005. Chapter 3 - Jewish Sources: Josephus and the Talmud

Chapter 3 - Jewish Sources: Josephus and the Talmud

Philo

Philo, the great Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, was a contemporary of Jesus, but makes no mention of Him. This is not surprising, considering his residence outside of Palestine and his exclusive devotion to philosophy.

Josephus

Josephus (a.d. 37?-100?), the famous Jewish historian, was reared in Jerusalem during the stirring days of the rise of the Christian church. In his greatest work, Jewish Antiquities, he gives the history of the Jews from its beginning to the Jewish War (a.d. 66). We should expect a full account of Jesus in this history. But Josephus was moved by the common Jewish prejudice against the Christians, which was especially bitter after the fall of Jerusalem, when he wrote. Moreover, he wrote during the reign of Domitian, when the Jews were being violently persecuted; he was attempting to write for Roman readers an apology of the Jewish people, and would not desire to mention the Christians who were so despised by the Romans. He shows a labored attempt to avoid treatment of the Messianic ideas and movements of the Jews, a political topic likely to bring disfavor. The Reference to John the Baptist The following paragraph from the Antiquities gives his summary of John’s ministry: “Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to justice toward one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism for baptism would be acceptable to God if they made use of it, not in order to expiate some sins, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence John had over the people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed likely to do anything he should advise), thought it far best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of his leniency when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, in consequence of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, and was there put to death” (XVIII. 5:2). The evident conflict of this account with the New Testament, in some particulars, shows it could not be an interpolation. The description of John as “a good man” is evidently written in terms Roman readers might understand. His assertion that baptism was for “purification of the body” shows how far he had missed the significance of this rite. He deliberately avoids mentioning John’s prediction of the coming of the Messiah, and hence leaves unexplained the excitement of the multitudes at which he hints. He matches this by emphasizing the political zeal of Herod for Roman authority and good government as his reason for killing John, and by omitting the personal reasons. The Disputed Reference to Christ The first reference of the Antiquities to Jesus has been discarded by many scholars as a Christian interpolation. It is defended notably by Home. Joseph Klausner, the learned Jew of Jerusalem, who has published a very radical life of Christ entitled Jesus of Nazareth, holds that the passage in the main is genuine, but that the italicized parts are Christian interpolations: “Now there was about this time (i.e., about the time of the rising against Pilate, who wished to extract money from the temple for the purpose of bringing water to Jerusalem from a distant spring), Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man. For He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men, as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Messiah, and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who loved Him at the first ceased not (so to do), for He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him, and the race of Christians so named from Him, is not extinct even now.” The whole passage is doubtful, for it is not likely that a Jew who rejected Jesus would write such declarations. All extant manuscripts of Josephus contain it, but Origen (a.d. 185-254) states that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, which would seem to indicate that the above passage was not in the manuscripts of the Antiquities, with which Origen was familiar. Eusebius, the church historian of the fourth century, quotes the passage. The Undisputed

Concerning the second reference of Josephus to Jesus, there can be no doubt as to the genuineness. He tells how Annas, the high priest, seized the opportunity given by the death of the procurator Festus, and before the arrival of Albinus, his successor, brought before the Sanhedrin a man by the name of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ,” and, with others, had him stoned to death. Some of the Jews lodged complaint against Annas for this illegal act, and he was deposed by Agrippa II and Albinus. This passage bears no evidence of Christian influence. The phrase, “who was called the Christ,” sounds like a prejudiced Pharisee, and not a Christian. The attempt is made to clear the more faithful supporters of the law from the blame for the summary execution of James. No attempt is made to exalt Jesus or defend James from the charge of being a breaker of the law, hence the whole temper of the passage fits with Josephus as the author. Hegesippus, early Christian writer, tells a variant account of the death of James, how he was thrown from the roof of the temple, stoned, and finally killed by a fuller with his felting-stick, and that Vespasian laid siege to Jerusalem immediately after this. Origen appears to combine the two accounts in referring to the death of James. But the almost unanimous opinion of critics is that the Josephus passage is genuine. It substantiates clearly the passing references of the Roman writers to Jesus. The Talmud A further Jewish source which has but slight value consists of occasional references to Jesus in the Talmud and Midrash. Talmud means “instruction” or “doctrine.” It is the civil and canonical law of the Jews, consisting of the Mishna (text) and the Gamara (commentary). The Mishna is the collection of endless oral traditions which the scribes had woven about the Old Testament law. The Gamara is the explanation and interpretation of these traditions. The Midrash is the imaginative development and exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures, abounding in all sorts of stories added to the Old Testament accounts in some such fashion as the Apocryphal Gospels. Edersheim says of the Talmud: “If we imagine something combining law reports, a Rabbinical Hansard, and notes of a theological debating club, all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions, anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often of what, from its profanity, superstition and even obscenity, could scarcely be quoted, we may form some general idea of what the Talmud is.” The Mishna dates back to the close of the second century of the Christian era. The Gamara is some centuries later.

Even Klausner, who gives a most detailed study of Talmud sources in his Jesus of Nazareth, admits that the references to Jesus “have little historical value, since they partake rather of vituperation and polemic against the founder of a hated party, than of objective accounts of historical value. All the noble qualities of Jesus which the disciples had found in Him were twisted into defects, and all the miracles attributed to Him into horrible and unseemly marvels.” “They are deliberately intended to contradict events recorded in the Gospels; the selfsame facts are perverted into bad and blamable acts. For example, the Gospels say that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, and not of a human father; the Talmud stories assert that Jesus was indeed born without a father, yet not of the Holy Spirit, but as the result of an irregular union. The Gospels say that He performed signs and wonders through the Holy Spirit and the power of God; the Talmud stories allow He did indeed work signs and wonders, but by means of magic.” So says Klausner, world-famous student of the Talmud, and himself a radical Jew (Jesus of Nazareth, p 19). Its Slanderous Attacks

Many of the references are unbelievably coarse and vulgar — simply unquotable. Others are so silly that they make no sense at all. Often the references to Jesus are not by name, but by use of some subtly insulting epithet such as “Son of the Stake,” “That Man,” “Such-a-One,” “The One Hung,” “The Fool.” Klausner quotes and sifts the Talmudic stories that Jesus was born of the illegitimate union of Mary with a Roman soldier named “Panther” and decides the whole thing an invention, “Panther” being a corrupt travesty of the Greek parthenos (virgin). The Christians called Jesus by the name “Son of the Virgin”; so, in mockery, they (the Jews) called Him “Ben-ha-Pantera”; i.e., son of the leopard. From this beginning the vulgar legend arose that Pantera was the name of a man — a Roman soldier. In like fashion, they wove legends about His stay in Egypt; that He practiced sorcery there, was a “worshiper of a brick” (whatever that might mean), etc. A characteristic Baraita from the Talmud is as follows: “On the eve of the Passover, they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), and the herald went before him for forty days, saying, ‘Yeshu of Nazareth is going forth to be stoned in that he practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. led every one knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him.’ But they found naught in his defense, and hanged him on the eve of Passover.” Klausner attaches some importance to the chronological statement “on the eve of the Passover,” but sweeps aside the “forty day” trial of Jesus as an invention of the later Jews. It was intended to offset the hasty, farcical trial by which Jesus was condemned. The Talmud offers the climax of vituperation by saying Jesus would be condemned in eternity to be thrown into boiling filth (Jesus of Nazareth, pp 25-27). The Evidence Sifted

What is the sum total of all these insulting and ridiculous references to Jesus in the Talmud? On the one hand, they are utterly unable to displace or shake the details of the Gospel records. Although written to deny the Gospel accounts, they destroy themselves as accurate history by the poisonous venom with which they are filled. Klausner tries desperately to use them to discredit the Gospels. With a great show of fairness, he sets aside the Talmudic stories as mere legends of hate, then subtly attempts to swap off the Gospels in the balance. The undercurrent seems to be: If he, a Jew, is willing to admit as a myth the story of Mary and “Panther,” and the illegitimate birth of Jesus, the Christian should likewise set aside Matthew and Luke and the virgin birth and agree with him in saying Jesus was simply the son of Joseph and Mary. He likewise attempts to sift the Talmud accounts, and tries to make out a case for the Jews by affirming that the earlier stories are milder and more kindly toward Jesus, and that only after the Christians began to persecute the Jews so furiously do the venomous stories of the Talmud come in. But he fails to make a convincing argument in either case. The Gospel records shine out with a clear, heaven-born light that can not be dimmed. And the attempt to show that the early attitude of the Jewish leaders was kindly toward Jesus fails in the presence of the crucifixion of Christ, and the whole current of early Christian literature. The fact that the Jewish rabbis from the close of the first century on down have attempted so many attacks upon Jesus helps to prove the reality of His earthly life. Here is another hostile group of writers joining unconsciously with the Roman writers in their contemptuous references to Jesus, and bearing witness in spite of themselves to the historic character — Jesus of Nazareth.