Jewish Babylonian Talmud
McDowell cites six lines of evidence for the historical Jesus from
the Talmudic writings:
(a) The Tol'doth Yeshu. At the outset, note that the Tol'doth Yeshu
is not in any sense a part of the Talmud; in ETDAV McDowell
erroneously lists the Tol'doth Yeshu as if it were a part of the
Talmud. (In fairness to McDowell, I should note that he does not
repeat this error in his later book, He Walked Among Us; in that
volume, the Tol'doth Yeshu is listed under the heading of
"References from the Rabbis."[45]) Anyway, McDowell states that the
Tol'doth Yeshu is a reference to Jesus; in that document "Jesus is
referred to as `Ben Pandera'".[46] Yet Joseph Klausner--who
McDowell relies on heavily in his section on the Talmud--believed
the Tol'doth Yeshu "contains no history worth the name."[47]
Furthermore, Klausner stated, "The present Hebrew Tol'Doth Yeshu,
even in its simplest form, is not earlier than the present
Yosippon, i.e. it was not composed before the tenth century.
Therefore it cannot possibly possess any historical value nor in
any way be used as material for the life of Jesus."[48] Even on
McDowell's view, this is more than enough time for legendary
development. And in He Walked Among Us, McDowell and Wilson list
the Tol'doth Yeshu among the "unreliable [rabbinic] references to
Jesus."
(b) The Babylonian Talmud. McDowell next lists the opinion of the
Amoraim that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.[49] However,
Klausner thinks that the Amoraim traditions "can have no objective
historical value (since by the time of the Amoraim there was
certainly no clear recollection of Jesus' life and works)."[50]
Morris Goldstein states that the passage "cannot be fixed at a
definite date within the Tannaitic time-area."[51] The value of
this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of
Jesus is therefore uncertain.
(c) The tradition about Jesus as the son of Pantera. Commenting on
the Talmud's references to Jesus as "Ben Pandera (or 'Ben
Pantere')" and "Jeshu ben Pandera," McDowell writes, "Many scholars
say `pandera' is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for
virgin `parthenos,' calling him `son of a virgin.'"[52] However,
"Jesus is never referred to as `the son of the virgin' in the
Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church
(30-130), nor in the second century apologists."[53] As Herford
argues, this passage "cannot be earlier than the beginning of the
fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in
Babylonia, not Palestine."[54]
(d) The Baraitha describing hanging Yeshu on the eve of Passover.
McDowell considers "of great historical value" the following Jewish
tradition about the hanging of Jesus:
On the eve of 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 hath practiced sorcery and
beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his
defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his
defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover.[55]
It is unclear whether this passage refers to Jesus. As Goldstein
admits, "the possibility of the Jesus named in the Talmud being
someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, and identified as such only
because of confusion, cannot be entirely dismissed."[56] But even
if the passage does refer to the Jesus of the New Testament,
according to Goldstein, "it is of no help one way or the other in
the question of the historicity of Jesus."[57]
Following this Baraitha are some remarks of the Amora 'Ulla, a
disciple of R. Yochanan and who lived in Palestine at the end of
the third century. McDowell quotes these remarks as follows:
'Ulla said: 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.[58]
Both McDowell and Klausner conclude, "The Talmud authorities do not
deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they look upon them
as acts of sorcery."[59] However, given our ignorance of both the
date of these passages as well as the author's sources, we simply
can't assume these passages represent independent traditions about
Jesus.
(e) Talmudic references to the disciples of Jesus. McDowell writes,
"Sanhedrin 43a also makes references to the disciples of
Jesus."[60] Turning to Joseph Klausner, we read:
Immediately after this Baraita comes a second (Sanh. 43a): Jesus
had five disciples, Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni and
Todah.[61]
Yet as Klausner notes, "In any case the Baraita itself is lacking
in accuracy, for although the names are those of real disciples,
they include some who were not disciples of Jesus himself, but
disciples of the second generation."[62] In other words, the list
of names is simply a list of Christians, not a list of
contemporaries of Jesus.[63]
Laible has suggested that "the story refers to the prosecution of
Christians under Bar Cocheba"[64] because (1) the story occurs in
the same passage which describes the death of Jesus and (2) "the
key to the understanding of the statements there made about Jesus
in the anti-Christian hatred of Bar Cocheba, and more especially of
Aqiba, his chief supporter."[65] If that is the case, then the
passage can be dated to the second century, which would prevent it
from providing independent confirmation of the historicity of
Jesus.
(f) The reference to such-an-one as a bastard of an adulteress.
McDowell, following the lead of Klausner, cites the following
passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 4.49a:
R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a geneaological roll in
Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an
adulteress.'"[66]
McDowell takes this to be a reliable reference to Jesus.[67]
However, there are good reasons to doubt that this passage
represents an independent tradition about Jesus. First, the passage
comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to around the sixth
century. Second, the gospel of Matthew begins with the words, "The
book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ."[68] This "genealogical
roll" or "Book of Pedigrees" may have been influenced by the
gospels. Third, this passage fits the pattern of Rabbinical
polemic. Thus this reference may not be based upon an independent
source. Of course, it's also possible that this passage was based
on independent sources. The available evidence does not favor one
view over the other; thus, we can't use this passage as independent
confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
(g) The reference to the 'hire of a harlot.' Finally, McDowell
quotes the following passage from the Talmud:
He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along
the upper market (Tosefta reads 'street') of Sepphoris and found
one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar
Sekanya (Tosefta reads 'Sakkanin') was his name. He said to me, It
is written in your Law, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot,
etc.' What was to be done with it--a latrine for the High Priest?
But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth]
taught me (Tosefta reads, 'Yeshu ben Pantere'): 'For of the hire of
a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot
shall they return'; from the place of filth they come, and unto the
place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and
because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed
against what is written in the Law; 'Keep thy way far from
here'--that is Minuth; 'and come not nigh the door of her
house'--that is the civil government.[69]
What is crucial to the evidential force of this passage is the
words in parentheses; yet McDowell never defends them. He simply
quotes Klausner, who in turn quoted an obscure, 19th century
manuscript.[70] Nonetheless, most scholars would reject the passage
as McDowell has it:
To establish the reliability of this passage, Klausner must engage
in a contorted argument that includes an appeal to Hegesippus'
account of the martyrdom of James--something that would not inspire
confidence in many scholars today. Joachim Jeremias weighs the pros
and cons of the argument about authenticity and decides in the
negative--rightly in my view. The saying is a polemical invention
meant to make Jesus look ridiculous.[71]
In conclusion, the value of the Talmud as a witness to the
historicity of Jesus is at best uncertain. John Meier argues that
the Talmud contains "no clear or probable reference to Jesus."[72]
And Twelftree states that the Talmud is "of almost no value to the
historian in his search for the historical Jesus."[73] Of course,
as McDowell and Wilson point out, the Talmud never questions the
historicity of Jesus.[74] But that fact cannot itself be used as
evidence for the historicity of Jesus, for two reasons. First, as
Goldstein points out,
we must be careful not to make too much of [the] argument [that had
Jews doubted the historicity of Jesus, they would have said so]. It
is not conclusive. Can we attribute to ancient peoples our modern
concept of myth, or historicity? Furthermore, this manner of logic
lends itself to fallacious extension whereby one could attempt to
prove that whatever the early Jewish tradition does not
specifically mention in contradiction to the Christian tradition
must have taken place.[75]
Second, the Talmud can only provide independent confirmation of
Jesus's existence if it relied on independent sources. Given our
ignorance of the sources for the Talmud as well as its late date,
it simply can't be used as independent confirmation of the
historicity of Jesus.
