The Gospel of John and the Talmudic Jesus

If you support my work, consider supporting me on Patreon, you’ll get exclusive content, including early access to my upcoming book, “Jesus the Nazarene: The Jewish Heretic Behind Christianity” as well as future books!

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook!

After re-reading the Gospel of John recently, I couldn’t help but notice that there are several clear references to some early version of the Jewish counter-narrative to Christianity found within its pages. It seems as if John wrote his Gospel to respond to both the Synoptics (not explored here), the Gospel of Thomas, and the Jewish narrative.

What was the Jewish narrative? I present a summary of the Talmud’s narrative about Jesus below:

The earliest layers of the rabbinic corpus contain references to various healings in the name of a man named Yeshu, called Yeshu ben Pandira or Yeshu ben Pantiri (Tosefta Chullin 2) or Yeshu ben Pandera (Y Avodah Zarah 2:2; Y Shabbat 14:4), which was likely a nickname for his father, who might well have been named Yosef Pantera (as several Church Fathers attest). He is called the son of Miriam (Sanhedrin 67a), a fact not mentioned in John. Jesus is remembered as the student of, Yehoshua ben Perachiah, who was nasi of the Sanhedrin, one of the highest ranking officials in that body, recognized by the Romans as the Patriarch of the Jews. Perhaps, for this reason, Jesus was remembered as being “close to the government” (Sanhedrin 43a). There is reference to a halakhic teaching of Jesus (Avodah Zarah 16a-17a; c.f. t Hul 2:24; QohR 1:24) and reference to his saying that he did not come to “add” or “subtract” from the Torah of Moses (Shabbat 116a-b). He had five disciples named: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda (Sanhedrin 43a). Finally, he was executed for practicing sorcery, inciting people to idol worship and leading the Jewish people astray (Sanhedrin 43a; 46b).

We begin the Gospel of John’s narrative with John the Baptist, who immediately recognizes the unique role of Jesus, unlike the other Gospels. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is never portrayed as a disciple of John, although Peter and Andrew are followers of John (John 1:40-41). Unlike the other Gospels, in John, five disciples are named: Simon Peter and Andrew (John 1:40-41); Phillip (1:43); Nathanael (1:45) and Thomas (20:24). There is also Judas Iscariot, who is presented as a sort of “anti-disciple” throughout the text (first presented in 6:71). Jesus is comfortably called “Rabbi” throughout the Gospel (1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 20:16). John shares this trait with Mark (9:5, etc.), whereas Matthew has a saying where Jesus discourages the use of the term “Rabbi” (23:7-8). All of these references fit comfortably within the Jewish narrative, where Jesus is understood to be a well-known rabbi with five disciples, a trait shared with other prominent rabbis (Pirke Avot 2:9; Sanhedrin 14b). However, in John’s Gospel, the Jews remark that Jesus has not learned formally, “The Jews were astonished at it, saying, ‘How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?'” (7:15).

With regard to Jesus’ parents, we first notice that Jesus’ relationship with his mother is cold throughout the Gospel, i.e. ““Woman, what concern is that to me and to you? My hour has not yet come” (2:4). Her name is never mentioned throughout the text. There is a likely reference to Jesus’ conception out of wedlock, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one Father, God himself” (8:41), likely referencing the story in the Talmud of Mary’s infidelity to Jesus’ father (Sanhedrin 67a). However, Jesus’ father is mentioned and well-known by the Jews in John, “They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (6:42).

Two healing stories set up the conflict in the narrative between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, both occurring on the Sabbath. The first involves Jesus telling a healed man to pick up his mat and walk:

5:2-9
Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew^[a] Beth-zatha,^[b] which has five porticoes. ³ In these lay many ill, blind, lame, and paralyzed people.^[c] 5 One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. ⁶ When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” ⁷ The ill man answered him, “Sir,^[d] I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am making my way someone else steps down ahead of me.” ⁸ Jesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” ⁹ At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.

This violates a Torah law against carrying outside of one’s domain on the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-22). This might indicate that the concept of the eruv had not yet been developed, wherein a legal loophole was established to allow carrying throughout a city (there is an entire book of the Mishnah dedicated to this topic).

This and the following story open up the discussion about healing on the Sabbath, which was permitted, if it was a life-threatening condition, due to the principle of pikuach nefesh, the idea that human life is more important that Shabbat observance. However, chronic illnesses were not permitted to heal on the Sabbath because treatment could happen after the Sabbath (Yoma 84b). Jesus seems to rely on Hellenistic thought where God was not seen as resting on the Sabbath because the world continued to function and he believed himself to be the Son of God, likely infused with the “Word of God”, something like the Metatron figure in Jewish cosmology.

The second story involves the use of saliva, which was viewed as having medicinal qualities in the ancient world. This follows the Gospel of Mark, where there are two stories involving the use of saliva in healing (Mark 7:31-35; 8:22-25), which were well-known magical techniques. The Talmud permitted some use of practices associated with magic, such as in healing (Shabbat 66b-67a, Gittin 67b), through invoking angels and the names of God (Shabbat 67b, Sanhedrin 101a), as well as the use of amulets and talismans and magical formulae (Shabbat 67a; Pesahim 112b). However, the use of saliva was prohibited, as well as “whispering” over a wound for healing (Sanhedrin 90a; 101a). This was seen as a profanation of holy things, including God’s name, but Scripture more broadly, as these were used as invocations in healing.

9:6-7
When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, ⁷ saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see. 

The Gospel of John certainly indicates that the Jewish audience understood these acts as violating the Sabbath, in addition to Jesus’ teaching on his relationship to God, “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (5:18). In another occasion, “Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were divided.”(9:16).

The Talmud indicates that the Rabbis considered Jesus to be a shoteh (Shabbat 104b), one who suffered from mental illness (Chagigah 3b-4a). Interestingly, this point is mentioned by the Jews throughout John’s Gospel. Consider the following:

“Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?” ²⁰ The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?” (7:19-20)

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (8:48)

Again the Jews were divided because of these words. ²⁰ Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?” ²¹ Others were saying, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (10:19-21)

Jesus’ teaching on circumcision, related to his defense of healing on the Sabbath, relates to my contention that Jesus was a member of the Nassaraean sect and believed the Torah was corrupted in some manner. In this passage, he relates that “Moses” gave the Jews circumcision (implying that God did not).

7:21-24
Jesus answered them, “I performed one work, and all of you are astonished. ²² Because of this Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. ²³ If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? ²⁴ Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

This fits in with Jesus’ disregard of the Sabbath laws, as interpreted by the Jews. There are other cases where Jesus seems to violate the Torah, such as when he implies that they are to eat his flesh. “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (6:52). In another case, Jesus refers to the Torah as “your law”:

8:13-20
Then the Pharisees said to him, “You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid.” ¹⁴ Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. ¹⁵ You judge by human standards;^[c] I judge no one. ¹⁶ Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is valid, for it is not I alone who judge but I and the Father^[d] who sent me. ¹⁷ In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. ¹⁸ I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf.” ¹⁹ Then they said to him, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” ²⁰ He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

Did Jesus have a successful ministry? The Talmud certainly implies so, with one of the charges brought against him being “inciting”, which implied “deceiving” a large number of people (Sanhedrin 67a). John continually references the “many people” who believed (2:23), and throughout the gospel:

The Jews were looking for him at the festival and saying, “Where is he?” ¹² And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, “He is a good man,” others were saying, “No, he is deceiving the crowd.” ¹³ Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews. (7:11-13)

Now some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, “Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill? ²⁶ And here he is, speaking openly, but they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah?^[e]27 Yet we know where this man is from, but when the Messiah^[f] comes no one will know where he is from.” ³¹ Yet many in the crowd believed in him and were saying, “When the Messiah^[g] comes, will he do more signs than this man has done?”^[h] (7:25-27, 31)

When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” ⁴¹ Others said, “This is the Messiah.”^[l] But some asked, “Surely the Messiah^[m] does not come from Galilee, does he? ⁴² Has not the scripture said that the Messiah^[n] is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” ⁴³ So there was a division in the crowd because of him. ⁴⁴ Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. (7:40-44)

Then the temple police went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why did you not arrest him?” ⁴⁶ The police answered, “Never has anyone spoken like this!” ⁴⁷ Then the Pharisees replied, “Surely you have not been deceived, too, have you? ⁴⁸ Has any one of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? ⁴⁹ But this crowd, which does not know the law, they are accursed.” ⁵⁰ Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus^[o] before and who was one of them, asked, ⁵¹ “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?” ⁵² They replied, “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.” (7:45-52)

So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. ⁴⁸ If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place^[h] and our nation.” (11:47-48)

The Pharisees then said to one another, “You see, you can do nothing. Look, the world has gone after him!” (12:19)

The charges against Jesus the Nazarene were serious, capital offenses: sorcery and being an inciter to idolatry, serious offenses (Sanhedrin 61a; 84b; 89a). Blasphemy was prohibited (Leviticus 24:16) and the Rabbis interpreted blasphemy as a type of idolatry (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4, 7:4). Idol worship resulted in stoning (Sanhedrin 53a). Being a mesit, an inciter is an especially serious crime under Torah law (Deut. 13:7-9). John’s gospel references the charge of blasphemy brought against Jesus for his teaching of his unique relationship to God:

The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.” (19:7)

The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.” (10:33)

There is one other interesting parallel between the Talmudic account of Jesus and the Gospel of John, which revolves around the character of Lazarus and Nicodemus. Lazarus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Eleazer. It is interesting that in the Talmud there are two Eliezer’s who have close encounters with Christians, Eliezer ben Hurcanus and Eleazer ben Damah (Tosefta Hullin 2:20-22 and other places). The character of Nicodemus is likely meant to portray some of the characters in rabbinic circles that were accused of having close relations with the Judeo-Christians. As Nicodemus says in the Gospel, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with that person. (3:2).

I think these coincidences point to John’s knowledge and response to an early version of the Jewish counter-narrative to the life of Jesus. What form this would have taken is unknown. Were there early versions of the Mishnah in circulation? Was this based on rumor and other forms of oral material? It’s hard to know, but it seems very likely that John was responding to these accusations in his Gospel.