Issue #141-Did Jesus Exist/Talmud, Evidence That D

Biblical Errancy Issue #141-Did Jesus Exist/Talmud, Evidence That Demands a Verdict on Talmudic Comments on Jesus, Freethought Comments on Slavery, Fundamentalism, Jesus, Interpretation, Mental Health

Nov 10, '08 6:54 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 141

September 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST? (The Talmud) The thirty-second and thirty-third issues of BE discussed a group of non-Christian writers whom biblicists allege referred to Jesus in their writings. Both issues clearly showed that ancient writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are not referring to Jesus of Nazareth in their most commonly quoted passages, and only by twisting and quoting out of context can their extrabiblical writings be employed in this manner. Another extrabiblical source occasionally cited as well is the Talmud. It is the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law, and consists of two parts--the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary). In Judaism, the Torah, i.e., the law, is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, and the Mishnah is the oral Torah supplementing it. For several centuries after the codification of the Mishnah, rabbis and scholars wrote commentaries on it, known as the Gemara, i.e. completion. The Talmudic comments most often relied upon by biblicists were not cited earlier because their strength ranges from poor to pathetic. But to forestall any possibility of their being used to deceive the unwary, an exposure of the most prominent references and their deficiencies is well advised.
The first comment worthy of note is found in Sanhedrin 43a of the Talmud, which states,

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.... Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

Although difficult to imagine, this anemic passage is a reference to Jesus, according to some commentators. Reliance upon passages as weak as this can't help but dissipate respect for apologetic scholarship. Obvious inadequacies are:
•(1) It says Yeshu, not Jesus.
•(2) Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words, it was not an unusual name. On the contrary, it appears rather frequently in ancient Jewish literature. Josephus records the following out of 28 high priests in the 107 years from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus.
•(3) Jesus was crucified, not hanged.
•(4) Jesus was not stoned, at least not according to the biblical record.
•(5) The New Testament says nothing about a herald going forth for forty days before the execution occurred.
•(6) Jesus had no connection with the government. At least nothing within the Gospels would lead one to believe that he lived among royalty or the influential class.
•(7) Nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus charged with sorcery or leading Israel astray. The New Testament record tells of three accusations against Jesus: (a) blasphemy, (b) claiming to be the Son of God, and (c) assuming the role of King of the Jews. But he was never charged with practicing sorcery nor of leading Israel astray. Any attempt to apply this part of the Talmud to Jesus is doomed to failure.

Another passage relied upon is found in section 55b of the Sanhedrin in the Talmud and states, "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the Divine] name.... The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name, Thus, 'May Jose smite Jose.'" This is vagueness at its worse. The suggestion is made that the first "Jose" represents God. But it is unlikely that even for illustrative purposes the rabbis would allude to Jesus as a divinity. And did God ever smite Jesus?

A footnote to Sanhedrin 67a says, "In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this passage.... 'And thus they did to Ben Strada in Lydda, and they hung him on the eve of Passover." Although cited by apologetic sources, this clearly isn't much to go on either. As we all know, according to the biblical account Jesus was crucified, not hanged, and he was killed in Jerusalem, not in Lydda, near the coast. The names aren't even the same.

Another passage that is sometimes cited is found in Sanhedrin 106b and is interpreted by some apologists in such a manner as to equate Balaam with Jesus of Nazareth. It says,

Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters....! Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation. A certain man said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their day, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou has said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.

Believe it or not, that nebulous maze of disjointed monologue is used as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Apparently some Christian apologists just couldn't resist the temptation when they read such emotionally charged words as "prophet," "she/carpenters," "subjected/deaths," "slain by Israel," and "thirty-three." The discrepancies between the life of Balaam and Jesus are numerous.
•(a) Balaam was slain with a sword, while Jesus died by crucifixion.
•(b) The father of Jesus was not named Beor, nor was he a soothsayer.
•(c) One would be hard pressed to find biblical support for allegations that Jesus died by stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation. Incidentally, how could he have died by all four methods? In order to make sense, "and" should have been translated as "or".
•(d) If "she" is referring to the mother of Jesus, this passage is saying she was a harlot with many carpenters (plural).
•(e) If Jesus is Balaam, then the passage is implying Jesus is bloody and deceitful.
•(f) When did Jesus keep a chronicle, especially one relating his age or death?
•(g) Jesus was never lame, and certainly not for thirty years.
•(h) The names Jesus and Balaam are quite different.
•(i) And finally, Jesus was not killed by someone named Phinehas the Robber.
It doesn't take a great deal of wisdom to see that apologists are stretching interpretation to the limits on these.
A short little comment found in the footnotes of Sanhedrin 107b says, "In the uncensored editions there follows here, 'and not like R. Joshua b. Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus (the Nazarene) with both hands." The problem with this sentence is that only the Munich manuscript adds (the Nazarene).

Another footnote in Sanhedrin 107b says, .

..When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him.... He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him.... He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. 'Repent,' said R. Joshua to him. Jesus replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.'

Although hard to realize, this is the more intelligible part of the entire passage. Again, one can see how desperate some apologists are to find something in the Talmud that can substantiate the alleged existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The attraction of "fled to Egypt," an "inn," "Jesus the Nazarene," "led Israel," and "sin/repentance" were more than they could resist. The problems with this are readily apparent.
•(a) Jesus was not a rabbi when he fled to Egypt.
•(b) The New Testament says nothing about Jesus fleeing to Alexandria, Egypt.
•(c) When did Jesus ever worship a brick? The worship of bricks is known in the Hermes cult, and is not Christian.
•(d) According to apologetic theology, Jesus neither sinned nor caused others to sin.
•(e) Jesus was not a contemporary of King Jannai.
•And (f) while the Munich, Florence, and Karlsruhe manuscripts and the early printed editions of the Talmud mention Yeshu, only the Munich text adds "the Nazarene."
That's about as coherent as these passages can be rendered.
Another passage of equal clarity is found in Abodah Zarah 17a which says,

I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one [of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene] Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name who said to me.... To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught [by Jesus the Nazarene], 'For the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.' They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth.

Again, the power of imagination appears to have been overwhelming.
•(a) How does the mere mention of a disciple of Jesus prove that Jesus lived?
•(b) The reference to Jesus only occurs in the Munich manuscript.
•(c) And nowhere in the Gospels can one find the quote that was attributed to Jesus.

A final passage from the Mishnah itself, as opposed to the Gemara, is found in Yebamoth 49a, which says, "I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem, and therein was written, 'so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from a married woman,' which confirms the view of R. Joshua."

Some people actually see Jesus in this. The problems are:
•(a) Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem.
•(b) Although technically speaking, Jesus was a bastard since his parents were not married, one is hardpressed to understand how apologists would want to use a passage that is so derogatory toward him.
To skirt this difficulty some writings say, "A certain person was illegitimately born of a married woman." The word "illegitimate" is a euphemism. In addition, "a certain person" could apply to thousands of Middle Eastern people, and Mary was not married.
In summary, the Talmud has no independent tradition about Jesus; all that it says of him is merely an echo of Christian and Pagan legends, which it reproduces according to the impressions of the second and later centuries. The Talmud has "borrowed" its knowledge of Jesus from the Gospels. When Josephus is excluded from the Jewish witnesses to the historicity of Jesus, there remains only the question of whether or not there may be some other evidence in the other Jewish literature of the time, in the Talmud, for instance. The answer is no.

Most readers should now be able to understand why this whole topic of Jesus and the Talmud was given such low priority and is only now being discussed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


REVIEWS
On page 86 in Evidence That Demands a Verdict apologist Josh McDowell refers to some Talmudic passages, including some discussed earlier, to prove the historicity of Jesus. Essentially all he did was scour the Talmud for any sentence, phrase, or passage that could possibly be twisted in such a manner as to refer to Jesus. Context was deemed irrelevant. For example, on page 86 McDowell quotes the Talmud as saying, "The Amoa 'Ulla' ('Ulla' was a disciple of R. Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century.) adds: 'And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: 'Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him,' It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority."
Besides the fact that this passage is so vague that hundreds of people could be under consideration, allegations are included that should exclude Jesus, according to apologetic propaganda and the Gospels. For McDowell to cite as a source a passage which refers to Jesus as a beguiler is rather interesting, to say the least. I'm surprised he would admit it. Secondly, if Jesus was near to the civil authority, then McDowell is obligated to cite chapter and verse for corroboration.

McDowell cites Yeb. IV 3, 49a ("R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'") for his own purposes. He is uncomfortable with the word "bastard." So, he quotes Klausner who redefines bastard by saying,..."What is a bastard? Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth Din." Now McDowell feels that he can comfortably quote Klausner's final conclusion, "That Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt." After disassociating Jesus from the word bastard, McDowell feels he can now claim that "beyond doubt" his passage is referring to Jesus. He neglects to mention the fact that the reason they are punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din is that they are participating in a forbidden union. To be specific, the passage says, "so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from a married woman..." A footnote to this passage says, "Such a union is punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din." The essence of McDowell's deception lies in the fact that he made it look as if a bastard was anyone who was liable to death by Beth Din, as if Beth Din were some kind of uncontrollable murderer, when they are to be killed by Beth Din because they engaged in an illicit relationship that gave rise to a bastard. So, if it were referring to Jesus, then Jesus would be a bastard, and for McDowell to say it "seems to be beyond doubt" that Jesus is being referred to speaks for itself. McDowell is calling his saviour a derogatory name.

Other Talmudic passages are available for discussion, but there is a limit beyond which imprecision, speculation, and imagination should not be allowed to go. That point has been reached..

Over the years we have repeatedly critiqued apologetic books of one sort or another on a wide variety of topics. But there are also many books and pamphlets corroborating our contentions on various issues and they deserve at least one hearing. After all, there is no sense in just reviewing books with which we disagree. And also it might be well to lighten up a bit after enduring the agony of a Talmudic excursion. Since it would be wholly impractical to quote everything available on the market, we have decided to extract from our personal portfolio some comments that are poignant, appropriate, entertaining, or amusing as the case may be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLAVERY--In a pamphlet entitled "Christianity and Slavery" Chapman Cohen says on page 3,
The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus contains a full permit to own slaves, with some interesting rules as to their cost and treatment.... In the twenty-seventh chapter there is a scale of prices that are to be paid for slaves.... In the New Testament there is no condemnation of slavery. Jesus accepted it as a settled institution.... Jesus was never at any time appealed to for help in abolishing slavery. His teaching of non-resistance, and Paul's teaching that slaves were to be obedient to their masters, whether the masters were good or bad, held out no hope for the slave. It should be remembered that the translation of the Greek word slave is given in the New Testament as 'servant.' Honesty of interpretation or translation has never been a strong feature with Christian apologists.... Our endeavor here is merely to show that there was no clear word of condemnation of slavery in either the Old Bible or the New Testament.


Quoting Renan on page 6 Cohen says, "Christianity never said that slavery is an abuse.... The idea never came to the Christian doctors.... No word occurs in all the ancient Christian literature to preach revolt to the slave.... Never is the master Christian who has Christian slaves compelled to free them."

And on page 7 Cohen quotes Professor Westermarck who says in his Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, "Christianity recognized slavery from the beginning. In the early ages martyrs possessed slaves, and so did abbots, bishops, popes, monasteries, and churches.... The Church was concerned with saving souls. Slavery of the body or mind did not matter."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAMENTALISM--On page 29 in a pamphlet entitled "Religious Bunk Over the Radio" published by Haldeman-Julius, L. M. Birkhead answers liberal critics of publications like BE by saying,
Why bother about campaigns against the fundamentalists? Let them alone! Why stew and fret and work one's self up over such insignificant, stupid people? Let science, education, books, magazines, travel, more rapid means of communication, the industrial revolution, a better knowledge of comparative religions, and time do their work. And then fundamentalism will be as dead as a doornail. Such is the line of reasoning of the majority of liberals.
The only trouble with this attitude is that there is a menacing possibility that the above enumerated forces have not, and are not likely to have, a chance at the fundamentalists. The fundamentalist millions might be cured of their fundamentalism if they could have a thorough exposure to the liberating forces of the modern world. It is just possible, however, that the fundamentalists may put these forces into a theological strait-jacket. The battle in behalf of liberalism has by no means been won yet. Right off, I must break down and confess that I number myself among the minority of liberals--I mean the minority that 'views with alarm' the rise of fundamentalism. I must also admit that I have actually been out campaigning against the fundamentalists.

On page 32 Birkhead says, "The great majority of the liberals do not appreciate the temper and tactics of the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists mean business. They propose to capture the reins of government and make modernists, liberals, atheists, Unitarians, etc. bow down and put their necks in the yoke of medieval theology."

Later on page 43 Birkhead proves BE is by no means alone in its thrust toward rationality by saying,

The one thing on which the hand of modernists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, etc. must not be laid, is the Bible. Fundamentalists rave, storm, shout, and denounce when the Bible is criticized. When I was speaking on 'The Truth About the Bible,' in Oklahoma City, I mentioned particularly the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, the contradictions, the unworthy ideas of God, and then came to a discussion of the inadequacy of the teachings of Jesus. When I began to point out the contradictions in the teachings of Jesus, the belief of Jesus in devils as the cause of disease, and the fact that Jesus cursed a fig tree because it did not bear fruit out of season, a lady with her ten-year old son, became very restless, squirmed about in the seat, mumbled some words, and suddenly jumping up, shouted, 'I protest,' and, grabbing her son, left the church. As she walked hurriedly down the aisle, she made a most peculiar, 'sput, sput' sort of noise. It sounded something like the sputtering of a small motor boat out on a lake. As she went sputtering out the door, someone said, 'That's fundamentalist language.'
In that same address on the Bible, I pointed out some of the unfulfilled promises in the Bible, among others the warning to Adam by Yahweh that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he would die. I mentioned the fact that according to the Bible, Adam lived several hundred years after eating of the forbidden fruit, and the promise that he was to die on the day that he ate the fruit didn't come true. A very belligerent looking fundamentalist gentleman stood up, pointed his finger at me, and shouted, 'But he died, didn't he?'
One can't help but note the similarity between Birkhead's situation and ours, even though everything he said was written in 1929.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS--Ruth Green made a poignant observation with respect to Jesus on page 205 in her book The Born Again Skeptics Guide to the Bible,
Much of the morality taught by Jesus is impractical to the point of the absurd: Turn the other cheek, pay double damages, judge no one's behavior, go farther than forced to go, don't use your mind but be as children, sell all and give the proceeds to the poor (thus becoming poor yourself), have no thought for the morrow, make no plans, don't worry about food and clothing, be passive and meek, let everybody walk all over you, love people who persecute you as much as those who are kind to you and have regard for your feelings, be mournful, be smug and self-righteous and goad others into mistreating you, forsake everything of this world in preparation for the next, agree with everyone, deny sexual urges, mutilate yourself, have no deep love for your family and seriously consider deserting them, if robbed give the thief the same amount again, don't resist attackers but let them abuse you once more, avoid coarse people not on your level, accept every misfortune gratefully, don't share your culture with dolts, and behave as you please as long as you finally repent.
Anyone well acquainted with the Gospels knows the high degree to which Green's observations are applicable to Jesus.
In so far as scriptural information on the life of Jesus is concerned, John Jackson said the following on page 8 in Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,

The paucity of our information concerning the Christian savior is concisely expressed by Mr. Robert Keable, in his work, The Great Galilean: 'No man knows sufficient of the early life of Jesus to write a biography of him. For that matter, no one knows enough for the normal New York Times obituary notice of a great man. If regard were had to what we should call, in correct speech, definitely historical facts, scarcely three lines could be filled. Moreover, if newspapers had been in existence, and if that obituary notice had had to be written in the year of his death, no editor could have found in the literature of his day so much as his name. Yet few periods of the ancient world were so well documented as the period of Augustus and Tiberius. But no contemporary knew of his existence.... His first mention in any surviving document, secular or religious, is twenty years after.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERPRETATION--On pages 52 and 53 in Lucifer's Handbook (A tactically questionable title) Lee Carter says,
The great bulk of the Bible is made up of stories, poetry, and parables which are ambiguous enough to enable anyone to read anything he pleases into them.... no one can believe all the Bible; if one is to believe any of it, it is necessary to select a few passages which agree with each other on some point that one already believes anyway and ignore all the rest. However, any group of passages is just as valid (or as invalid) as any other, and the result is the thousands of Protestant sects, or denominations.... The very reason there are different sects is that they cannot agree on which parts are literal and which metaphor.

Later on page 68 he says, "It should be apparent to all by now that the Bible is so ambiguous, and says so many different things, that anyone can take a passage out of context here, and another there, and piece them together to form any kind of doctrine he pleases, then claim the Scriptures prove him right."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCRIPTURE AND MENTAL HEALTH--While discussing religion and mental health, Carter makes the following blunt comments on page 75,
Until the advent of modern psychiatry, the deranged have always been considered holy men. In fact, according to historian Vardis Fisher, the Hebrew word for 'prophet,' and 'lunatic' was one and the same. Epileptics were thought to be seized by God--catatonics to have left their bodies--hebephrenics to be speaking in angelic tongues. Psychotics have always been the shamen, seers, prophets, witch-doctors, wizards, and oracles--up until now. Today, a potential Jeremiah, or John the Baptist is simply kept under sedation. But since we cannot reach the ones of the past to examine their blood chemistry..., many assume they must have been the real article.

On the next page he states, "In point of fact, much sociological data is now available which indicates that the more devoutly 'religious' a person, the more likely he is to be mentally disturbed." And he concludes his powerful assault by saying on page 66,

Any psychologist, social worker, and prison warden can easily explain the simplest way to make a criminal. Take one otherwise normal child, or adult, and repeatedly humiliate him until he has no pride, dignity, or self-respect left. We then have an ideal Christian. We also have a criminal. A person who no longer respects himself can no longer respect anything. One who does not love himself, cannot love anything. If he hates himself, he hates the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: We would like not only to advertise but endorse the publication entitled THE SKEPTICAL REVIEW. The editor, Farrell Till, is a former fundamentalist minister who critiques the Bible in a manner very similar to that found in BE. Based upon several phone conversations and the content of TSR, I find him to be both genial and knowledgeable. For a copy of his periodical write to Skepticism, Inc., P.O. Box 717, Canton, Illinois 61520-0717 or phone (309) 647-4764
P.S. Since TSR has been available for approximately four years and appears to have staying power, our subcaption has been altered accordingly.