt and oneby <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> world.”36. See Morton Smith, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magician, San Francisco: Harper & Row,1978, especially pp. 21–44.37. See below, ch. 5.38. In Mk. 6:3, <strong>Jesus</strong> is called a carpenter.39. In Greek ton andra (lit. “<strong>the</strong> man”), which <strong>in</strong> this context can only mean“<strong>the</strong> husband.”40. The evangelist Mark, who does not report about <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth, mentionsjust <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g that he has bro<strong>the</strong>rs and sisters, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, belongs to a completely“normal” family (Mk. 6:3).41. Who is aga<strong>in</strong> anachronistically called “her husband” (1:19).42. Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel rem<strong>in</strong>ds me that Mat<strong>the</strong>w puts <strong>the</strong> emphasis very muchon Joseph, unlike Luke with his emphasis on Mary. If we accept <strong>the</strong> dat<strong>in</strong>g ofMat<strong>the</strong>w about fifteen–twenty years later than Luke, namely between 90 and 100C.E. (see Hans-Jürgen Becker, Auf der Ka<strong>the</strong>dra des Mose. Rabb<strong>in</strong>isch<strong>the</strong>ologischesDenken und antirabb<strong>in</strong>ische Polemik <strong>in</strong> Matthäus 23,1–12, Berl<strong>in</strong>:Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1990, p. 30 with n. 155), we might f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s account of <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ birth a response to Jewish reproacheswith regard to <strong>the</strong> doubtful orig<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>Jesus</strong>.43. Apart, of course, from <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu, which does not belong to <strong>the</strong>established canon of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism.44. R. Yehoshua b. Hananya is famous for <strong>the</strong>se dialogues, and <strong>the</strong> emperorvery often is Hadrian; see Moshe David Herr, “The Historical Significance of <strong>the</strong>Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries,” Scripta Hierosolymitana22, 1971, pp. 123–150 (which is still useful, despite its ra<strong>the</strong>r positivistictendency).45. b Bekh 8b.46. Mt. 5:13.47. This has been suggested already by Moritz Güdemann, ReligionsgeschichtlicheStudien, Leipzig: Oskar Le<strong>in</strong>er, 1876, pp. 89ff., 136ff.; and PaulBillerbeck, “Altjüdische Religionsgespräche,” Nathanael 25, 1909, pp. 13–30,33–50, 66–80 (p. 68); see also Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentarzum Neuen Testament aus <strong>Talmud</strong> und Midrasch, vol. 1: Das Evangeliumnach Matthäus, Munich: Beck, 1922, p. 236. Maier even did not consider <strong>the</strong>stories worthy of be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> his <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth. However, he does dis-
Notes to Chapter 2 153cuss <strong>the</strong>m briefly <strong>in</strong> its sequel, Jüdische Ause<strong>in</strong>andersetzung mit dem Christentum<strong>in</strong> der Antike, pp. 116–118 (of course, to reject any connection with <strong>the</strong> New Testament,let alone with <strong>Jesus</strong>).Chapter 2The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly1. I follow aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Munich manuscript with variant read<strong>in</strong>gs from o<strong>the</strong>rmanuscripts where necessary.2. The word “doubtful” is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich but can be added accord<strong>in</strong>gto most of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r manuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions.3. In a state <strong>in</strong> which it is doubtful whe<strong>the</strong>r she is menstruat<strong>in</strong>g or not.4. The reference to “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” is <strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong> manuscripts andpr<strong>in</strong>ted editions that I could check (see <strong>the</strong> chart below, p. 135).5. Ei<strong>the</strong>r still by Rav Hisda or anonymous.6. b Ber 34a; Er 53b.7. b Bes 29a.8. The latter is Maier’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation (<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 65) on <strong>the</strong> basisthat davar means also “word.” This mean<strong>in</strong>g may play a role here, but Maieroveremphasizes it.9. Abba is <strong>the</strong> real name of Rav.10. b Ber 62a; cf. b Hag 5b.11. A much simpler explanation of <strong>the</strong> phrase would be that <strong>the</strong> son spoilshis food <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that he disregards <strong>the</strong> education received from his parentsand accord<strong>in</strong>gly that <strong>the</strong> disciple spoils his food <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that he disregards<strong>the</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g received from his teachers. But <strong>the</strong> strong sexual connotation of“food/dish” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli makes this easy way out not very likely.12. See also John 11:2, 12:1–8 (Mary of Bethany). The identification is firstmentioned <strong>in</strong> Ephraim <strong>the</strong> Syrian’s bible commentary (373 C.E.) and wasendorsed by Pope Gregory <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sixth century C.E., who fur<strong>the</strong>rmoreidentifies <strong>the</strong> two Marys with Mary of Bethany (John 12:1–8); see Karen K<strong>in</strong>g,The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> First Woman Apostle, Santa Rosa,CA: Polebridge, 2003, pp. 151f.13. Dan Brown, The Da V<strong>in</strong>ci Code, New York: Doubleday, 2003.
154 Notes to Chapter 214. “The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1),” trans. G. W. MacRae and R. McL.Wilson, ed. D. M. Parrott, <strong>in</strong> The Nag Hammadi Library <strong>in</strong> English, ed. JamesM. Rob<strong>in</strong>son, San Francisco: Harper, 1990, p. 525 (BG 7, 10:1–3); K<strong>in</strong>g, Gospelof Mary of Magdala, p. 15 (6:1).15. “The Gospel of Philip (II,3),” <strong>in</strong>trod. and trans. Wesley W. Isenberg, <strong>in</strong>Nag Hammadi Library, p. 145 (II 59, 9).16. Ibid., p. 148 (II 63, 35).17. Cf. ibid., p. 145 (II 59, 1–4).18. See K<strong>in</strong>g, Gospel of Mary of Magdala, p. 146: “Kiss<strong>in</strong>g here apparentlyrefers to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>timate reception of spiritual teach<strong>in</strong>g.”19. I am aware that <strong>the</strong> terms “gnosis” and “gnostic” have fallen out of favor<strong>in</strong> recent scholarship. When I use <strong>the</strong>m, I do not <strong>in</strong>tend to make a statementabout some k<strong>in</strong>d of unified “gnostic religion” or “worldview” as opposed to o<strong>the</strong>r“religions” and “worldviews”; ra<strong>the</strong>r, I want to set up a certa<strong>in</strong> (more or less welldef<strong>in</strong>ed) body of literature aga<strong>in</strong>st o<strong>the</strong>r bodies of literature, such as “New Testament”or “rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature.”20. Here alluf is understood as “scholar,” hence “our scholars are wellloaded” (with your teach<strong>in</strong>gs).21. Derives mesubbalim from saval “suffer.”22. “Like <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” <strong>in</strong> Mss. Oxford Opp. Add. 23 (366) and ParisHeb. 671. In Mss. Munich 95 and Firenze II.1.7, after “<strong>in</strong> public” follows anerased passage that may have conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> words “like <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene.” In<strong>the</strong> Sonc<strong>in</strong>o and Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions, <strong>the</strong> text has been tampered with by <strong>the</strong>censor (see <strong>the</strong> chart below, pp. 135f.).23. Maier’s treatment of this passage (<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 64ff.) is a goodexample of how his most detailed literary analysis misses <strong>the</strong> major po<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong>story: he expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>Jesus</strong> away as a late addition but does not ask himself why he is<strong>in</strong>cluded/added here.24. m Sanh 10:2.25. This head<strong>in</strong>g is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> important Kaufmann manuscript ofm Sanh 10:1 and was obviously later added.26. “In <strong>the</strong> Torah” is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> many manuscripts, among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> Kaufmannmanuscript.27. The proverbial heretic.28. Noncanonical books.29. The tetragrammaton YHWH.
Notes to Chapter 3 15530. Sifre Deuteronomy, 357:10 (ed. F<strong>in</strong>kelste<strong>in</strong>, p. 430); Seder Eliyahu Zuta,ed. Friedmann, p. 191; b BB 15b; BamR 20:1; Tanhuma, Balaq 1.31. Targumim (Codex Neofiti, Fragment-Targums, Pseudo-Jonathan) onNum. 24:25; y Sanh 10:2/25–29, fol. 28d; b Sanh 106a; Sifre Numbers, 131 (ed.Horovitz, pp. 170f.). See on Balaam, Peter Schäfer, “Bileam II. Judentum,” <strong>in</strong>TRE 6, 1980, pp. 639f.32. The same problem should apply, however, to Doeg as well because he isan Edomite.Chapter 3The Frivolous Disciple1. b Sanh 107b and b Sot 47a. I follow <strong>the</strong> version <strong>in</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> and refer to<strong>the</strong> variant read<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> manuscripts.2. b Sanh: Yehoshua b. Perahya/<strong>Jesus</strong> are preserved <strong>in</strong> Mss. Yad ha-RavHerzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9 and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition; Ms Munich 95erases “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” (le-Yeshu is still fa<strong>in</strong>tly visible). b Sot: Yehoshua b.Perahya/<strong>Jesus</strong> are preserved <strong>in</strong> Mss. Oxford Heb. d. 20 (2675), Vatican 110,and this time also Munich 95, whereas <strong>the</strong> Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition reads: “andnot as Yehoshua b. Perahya, who pushed one of his disciples away with bothhands.”3. b Sot adds: “Shimon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister” (who happened tobe, accord<strong>in</strong>g to rabb<strong>in</strong>ic tradition, k<strong>in</strong>g Yannai’s wife).4. Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition: “and <strong>Jesus</strong>.”5. “<strong>Jesus</strong> (<strong>the</strong> Nazarene)” <strong>in</strong> Mss. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1 (b Sanh) and OxfordHeb. d. 20 (2675) (b Sot).6. Or “bleared, dripp<strong>in</strong>g” (terutot); cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v. “tarut.”7. Mss. Munich 95 (Sanh 107b), Vatican 110, and <strong>the</strong> Vilna pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition(Sot 47a) have only “He [<strong>the</strong> disciple].”8. For a detailed analysis of <strong>the</strong> story and its Christian parallels, see StephenGero, “The Stern Master and His Wayward Disciple: A ‘<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Story <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>and <strong>in</strong> Christian Hagiography,” JSJ 25, 1994, pp. 287–311; also <strong>the</strong> brieftreatment <strong>in</strong> Daniel Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God: Martyrdom and <strong>the</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g ofChristianity and Judaism, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999,pp. 23–26.
156 Notes to Chapter 39. See my The History of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman World, London andNew York: Routledge, 2003, p. 75 (with references).10. m Avot, ch. 1.11. A possible motif for connect<strong>in</strong>g him with Alexandria might be a halakhicstatement attributed to him, namely that wheat com<strong>in</strong>g from Alexandria was impurebecause of <strong>the</strong> water<strong>in</strong>g device used by <strong>the</strong> Alexandrians (t Makh 3:4). Onhis connection with magic, see below.12. y Hag 2:2/3 and 4, fol. 77d; y Sanh 6:9/1, fol. 23c.13. For an attempt to expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> message from Shimon b. Shetah toYehoshua b. Perahya/Yehuda b. Tabbai historically, see my article “ ‘FromJerusalem <strong>the</strong> Great to Alexandria <strong>the</strong> Small’: The Relationship between Palest<strong>in</strong>eand Egypt <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman Period,” <strong>in</strong> The <strong>Talmud</strong> Yerushalmi andGraeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, ed. Peter Schäfer, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Mohr Siebeck,1998, pp. 129–140.14. For <strong>the</strong> slightly different version <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi see ibid., pp. 130ff.15. The Aramaic word used here, akhsanya, can mean both “<strong>in</strong>n” and“<strong>in</strong>nkeeper.”16. In <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi version, <strong>the</strong> student’s thoughts are worsened by <strong>the</strong> factthat he makes <strong>the</strong> master an accomplice of his risqué remark.17. The master wanted him to wait because he could not <strong>in</strong>terrupt <strong>the</strong>Shema prayer.18. See Schäfer, “From Jerusalem <strong>the</strong> Great to Alexandria <strong>the</strong> Small,” p. 130,n. 11.19. This is what Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, constantly confuses.20. Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> emphasizes <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s tendency to portray <strong>Jesus</strong> as arabbi (see “Christians and Heretics <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Literature of Late Antiquity,”HTR 87, 1994, pp. 156f.). This is true, but <strong>the</strong> teacher-student relationship isalready present <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi version of our story (without, however, identify<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> disciple with <strong>Jesus</strong>). The most “rabb<strong>in</strong>ic” <strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> one <strong>in</strong> t Hul/QohR/bAZ (below ch. 4), but here, too, does <strong>the</strong> portrayal of <strong>Jesus</strong> as a Torah teacher belongto <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian stratum of <strong>the</strong> story (QohR).21. Meticulously listed by Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 123.22. Whatever <strong>the</strong> exact nature of this worship was (it may even be a literarymotif ra<strong>the</strong>r than a real custom). However, that brick worship is a dist<strong>in</strong>ctivelyBabylonian motif/custom becomes clear from <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> (orig<strong>in</strong>ally Palest<strong>in</strong>ian)discussion whe<strong>the</strong>r or not an egg that has been worshipped may subsequentlybe consumed by a Jew is expanded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli (AZ 46a) by a brick: if a
Notes to Chapter 3 157Jew has set up a brick <strong>in</strong> order to worship it (but <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> end did not carry out thisabhorrent deed) and <strong>the</strong>n an idolater comes and does carry it out—is this brickpermitted for subsequent use by a Jew (e.g., build<strong>in</strong>g)?23. See Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: AramaicIncantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1985, pp. 17f.On <strong>the</strong> practice of magic <strong>in</strong> general see Michael G. Morony, “Magic and Society<strong>in</strong> Late Sasanian Iraq,” <strong>in</strong> Prayer, Magic, and <strong>the</strong> Stars <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ancient andLate Antique World, ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, and Brannon Wheeler, UniversityPark: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003, pp. 83–107.24. James A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia:University Museum, 1913, nos. 8 (1. 6, 8), 9 (1. 2f.), 17 (1. 8, 10), 32 (1. 4),and 33 (1. 3), pp. 154f., 161, 190, 225 (with Montgomery’s commentary onpp. 226–228), and 230; Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, Bowl 5,pp. 158–163; Shaul Shaked, “The Poetics of Spells: Language and Structure <strong>in</strong>Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity 1; The Divorce Formula and Its Ramifications,”<strong>in</strong> Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretive Perspectives,ed. Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn, Gron<strong>in</strong>gen: Styx, 1999, pp.173–195; Dan Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts <strong>in</strong> JewishAramaic from Late Antiquity, London: Kegan Paul, 2003, pp. 31–39 (Bowls M50and M59).25. Samuel Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, Berl<strong>in</strong>: S. Calvary,1902, pp. 185f.; Louis G<strong>in</strong>zberg, G<strong>in</strong>ze Schechter: Genizah Studies <strong>in</strong> Memoryof Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 1: Midrash and Haggadah, New York: JewishTheological Sem<strong>in</strong>ary of America, 1928 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Hermon, 1969),p. 329; William Horbury, “The Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Jewish Tradition,” <strong>in</strong> The Trial of<strong>Jesus</strong>: Cambridge Studies <strong>in</strong> Honour of C.F.D. Moule, ed. Ernst Bammel, London:SCM, 1970, pp. 104f.; Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 295, n. 291; Ze>evFalk, “Qeta< hadash mi-‘Toledot Yeshu,’ ” Tarbiz 46, 1978, p. 319; Daniel Boyar<strong>in</strong>,“Qeriah metuqqenet shel ha-qeta< he-hadash shel ‘Toledot Yeshu,’ ” Tarbiz47, 1978, p. 250.26. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, bowl 34 (l. 2), p. 23: Yeshua
158 Notes to Chapter 430. See on this Levene, “and by <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong>,” p. 301 (he suggests thatthis spell<strong>in</strong>g, with an <strong>in</strong>itial Aleph, “possibly represents a transcription of <strong>the</strong>Christian Syriac form not as it is spelled ...but as it is pronounced”).31. The plural “holy spirits” is most likely a misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g on part of <strong>the</strong>(Jewish) writer of <strong>the</strong> bowl, as has been observed also by Shaul Shaked: “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Magic Bowls: Apropos Dan Levene’s ‘. . . and by <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> ...’,” JSQ6, 1999, p. 314.32. The bowl, however, is not <strong>the</strong> only bowl text written <strong>in</strong> Jewish BabylonianAramaic that makes an explicit allusion to <strong>Jesus</strong>, as Shaked claims (ibid., p. 309);<strong>the</strong> first bowl mention<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> one published by Montgomery (above, n. 26).33. Shaked, “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magic Bowls,” p. 315.34. The connection with magic has also been emphasized by ElchananRe<strong>in</strong>er: “From Joshua to <strong>Jesus</strong>: The Transformation of a Biblical Story to a LocalMyth; A Chapter <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Religious Life of <strong>the</strong> Galilean Jew,” <strong>in</strong> Shar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Sacred:Religious Contacts and Conflicts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy Land, First-Fifteenth CenturiesCE, ed. Arieh Kofsky and Guy G. Stroumsa, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi,1998, pp. 258–260.Chapter 4The Torah Teacher1. See also Lk. 21:37; Mt. 26:55; Mk. 14:49; John 7:14–16, 18:20.2. t Hul 2:24; QohR 1:24 on Eccl. 1:8 (1:8 [3]).3. Also <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of “trustworthy,” “right.”4. Or “right.”5. The Bavli and all <strong>the</strong> parallels use here <strong>the</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> word <strong>in</strong> Hebrew characters(dimus).6. This is <strong>the</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> t Hul (matzati, lit. “I found”); QohR has “and ...came to me”; <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> manuscripts: “one of <strong>the</strong> disciples of ...found me(metza>ani).”7. The explicit reference to <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mss. Munich 95, Paris Suppl. Heb.1337, and JTS Rab. 15.8. Or “Sikhnaya.”9. t Hul: “He told me a word of heresy (m<strong>in</strong>ut) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pantiri/Pandera”(<strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g exegesis of Deut. 23:19 and Mic. 1:7 is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>
Notes to Chapter 4 159t Hul); QohR: “He told me someth<strong>in</strong>g (lit. a certa<strong>in</strong> word) <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of Soand-So”(however, some manuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions of QohR read “<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>name of <strong>Jesus</strong> ben Pandera”: see Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 296, n. 305, and<strong>the</strong> chart below, pp. 137f.).10. Mss. Munich 95 and Paris Suppl. Heb. 1337; Ms. JTS Rab. 15: “thustaught him <strong>Jesus</strong> his Master.”11. Read<strong>in</strong>g qubbtzsah <strong>in</strong>stead of qibbatzsah.12. The money, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hebrew plural.13. QohR has only “heresy.”14. QohR: “prostitution” (zenut).15. On Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, see Jacob Neusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrkanus: TheTradition and <strong>the</strong> Man, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1973. For Neusner’s analysis of ourstory see vol. 1, pp. 400–403, and vol. 2, pp. 366f.; Neusner is certa<strong>in</strong> that Eliezer“cannot have been a m<strong>in</strong>,” although “it seems difficult to say whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> accountbefore us reports someth<strong>in</strong>g which actually happened” (vol. 2, p. 367).16. In all <strong>the</strong> three versions; only t Hull<strong>in</strong> leaves out “idle.”17. This is Neusner’s translation <strong>in</strong> The Tosefta Translated from <strong>the</strong> Hebrew,Fifth Division: Qodoshim (The Order of Holy Th<strong>in</strong>gs), New York: Ktav, 1979,p. 74, and, almost identical, <strong>in</strong> Eliezer Ben Hyrkanus, vol. 1, p. 400; see also SaulLieberman, “Roman Legal Institutions <strong>in</strong> Early Rabb<strong>in</strong>ics and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Acta Martyrorum,”JQR, n.s., 35, 1944/45, pp. 20f.18. The version <strong>in</strong> QohR does not help, ei<strong>the</strong>r, because it reads: “Is it possiblethat <strong>the</strong>se rabb<strong>in</strong>ic schools (yeshivot hallalu) should err <strong>in</strong> such matters?”(Lieberman, p. 20, n. 129, f<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> QohR <strong>the</strong> corrupt word šyšyšbwt, which heemends to she-śevot, but <strong>the</strong> emendation she-yeshivot, as <strong>in</strong> fact <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editionreads, is much more plausible). It is, of course, possible that R. Eliezer’s colleaguesbribed <strong>the</strong> governor and that he uses R. Eliezer’s grey hair = old age andsign of wisdom as an “excuse” for his acquittal, but such an explanation is notvery conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g. Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> (<strong>in</strong> a written remark on my manuscript) andone of <strong>the</strong> anonymous readers draw my attention to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> miss<strong>in</strong>g letter<strong>in</strong> šhsybw[t] is not so strange for <strong>the</strong> Tosefta or for Hebrew manuscripts altoge<strong>the</strong>r.This is certa<strong>in</strong>ly correct, but still, why no <strong>in</strong>dication of an abbreviation(šhsybw> ) and why such a crucial letter <strong>in</strong> a crucial phrase? Also, <strong>the</strong> “grey hair”is clearly <strong>in</strong>fluenced by <strong>the</strong> translation of zaqen as “old man,” but this is notimperative. As Solomon Zeitl<strong>in</strong> rem<strong>in</strong>ds us (“<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Early Tannaitic Literature,”<strong>in</strong> Abhandlungen zur Er<strong>in</strong>nerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, Wien: Alexander
160 Notes to Chapter 4Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1933, p. 298), zaqen can also mean “scholar, sage”and does not necessarily refer to old age and grey hair.19. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 152–154. Maier does not understand <strong>the</strong>first part as a question but ra<strong>the</strong>r as a statement, but <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g is <strong>the</strong> same.The weakness of this <strong>in</strong>terpretation, as Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> rightly po<strong>in</strong>ts out, is that<strong>the</strong> governor suddenly refers not just to R. Eliezer but to a whole group of suspectsand that it rema<strong>in</strong>s open why <strong>the</strong> accusers were mistaken. One could respondthat it was only R. Eliezer who was caught or that <strong>the</strong> governor wanted tomake an example of (<strong>the</strong> old and respected) R. Eliezer—and that <strong>the</strong> Tosefta didnot <strong>in</strong>tend anyway to give a record of <strong>the</strong> court’s proceed<strong>in</strong>gs.20. Just<strong>in</strong>, Dialogue with Trypho, 10:1; Tertullian, Apology, 7 and 8; (seebelow, pp. 99ff.). That <strong>the</strong> accusation of sexual promiscuity as a prom<strong>in</strong>ent featureof Christians/Jewish Christians was well known also <strong>in</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature becomesevident from a story about R. Yonathan, a Palest<strong>in</strong>ian amora of <strong>the</strong> first generation,<strong>in</strong> QohR 1:25 on Eccl. 1:8 (1:8 [4]), immediately follow<strong>in</strong>g our story aboutR. Eliezer (translation accord<strong>in</strong>g to Visotzky, Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> World, p. 80, which isbased on <strong>the</strong> critical edition of Marc G. Hirshman: “One of R. Yonathan’s studentsfled to <strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> Jewish Christians?]. He went and found that he had[<strong>in</strong>deed] become one of those evil ones. The heretics sent [a message toR. Yonathan]: Rabbi, come share <strong>in</strong> deeds of lov<strong>in</strong>g-k<strong>in</strong>dness for a bride. Hewent and found <strong>the</strong>m occupied [sexually] with a young woman. He exclaimed:This is <strong>the</strong> way Jews behave?! They replied: Is it not written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Torah: Throw<strong>in</strong> your lot among us, we will have one purse (Prov. 1:14)? He fled and <strong>the</strong>y hurriedafter him until he got to <strong>the</strong> door of his house and slammed it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir faces.They taunted him: R. Yonathan, go boast to your mo<strong>the</strong>r that you did not turnand you did not look at us. For had you turned and looked at us, you’d be chas<strong>in</strong>gafter us more than we have chased after you.”21. QohR 1:24 on Eccl. 1:8 (1:8 [3]).22. Presumably a metaphor for a male prostitute.23. The Sonc<strong>in</strong>o translation suggests that <strong>the</strong> Halakha not to listen to <strong>the</strong>words of a m<strong>in</strong> escaped him, but it is much more likely that R. Eliezer refers to<strong>the</strong> Halakha regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>come ga<strong>in</strong>ed from prostitution.24. In <strong>the</strong> biblical context, Temple prostitution, but here used <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> widercontext of money ga<strong>in</strong>ed from any (female and male) prostitution.25. It concludes, however, <strong>the</strong> unit with Eliezer’s own dictum: “One shouldalways flee from what is ugly (ki
Notes to Chapter 4 161“ugly” he refers to presumably has to do with sexual uncleanness; see Maier,<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 158.26. The Bavli <strong>in</strong>terpretation is more complex: it first relates <strong>the</strong> first part of<strong>the</strong> verse to heresy and <strong>the</strong> second part to <strong>the</strong> Roman authority, and <strong>in</strong> a second(anonymous) <strong>in</strong>terpretation relates <strong>the</strong> first part to heresy and <strong>the</strong> Roman authorityand <strong>the</strong> second part to prostitution.27. Or, ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> anonymous <strong>in</strong>terpretation has R. Eliezer admit.28. See <strong>the</strong> exhaustive references <strong>in</strong> Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 159, n. 327.29. See Herford, Christianity, pp. 137ff. (around 109 C.E.); Rudolf Freudenberger,“Die delatio nom<strong>in</strong>is causa gegen Rabbi Elieser ben Hyrkanos,” <strong>in</strong> Revue<strong>in</strong>ternationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3rd ser., 15, 1968, pp. 11–19; Boyar<strong>in</strong> isconv<strong>in</strong>ced, with no fur<strong>the</strong>r discussion, that it was part of <strong>the</strong> Trajanic persecutionsof Christianity (Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 26), obviously follow<strong>in</strong>g Lieberman,“Roman Legal Institutions,” p. 21.30. <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 163; see also Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 31.31. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 165.32. Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 27 with n. 22.33. Ibid., p. 27.34. Ibid., p. 32.35. Ibid., p. 3136. However, to implement this approach is not an easy task. Even <strong>in</strong> Boyar<strong>in</strong>’spresentation, <strong>the</strong>re appears a conspicuous gap between <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tention and<strong>the</strong> implementation: his <strong>in</strong>terpretation quite often reads like <strong>the</strong> paragon of apositivistic reconstruction of reality and one wonders whe<strong>the</strong>r he sometimes simplyforgets his methodologically correct <strong>in</strong>tentions.37. About <strong>the</strong> important dist<strong>in</strong>ction between Palest<strong>in</strong>ian and Babyloniansources see below, pp. 113ff.38. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, <strong>the</strong> same R. Hisda who concludes our story (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Bavli and <strong>in</strong> QohR) with <strong>the</strong> ironical statement that one has to stay away four cubitsfrom <strong>the</strong> harlot, plays a prom<strong>in</strong>ant role <strong>in</strong> a number of <strong>the</strong> Bavli’s <strong>Jesus</strong> narratives.39. See below, pp. 99ff.40. In his unpublished lectures.41. Alexander Guttmann, “The Significance of Miracles for <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Judaism,”HUCA 20, 1947, pp. 374ff.; idem, Studies <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism, NewYork: Ktav, 1976, pp. 58ff.
162 Notes to Chapter 542. b BM 59b.43. Ano<strong>the</strong>r magical performance by R. Eliezer is preserved <strong>in</strong> b Sanh 68a.There, upon <strong>the</strong> request of his colleague R. Aqiva to teach him <strong>the</strong> art of <strong>the</strong>magical plant<strong>in</strong>g of cucumbers, Eliezer has a field covered with cucumbersby one magical word, and <strong>the</strong> cucumbers collected <strong>in</strong>to one heap byano<strong>the</strong>r.44. The prooftext used by R. Yirmeya is anyth<strong>in</strong>g but conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>in</strong> its orig<strong>in</strong>albiblical context it just says <strong>the</strong> opposite.45. Lit. “<strong>the</strong>y blessed him,” a euphemism for “excommunicated him.”46. Aqiva appeared before him dressed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> black garments of <strong>the</strong> mourner(this was his “discreet” h<strong>in</strong>t at what had happened).47. b BM 59b.48. b Sanh 68a.Chapter 5Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Name of <strong>Jesus</strong>1. See above, p. 32.2. t Shab 7:23 (follow<strong>in</strong>g Ms. Erfurt <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Zuckermandel edition; Ms. Viennareads “<strong>the</strong>y pass [a remedy] over <strong>the</strong> belly (me
Notes to Chapter 5 1639. The parallel <strong>in</strong> b AZ 27b <strong>in</strong>troduces <strong>the</strong> story as follows: “No man shouldhave any deal<strong>in</strong>gs with heretics, nor is it allowed to be healed by <strong>the</strong>m even [<strong>in</strong>risk<strong>in</strong>g] an hour’s life” (emphasis added).10. This may refer to Aqiva’s noncanonical books <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna.11. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough, <strong>the</strong> Mishna (AZ 2:2) not only dist<strong>in</strong>guishes betweenheal<strong>in</strong>g of property (permitted) and of <strong>in</strong>dividuals (prohibited); it alsospeaks unambiguously about non-Jews (goyim) and not about heretics (m<strong>in</strong>im).12. Parallels y AZ 2:2/12, fol. 40d–41a; y Shab 14:4/13, fol. 14d–15a; QohR1:24 on Eccl. 1:8 (1:8 [3]); b AZ 27b.13. In QohR and <strong>the</strong> Bavli he is <strong>the</strong> son of R. Ishmael’s sister.14. QohR and Bavli: Kefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya, as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first Jacob story(see above). The “Kefar Sama” version is not only a pun with “Eleazar b. Dama,”but also with sam/samma—literally “medic<strong>in</strong>e” or “poison.”15. y Shab: “and Jacob ...came <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> Pandera to heal him”;y AZ: “and Jacob ...came to heal him. He [Jacob] said to him: We will speak toyou <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pandera” (QohR has also Pandera); <strong>the</strong> explicitreference to <strong>Jesus</strong> is miss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli (<strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong> manuscripts that I couldcheck), but <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich 95, Jacob is called “Jacob <strong>the</strong> heretic (m<strong>in</strong>) fromKefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya.” Jacob Neusner (The <strong>Talmud</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Land of Israel:An Academic Commentary to <strong>the</strong> Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions, vol. 26:Yerushalmi Tractate Abodah Zarah, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999, p. 50)tacitly omits <strong>the</strong> reference to <strong>Jesus</strong>. One may only speculate why: most likely becauseit is not <strong>in</strong> some of <strong>the</strong> traditional editions of <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi, and Neusnerdid not bo<strong>the</strong>r to check <strong>the</strong> Leiden manuscript and <strong>the</strong> editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps where itdoes appear. To make th<strong>in</strong>gs worse, Neusner claims to have checked his translationaga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> German translation by Gerd Wewers and to have found only m<strong>in</strong>ordifferences (ibid., p. xv). In fact, however, Wewers was fully aware of all <strong>the</strong>variants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> available manuscripts and <strong>the</strong> editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps and translates accord<strong>in</strong>gto Leiden and <strong>the</strong> editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps; see Gerd A. Wewers, Avoda Zara.Götzendienst, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980, p. 49.16. Or “But R. Ishmael did not allow him (Eleazar b. Dama) [to accept <strong>the</strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g].”17. y AZ and QohR: “He [R. Ishmael] said to him. ...”18. In <strong>the</strong> Bavli <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g sentence is preceded by: “R. Ishmael, mybro<strong>the</strong>r, let him, so that I may be healed by him!”19. QohR and Bavli: “from <strong>the</strong> Torah.”
164 Notes to Chapter 520. QohR and Bavli: “that he is to be permitted.”21. Bavli: “before his soul departed and he died.”22. Bavli: “for your body [rema<strong>in</strong>ed] pure and your soul left you <strong>in</strong> purity.”23. A play on words with gezerah (decree, prohibition) and geder(hedge/fence).24. b Ber 56b; b Men 99b.25. t Shevu 3:4.26. b Ber 56b; b Shab 116a.27. b Men 99b.28. Same answer <strong>in</strong> QohR.29. b AZ 27b.30. This last sentence with <strong>the</strong> quotation from Leviticus appears also <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Yerushalmi version.31. Hence it seems that <strong>the</strong> Bavli, <strong>in</strong> contrast to <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi, identifies <strong>the</strong>flesh-and-blood snake by which Eleazar b. Dama was bitten with <strong>the</strong> rabbis.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi, Eleazar b. Dama was not bitten by <strong>the</strong> metaphoricalsnake of <strong>the</strong> rabbis (which punishes <strong>the</strong> transgression of <strong>the</strong>ir commandments),but accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Bavli <strong>the</strong> real snake that bit him is <strong>the</strong> metaphoricalsnake of <strong>the</strong> rabbis (because <strong>the</strong>y prevented him from be<strong>in</strong>g cured).32. And probably also <strong>the</strong> Yerushalmi’s.33. That <strong>in</strong> a next step ano<strong>the</strong>r (or even <strong>the</strong> same) Bavli editor harmonizesthis conclusion with R. Ishmael’s strict approach (Ishmael would have allowed<strong>the</strong> heretic’s heal<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>in</strong> private but not <strong>in</strong> public) does not detract from <strong>the</strong>boldness of his argument.34. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 188, 191.35. Origen, Contra Celsum I:28; see above, p. 19.36. PGM VIII, 35–50, <strong>in</strong> Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, p. 146.37. “Iao” is <strong>the</strong> Greek form of Hebrew “Yaho.” On <strong>the</strong> name see R. Gansch<strong>in</strong>ietz,“Iao,” <strong>in</strong> Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,Neue Bearbeitung, begonnen von Georg Wissowa, ...hrsg. v. WilhelmKroll, Siebzehnter Halbband, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1914, cols. 698–721.38. See Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch; or, The Hebrew Book of Enoch, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1928 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Ktav, 1973), pp. 188–192(with parallels from <strong>the</strong> gnostic literature).39. PGM XIII, 795–800, <strong>in</strong> Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, p. 191.40. Peter Schäfer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981, § 15 and parallels; also <strong>in</strong> b Sanh 38b.
Notes to Chapter 5 16541. The full biblical context reads: “I am go<strong>in</strong>g to send an angel <strong>in</strong> front ofyou, to guard you on <strong>the</strong> way and to br<strong>in</strong>g you to <strong>the</strong> place that I have prepared.Be attentive to him and listen to his voice. Do not rebel aga<strong>in</strong>st him, for he willnot pardon your transgression, s<strong>in</strong>ce my name is <strong>in</strong> him” (Ex. 23:20f.).42. See <strong>the</strong> summary <strong>in</strong> Philip Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of )Enoch,” <strong>in</strong> OTP, vol. 1, p. 243.43. In Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, § 76, Yahoel is <strong>the</strong> first of <strong>the</strong> seventynames of Metatron.44. Ryszard Rub<strong>in</strong>kiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” <strong>in</strong> OTP, vol. 1, p. 682.45. Apocalypse of Abraham 10:8 (see also 10:3); translation by Rub<strong>in</strong>kiewicz<strong>in</strong> OTP, vol. 1, pp. 693f.46. This has been suggested already by Gershom Scholem, Major Trends <strong>in</strong>Jewish Mysticism, New York: Schocken, 1961 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, 1995), p. 68; and seePhilip Alexander, “The Historical Sett<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28,1977, p. 161; idem, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of ) Enoch,” p. 244.47. Cf. Gansch<strong>in</strong>ietz, “Iao,” cols. 709–713; Johann Michl, “Engel II( jüdisch),” <strong>in</strong> RAC, vol. 5, Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1962, col. 215, n. 102.48. Ant. 2, 276.49. Cf. m Yoma 6:2 (where, however, <strong>the</strong> priests and <strong>the</strong> people <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Templecourt could hear him pronounc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> name); m Sot 7:6 (accord<strong>in</strong>g towhich <strong>the</strong> priests <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple, when recit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> priestly bless<strong>in</strong>g, did pronounce<strong>the</strong> name). See on <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic evidence Ephraim E. Urbach, TheSages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979, vol. 1, pp. 127–129.50. PGM XIII, 840–845, <strong>in</strong> Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, p. 191.51. Auguste Audollent, Defixionum tabellae, Luteciae Parisiorum: A. Fontemo<strong>in</strong>g,1904, no. 271/19 (p. 374). See also Papyrus Berol. 9794, <strong>in</strong> Abrasax.Ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts, vol. 2, ed. Re<strong>in</strong>oldMerkelbach and Maria Totti, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1991, pp.124–125, no. 13.52. Heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> is a common early Christian custom; seeActs 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 30; cf. Rom. 10:13. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Acts 19:13 “some it<strong>in</strong>erantJewish exorcists tried to use <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> Lord <strong>Jesus</strong> over those who had evilspirits,” but <strong>the</strong> evil spirit responded “<strong>Jesus</strong> I know, and Paul I know; but who areyou?” (19:15).53. Mk. 9:38–40; see also Lk. 9:49–50.54. As <strong>in</strong> Mk. 3:15.55. Morton Smith, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magician, pp. 114f.
166 Notes to Chapter 556. y AZ 2:2/7, fol. 40d; y Shab 14:4/8, fol. 14d; QohR 10:5. I follow y AZand refer to <strong>the</strong> important variants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> notes.57. y Shab: “a man” (bar nash).58. The name of <strong>Jesus</strong> is deleted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leiden manuscript and added aga<strong>in</strong>by <strong>the</strong> second glossator; QohR: “he went and brought one of those from <strong>the</strong> sonof Pandera to relieve his chok<strong>in</strong>g.” Neusner, <strong>in</strong> his Yerushalmi translation, aga<strong>in</strong>omits <strong>Jesus</strong>.59. The successful heal<strong>in</strong>g is not explicitly mentioned <strong>in</strong> QohR but presupposed.60. Read (with y Shab) millat <strong>in</strong>stead of le-millat. QohR: “such and suchverses” or “one verse after ano<strong>the</strong>r.”61. y Shab: “it would have been better for him. ...”62. QohR: “better that he had been buried and you had not quoted this verseover him.”63. Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> (comment<strong>in</strong>g on my manuscript; but see also his “Christiansand Heretics,” p. 162) draws my attention to an even more devastat<strong>in</strong>g read<strong>in</strong>g:<strong>the</strong> “error committed by a ruler” is not <strong>the</strong> error result<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> heretic’smagic (<strong>the</strong> heal<strong>in</strong>g) but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> grandfa<strong>the</strong>r’s error. R. Yehoshua’s rash andfurious statement “How much (better) would it have been for him if he haddied” came true, although he did not (fully) <strong>in</strong>tend this terrible result. Hence,<strong>the</strong> heretic’s magic did work, but <strong>the</strong> grandfa<strong>the</strong>r undid (or ra<strong>the</strong>r outdid) it! Accord<strong>in</strong>gto this <strong>in</strong>terpretation R. Yehoshua b. Levi was not one bit better than R.Ishmael <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eleazar b. Dama story.64. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 195.65. Or, if <strong>the</strong> shegaga refers to R. Yehoshua’s ultimately granted wish that <strong>the</strong>grandson is better off dy<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>the</strong> rabbi’s wish can even undo powerful, yet unauthorized,magic.66. We may even see here ano<strong>the</strong>r allusion to and <strong>in</strong>version of a New Testamentnarrative. When Peter acknowledges <strong>Jesus</strong> as <strong>the</strong> Messiah, <strong>Jesus</strong> respondswith his famous statement: “And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on thisrock (petra) I will build my Church, and <strong>the</strong> gates of Hades will not prevailaga<strong>in</strong>st it. I will give you <strong>the</strong> keys of <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom of heaven, and whatever youb<strong>in</strong>d on earth will be bound <strong>in</strong> heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed <strong>in</strong> heaven” (Mt. 16:18f.; see also Mt. 23:14, where <strong>the</strong> scribes and Phariseesare accused of lock<strong>in</strong>g people out of <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom of heaven). B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g andloos<strong>in</strong>g are not only technical terms referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic authority of forbid-
Notes to Chapter 6 167d<strong>in</strong>g and permitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> halakhic matters; <strong>the</strong>y are also technical terms used <strong>in</strong>magical texts and express<strong>in</strong>g magical powers. See <strong>the</strong> magical use of <strong>the</strong> verbsasar (“to b<strong>in</strong>d with a spell”) and sherei (“to release from a spell”) <strong>in</strong> Sokoloff,Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, pp. 150f., 1179; idem, A Dictionary ofJewish Palest<strong>in</strong>ian Aramaic of <strong>the</strong> Byzant<strong>in</strong>e Period, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan UniversityPress, 1990, pp. 68, 567; Giuseppe Veltri, Magie und Halakha. Ansätze zue<strong>in</strong>em empirischen Wissenschaftsbegriff im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichenJudentum, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997, pp. 32, 78, 123. Seealso Smith, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magician, p. 114.Chapter 6<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Execution1. Hang<strong>in</strong>g as an actual mode of execution is regarded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible as a non-Jewish law (Gen. 4:22; Josh. 8:29; 2 Sam. 21:6–12; Ezra 6:11; Esth. 7:9). On <strong>the</strong>death penalty, see Haim Cohn, The Trial and Death of <strong>Jesus</strong>, New York: Harperand Row, 1971, pp. 211–217, and <strong>the</strong> summary <strong>in</strong> Haim Hermann Cohn andLouis Isaac Rab<strong>in</strong>owitz, “Capital Punishment,” <strong>in</strong> EJ, 1971, vol. 5, cols.142–147.2. m Sanh 7:1: ston<strong>in</strong>g (seqilah), burn<strong>in</strong>g (śerefah), slay<strong>in</strong>g (hereg), and strangl<strong>in</strong>g(heneq).3. Paul W<strong>in</strong>ter <strong>in</strong> his classic On <strong>the</strong> Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong> (Berl<strong>in</strong>: de Gruyter, 1961,pp. 70–74) suggests, ra<strong>the</strong>r unconv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly, that <strong>the</strong> death penalty of strangl<strong>in</strong>gwas <strong>in</strong>troduced by <strong>the</strong> rabbis <strong>in</strong> order to secretly exercise jurisdiction even <strong>in</strong>capital cases, although <strong>the</strong>y were deprived of this authority after 70 C.E.4. m Sanh 6:1.5. b Sanh 43a. I follow <strong>the</strong> Firenze (II.1.8–9) manuscript with reference to<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r available manuscripts.6. Or (a different <strong>in</strong>terpretation): “On such and such a day, on such and suchan hour, and <strong>in</strong> such and such a place (<strong>the</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al will be executed),” announc<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> precise time of <strong>the</strong> execution.7. This is <strong>the</strong> Mishna lemma, which is commented upon <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g.8. Literally before him, on his way to <strong>the</strong> execution.9. Chronologically, sometime before <strong>the</strong> execution.10. Only <strong>in</strong> Ms. Firenze.
168 Notes to Chapter 611. The name is erased <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich.12. Lit. “<strong>the</strong>y hanged him.”13. The name is erased <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich.14. Aga<strong>in</strong> only <strong>in</strong> Ms. Firenze.15. The name is aga<strong>in</strong> erased <strong>in</strong> Ms. Munich.16. Same.17. If we understand Abaye’s comment as <strong>the</strong> herald referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> precisetime of <strong>the</strong> execution, he contradicts <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> Mishnalemma (“not beforehand”), which is certa<strong>in</strong>ly possible but does not go well with<strong>the</strong> structure of <strong>the</strong> sugya: Abaje would agree with <strong>the</strong> Baraita, which contradicts<strong>the</strong> anonymous <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> Mishna lemma.18. I owe this clarification to a remark by Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong>.19. This has also been argued by Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 223.20. m Sanh 6:4; see also Sifre Deuteronomy, 221 (ed. F<strong>in</strong>kelste<strong>in</strong>, pp.253–255). On m Sanh 6 see now Beth A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention:Death Penalty Discourse <strong>in</strong> Early Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic and Christian Cultures, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 65–94.21. That <strong>the</strong> hang<strong>in</strong>g is performed on a tree is evident from Deut. 21:22f.; on<strong>the</strong> Mishna’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of “tree,” see <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g discussion.22. Lit. “blessed” (a euphemism for “cursed”).23. The name of God.24. It can also mean (literally): “a curse of God.”25. In conspicuously leav<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> ston<strong>in</strong>g and mention<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>the</strong> hang<strong>in</strong>g,<strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> is obviously <strong>in</strong>fluenced by <strong>the</strong> New Testament narrative andidentifies hang<strong>in</strong>g with “hang<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> tree = cross” = be<strong>in</strong>g crucified.26. m Sanh 7:4.27. m Sanh 7:10.28. Ibid., end of <strong>the</strong> Mishna; see also ibid., 10:4.29. m Sanh 7:11.30. For a summary of <strong>the</strong> Gospels’ accounts of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ trial (neatly dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>gbetween primary and secondary traditions and editorial accretions), see W<strong>in</strong>ter,Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong>, pp. 136–148; much more thorough is Raymond E. Brown, TheDeath of <strong>the</strong> Messiah: From Gethsemane to <strong>the</strong> Grave; A Commentary on <strong>the</strong> PassionNarratives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Four Gospels, 2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1994. For acritique of what he calls “critical ignorance” of some of recent New Testamentscholarship, see Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel, Studies <strong>in</strong> Early Christology, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&TClark, 1995, pp. 41–58. Much as <strong>the</strong>se analyses may (or may not) contribute to
Notes to Chapter 6 169our understand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> historical event, this is not my concern here: I am concernedwith <strong>the</strong> (possible) talmudic read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Gospels, not with <strong>the</strong> historicalreality. Also, W<strong>in</strong>ter’s brief analysis of our talmudic Baraita (p. 144) is solely<strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> narrowly def<strong>in</strong>ed question of its historicity and, of course, provesits “unhistorical character.”31. m Sanh 6:4 and 7:4.32. Mt. 26:62–65; Mk. 14:61–64; Lk. 22:66–71; John 19:7.33. Mt. 27:17, 22, 29, 37, 39–43; Mk. 15:2, 12, 18, 26, 32; Lk. 23:2–5, 35, 37,39; John 18:33, 37; 19:3, 12, 14f., 19, 21.34. Mt. 26:61; Mk. 14:58.35. Mt. 12:23f. (Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15).36. See above, p. 19.37. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 227. On this, see <strong>the</strong> critique by Horbury,Jews and Christians, p. 104.38. m Sanh 4 and 5. To avoid a misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g: I am not suggest<strong>in</strong>g here(and with similar phrases) that <strong>the</strong> Gospels are based on <strong>the</strong> Mishna. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, Iam argu<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> Halakha presupposed here <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospels is similar to <strong>the</strong>Halakha (later) codified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mishna.39. Mt. 26:59; Mk. 14:55.40. Explicitly only <strong>in</strong> Mark.41. The concurrent testimony only <strong>in</strong> Mat<strong>the</strong>w (26:60); Mark <strong>in</strong>sists that evenhere <strong>the</strong> two witnesses did not agree on <strong>the</strong> circumstances of <strong>the</strong> crime (14:59).42. “I am” (Mk. 14:62).43. “You have said so” (Mt. 26:64).44. Mt. 26:65f.; Mk. 14:63f.45. This has been suggested to me by my graduate student Moulie Vidas,when we were read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> texts toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> a private read<strong>in</strong>g course.46. (1) Mt. 16:21; Mk. 8:31; Lk. 9:22; (2) Mt. 17:22f.; Mk. 9:30f.; Lk. 9:44;(3) Mt. 20:17–19; Mk. 10:32–34; Lk. 18:31–33.47. Mk. 10:32–34.48. See, e.g., Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel, Crucifixion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ancient World and <strong>the</strong> Follyof <strong>the</strong> Message of <strong>the</strong> Cross, London: SCM, and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977,especially pp. 33ff.49. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 227f.50. t Sanh 9:7; see also Sifre Deuteronomy, 221 (ed. F<strong>in</strong>kelste<strong>in</strong>, p. 254),where <strong>the</strong> death penalty of be<strong>in</strong>g hanged alive “as is done by <strong>the</strong> [non-Jewish]government” is explicitly mentioned. On <strong>the</strong> crucifixion <strong>in</strong> Jewish sources, see
170 Notes to Chapter 7Ernst Bammel, “Crucifixion as a Punishment <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e,” <strong>in</strong> idem, The Trial of<strong>Jesus</strong>, pp. 162–165.51. b Sanh 67a; <strong>the</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>ian parallels (t Sanh 10:11; y Sanh 7:16/1, fol.25c–d; y Yev 16:1/23, fol. 15d) mention only Ben Stada and his execution byston<strong>in</strong>g, but not that he was hanged on <strong>the</strong> eve of Passover. On Ben Stada seeabove, ch. 1.52. Mt. 26:20ff.; Mk. 14:12ff.; Lk. 22:15 (<strong>Jesus</strong> tells his disciples that he eagerlyawaited eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Passover meal with <strong>the</strong>m before he suffers).53. John 13:1ff.54. John 19:14.55. The Firenze manuscript emphasizes that <strong>the</strong> day of execution was onSabbath eve, i.e., a Friday, which is concordant with all <strong>the</strong> four Gospels.56. John 19:31.57. Josephus gets it right when he says (with reference to <strong>the</strong> murdered HighPriests Ananus and <strong>Jesus</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> first Jewish war): “They [<strong>the</strong> murderers] actuallywent so far <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir impiety as to cast out <strong>the</strong> corpses without burial, although<strong>the</strong> Jews are so careful about funeral rights that even malefactors who have beensentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset” (Bell. 4, 317).58. Mt. 27:17–23; Mk. 15:9–15; Lk. 23:13–25; John 18:38–19:16.59. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mat<strong>the</strong>w, <strong>in</strong>fluenced by his wife (Mt. 27:19).60. John 19:12.61. This is aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> straw man aga<strong>in</strong>st whom Maier fights (<strong>Jesus</strong> vonNazareth, pp. 231f.).62. The fact that we are deal<strong>in</strong>g with a Baraita does not necessarily mean thatit is an early Palest<strong>in</strong>ian Baraita because not all Baraitot <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli are orig<strong>in</strong>al;see Günter Stemberger, E<strong>in</strong>leitung <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> und Midrasch, Munich: Beck, 8<strong>the</strong>d., 1992, pp. 199f. But noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this specific case <strong>in</strong>dicates that our Baraita issuspicious.Chapter 7<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Disciples1. Mt. 4:18–20; Mk. 1:16–20; Lk. 5:1–11 (only Simon, James, and John);John 1:35–42 (two disciples of John <strong>the</strong> Baptist, one anonymous and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rone Andrew, <strong>the</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>r of Simon Peter).
Notes to Chapter 7 1712. Mt. 10:1–4; Mk. 3:14–19; Lk. 6:12–16.3. Mt. 28:16–20; Mk. 16:14–17 (<strong>the</strong> longer end<strong>in</strong>g); Lk. 24:36–50; John20:19–31; 21.4. b Sanh 43a–b.5. The full name <strong>in</strong> Mss. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, and KarlsruheReuchl<strong>in</strong> 2; Ms. Munich has <strong>the</strong> name and much of <strong>the</strong> text erased (see <strong>the</strong>chart below, pp. 140f. and <strong>the</strong> frontispiece).6. Or: <strong>in</strong> secret; <strong>in</strong> a mysterious way.7. The list of <strong>the</strong> names is <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, whereas <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terpretationsare <strong>in</strong> Aramaic.8. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 232f., is very concerned about discredit<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> “au<strong>the</strong>nticity” of <strong>the</strong> text.9. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Gospel of John starts with five disciples that were first chosen(John 1: 37–51: two disciples of John who followed <strong>Jesus</strong>, one of <strong>the</strong>m Andrew;Simon Peter; Philip; and Nathanael).10. m Avot 2:8.11. The historicity of which is even ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed by Klausner, <strong>Jesus</strong> ofNazareth, pp. 29f., who proposes <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g identifications:Mattai = Mat<strong>the</strong>w; Naqqai = Luke; Netzer = ei<strong>the</strong>r a pun on notzrim (“Christians”)or a corruption of Andrai = Andrew; Buni = Nicodemus or a corruption ofYuhanni/Yuani = John; Todah = Thaddaeus.12. Mt. 9:9, 10:3.13. That <strong>the</strong> verb <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al text is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first-person s<strong>in</strong>gular and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> third-person s<strong>in</strong>gular does not bo<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> passage.14. The Hebrew word naqi can also be read as “Naqqai.”15. Read<strong>in</strong>g yehareg <strong>in</strong>stead of yaharog.16. The Hebrew is difficult here; probably also “crush<strong>in</strong>g my bones” (so <strong>the</strong>JPS translation).17. Mt. 27:39–44; Mk. 15:29–32; Lk. 23:35–37.18. A quotation from ano<strong>the</strong>r Psalm (Ps. 22:1): Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34.19. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mt. 27:19, Pilate’s wife tells him: “Have noth<strong>in</strong>g to do withthat <strong>in</strong>nocent (tō dikaiō) man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of adream about him!” The Greek word used for “<strong>in</strong>nocent” is actually dikaios—“righteous,” <strong>the</strong> Greek equivalent of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew tzaddiq, <strong>the</strong> word used toge<strong>the</strong>rwith naqi (“<strong>in</strong>nocent”) <strong>in</strong> Ex. 23:7.20. John 20:34: “But one of <strong>the</strong> soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and atonce <strong>the</strong>re came out blood and water.”
172 Notes to Chapter 821. “Their fa<strong>the</strong>rs” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hebrew text, but <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular is much more likelyhere (see also <strong>the</strong> ancient translations).22. Mt. 28:18–20; Mk. 16:15f.23. Mk. 1:10f.; Mt. 3:16f.; Lk. 3:21f.24. Mt. 16:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:35.25. In Greek: apo tou xylou, literally “from <strong>the</strong> wood.”26. Acts 13:28–30.27. Hebr. 1:5; cf. also 5:5.28. Col. 1:15f.; see also Hebr. 1:6.29. Col. 1:18.30. 1 Cor. 15:20–22; see also Rom. 8:29.31. Rom. 9:8.32. Rom. 9:25.33. John 1:29; cf. also 1 Cor. 5:7; Rev. 5:6, 9, 12; 13:8.34. Eph. 5:2.35. Rom. 3:25; cf. also 1 John 2:12.36. Hebr. 9:14.37. Hebr. 9:25f.Chapter 8<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Punishment <strong>in</strong> Hell1. Lk. 24:51: “While he blessed <strong>the</strong>m, he parted from <strong>the</strong>m” (some manuscriptsadd “and was carried up <strong>in</strong>to heaven”).2. Could this be <strong>the</strong> source of <strong>the</strong> forty days <strong>the</strong> herald announces <strong>Jesus</strong>’forthcom<strong>in</strong>g death <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> (see above)?3. Two angels.4. Acts 1:9–11.5. b Git 55b–56a. On this cycle of stories and its anti-Christian implicationssee Israel J. Yuval, “Two Nations <strong>in</strong> Your Womb”: Perceptions of Jews and Christians,Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2000, pp. 65–71 (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew).6. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Josephus (Bell. 2, 409f.), <strong>the</strong> order issued by <strong>the</strong> Temple capta<strong>in</strong>Eleazar, <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> High Priest Ananias, to suspend <strong>the</strong> daily sacrifice for<strong>the</strong> emperor was <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> decisive act of rebellion that made <strong>the</strong> war withRome <strong>in</strong>evitable. The rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, <strong>in</strong> its characteristic way, transfers <strong>the</strong>events from <strong>the</strong> level of <strong>the</strong> priests to <strong>the</strong> rabbis.
Notes to Chapter 8 1737. Which aga<strong>in</strong> is historically correct: <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>deed brought to Rome anddepicted on <strong>the</strong> arch of Titus.8. The gnat is obviously chosen because it not only is small but also, as <strong>the</strong><strong>Talmud</strong> expla<strong>in</strong>s, because it has only an entrance (to take food) but no exit (toexcrete).9. b Git 56b.10. b Git 56b–57a.11. Yeshu ha-notzri <strong>in</strong> Ms. Vatican Ebr. 130; Yeshu <strong>in</strong> Mss. Vatican 140 andMunich 95; <strong>the</strong> Sonc<strong>in</strong>o pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition leaves out ei<strong>the</strong>r one, and <strong>the</strong> standardpr<strong>in</strong>ted editions have “s<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel.”12. Cf. Zech. 2:12: “whoever touches you (pl. = Israel) touches <strong>the</strong> apple ofhis [God’s] eye.”13. Some pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions add “<strong>the</strong> idolaters.”14. So <strong>in</strong> Ms. Vatican Ebr. 130 and most of <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions; Ms. Vatican140: “R. Shim
174 Notes to Chapter 927. See above, ch. 2.28. Also, <strong>the</strong> similarity of <strong>the</strong> punishments for Balaam and <strong>Jesus</strong>/<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>nersof Israel (hot semen and hot excrement) makes it highly probable that <strong>the</strong> hotexcrementpunishment orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context of our b Gitt<strong>in</strong> story ra<strong>the</strong>r thanof b Eruv<strong>in</strong>.29. As Maier aga<strong>in</strong> takes for granted (<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 98). Quite <strong>the</strong>opposite seems to be <strong>the</strong> case if we follow <strong>the</strong> logic of <strong>the</strong> story: <strong>Jesus</strong> is <strong>the</strong> climaxat <strong>the</strong> end and as such <strong>the</strong> “s<strong>in</strong>ner of Israel” par excellence.30. Mt. 15:1–20; Mk. 7:1–23; Lk. 11:37–41.31. Mt. 15:17–20; Mk. 7:18–23.32. The credit—or <strong>the</strong> blame (depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> viewpo<strong>in</strong>t)—for this particularlybold <strong>in</strong>terpretation must be given to Israel Yuval: <strong>in</strong> this case, I still remembervividly that when we were prepar<strong>in</strong>g our sem<strong>in</strong>ar and were press<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> obviousanalogy between Balaam and <strong>Jesus</strong>, he suddenly came up with this suggestion,which has <strong>the</strong> advantage of tak<strong>in</strong>g seriously <strong>the</strong> particular punishment of <strong>Jesus</strong>.33. Mt. 26:26–28; Mk. 14:22–24; Lk. 22:19–20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–26.34. Ignatius, Letter to <strong>the</strong> community of Smyrna 7:1 (Early Christian Fa<strong>the</strong>rs,vol. 1, trans. and ed. by Cyril C. Richardson, Philadelphia: Westm<strong>in</strong>ster, 1953,p. 114). And see Just<strong>in</strong>, Apol. I:66.35. John 6:48–58.36. Yuval, Two Nations <strong>in</strong> Your Womb, p. 71, comes to a different conclusion.He sees here, put <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>Jesus</strong>, an echo of August<strong>in</strong>e’s <strong>the</strong>ologicalclaim to protect <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> Jews and to save <strong>the</strong>m for future salvation.Chapter 9<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>1. Even a scholar like Morton Smith cannot conceal his <strong>in</strong>dignation at <strong>the</strong>“pure fantasy” and “nonsense” when discuss<strong>in</strong>g some of our rabb<strong>in</strong>ic stories; see,e.g., his <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magician, p. 49.2. On <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic concept of history, see Arnold Goldberg, “Schöpfung undGeschichte. Der Midrasch von den D<strong>in</strong>gen, die vor der Welt erschaffen wurden,”Judaica 24, 1968, pp. 27–44 (repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> idem, Mystik und Theologie desrabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums. Gesammelte Studien I, ed. Margarete Schlüter and Pe-
Notes to Chapter 9 175ter Schäfer, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, pp. 148–161); Peter Schäfer, “ZurGeschichtsauffassung des rabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums,” JSJ 6, 1975, pp. 167–188(repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums,Leiden: Brill, 1978, pp. 23–44; cf. <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction, pp. 13–15, mydiscussion with Herr); Moshe D. Herr, “Tefisat ha-historyah etzel Hazal,” <strong>in</strong> Proceed<strong>in</strong>gsof <strong>the</strong> Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 3, Jerusalem: WorldUnion of Jewish Studies, 1977, pp. 129–142; Isaiah Gafni, “Concepts of Periodizationand Causality <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Literature,” Jewish History 10, 1996, pp.29–32; idem, “Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Historiography and Representations of <strong>the</strong> Past,” <strong>in</strong>Cambridge Companion to Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Literature, ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and Mart<strong>in</strong>Jaffee (forthcom<strong>in</strong>g).3. Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> puts this claim <strong>in</strong>to a much broader context <strong>in</strong> his newbook Jewish Babylonia: Between Persia and Roman Palest<strong>in</strong>e (to be published byOxford University Press): “Chapters Two [‘K<strong>in</strong>gs, Priests, and Sages’], Three[‘Jewish Sources of <strong>the</strong> Second Temple Period <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Compilations of LateAntiquity’], and Seven [‘Josephus <strong>in</strong> Sasanian Babylonia’] ...demonstrate that<strong>the</strong> rabbis’ monk-like quality did not serve to seal <strong>the</strong>m off from all contact with<strong>the</strong> outside world, s<strong>in</strong>ce ...we will f<strong>in</strong>d abundant evidence that non-rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literaturereached Babylonian rabbis and found a receptive audience <strong>the</strong>re” (manuscript,p. 12). Professor Kalm<strong>in</strong> was k<strong>in</strong>d enough to share with me several chaptersof this book <strong>in</strong> manuscript form.4. For <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic def<strong>in</strong>ition of <strong>the</strong> mamzer see m Yev 4:13; SifreDeuteronomy, 248 (ed. F<strong>in</strong>kelste<strong>in</strong>, pp. 276f.); y Yev 4:15/1–5, fol. 6b–6c; b Yev49a–b.5. Ston<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>the</strong> appropriate penalty is explicitly mentioned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case ofadultery between a betro<strong>the</strong>d virg<strong>in</strong> and a man (Deut. 22:23). The same is truefor <strong>the</strong> Mishna (Sanh 7:4): “The follow<strong>in</strong>g are stoned: ...he who commits adulterywith a betro<strong>the</strong>d virg<strong>in</strong>.”6. Meticulously listed and discussed by Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp.264–267.7. Ibid., p. 267.8. F. Nitzsch, “Ueber e<strong>in</strong>e Reihe talmudischer und patristischer Täuschungen,welche sich an den mißverstandenen Spottnamen Ben-Pandira geknüpft,”Theologische Studien und Kritiken 13, 1840, pp. 115–120. Nitzsch expla<strong>in</strong>s thisallusion to “pan<strong>the</strong>r” with <strong>the</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>r’s alleged lust and accord<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>in</strong>terprets“Yeshu ben Pandera” as “<strong>Jesus</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> whore.”
176 Notes to Chapter 99. Paulus Cassel, Apologetische Briefe I: Pan<strong>the</strong>ra-Stada-onokotes: CaricaturnamenChristi unter Juden und Heiden (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1875), repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> idem, Aus Literaturund Geschichte, Berl<strong>in</strong> and Leipzig: W. Friedrich, 1885, pp. 323–347(334f.); Laible, <strong>Jesus</strong> Christus im Thalmud, pp. 24f.; L. Patterson, “Orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong>Name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra,” Journal of Theological Studies 19, 1918, pp. 79–80; Klausner,<strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth, p. 24; Karl G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und derReim, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1950, p. 2, n. 2. Most recently Boyar<strong>in</strong>(Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, pp. 154f., n. 27) has rediscovered this explanation (wronglyattribut<strong>in</strong>g its first discovery to Cassel). All <strong>the</strong>se explanations rely on <strong>the</strong> (misguided)assumption of a philological meta<strong>the</strong>sis of “r” and “n”.10. Samuel Krauss, “The Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Works of <strong>the</strong> Church Fa<strong>the</strong>rs,” JQR 5,1892–1893, pp. 122–157; 6, 1894, pp. 225–261 (pp. 143f.: “Pandera is noth<strong>in</strong>gbut pornē, modified by phonetic <strong>in</strong>fluences. Yeshu bar Pandera would thus mean<strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> son of <strong>the</strong> prostitute”); idem, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen,p. 276 (pornos). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this <strong>in</strong>terpretation, ek par<strong>the</strong>nou (“from a virg<strong>in</strong>”)becomes ek porneias (“from fornication”).11. Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 154, n. 27.12. t AZ 6:4.13. A term that Boyar<strong>in</strong> ascribes to Shaul Lieberman.14. <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 267.15. See K<strong>in</strong>g, Gospel of Mary of Magdala, p. 153.16. Therefore, what happens to <strong>the</strong> student/<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>n is far from be<strong>in</strong>ga “tragic misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g” (Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 24).17. Just<strong>in</strong>, Dialogue, 10:1 (<strong>in</strong> St. Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, transl.Thomas B. Falls, rev. and <strong>in</strong>trod. Thomas P. Halton, ed. Michael Slusser, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton,DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003, p. 18); see also Apol.I:26: “And whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds—<strong>the</strong> upsett<strong>in</strong>gof <strong>the</strong> lamp, and promiscuous <strong>in</strong>tercourse, and eat<strong>in</strong>g human flesh—wedo not know.”18. Just<strong>in</strong>, Dialogue, 108:2 (St. Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, trans.Falls, p. 162).19. Ibid.; see also Dialogue, 17:1: “but at that time you selected and sent outfrom Jerusalem chosen men through all <strong>the</strong> land to tell that <strong>the</strong> godless heresyof <strong>the</strong> Christians had sprung up, and to publish those th<strong>in</strong>gs which all <strong>the</strong>y whoknew us not speak aga<strong>in</strong>st us.” In <strong>the</strong> third century, Origen compares his opponentCelsus (<strong>the</strong> pagan philosopher, who <strong>in</strong> 178 C.E. wrote his attack on Chris-
Notes to Chapter 9 177tianity) with “those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first preached, scatteredabroad false reports of <strong>the</strong> Gospel, such as that ‘Christians offered up an<strong>in</strong>fant <strong>in</strong> sacrifice, and partook of its flesh’; and aga<strong>in</strong>, ‘that <strong>the</strong> professors ofChristianity, wish<strong>in</strong>g to do <strong>the</strong> works of darkness, used to ext<strong>in</strong>guish <strong>the</strong> lights(<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir meet<strong>in</strong>gs), and each one to have sexual <strong>in</strong>tercourse with any womanwhom he chanced to meet’ ” (Origen, Contra Celsum, 6:27; transl. <strong>in</strong> The Ante-Nicene Fa<strong>the</strong>rs: Translations of <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs down to A.D. 325, ed. AlexanderRoberts and James Donaldson, vol. 4, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989,p. 585).20. Tertullian, Apology, 7:1 (Tertullian Apology—De spectaculis, transl. T. R.Glover, London: William He<strong>in</strong>emann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1953, pp. 36f.). Tertullian most likely reflects pagan charges aga<strong>in</strong>st Christianity.21. Ibid., 8:2–7. A very similar story is reported by <strong>the</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> apologist M<strong>in</strong>uciusFelix <strong>in</strong> his Octavius, a dialogue between a pagan and a Christian (Octavius,9:1–7, <strong>in</strong> The Octavius of Marcus M<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix, trans. Gerald H. Rendall, London:William He<strong>in</strong>emann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, pp.336–339; and cf. also Octavius, 31): “They recognize one ano<strong>the</strong>r by secret signsand marks; <strong>the</strong>y fall <strong>in</strong> love almost before <strong>the</strong>y are acqua<strong>in</strong>ted; everywhere <strong>the</strong>y<strong>in</strong>troduce a k<strong>in</strong>d of religion of lust (quaedam libid<strong>in</strong>um religio), a promiscuous‘bro<strong>the</strong>rhood’ and ‘sisterhood’ by which ord<strong>in</strong>ary fornication, under cover of ahallowed name, is converted to <strong>in</strong>cest. ... Details of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiation of neophytesare as revolt<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>the</strong>y are notorious. An <strong>in</strong>fant, cased <strong>in</strong> dough to deceive <strong>the</strong>unsuspect<strong>in</strong>g, is placed beside <strong>the</strong> person to be <strong>in</strong>itiated. The novice is <strong>the</strong>reupon<strong>in</strong>duced to <strong>in</strong>flict what seem to be harmless blows upon <strong>the</strong> dough, andun<strong>in</strong>tentionally <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant is killed by his unsuspect<strong>in</strong>g blows; <strong>the</strong> blood—oh,horrible—<strong>the</strong>y lap up greedily; <strong>the</strong> limbs <strong>the</strong>y tear to pieces eagerly; and over <strong>the</strong>victim <strong>the</strong>y make league and covenant, and by complicity <strong>in</strong> guilt pledge <strong>the</strong>mselvesto mutual silence. ... On <strong>the</strong> day appo<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>the</strong>y ga<strong>the</strong>r at a banquet withall <strong>the</strong>ir children, sisters, and mo<strong>the</strong>rs, people of ei<strong>the</strong>r sex and every age. There,after full feast<strong>in</strong>g, when <strong>the</strong> blood is heated and dr<strong>in</strong>k has <strong>in</strong>flamed <strong>the</strong> passionsof <strong>in</strong>cestuous lust, a dog which has been tied to a lamp is tempted by a morselthrown beyond <strong>the</strong> range of his te<strong>the</strong>r to bound forward with a rush. The taletell<strong>in</strong>glight is upset and ext<strong>in</strong>guished, and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> shameless dark lustful embracesare <strong>in</strong>discrim<strong>in</strong>ately exchanged; and all alike, if not <strong>in</strong> act, yet by complicity,are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>cest, as anyth<strong>in</strong>g that occurs by <strong>the</strong> act of <strong>in</strong>dividuals results
178 Notes to Chapter 9from <strong>the</strong> common <strong>in</strong>tention.” On <strong>the</strong> custom of ext<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> light, <strong>the</strong>scholars are undecided as to whe<strong>the</strong>r Tertullian precedes M<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix (<strong>in</strong> thiscase Octavius would have been written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early third century C.E.) orwhe<strong>the</strong>r vice versa M<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix predates Tertullian (<strong>in</strong> this case Octavius musthave been penned before 197 C.E.). See on this Hans Gärtner, “M<strong>in</strong>uciusFelix,” <strong>in</strong> Der Kle<strong>in</strong>e Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag,1979, col. 1342. In any case, M<strong>in</strong>ucius’ source seems to be Fronto(cf. Octavius, 9:6 and 31:2), <strong>the</strong> highly <strong>in</strong>fluential teacher of <strong>the</strong> emperor MarcusAurelius (d. after 175 C.E.).22. Elias Bickerman, “Ritualmord und Eselskult. E<strong>in</strong> Beitrag zur Geschichteantiker Publizistik,” <strong>in</strong> idem, Studies <strong>in</strong> Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2, Leiden:Brill, 1980, pp. 225–255 (orig<strong>in</strong>al publication <strong>in</strong> MGWJ 71, 1927). See alsoBurton L. Visotzky, “Overturn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Lamp,” JJS 38, 1987, pp. 72–80; idem, Fa<strong>the</strong>rsof <strong>the</strong> World, pp. 75–84.23. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2:91–96.24. In <strong>the</strong> late fourth century C.E., Epiphanius, <strong>the</strong> bishop of Salamis atCyprus, accuses <strong>the</strong> Christian sect of <strong>the</strong> Nicolaitans of fornicat<strong>in</strong>g with eacho<strong>the</strong>r and of eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir semen and <strong>the</strong>ir blood of menstruation (Panarion 26:4f.<strong>in</strong> The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, book 1, sects 1–46, trans. FrankWilliams, Leiden: Brill, 1987, pp. 85–87.). This sect is already mentioned by Irenaeus<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> second century C.E. as practic<strong>in</strong>g adultery andeat<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong>gs sacrificed to idols (Adversus Haereses 1, 26:3, <strong>in</strong> St. Irenaeus ofLyons aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Heresies, trans. and annot. Dom<strong>in</strong>ic J. Unger, rev. John J. Dillon,New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992, pp. 90f.).25. The Christian philosopher Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 C.E.)accuses <strong>the</strong> sect of <strong>the</strong> Carpocratians of ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g toge<strong>the</strong>r for sexual orgies, andironically adds: “I would not call <strong>the</strong>ir meet<strong>in</strong>g an Agape” (Stromata 3,2:10–16).26. Just<strong>in</strong>, Dialogue, 108:2 (St. Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, trans.Falls, p. 162). See also Tertullian, De spectaculis, 30 (below, p. 112).27. Jer. 2:13.28. Just<strong>in</strong>, Dialogue, 69:6f. (St. Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, trans.Falls, pp. 108f.). For <strong>the</strong> view of <strong>Jesus</strong> as magician and seducer see Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel,The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, New York: Crossroad, 1981,p. 41, n. 14.29. Mt. 28:13–15.
Notes to Chapter 9 17930. Just<strong>in</strong>, Apol. I:30 (Sa<strong>in</strong>t Just<strong>in</strong>: Apologies, ed. André Wartelle, Paris:Études August<strong>in</strong>iennes, 1987, pp. 136f.); English translation: Early Christian Fa<strong>the</strong>rs,transl. and ed. Cyril C. Richardson, Philadelphia: Westm<strong>in</strong>ster, 1953,p. 260.31. Pace Maier (<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 250), who tries to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between“deception” and “temptation <strong>in</strong>to idolatry”—aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> order to separate <strong>the</strong> paganfrom <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources.32. See, e.g., Deut. 18:9–14.33. Prom<strong>in</strong>ent examples are stories of <strong>the</strong> ten plagues (Ex. 7–12), <strong>the</strong> “brazenserpent” (Num. 21:6–9), or <strong>the</strong> so-called ordeal of jealousy (Num. 5:11–31).34. The rabbis practically dist<strong>in</strong>guished between mere delusion (>ahizatAhizat
180 Notes to Chapter 9<strong>the</strong> latter all agree that such a person must be executed. Hence, it is not just <strong>the</strong>declaration but <strong>the</strong> successful seduction <strong>in</strong>to idolatry that matters.42. m Sanh 7:5.43. Mk. 14:61–64; Lk. 22:67–71; John 19:7.44. y Taan 2:1/24, fol. 65b. A late and much more developed version of thismidrash can be found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Saloniki 1521–1527 edition of <strong>the</strong> collection calledYalqut Shimoni, § 765 (end); see Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 87f. (who aga<strong>in</strong>expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>Jesus</strong> away).45. This latter part is an abbreviated version of Num. 23:19.46. This last l<strong>in</strong>k of <strong>the</strong> cha<strong>in</strong> is ra<strong>the</strong>r loose; <strong>in</strong> particular, <strong>the</strong> promise toascend to heaven has no equivalent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible verse.47. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, pp. 76–82.48. Maier (ibid., p. 79) refers to <strong>the</strong> parallel with <strong>the</strong> biblical Adam: likeAdam, who ultimately was driven out of Paradise (and regretted his hubris),Hiram was ousted from his power (and regretted his hubris). This does not makemuch sense <strong>in</strong> our context.49. In <strong>the</strong> first part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation, <strong>the</strong> emphasis is placed, not on Godnot be<strong>in</strong>g a man/Son of Man, but on God not be<strong>in</strong>g a man who lies/a Son ofMan who repents.50. More precisely: it appears, except for Acts 7:56 (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mouth ofStephen), only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gospels and only <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>Jesus</strong>. On <strong>the</strong> “historicity”of <strong>the</strong> title see Geza Vermes, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jew: A Historian’s Read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981, pp. 177–186.51. See Ephraim E. Urbach, “Homilies of <strong>the</strong> Rabbis on <strong>the</strong> Prophets of <strong>the</strong>Nations and <strong>the</strong> Balaam Stories,” Tarbiz 25, 1955/56, pp. 286f.52. Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 80.53. PesR 21, ed. Friedmann, fol. 100b–101a. The attribution to R. Hiyya barAbba is <strong>the</strong> reason why I <strong>in</strong>clude this midrash <strong>in</strong> my discussion, despite <strong>the</strong> (relatively)late date of <strong>the</strong> Pesiqta Rabbati compilation.54. In <strong>the</strong> plural.55. In <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular.56. The standard prooftext for this is Mekhilta, Yitro 5, ed. Horovitz-Rab<strong>in</strong>,pp. 219f. (with many parallels).57. The classical prooftext is BerR 1:7, ed. Theodor-Albeck, I, p. 4 (aga<strong>in</strong>with many parallels).
Notes to Chapter 9 18158. As has been argued, quite stereotypically, aga<strong>in</strong> by Maier (<strong>Jesus</strong> vonNazareth, pp. 244–247).59. Ibid., p. 246.60. Ibid., p. 245.61. Lucian, Death of Peregr<strong>in</strong>us, 13 (Selected Satires of Lucian, ed. and trans.Lionel Casson, New York and London: Norton, 1962, p. 369).62. See The Dead Comes to Life, 19 (Lucian, vol. 3, trans. A. M. Harmon,Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1921; repr<strong>in</strong>t, 2004,pp. 30f.); The Double Indictment, 25 (ibid., pp. 134f.), 27 (pp. 136f.).63. Tertullian, De spectaculis, 30 (Tertullian Apology—De spectaculis, transl.Glover, pp. 298f.). On this passage, see Horbury, Jews and Christians, pp. 176–179.64. Son of a carpenter: Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3; son of a prostitute: see above, ch.1; Sabbath breaker: Mt. 12:1–14; Mk. 2:23–3:6; Lk. 6:1–11; demon-possessed:Mt. 9:34, 10:25, 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:14–23; John 8:48 (demon-possessedSamaritan), 10:20; purchased from Judas: Mt. 26:14f.; Mk. 14:10f.; Lk. 22:3–6;struck with reed and fist: Mt. 27:30; Mk. 15:19; John 19:3; spat upon: Mt. 27:30;Mk. 15:19; given gall and v<strong>in</strong>egar to dr<strong>in</strong>k: Mt. 27:34; Mk. 15:23; John 19:29(v<strong>in</strong>egar only <strong>in</strong> John); secretly stolen away by his disciples: Mt. 27:64; 28:12–15;<strong>the</strong> gardener: John 20:15 (only <strong>in</strong> John).65. Acts 8:9–13 (see above, p. 105); see also John 8:48.66. This motif comes back forcefully <strong>in</strong> Toledot Yeshu, as does <strong>the</strong> motif of <strong>Jesus</strong>’birth from a whore.67. Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God, p. 27.68. Richard Kalm<strong>in</strong> (“Christians and Heretics,” pp. 160ff.) also emphasizes<strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> earlier (Palest<strong>in</strong>ian) and later (ma<strong>in</strong>ly Babylonian,but also some Palest<strong>in</strong>ian) sources. In addition to <strong>the</strong> possibility of different historicalattitudes (earlier sources are receptive to Christianity’s attractiveness, latersources are much more critical) he br<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to play chang<strong>in</strong>g rabb<strong>in</strong>ic rhetoricalattitudes (p. 163) and, <strong>in</strong> particular, a “tendency of <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong> to <strong>in</strong>cludematerial excluded from Palest<strong>in</strong>ian compilations” (p. 167). This thought isdeveloped much fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> his new book, Jewish Babylonia: Between Persia andRoman Palest<strong>in</strong>e (<strong>in</strong> press).69. The major proponent is Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palest<strong>in</strong>e: A PoliticalHistory from <strong>the</strong> Bar Kokhba War to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquest, New York:Schocken, 1976, pp. 158ff., 208ff.
182 Notes to Chapter 970. Geo Widengren, Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965, pp.274ff.; Jes Asmussen, “Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran,” The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3(2): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 933; Richard N. Frye, The Historyof Ancient Iran, Munich: Beck, 1984, p. 301.71. See <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> careful analysis by Josef Wiesehöfer, AncientPersia from 550 BC to 650 AD, London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 1996,pp. 199ff.72. Ahura Mazda, <strong>the</strong> “good god.”73. The “evil god,” Ahura Mazda’s opponent.74. English translation by Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia, p. 199.75. On <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> “Nazarenes” (presumably native PersianChristians) and <strong>the</strong> “Christians” (presumably deported Christians of western orig<strong>in</strong>)see Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Aspects of Greek Words <strong>in</strong> Syriac,” <strong>in</strong> idem,Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London: Variorum, 1984, pp. 91–95;Asmussen, “Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran,” pp. 929f.76. On <strong>the</strong> status of <strong>the</strong> Jews under <strong>the</strong> Sasanians see <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> classicalarticle by Geo Widengren, “The Status of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sassanian Empire,”<strong>in</strong> Irania Antiqua, vol. 1, ed. R. Ghirshman and L. Vanden Berghe, Leiden:Brill, 1961, pp. 117–162; and Jacob Neusner, A History of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> Babylonia,vols. 1–5, Leiden: Brill, 1967–1970. More recent and more specific are IsaiahM. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Era: A Social and CulturalHistory, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1990 (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew);Robert Brody, “Judaism <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> ReligiousCoexistence,” <strong>in</strong> Irano-Judaica II: Studies Relat<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish Contacts withPersian Culture throughout <strong>the</strong> Ages, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer,Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1990, pp. 52–62; Shaul Shaked, “ZoroastrianPolemics aga<strong>in</strong>st Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian and Early Islamic Period,” <strong>in</strong> Irano-JudaicaII, ed. Shaked and Netzer, pp. 85–104.77. See Asmussen, “Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran,” pp. 933ff.; Sebastian P. Brock,“Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties,” <strong>in</strong> Religionand National Identity: Papers Read at <strong>the</strong> N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Summer Meet<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong>Twentieth W<strong>in</strong>ter Meet<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. Stuart Mews,Oxford: Blackwell, 1982, pp. 5ff.78. Spr<strong>in</strong>g or early summer of 337: Timothy D. Barnes, “Constant<strong>in</strong>e and<strong>the</strong> Christians of Persia,” JRS 75, 1985, p. 130.
Notes to Chapter 9 18379. Aphrahat, Demonstration V:1, 24, <strong>in</strong> Patrologia Syriaca I:1, ed. J. Parisot,Paris: Firm<strong>in</strong>-Didot, 1894, cols. 183–184 and 233–234.80. Barnes, <strong>in</strong> his conclud<strong>in</strong>g statement (“Constant<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> Christians ofPersia,” p. 136), puts <strong>the</strong> thrust of <strong>the</strong> blame on Constant<strong>in</strong>e: “It was Constant<strong>in</strong>ewho <strong>in</strong>jected a religious dimension <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> normal frontier dispute, by seek<strong>in</strong>gto appeal to Shapur’s Christian subjects <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same sort of way <strong>in</strong> which he hadappealed to <strong>the</strong> Christian subjects of Maxentius <strong>in</strong> 312 and of Lic<strong>in</strong>ius <strong>in</strong> 324.Aphrahat’s fifth Demonstration illustrates what response he found.”81. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, vol. 1–7, ed. Paul Bedjan, Paris andLeipzig: Harrassowitz, 1890–1897; selected pieces <strong>in</strong> German translation byOskar Braun, Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer. Mit e<strong>in</strong>em Anhang: OstsyrischesMönchsleben, aus dem Syrischen übersetzt, Kempten and Munich:Kösel, 1915.82. See Gernot Wiessner, Untersuchungen zur syrischen Literaturgeschichte I:Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II, Gött<strong>in</strong>gen:Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1967; and <strong>the</strong> learned review by Sebastian Brock <strong>in</strong>Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 19, 1968, pp. 300–309. Regardless of <strong>the</strong> historicityof <strong>the</strong> Acts, <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt that <strong>the</strong> Acts reflects a cultural climateto which <strong>the</strong> Jews respond.83. AMS II, p. 142; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 13; English translation <strong>in</strong>Brock, “Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire,” p. 8.84. AMS II, p. 143; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 14.85. See also The Chronicle of Arbela, 54:2–3 (Kawerau), quoted <strong>in</strong> Wiesehöfer,Ancient Persia, p. 202: “And <strong>the</strong>y [<strong>the</strong> Jews and <strong>the</strong> Manichaeans] expla<strong>in</strong>edto <strong>the</strong>m [<strong>the</strong> magi] that <strong>the</strong> Christians were all of <strong>the</strong>m spies of <strong>the</strong>Romans. And that noth<strong>in</strong>g happens <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom that <strong>the</strong>y do not write to <strong>the</strong>irbro<strong>the</strong>rs who live <strong>the</strong>re.” Naomi Koltun-Fromm (“A Jewish-Christian Conversation<strong>in</strong> Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” JJS 47, 1996, pp. 45–63) suggestsdist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between <strong>the</strong> Jewish <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> physical persecution of <strong>the</strong>Christians (which is unlikely) and some k<strong>in</strong>d of spiritual “persecution” by seek<strong>in</strong>gconverts from <strong>the</strong> Christian community or underm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir beliefs (p. 50).86. See Asmussen, “Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran,” pp. 937f.; idem, “Das Christentum <strong>in</strong>Iran und se<strong>in</strong> Verhältnis zum Zoroastrismus,” Studia Theologica 16, 1962,pp. 11ff.87. Dated 339 C.E., i.e., before <strong>the</strong> official beg<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> persecution (Braun,Ausgewählte Akten, p. xvii).
184 Notes to Chapter 988. AMS II, p. 52; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 1.89. See <strong>the</strong> apt summary <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of <strong>the</strong> bishop Akebshema: AMSII, p. 361; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 116.90. A good example is Martha, <strong>the</strong> daughter of Pusai (who was martyred beforeher), whom <strong>the</strong> judge strongly urges: “You are a young girl, and a very prettyone at that. Go and f<strong>in</strong>d a husband, get married and have children; do not holdon to <strong>the</strong> disgust<strong>in</strong>g pretext of <strong>the</strong> covenant [<strong>the</strong> vow of virg<strong>in</strong>ity]!” (AMS II, pp.236f.; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 78f.).91. Quotation <strong>in</strong> Asmussen, “Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran,” p. 939 with n. 4; see also Asmussen,“Das Christentum <strong>in</strong> Iran,” pp. 15f. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore <strong>the</strong> quotation <strong>in</strong> IanGillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians <strong>in</strong> Asia before 1500, Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1999, p. 115: “The Christians also profess ano<strong>the</strong>rerror. They say that God, who created heaven and earth, was born of a virg<strong>in</strong>named Mary, whose husband was called Joseph.”92. Asmussen, Christians <strong>in</strong> Iran, p. 937.93. AMS II, p. 191; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 45; AMS II, p. 206; Braun,Ausgewählte Akten, p. 56 (<strong>the</strong> former refers to <strong>the</strong> sentence on <strong>the</strong> sixth hour ofFriday, <strong>the</strong> latter to <strong>the</strong> execution on <strong>the</strong> n<strong>in</strong>th hour).94. AMS II, p. 177; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 36.95. AMS II, p. 557; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, pp. 162 (a Friday <strong>in</strong> November),184 (a Friday <strong>in</strong> August), 219.96. Mt. 27:62–66. John has <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g detail that Mary believes that <strong>the</strong>gardener might secretly have taken away <strong>Jesus</strong>’ body (John 20:15).97. AMS II, p. 56; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 4.98. AMS II, p. 374; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 125.99. AMS II, pp. 390f.; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 136. I thank AdamBecker for help<strong>in</strong>g me clarify this passage.100. Paul Bedjan, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’unprêtre et de deux laiques nestoriens, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1895, pp. 551f.;Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 271.101. See also AMS II, p. 206; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 56; AMS II, p.557; Braun, Ausgewählte Akten, p. 162; and AMS IV, p. 198; Braun, AusgewählteAkten, pp. 176f.102. This is not to say that <strong>the</strong> relationship between Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Persian Empire was exclusively antagonistic; on <strong>the</strong> contrary. On <strong>the</strong>
Notes to Chapter 9 185shared cultural space, <strong>in</strong> particular with regard to <strong>the</strong> “scholastic culture,” seeAdam H. Becker, “Br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Heavenly Academy Down to Earth: Approachesto <strong>the</strong> Imagery of Div<strong>in</strong>e Pedagogy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> East Syrian Tradition,” <strong>in</strong> HeavenlyRealms and Earthly Realities <strong>in</strong> Late Antique Religions, ed. Ra
186 Notes to Chapter 96, 1980, pp. 189–196; William L. Petersen, “Tatian,” <strong>in</strong> TRE 32, 2001, pp.655–659.105. See Ernst Bammel, “Ex illa itaque die consilium fecerunt ...,” <strong>in</strong> idem,The Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong>, p. 17. On Tatian’s harmoniz<strong>in</strong>g strategy <strong>in</strong> general, see HelmutMerkel, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. Ihre polemische und apologetischeBehandlung <strong>in</strong> der Alten Kirche bis zu August<strong>in</strong>, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr(Paul Siebeck), 1971, pp. 71–91; William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: ItsCreation, Dissem<strong>in</strong>ation, Significance, and History <strong>in</strong> Scholarship, Leiden andNew York: Brill, 1994.106. See <strong>the</strong> list <strong>in</strong> Wünsch, “Evangelienharmonie,” p. 628. A translation of<strong>the</strong> Arabic version by Hope W. Hogg can be found <strong>in</strong> The Ante-Nicene Fa<strong>the</strong>rs:Translations of <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs down to A.D. 325, 5th ed., vol. 10, ed. Allan Menzies;repr<strong>in</strong>t, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990, pp.43–129.107. The references listed here refer only to allusions to <strong>the</strong> New Testamentdirectly relat<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Jesus</strong>; it goes without say<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong>y do not exhaust allusionsto <strong>the</strong> New Testament <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature <strong>in</strong> general and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavli <strong>in</strong>particular. It is strik<strong>in</strong>g, however, that <strong>the</strong>y too seem to be more prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Bavli (<strong>the</strong> most conspicuous example is <strong>the</strong> reference to Mt. 5:14–17 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> storyof Imma Shalom, Rabban Gamliel, and <strong>the</strong> pagan philosopher <strong>in</strong> b Shabb116a–b; see on this Visotzky, Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> World, pp. 81–83).108. However, Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel rem<strong>in</strong>ds me that we should not forget <strong>the</strong> possibilityof a Hebrew or Aramaic Jewish-Christian Gospel, “ak<strong>in</strong> to <strong>the</strong> later GreekMat<strong>the</strong>w”: see his The Four Gospels and <strong>the</strong> One Gospel of <strong>Jesus</strong> Christ: An Investigationof <strong>the</strong> Collection and Orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Canonical Gospels, London: SCM,2000, pp. 73–76.109. See <strong>the</strong> broad discussion <strong>in</strong> Mart<strong>in</strong> Hengel, Die Johanneische Frage. E<strong>in</strong>Lösungsversuch, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993, pp. 219ff.;Charles E. Hill, The Johann<strong>in</strong>e Corpus <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Early Church, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2004. An extremely early date (68/69 C.E.) has been advocated, notconv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly, by Klaus Berger, Im Anfang war Johannes. Datierung und Theologiedes vierten Evangeliums, Stuttgart: Quell, 1997.110. See also 3:35f.111. See also 6:27.112. Rev. 2:9; 3:9.113. John 9:22, 34; 12:42; 16:2.
Notes to Appendix 187114. John 10:30: “<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r and I are one.” This, no doubt, was <strong>the</strong> bone ofcontention for <strong>the</strong> Jews. Only John mentions <strong>the</strong> attempt of <strong>the</strong> Jews to stone<strong>Jesus</strong> (8:59).115. It goes without say<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> Diatessaron, as far as it can be reconstructedfrom <strong>the</strong> quotations and translations, conta<strong>in</strong>s all <strong>the</strong> major elements socharacteristic for John. On a possible aff<strong>in</strong>ity of <strong>the</strong> Toledot Yeshu to <strong>the</strong> Gospelof John see Bammel, The Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong>, pp. 36f. (with relevant literature).AppendixBavli Manuscripts and Censorship1. Available by subscription only. On <strong>the</strong> transmission history of talmudicmanuscripts, see <strong>the</strong> recent summariz<strong>in</strong>g article by Shamma Friedman, “FromS<strong>in</strong>ai to Cyberspace: <strong>the</strong> Transmission of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> <strong>in</strong> Every Age,” <strong>in</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>: From Bomberg to Schottenste<strong>in</strong>, ed. Sharon Liberman M<strong>in</strong>tz andGabriel M. Goldste<strong>in</strong>, [New York:] Yeshiva University Museum, 2005, pp.143–154.2. The Onl<strong>in</strong>e Treasury of <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Manuscripts site is found athttp://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud.3. Without attempt<strong>in</strong>g completeness, <strong>the</strong> manuscripts listed below give a fairpicture of <strong>the</strong> textual evidence. In addition, I have used Raphael Rabb<strong>in</strong>ovicz,Diqduqe Soferim: Variae Lectiones <strong>in</strong> Mischnam et <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> Babylonicum,vols.1–15, Munich: A. Huber, 1868–1897; vol. 16, Przemysl: Zupnik, Knollerand Wolf, 1897 (repr<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> 12 vols., Jerusalem, 2001/02).4. The only complete manuscript of <strong>the</strong> Bavli (only a few pages aremiss<strong>in</strong>g).5. The rest of <strong>the</strong> passage is not legible.6. Added.7. A scribe corrects ba
188 Notes to Appendix13. Editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps Venice; <strong>the</strong> name is deleted <strong>in</strong> Ms. Leiden, and <strong>the</strong> secondglossator added “<strong>Jesus</strong> Pantera.”14. The references accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 299, n. 358.15. No name.16. Same.17. Same.18. Same.19. Editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps Venice; <strong>the</strong> name is deleted <strong>in</strong> Ms. Leiden, and <strong>the</strong> secondglossator added “<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> son of Pandera.”20. Editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps Venice; <strong>the</strong> name is deleted <strong>in</strong> Ms. Leiden, and <strong>the</strong> secondglossator added “of <strong>Jesus</strong> Pantera.”21. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maier, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 301, n. 372, this is identical <strong>in</strong>all manuscripts and pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions of QohR (with <strong>the</strong> exception of <strong>the</strong> Vilnaedition which aga<strong>in</strong> leaves an empty space for <strong>the</strong> name).22. Later addition that is not legible.23. Same.24. Same.25. Same.26. Same.27. No name mentioned.28. With <strong>the</strong> exception of QohR 10:5: just “son of Pandera.”29. With <strong>the</strong> exception of New York 15.30. In Ms. Firenze, just “<strong>Jesus</strong>.”31. Maier makes this claim over and over aga<strong>in</strong>; see his <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth,pp. 13, 16, 63, 98, 110, 127, 165, 173.32. Particularly reveal<strong>in</strong>g is Maier’s discussion of R. Yehoshua b. Perahya’s attemptto push <strong>Jesus</strong> away (chapter 3). He quotes here a very similar story fromAvraham b. Azriel’s Arugat ha-Bosem, written around 1234 (i.e., before <strong>the</strong> implementationof Christian censorship <strong>in</strong> 1263), accord<strong>in</strong>g to which R. Aqivapushes <strong>Jesus</strong> away with both his hands. Avraham b. Azriel’s version is obviously aconflation of <strong>the</strong> two Bavli stories <strong>in</strong> Berakhot 17b (my chapter 2) and <strong>in</strong> Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>107b/Sot 47a (my chapter 3), but crucial is <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Jesus</strong> is clearlymentioned. Instead of conclud<strong>in</strong>g that pre-censorship references to our Bavlistory do conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong>, and that <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore seems to be an <strong>in</strong>tegral part ofthis story, Maier resorts to <strong>the</strong> convoluted sentence: “this quotation demonstrateshow little we have actually ga<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> ‘uncensored’ text because <strong>the</strong> earlier
Notes to Appendix 189history of <strong>the</strong> text is crucial” (<strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth, p. 110). This is a breathtak<strong>in</strong>gsomersault: he does have even an extra-talmudic proof for a talmudic <strong>Jesus</strong> storybut conjures up <strong>the</strong> chimera of <strong>the</strong> “earlier history of <strong>the</strong> text” (which he doesnot have but claims to be void of any reliable <strong>Jesus</strong> evidence). Not to mention<strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> available Bavli manuscripts all mention “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nazarene” (orhave <strong>the</strong> name erased), <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pre-1263 Firenze manuscript.
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
BibliographyAland, Barbara, “Bibelübersetzungen I:4.2: Neues Testament,” TRE 6, 1980, pp.189–196.Alexander, Philip S., “The Historical Sett<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS28, 1977, pp. 156–180.———, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of ) Enoch,” <strong>in</strong> OTP, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literatureand Testaments, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, pp. 223–315.———, “The <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Concept of Conjur<strong>in</strong>g (>Ahizat
192 BibliographyRealms and Earthly Realities <strong>in</strong> Late Antique Religions, ed. Ra>anan S. Boustanand Anette Yoshiko Reed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.174–191.———, The Fear of God and <strong>the</strong> Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis andChristian Scholastic Culture <strong>in</strong> Late Antique Mesopotamia, Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 2006.Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Introduction,” <strong>in</strong> The Ways thatNever Parted: Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong> Late Antiquity and <strong>the</strong> Early Middle Ages,ed. A.H. Becker and A. Yoshiko Reed, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),2003, pp. 1–33.Becker, Hans-Jürgen, Auf der Ka<strong>the</strong>dra des Mose. Rabb<strong>in</strong>isch-<strong>the</strong>ologischesDenken und antirabb<strong>in</strong>ische Polemik <strong>in</strong> Matthäus 23,1–12, Berl<strong>in</strong>: InstitutKirche und Judentum, 1990.Bedjan, Paul, ed., Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, vols. 1–7, Paris and Leipzig: Harrassowitz,1890–1897.———, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deuxlaiques nestoriens, Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1895.Berger, Klaus, Im Anfang war Johannes. Datierung und Theologie des viertenEvangeliums, Stuttgart: Quell, 1997.Berkowitz, Beth A., Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse <strong>in</strong> EarlyRabb<strong>in</strong>ic and Christian Cultures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.Betz, Hans Dieter, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri <strong>in</strong> Translation: Includ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>Demotic Spells, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1986.Beyschlag, Karlmann, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Mohr(Siebeck), 1974.Bickerman, Elias, “Ritualmord und Eselskult. E<strong>in</strong> Beitrag zur Geschichte antikerPublizistik,” <strong>in</strong> idem, Studies <strong>in</strong> Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2, Leiden:Brill, 1980, pp. 225–255 (orig<strong>in</strong>al publication <strong>in</strong> MGWJ 71, 1927).Billerbeck, Paul, “Altjüdische Religionsgespräche,” Nathanael 25, 1909, pp.13–30, 33–50, 66–80.Boyar<strong>in</strong>, Daniel, “Qeriah metuqqenet shel ha-qeta< he-hadash shel ‘ToledotYeshu,’ ” Tarbiz 47, 1978, pp. 249–252.———, Dy<strong>in</strong>g for God: Martyrdom and <strong>the</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g of Christianity and Judaism,Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.Braun, Oskar, Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer. Mit e<strong>in</strong>em Anhang: OstsyrischesMönchsleben (aus dem Syrischen übersetzt), Kempten and Munich:Kösel, 1915.
Bibliography 193Brock, Sebastian P., review of Gernot Wiessner, Untersuchungen zur syrischenLiteraturgeschichte I, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 19, 1968, pp. 300–309.———, “Christians <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties,” <strong>in</strong> Religionand National Identity: Papers Read at <strong>the</strong> N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Summer Meet<strong>in</strong>gand <strong>the</strong> Twentieth W<strong>in</strong>ter Meet<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. StuartMews, Oxford: Blackwell, 1982, pp. 1–19.———, “Some Aspects of Greek Words <strong>in</strong> Syriac,” <strong>in</strong> idem, Syriac Perspectives onLate Antiquity, London: Variorum, 1984, pp. 80–108.Brody, Robert, “Judaism <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian Empire: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> ReligiousCoexistence,” <strong>in</strong> Irano-Judaica II: Studies Relat<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish Contacts with PersianCulture throughout <strong>the</strong> Ages, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer,Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1990, pp. 52–62.Brown, Dan, The Da V<strong>in</strong>ci Code, New York: Doubleday, 2003.Brown, Raymond E., The Death of <strong>the</strong> Messiah: From Gethsemane to <strong>the</strong> Grave;A Commentary on <strong>the</strong> Passion Narratives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Four Gospels, New York: Doubleday,1994.Cassel, Paulus, Apologetische Briefe I: Pan<strong>the</strong>ra-Stada-onokotes: CaricaturnamenChristi unter Juden und Heiden, Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1875 (repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> idem, Aus Literaturund Geschichte, Berl<strong>in</strong> and W. Friedrich, Leipzig: 1885).Casson, Lionel, ed. and trans., Selected Satires of Lucian, New York and London:Norton, 1962.Chadwick, Henry, trans., Origen, Contra Celsum, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1953.Cohn, Haim, The Trial and Death of <strong>Jesus</strong>, New York: Harper and Row, 1971.Cohn, Haim Hermann, and Louis Isaac Rab<strong>in</strong>owitz, “Capital Punishment,” <strong>in</strong>EJ, vol. 5, Jerusalem: Keter, 1971, cols. 142–147.Cook, John Granger, The Interpretation of <strong>the</strong> Old Testament <strong>in</strong> Greco-Roman Paganism,Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.Deissmann, Adolf, “Der Name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra,” Orientalische Studien Th. Nöldekezum Siebzigsten Geburtstag, vol. 2, Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1906, pp. 871–875.———, Licht vom Osten, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1923.Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas, Entdecktes Judenthum, oder Gründlicher undWahrhaffter Bericht, welchergestalt die verstockte Juden die Hochheilige Drey-E<strong>in</strong>igkeit, Gott Vater, Sohn und Heil. Geist, erschrecklicher Weise lästern undverunehren, die Heil. Mutter Christi verschmähen, das Neue Testament, die
194 BibliographyEvangelisten und Aposteln, die christliche Religion spöttisch durchziehen, unddie ganze Christenheit auff das äusserste verachten und verfluchen [ . . . ], Frankfurtam Ma<strong>in</strong>, 1700.Falk, Ze>ev, “Qeta< hadash mi-‘Toledot Yeshu,’ ” Tarbiz 46, 1978, pp. 319–322.Flusser, David, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Hamburg: Rowohlt,1968.———, “<strong>Jesus</strong>,” <strong>in</strong>: EJ, vol. 10, Jerusalem: Keter, 1971, cols. 10–14.Freudenberger, Rudolf, “Die delatio nom<strong>in</strong>is causa gegen Rabbi Elieser benHyrkanos,” Revue <strong>in</strong>ternationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3rd ser., 15, 1968, pp.11–19.Friedman, Shamma, “From S<strong>in</strong>ai to Cyberspace: The Transmission of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong><strong>in</strong> Every Age,” <strong>in</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>: From Bomberg to Schottenste<strong>in</strong>, ed.Sharon Liberman M<strong>in</strong>tz and Gabriel M. Goldste<strong>in</strong>, [New York:] Yeshiva UniversityMuseum, 2005, pp. 143–154.Frye, Richard N., The History of Ancient Iran, Munich: Beck, 1984.Gafni, Isaiah M., The Jews of Babylonia <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Era: A Social and CulturalHistory, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1990 (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew).———, “Concepts of Periodization and Causality <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Literature,” JewishHistory 10, 1996, pp. 21–38.———, “Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Historiography and Representations of <strong>the</strong> Past,” <strong>in</strong> CambridgeCompanion to Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Literature, ed. C. Fonrobert and M. Jaffee (forthcom<strong>in</strong>g).Gaisford, Thomas, ed., Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Caesariensis Eclogae Propheticae,Oxford, 1842.Gansch<strong>in</strong>ietz, R., “Iao,” <strong>in</strong> Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,Neue Bearbeitung, begonnen von Georg Wissowa, ...hrsg. v.Wilhelm Kroll, Siebzehnter Halbband, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1914, cols.698–721.Gärtner, Hans, “M<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix,” <strong>in</strong> Der Kle<strong>in</strong>e Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, Munich:Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, 1979, cols. 1341–1343.Gero, Stephen, “The Stern Master and His Wayward Disciple: A ‘<strong>Jesus</strong>’ Story <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and <strong>in</strong> Christian Hagiography,” JSJ 25, 1994, pp. 287–311.Gillman, Ian, and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians <strong>in</strong> Asia before 1500, AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Bibliography 195G<strong>in</strong>zberg, Louis, G<strong>in</strong>ze Schechter: Genizah Studies <strong>in</strong> Memory of DoctorSolomon Schechter, vol. 1: Midrash and Haggadah, New York: Jewish TheologicalSem<strong>in</strong>ary of America, 1928 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Hermon, 1969).Glover, T. R., ed. and trans., Tertullian Apology—De spectaculis, London:William He<strong>in</strong>emann: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.Goldberg, Arnold, “Schöpfung und Geschichte. Der Midrasch von den D<strong>in</strong>gen,die vor der Welt erschaffen wurden,” Judaica 24, 1968, pp. 27–44 (repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong>idem, Mystik und Theologie des rabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums. Gesammelte StudienI, ed. Margarete Schlüter and Peter Schäfer, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: Mohr Siebeck 1997,pp. 148–161).Goldste<strong>in</strong>, Morris, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish Tradition, New York: Macmillan, 1950.Güdemann, Moritz, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, Leipzig: Oskar Le<strong>in</strong>er,1876.Guttmann, Alexander, “The Significance of Miracles for <strong>Talmud</strong>ic Judaism,”HUCA 20, 1947, pp. 363–406.———, Studies <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Judaism, New York: Ktav, 1976.Haeckel, Ernst, Die Welträthsel. Geme<strong>in</strong>verständliche Studien über MonistischePhilosophie, Bonn: Emil Strauß, 9th ed., 1899.Haenle, S., Geschichte der Juden im ehemaligen Fürstentum Ansbach. VollständigerNachdruck der Ausgabe von 1867 bearbeitet und mit e<strong>in</strong>em Schlagwortregisterversehen von Hermann Süß, Ha<strong>in</strong>sfar<strong>the</strong>r Buchhandlung, 1990(Bayerische Jüdische Schriften, 1).Harmon, A. M., ed. and trans., Lucian, vol. 3, Cambridge, MA, and London:Harvard University Press, 1921 (repr<strong>in</strong>t 2004).Hartmann, Anton Theodor, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger und se<strong>in</strong>e jüdischenGegner, <strong>in</strong> geschichtlich literarischen Erörterungen kritisch beleuchtet, Parchim:Verlag der D. E. H<strong>in</strong>storffschen Buchhandlung, 1834.Hengel, Mart<strong>in</strong>, Crucifixion <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ancient World and <strong>the</strong> Folly of <strong>the</strong> Message of<strong>the</strong> Cross, London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.———, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, New York: Crossroad, 1981.———, Die Johanneische Frage. E<strong>in</strong> Lösungsversuch, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr(Paul Siebeck), 1993.———, Studies <strong>in</strong> Early Christology, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&T Clark, 1995.———, The Four Gospels and <strong>the</strong> One Gospel of <strong>Jesus</strong> Christ: An Investigation of<strong>the</strong> Collection and Orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Canonical Gospels, London: SCM, 2000.
196 BibliographyHerford, Travers, Christianity <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> and Midrash, London: Williams & Norgate,1903 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Ktav, 1975).Herr, Moshe David, “The Historical Significance of <strong>the</strong> Dialogues between JewishSages and Roman Dignitaries,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22, 1971, pp. 123–150.———, “Tefisat ha-historyah etzel Hazal,” <strong>in</strong> Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> Sixth World Congressof Jewish Studies, vol. 3, Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977,pp. 129–142.Hill, Charles E., The Johann<strong>in</strong>e Corpus <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Early Church, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2004.Horbury, William, “The Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Jewish Tradition,” <strong>in</strong> The Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong>:Cambridge Studies <strong>in</strong> Honour of C.F.D. Moule, ed. Ernst Bammel, London:SCM, 1970, pp. 103–121.———, Jews and Christians <strong>in</strong> Contact and Controversy, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&T Clark,1998.Hruby, Kurt, Die Stellung der jüdischen Gesetzeslehrer zur werdenden Kirche,Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971.Isenberg, Wesley W., “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3),” <strong>in</strong> The Nag Hammadi Library<strong>in</strong> English, ed. James M. Rob<strong>in</strong>son, San Francisco: Harper, 1990, pp. 139–160.Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of <strong>the</strong> Targumim, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> Babli andYerushalmi, and <strong>the</strong> Midrashic Literature, New York: Pardes, 1950.Kalm<strong>in</strong>, Richard, “Christians and Heretics <strong>in</strong> Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Literature of Late Antiquity,”HTR 87, 1994, pp. 155–169.———, Jewish Babylonia: Between Persia and Roman Palest<strong>in</strong>e, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press (<strong>in</strong> press).K<strong>in</strong>g, Karen, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> First Woman Apostle,Santa Rosa, CA.: Polebridge, 2003.Klausner, Joseph, Yeshu ha-Notzri, Jerusalem: Shtibl, 1922.———, <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teach<strong>in</strong>g, trans. Herbert Danby,New York: Macmillan, 1925.Koltun-Fromm, Naomi, “A Jewish-Christian Conversation <strong>in</strong> Fourth-CenturyPersian Mesopotamia,” JJS 47, 1996, pp. 45–63.Krauss, Samuel, “The Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Works of <strong>the</strong> Church Fa<strong>the</strong>rs,” JQR 5,1892–1893, pp. 122–157; 6, 1894, pp. 225–261.———, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, Berl<strong>in</strong>: S. Calvary, 1902.Kuhn, Karl Georg, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen:J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1950.
Bibliography 197Laible, He<strong>in</strong>rich, <strong>Jesus</strong> Christus im Thalmud, Berl<strong>in</strong>: H. Reu<strong>the</strong>r’s Verlagsbuchhandlung,1891.Lauterbach, Jacob Z., Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Essays, C<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>nati: Hebrew Union College Press,1951 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Ktav, 1951).Levene, Dan, “ ‘. . . and by <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Jesus</strong> ...’: An Unpublished Magic Bowl<strong>in</strong> Jewish Aramaic,” JSQ 6, 1999, pp. 283–308.———, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts <strong>in</strong> Jewish Aramaic from LateAntiquity, London: Kegan Paul, 2003.Lieberman, Saul, “Roman Legal Institutions <strong>in</strong> Early Rabb<strong>in</strong>ics and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ActaMartyrum,” JQR, n.s., 35, 1944/45, pp. 1–57.Maier, Johann, <strong>Jesus</strong> von Nazareth <strong>in</strong> der talmudischen Überlieferung, Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978.———, Jüdische Ause<strong>in</strong>andersetzung mit dem Christentum <strong>in</strong> der Antike, Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982.Meelführer, Rudolf Mart<strong>in</strong>, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>e, Sive Dissertatio PhilologicaPrior/Posterior, De iis locis, <strong>in</strong> quibus per <strong>Talmud</strong>icas Pandectas Jesu cujusdammentio <strong>in</strong>jicitur, Altdorf, 1699.Menzies, Allan, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fa<strong>the</strong>rs: Translations of <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs down toA.D. 325, 5th edition, vol. 10, repr<strong>in</strong>t, Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 1990.Merkel, Helmut, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. Ihre polemische undapologetische Behandlung <strong>in</strong> der Alten Kirche bis zu August<strong>in</strong>, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen:J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1971.Merkelbach, Re<strong>in</strong>old, and Maria Totti, eds., Abrasax. Ausgewählte Papyrireligiösen und magischen Inhalts, vol. 2, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag,1991.Metzger, Bruce M., The Early Versions of <strong>the</strong> New Testament: Their Orig<strong>in</strong>, Transmission,and Limitations, Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.Michl, Johann, “Engel II ( jüdisch)”, <strong>in</strong> RAC, vol. 5, Stuttgart: Hiersemann,1962, cols. 60–97.Montgomery, James A., Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia:University Museum, 1913.Morony, Michael G., “Magic and Society <strong>in</strong> Late Sasanian Iraq,” <strong>in</strong> Prayer,Magic, and <strong>the</strong> Stars <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ancient and Late Antique World, ed. Scott Noegel,Joel Walker, and Brannon Wheeler, University Park: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress, 2003, pp. 83–107.
198 BibliographyNaveh, Joseph, and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantationsof Late Antiquity, Jerusalem: Magnes; and Leiden: Brill, 1985.Neusner, Jacob, A History of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> Babylonia, vols. 1–5, Leiden: Brill,1967–1970.———, Eliezer Ben Hyrkanus: The Tradition and <strong>the</strong> Man, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill,1973.———, The Tosefta Translated from <strong>the</strong> Hebrew, Fifth Division: Qodoshim (TheOrder of Holy Th<strong>in</strong>gs), New York: Ktav, 1979.———, The <strong>Talmud</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Land of Israel: An Academic Commentary to <strong>the</strong> Second,Third, and Fourth Divisions, vol. 26: Yerushalmi Tractate Abodah Zarah, Atlanta,GA: Scholars Press, 1999.Nitzsch, F., “Ueber e<strong>in</strong>e Reihe talmudischer und patristischer Täuschungen,welche sich an den mißverstandenen Spottnamen Ben-Pandira geknüpft,” TheologischeStudien und Kritiken 13, 1840, pp. 115–120.Odeberg, Hugo, 3 Enoch; or, The Hebrew Book of Enoch, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1928 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, New York: Ktav, 1973).Parisot, J., Patrologia Syriaca I:1, Paris: Firm<strong>in</strong>-Didot, 1894.Parrott, Douglas M., ed., “The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1),” <strong>in</strong> The Nag HammadiLibrary <strong>in</strong> English, ed. James M. Rob<strong>in</strong>son, San Francisco: Harper, 1990,pp. 523–527.Patterson, L., “Orig<strong>in</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Name Pan<strong>the</strong>ra,” Journal of Theological Studies 19,1918, pp. 79–80.Petersen, William L., Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissem<strong>in</strong>ation, Significance,and History <strong>in</strong> Scholarship, Leiden and New York: Brill, 1994.———, “Tatian,” <strong>in</strong> TRE 32, 2001, pp. 655–659.Rabb<strong>in</strong>ovicz, Raphael N., Diqduqe Soferim: Variae Lectiones <strong>in</strong> Mischnam et <strong>in</strong><strong>Talmud</strong> Babylonicum, vols.1–15, Munich: A. Huber, 1868–1886; vol. 16,Przemysl: Zupnik, Knoller and Wolf, 1897 (repr<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> 12 vols., Jerusalem,2001/02).Re<strong>in</strong>er, Elchanan, “From Joshua to <strong>Jesus</strong>: The Transformation of a Biblical Storyto a Local Myth; A Chapter <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Religious Life of <strong>the</strong> Galilean Jew,” Shar<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy Land, First–FifteenthCenturies CE, ed. Arieh Kofsky and Guy G. Stroumsa, Jerusalem: Yad IzhakBen Zvi, 1998, pp. 223–271.Rendall, Gerald H., ed. and trans., The Octavius of Marcus M<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix, London:William He<strong>in</strong>emann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Bibliography 199Richardson, Cyril C., ed. and trans., Early Christian Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, vol. 1, Philadelphia:Westm<strong>in</strong>ster, 1953.Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fa<strong>the</strong>rs: Translationsof <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs down to A.D. 325, American repr<strong>in</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh edition,vol. 4, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.Rubenste<strong>in</strong>, Jeffrey L., The Culture of <strong>the</strong> Babylonian <strong>Talmud</strong>, Baltimore andLondon: Johns Hopk<strong>in</strong>s University Press, 2003.Rub<strong>in</strong>kiewicz, Ryszard, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” <strong>in</strong> OTP, vol. 1: ApocalypticLiterature and Testaments, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, pp.681–705.Schäfer, Peter, “Zur Geschichtsauffassung des rabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums,” JSJ 6,1975, pp. 167–188 (repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologiedes Rabb<strong>in</strong>ischen Judentums, Leiden: Brill, 1978, pp. 23–44).———, “Bileam II. Judentum,” TRE 6, 1980, pp. 639–640.———, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1981.———, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegenRom, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981.———, “Magic and Religion <strong>in</strong> Ancient Judaism,” <strong>in</strong> Envision<strong>in</strong>g Magic: A Pr<strong>in</strong>cetonSem<strong>in</strong>ar & Symposium, ed. Peter Schäfer and Hans G. Kippenberg, Leiden–NewYork–Köln: Brill, 1997, pp. 19–43.———, “ ‘From Jerusalem <strong>the</strong> Great to Alexandria <strong>the</strong> Small’: The Relationshipbetween Palest<strong>in</strong>e and Egypt <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman Period,” <strong>in</strong> The <strong>Talmud</strong>Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, ed. Peter Schäfer, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen:Mohr Siebeck, 1998, pp. 129–140.———, The History of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman World, London and New York:Routledge, 2003.Schmid, Johann, Feuriger Drachen-Gifft und wütiger Ottern-Gall, Augsburg, 1683.Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends <strong>in</strong> Jewish Mysticism, New York: Schocken,1961 (repr<strong>in</strong>t, 1995).Shaked, Shaul, “Zoroastrian Polemics aga<strong>in</strong>st Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sasanian and Early IslamicPeriod,” <strong>in</strong> Irano-Judaica II: Studies Relat<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish Contacts with PersianCulture throughout <strong>the</strong> Ages, ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer,Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1990, pp. 85–104.———, “The Poetics of Spells: Language and Structure <strong>in</strong> Aramaic Incantationsof Late Antiquity 1; The Divorce Formula and Its Ramifications,” <strong>in</strong>
200 BibliographyMesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretive Perspectives, ed.Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn, Gron<strong>in</strong>gen: Styx, 1999, pp. 173–195.———, “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magic Bowls: Apropos Dan Levene’s ‘. . . and by <strong>the</strong> name of<strong>Jesus</strong> ...’,” JSQ 6, 1999, pp. 309–319.Slusser, Michael, ed., St. Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B.Falls, rev. and <strong>in</strong>trod. Thomas P. Halton, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC: Catholic Universityof America Press, 2003.Smith, Morton, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Magician, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palest<strong>in</strong>ian Aramaic of <strong>the</strong> Byzant<strong>in</strong>ePeriod, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990.———, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong>ic and GaonicPeriods, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002.Stemberger, Günter, E<strong>in</strong>leitung <strong>in</strong> <strong>Talmud</strong> und Midrasch, Munich: Beck, 1992.Strack, Hermann L., <strong>Jesus</strong>, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischenAngaben, Leipzig: J. C. H<strong>in</strong>richs’sche Buchhandlung, 1910.Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus<strong>Talmud</strong> und Midrasch, vol. 1: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Munich: Beck,1922.Unger, Dom<strong>in</strong>ic J., trans., St. Irenaeus of Lyons aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Heresies, rev. John J.Dillon, vol. 1, book 1, New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992.Urbach, Ephraim E., “Homilies of <strong>the</strong> Rabbis on <strong>the</strong> Prophets of <strong>the</strong> Nations and<strong>the</strong> Balaam Stories,” Tarbiz 25, 1955/56, pp. 272–289 (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew).———, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979.Veltri, Giuseppe, Magie und Halakha. Ansätze zu e<strong>in</strong>em empirischen Wissenschaftsbegriffim spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Judentum, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen:J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997.Vermes, Geza, <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jew: A Historian’s Read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> Gospels, Philadelphia:Fortress, 1981.Visotzky, Burton L., “Overturn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Lamp,” JJS 38, 1987, pp. 72–80.———, “Mary Maudl<strong>in</strong> among <strong>the</strong> Rabbis,” <strong>in</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> World: Essays <strong>in</strong>Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic and Patristic Literatures, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1995, pp. 85–92.Wartelle, André, ed., Sa<strong>in</strong>t Just<strong>in</strong>: Apologies, Paris: Études August<strong>in</strong>iennes, 1987.Wewers, Gerd A., Avoda Zara. Götzendienst, Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck), 1980.
Bibliography 201Widengren, Geo, “The Status of <strong>the</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sassanian Empire,” <strong>in</strong> Irania Antiqua,vol. 1, ed. R. Ghirshman and L. Vanden Berghe, Leiden: Brill, 1961, pp.117–162.———, Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965.Wiesehöfer, Josef, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, London and New York:I. B. Tauris, 1966.Wiessner, Gernot, Untersuchungen zur syrischen Literaturgeschichte I: Zur Märtyrerüberlieferungaus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II, Gött<strong>in</strong>gen: Vandenhoek& Ruprecht, 1967.Williams, Frank, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, book 1, sects1–46, Leiden: Brill, 1987.W<strong>in</strong>ter, Paul, On <strong>the</strong> Trial of <strong>Jesus</strong>, Berl<strong>in</strong>: de Gruyter, 1961.Wünsch, Dietrich, “Evangelienharmonie,” TRE 10, 1982, pp. 626–629.Yuval, Israel J., “Two Nations <strong>in</strong> Your Womb”: Perceptions of Jews and Christians,Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2000 (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew).Zeitl<strong>in</strong>, Solomon, “<strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Early Tannaitic Literature,” <strong>in</strong> Abhandlungen zurEr<strong>in</strong>nerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, Wien: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation,1933, pp. 295–308.
This page <strong>in</strong>tentionally left blank
IndexAbaye, 64–65, 168n.17Abba, 153n.9Abbahu, 107–109Abba Shaul, 32, 53Absalom, 31adulteress. See adulteryadultery, 17–21, 97–99, 102, 110, 114,127, 175n.5, 178n.24Agape, 178n.25Ahab, 32Aha b. Ulla, 88Ahitophel, 30–32, 85Ahriman, 117Ahura Mazda, 182nn.72–73Akebshema, bishop, 120, 184n.89Alexander Yannai. See YannaiAlexandria, 34–36, 101, 156n.11Ananus, High Priest, 170n.57Andrew, bro<strong>the</strong>r of Simon Peter, 75,170n.1, 171n.9, 11angel(s), 83, 104, 165n.41, 172n.3; ofdeath, 150n.19Antigonos from Sokho, 36Antioch <strong>in</strong> Pisidia, 79Aphrahat, 117, 183n.80, 185n.102Apikoros, 32, 53Apion, 101apostate, 11Aqiva, 32, 42–43, 50, 52–53, 162n.43,163n.10, 188n.32Aquila, 173n.15Armenia, 117–118Arsacids, 116Asia M<strong>in</strong>or, 124, 128–129A<strong>the</strong>ns, 22–23August<strong>in</strong>e, 174n.36authority, rabb<strong>in</strong>ic, 50–51, 55, 60, 62,105–106, 114, 166n.65, 179n.38Avraham b. Azriel, 188n.32Baal-Peor, 32–33, 87Babylonia, 1, 7, 9–10, 13, 37–39,57, 73, 76, 114, 116, 128–129, 143,156n.22Bahram II, 116Bahram V, 117Balaam, 13, 31–33, 84–87, 89–92, 94,108, 111, 155n.31, 173n.20,174nn.28, 32Balak, k<strong>in</strong>g of Moab, 87, 108Barabbas, 73Bar Qamtza, 83, 85bastard. See mamzerbat qol (heavenly voice), 49Ben Pandera, 7, 15–21, 44, 47, 56–57,60–61, 97, 98, 133–134, 138–139,141, 143, 158–159n.9, 163n.15,166n.58, 175n.8, 187n.12,188nn.19, 28Ben Pantera, 7, 15, 54, 56, 59, 61, 98,138, 141, 188nn.13, 20
204 IndexBen Pantiri, 20, 98, 138, 141, 158n.9Ben Satra, 16, 113, 148n.6Ben Siteda, 133, 149n.9Ben Stada, 7, 15–18, 72, 113, 133, 141,143, 148n.5, 149n.8, 150n.18,170n.51Ben Stara, 133–134, 141, 143Bethar, 83Bethlehem, 15, 21, 115blasphemer. See blasphemyblasphemy, 9, 13, 66–71, 74, 77, 79,91–92, 106–107, 128–129brick worship, 35, 37, 39, 102, 105,156–157n.22Buni, 75–77, 79–80, 107, 171n.11burn<strong>in</strong>g. See death penaltyCaesarea, 109Caiaphas, 128cannibalism, 100–102, 112, 176n.17,177nn.19, 21capital punishment. See death penaltycarpenter, 19–21, 112, 151n.31,152n.38, 181n.64Carpocratians, 178n.25Celsus, 18–21, 56–57, 102, 104,176n.19censor/censored. See censorshipcensorship, 14, 72, 122, 131–132,135–136, 139–144, 188n.32chief magian. See magicChurch of <strong>the</strong> Holy Sepulchre,115–116Church of <strong>the</strong> Nativity, 115circumcision, 100Clement of Alexandria, 178n.25Constant<strong>in</strong>e, 115, 117–118, 183n.80Constantius, 118cross, 78, 79, 103, 120–121, 123,168n.25crucifixion, 1, 12, 63, 71–73, 82,103–104, 119, 169n.50, 170n.57David, 15, 30–31, 78, 79; son of, 10,21–22, 79, 98, 123death penalty, 63–64, 71–72, 77, 80–81,88, 97, 106, 145n.2, 167n.3, 169n.50;burn<strong>in</strong>g, 63, 167n.2; hang<strong>in</strong>g, 63–64,66–68, 71–72, 139, 167n.1, 168n.12,21, 25, 169n.50, 170n.51; slay<strong>in</strong>g by<strong>the</strong> sword, 64, 167n.2; ston<strong>in</strong>g, 12,63–64, 66–68, 71, 97, 106–107, 127,140, 167n.2, 168n.25, 170n.51,175n.5; strangl<strong>in</strong>g, 64, 97, 167nn.2–3deceiver, 103–105, 111, 128demon(s), 20, 38, 59–60, 69, 112, 123,181n.64devil, 127Diatessaron, 8, 122–123, 128, 185n.104,187n.115dimissus, 42–44Doeg <strong>the</strong> Edomite, 30–32, 85, 155n.32Edict of Milan, 115Egypt, 16, 19–20, 25, 36–37, 57, 59, 69,102, 113, 148n.5, 149n.8, 151n.35,152n.35Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas, 4,146n.9Eleazar, 30, 85Eleazar, son of <strong>the</strong> High Priest Ananias,172n.6Eleazar b. Dama, 54–57, 59, 61,163n.14, 16, 164n.31, 166n.63Eliezer, 66–67
Index 205Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, 11, 16, 41–51, 99,102, 104–105, 114, 143, 159n.15,160nn.19–20, 25, 161n.27, 162n.43,179n.40Elisha, 30–31, 34Enoch, 57–58Ephrem, 123, 185n.102Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, 178n.24Eucharist, 13, 92–93, 102, 112Eusebius, 151n.27excommunication, 11, 35–37, 48,50–51, 162n.45excrement, 13, 85, 88–93, 113,174n.28execution, 12, 63, 65–78, 80–81, 106,113, 120, 123, 129, 139, 142, 167n.1,168n.17, 170nn.51, 55, 180n.41,184n.93exorcism, 98, 165n.52ext<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lights. See overturn<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> lampsFlavius Josephus, 35, 59, 101, 170n.57,175n.3food, spoil<strong>in</strong>g of, 26–28, 30, 33, 99,153n.11fornication, 176n.10, 177n.21. See alsopornē; porneia; sexFriday, 12, 120–121, 170n.55,184n.93, 95Fronto, 178n.21Galilee, 47, 82, 100, 103, 116Gamliel, 186n.107gardener, 112, 181n.64, 184n.96Gehazi, 30–32, 34, 85Geh<strong>in</strong>nom, 85–86, 89–90, 94Gethsemane, 75Guhashtazad, 120Hades, 57, 166n.66Hadrian, 152n.44, 173n.15hang<strong>in</strong>g. See death penaltyharlot, 42, 44, 161n.38heal<strong>in</strong>g, 11, 20, 52, 54–57, 59–60,102–103, 106, 114, 123, 126,138–139, 143, 163nn.9, 11, 16,164n.33, 165n.52, 166nn.59, 63Helena, 115hell, 9, 13, 83, 111–113, 129, 141–143heresy, 11–12, 37, 41–48, 52–56, 59–61,72, 74, 85–86, 89–94, 102, 110, 114,138, 142, 158n.9, 159nn.13, 15,160n.20, 23, 161n.26, 162n.8, 163nn.9,11, 15, 164n.33, 166n.63, 176n.19heretic. See heresyHermes, 57Herod, 20, 25High Court. See Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>Hillel, 27, 36Hiram, 108–109, 180n.48Hisda, 16–17, 26–28, 30–31, 42, 114,153n.5, 161n.38Hiyya b. Abba, 109–111, 180n.53Holy Spirit, 22, 38, 79, 82Iao, 57–58, 164n.37Iaoel, 58. See also Yaho; Yahoelidolater. See idolatryidolatry, 9, 12–13, 33, 36–38, 40, 64,66–69, 71, 74, 77, 79, 91–92, 97,104–106, 110, 113, 148n.7, 157n.22,173n.13, 179n.31, 180n.41Ignatius of Antioch, 92, 174n.34
206 Indeximitatio Christi, 120–121Imma Shalom, 186n.107impostor, 9, 62, 74, 103impurity, 91<strong>in</strong>cest, 30, 101–102, 177n.21Irenaeus, 178n.24Ishmael, 54–56, 59–61, 163nn.13,16–18, 164n.33, 166n.63Jacob, 139, 163Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya/Sama, 42, 44–47, 52–54, 56–57, 59,102, 106, 114, 163nn.14–15James, bro<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>Jesus</strong>, 47James, son of Alphaeus, 47James, son of Zebedee, 75, 170n.1Jeroboam, 32Jerusalem, 25, 35–36, 70, 83, 115,176n.19<strong>Jesus</strong>, High Priest, 170n.57<strong>Jesus</strong> Pantera. See Ben PanteraJohn, disciple of <strong>Jesus</strong>, 75, 170n.1John, Gospel of, 8, 12, 14, 25, 72–73,78, 82–83, 92–93, 105, 122–124, 126,128–129, 170, 171n.9, 184n.96,187nn.114–115John <strong>the</strong> Baptist, 25, 79, 124, 170n.1Joseph, husband/betro<strong>the</strong>d of Mary, 15,20–22, 124, 127, 184n.91Joseph, martyr, 120–121Josephus. See Flavius JosephusJudas, 75, 112, 181n.64Just<strong>in</strong> Martyr, 99–100, 103–104, 111,160n.20Kahana, 28Katir, 116, 119Kefar Sama, 163n.14. See also Jacob ofKefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya/SamaKefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya, 163nn.14–15.See also Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah/Sikhnaya/SamaLast Supper, 72, 75, 92, 170n.52Lazarus, 126, 128Lesser YHWH, 58Lic<strong>in</strong>ius, 115, 183n.80Lilith, 18, 150n.20Lod. See LyddaLucian of Samosata, 111Lydda, 61, 72Magi. See magicmagians. See magicmagic, 13, 20, 22, 32, 35, 37–39, 50–53,57–61, 68, 98–99, 102–106, 111–114,116–117, 119, 137, 151n.35,156n.11, 158n.34, 162n.43, 166n.63,178n.28, 179nn.34, 39, 183n.85;magic bowls, 38–39, 157n.29,158n.31; magical books, 53; magicalcharm, 61; magical names, 39, 60;magical papyri, 57–58, 151n.35; magicalplant<strong>in</strong>g of cucumbers, 162n.43;magical power, 11–12, 19, 39, 51, 57,59–62, 69, 106, 167n.66magician. See magicmamzer, 18–22, 97–99, 110, 113,175n.4Manasseh, 32manna, 92–93Marcus Aurelius, 150n.24, 178n.21Mar Giwargis, 121Mar Simon, 118–120
Index 207Martha, 126Martha, daughter of Pusai, 184n.90Mart<strong>in</strong>i, Raymond, 3Mary, mo<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>Jesus</strong>, 2, 10, 15, 20–22,98, 150nn.11, 22, 184n.91Mary, of Bethany, 153n.12Mary Magdalene, 29, 99, 112, 123,150nn.11, 22, 184n.96Mattai, 75, 77–78, 107, 171n.11Maxentius, 183n.80Meelführer, Rudolf Mart<strong>in</strong>, 4,146n.8Meir, 17, 83menstruation, 26–27Mesopotamia, 38Messiah, 1, 9–10, 12, 21–22, 68–69, 74,78–80, 107, 124, 126; son of David,21, 81, 98, 107, 123, 166n.66Metatron, 57–58, 165n.43m<strong>in</strong>. See heresyM<strong>in</strong>ucius Felix, 177n.21, 178n.21m<strong>in</strong>ut. See heresymiracle(s), 51, 102–105, 125Miriam, 16–18, 20, 26, 48, 97–98, 123,134–135, 149n.10, 150n.12; children’snurse, 150n.19; long-haired,150n.19mule, 22–24Naqqai, 75–78, 107, 171nn.11, 14naśi (patriarch), 36, 134, 149n.10Nathanael, 171n.9Nazareth, 15, 25, 124Nebuchadnezzar, 109necromancy, 84–85Nero, 83–86Ne<strong>the</strong>rworld, 13, 84–87, 89–90,93–94Netzer, 75–79, 107, 171n.11new covenant, 2, 9, 12, 13, 24, 33,80–81, 92–94, 106–107new Israel. See new covenantNicodemus, 171n.11Nicolaitans, 178n.24Niddah, 26, 29Nisibis, 118Nittai ha-Arbeli, 36Ohrmazd, 116old covenant, 2, 24, 80–81, 92–94old Israel. See old covenantOnqelos, son of Qaloniqos, 84–87,89–90, 94orgiastic cult, 44, 46, 99, 114Origen, 18, 109, 151n.26, 176n.19overturn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lamps, 100–101,176n.17, 177nn.19, 21,178n.21Palest<strong>in</strong>e, 1–2, 7, 9–10, 13–14, 28, 57,73, 76, 109, 114–116, 118, 129, 141,143, 156n.22Pandera, 20–21, 48, 97, 134, 149n.9,150n.23, 163n.15, 176n.10. See alsoBen PanderaPantera. See Ben Panterapan<strong>the</strong>r, 175n.8Pan<strong>the</strong>ra, 19–20, 21, 56, 98. See alsoBen Pandera; Ben Panterapan<strong>the</strong>ros, 98Pantiri, 20. See also Ben Pandera;Ben PantiriPapa, 88Pappos ben Yehuda, 16–18, 97, 134,149n.9, 150n.23
208 Indexpar<strong>the</strong>nogenesis, 21, 98par<strong>the</strong>nos, 98, 176n.10Passion, 9, 70, 72, 74, 82, 114,120, 126Passover, 12, 64, 66, 70, 72, 123, 139,170n.51; Passover lamb, 81Passover meal. See Last SupperPaul, apostle, 63, 79–80, 124,165n.52Peregr<strong>in</strong>us, 111Peshitta, 8, 122, 123Peter, apostle, 29, 75, 166n.66, 170n.1,171n.9Pharaoh, 80Pharisees, 29, 35–36, 91–92, 104,127–128, 166n.66Philip, 105, 171n.9Pontius Pilate, 1, 63, 68–69, 71–74, 78,80, 104, 123, 171n.19pornē, 176n.10porneia, 98, 176n.10. See alsofornicationproselyte, 83prostitute. See prostitutionprostitution, 29–30, 44–46, 48, 99, 112,114, 151n.31, 159n.14, 160nn.22–24,161n.26, 176n.10, 181n.64; temple,160n.24Pumbeditha, 16–17, 114, 150n.18purity, 91–92, 179n.39quaestuaria, 151n.31Rashi, 53, 150n.11, 162n.4Rav, 28, 30, 153n.9Rava, 88relic of <strong>the</strong> cross, 115resurrection, 9, 13, 32–33, 53, 63, 70,75, 79, 82, 90, 103–104, 107,111–112, 120–121, 125–126, 128,162n.6Revelation, Book of, 128Sabbath, 12, 15–16, 52–53, 64, 66, 72,99–100, 107, 112, 126, 148n.3,162n.4, 170n.55, 181n.64salt, 23–24Samaria, 105, 112Samaritan, 112Sanhedr<strong>in</strong>, 68–71, 107Sasanian empire. See SasaniansSasanians, 13, 38, 116–122, 129,175n.3, 182n.76, 184n.102Satan, 128Saul, 30–31Scaliger, Justus, 3Schmid, Johann, 145n.7semen, 13, 84, 87, 89–92,174n.28Sepphoris, 42, 47Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Mount, 23, 41, 123sex, 11, 13, 26–28, 29, 33, 46, 48, 51,87, 90, 97, 99–100, 102, 110, 113,153n.11, 160n.20, 161n.25, 177n.19,178n.25Shabbat. See SabbathShammai, 27, 36Shapur, bishop, 119–120Shapur II, 117–121, 183n.80Shema, prayer, 35, 156n.17Shemuel, 30Shemuel b. Nahmani, 30She’ol, 85–86, 109
Index 209Shimon b. Shetah, 34–36, 155n.3,156n.13Shimon <strong>the</strong> Righteous, 36Simon Magus, 105, 112, 179n.36Simon Peter. See Peters<strong>in</strong>ners of Israel, 84–87, 89–90, 94, 141,143, 173n.11, 174nn.28–29s<strong>in</strong>ners of <strong>the</strong> nations, 86, 89–90slay<strong>in</strong>g by <strong>the</strong> sword. See deathpenaltySon of God, 1, 9–10, 12, 22, 69, 74,78–80, 100, 104–107, 111,124–126, 128Son of Man, 70, 82, 93, 107–109,124–126, 180n.49sorcery, 12, 64, 66, 68–69,106, 113soṭah, 17Stada, 16–17, 97, 149nn.8–9, 150n.23.See also Ben StadaStara, 149n.8. See also Ben StaraStephen, 180n.50ston<strong>in</strong>g. See death penaltystrangl<strong>in</strong>g. See death penaltySura, 17, 26, 114symposium, 44synagogue of Satan, 128Toledot Yeshu, 2–4, 7, 38, 145n.3,151n.25, 152n.43, 181n.66,187n.115Tr<strong>in</strong>ity, 38–39Trypho, 100Ulla, 64–65, 73Vespasian, 83virg<strong>in</strong>. See virg<strong>in</strong>ityvirg<strong>in</strong>ity, 9, 10, 21–22, 24, 98, 119, 123,175n.5, 184nn.90–91Wagenseil, Johann Christoph, 3–4,145n.6whisper<strong>in</strong>g, over a wound, 32, 52–53,56, 139whore, 46, 83, 98, 110–113, 175n.8,181n.66witchcraft, 16, 148n.5, 149n.8,152n.35witnesses, 64–65, 68–70, 73, 127world to come, 31–33, 53, 55, 61, 85,90, 111, 162n.8Tatian, 122, 128, 185n.104,186n.105tattoo(s), 15, 148nn.3, 5, 149n.8Tertullian, 100–102, 111–112, 151n.31,177n.20, 178n.21Thaddaeus, 171n.11Titus, 13, 83–87, 90–92, 94; arch of,173n.7Todah, 75–77, 80–81, 107, 171n.11Yaho, 58, 164n.37Yahoel, 58, 165n.43. See alsoIaoel; IaoYannai, k<strong>in</strong>g, 34–36, 155n.3Yazdgard I, 117Yazdgard II, 117Yehoshua b. Hananya, 16, 22–23, 49,152n.44Yehoshua b. Levi, 60–61, 166n.63
210 IndexYehoshua b. Perahya, 34–36, 38–40, 99,102, 105, 136, 142, 155n.2, 156n.13,188n.32Yehuda b. Tabbai, 36, 156n.13Yirmeya, 50, 162n.44Yirmeya b. Abba, 26Yohanan, 30Yohanan b. Zakkai, 43, 76Yonathan, 160n.20Yose, 66–67Zoroastrianism, 39, 116–117, 119–120Zoroastrians. See Zoroastrianism