The Talmud and the Death of Jesus

If you would like to see this article with footnotes, click here.

Introduction

The debate around the historicity of the Talmud’s Jesus narratives is at the heart of the discussion of rabbinic attitudes towards the founder of Christianity. Countless narratives have tried to explain the meaning of these passages, with no consensus being reached. The Talmud presents an alternative chronology surrounding the life of Jesus, placing his existence during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean king of Israel. The earliest reference to this alternative chronology is found in the writings of Saadia Gaon, the Babylonian rabbinic figure who died in c. 942 CE. Saadia’s references to this alternative tradition is significant because it does not rely on the Talmudic narrative. The tradition is also mentioned by Yehudah HaLevi (d. 1141 CE), Moses Maimonides (d. 1204 CE), Abraham ibn Daud (d. 1180 CE), and Nahmanides in his famous disputation in 1264 CE, among a few others that explicitly mention this alternative chronology. Additionally, among the Karaites, non-rabbinic Jews, the ninth century scholar, Jacob Qirqisani mentions the alternative chronology. It is possible that Epiphanius of Salamis mentions the alternative chronology in Panarion 29, 3:2-3, where he seems to suggest that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Others such as the later Ashkenazi rabbi, Jacob Emden, have even tried to say positive things about the historical Jesus against Paul-as-founder-of-Christianity, echoing claims of modern scholars. Ashkenazi printings of the Talmud engaged in self-censorship, removing many texts about Jesus, to preserve the lives of the Jews in Europe. 

The historicity of the Talmud’s narrative has been the subject of intense, scholarly debate. Earlier authors such as Pick’s Jesus in the Talmud or Dalman’s Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and Liturgy of the Synagogue ascribe minimalist historical validity, as do later authors such as Herford’s Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash, Klausner’s Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching or Lauterbach’s Jesus in the Talmud, found little or some value in the Talmud’s validity as a historical source. G.R.S. Mead also concludes that the Talmud offers little historical information about Jesus, particularly criticizing the chronology in Did Jesus Live in 100 BC? Other authors such as Van Voorst in his Jesus Outside the New Testament conclude that the Rabbis did not have any independent traditions about Jesus. The Talmud provides an opposing and alternative view to the Christian narrative, with both possibly independent material and also allusions and responses to Christian texts. The Argentine-born Syrian rabbi, José Faur, wrote a Jewish critique of the Gospels called The Gospel According to the Jews using the Talmud’s narrative as a literary critique of Christian literature. Peter Schäfer reads the narrative in a similar light, as a Jewish response to Christianity. Johann Maier, John Meier, and Jacob Neusner do not believe the Talmud has any historical memories of Jesus. Peter Schäfer in his work, Jesus in the Talmud (2009), states, “the figure of Jesus does appear in the Talmud… not in a coherent narrative, but scattered throughout the rabbinic literature in general and the Talmud in particular and often dealt with in passing, in conjunction with another subject pursued as the major theme.” McDowell concludes, “[T]he Talmudic tradition is essentially a parody of the flight to Egypt, with Alexander Jannaeus replacing the figure of Herod. Temporal displacement and conflation of two distinct persons is common in rabbinic literature.” He adds that the Babylonian Talmud’s authority among medieval Jews revived interest in the alternative chronology. 

An essential argument from Peter Schäfer’s book, Jesus in the Talmud, is that the rabbis had a “precise” knowledge of New Testament texts, suggesting that the Rabbis had access to the Syriac Diatessaron or the Peshitta. Schäfer sees a number of allusions to the New Testament text in the rabbinic narrative about Jesus, particularly from the Gospel of John. He sees this as the case because this Gospel was the most overtly Christian and anti-Jewish of the Gospels, which has no qualms about establishing the divine identity of Jesus. 

This study seeks to expand this assertion to examine a case where there is possibly an allusion to a text in the Synoptic tradition, only found in the Gospel of Mark.

The Talmud as a Historical Source and Talmudic Aggada

Using the Talmud as a historical source can be problematic. There is a division of opinion on its worth as a historical source. Jacob Neusner views the Talmud as providing historical insight into the Jewish community that composed the document, especially material attributed to Rabbis after c. 140 CE. Kraemer proposes a methodology to validate the historical reliability of the Talmud’s record of history by relying on Neusner’s proposed methodology. First, commonly attested traditions in both the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud can be regarded as reflecting the original sages (rabbis) with whom they are associated. Secondly, some literary characteristics of texts in the Babylonian Talmud presume that they were written shortly after when they occurred. Oppenheimer proposes a way to examine the historical validity of the Talmud, “My approach is a more systematic, combined examination of Talmudic sources in which they are read in relation to external, independent sources (when they are available), such as the writings of Roman historians, church fathers, and Persian authors, as well as the archaeological material, notably epigraphic material.” Many of these reflections are similar to the historical criteria used when examining Christian texts.

The texts mentioning Jesus in the Talmud should be classified as aggadic, that is, non-legal material. Later traditions developed around reading rabbinic texts either through a peshat, “literal” reading or as midrash, leading to important commentaries, such as that of Rashi. The interpretation of midrash became an important aspect of later medieval work. Even rationalistic scholars, such as Maimonides, relied upon midrashic interpretations on some occasions. The Talmud itself contains multiple layers, originating from the second to fourth centuries CE, with editorial work following that. The completed Babylonian Talmud was transmitted by the moving of Sages from Babylonia to Spain, and then to North Africa and Egypt. 

Relying on later Spanish exegesis, aggadic statements can be divided into several categories. There are narratives that are derived from reality and can be used in establishing halakhic precedent or in deriving moral or faith virtues. There are incidents in this category that relate improbable occurrences. However, these stories might relay things that truly occurred, which serve to share an important lesson or aspect of a particular figure’s character, through an extraordinary event. The Talmud also includes narratives which narrate events that occurred in dreams (Berakhot 7a). However, these should not be regarded as natural occurrences but are only presented as such because the Rabbis engage in “simple speech” and present the contents of dreams in a realistic manner. 

Another type of narrative found in the Talmud is that of events that occurred but which are presented in an exaggerated form. The Talmud itself notes that the Rabbis and the Torah use exaggerated language to make a point:

Talmud, Tamid 29a

The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: “Hear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven” (Deuteronomy 9:1). Does it enter your mind to say that the cities were literally fortified up to heaven? Rather, this is an exaggeration.

Likewise, the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language, as in this example that we stated with regard to the circular heap of ashes, and in the description: The priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a cup of gold.

There is also a possibility of relating natural occurrences in allegory or riddle:

Sukka 53a

The Gemara relates with regard to these two Cushites who would stand before Solomon: “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” (I Kings 4:3), and they were scribes of Solomon. One day Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: They are asking me to take the lives of these two Cushites who are sitting here. Solomon handed them to the demons in his service, and sent them to the district of Luz, where the Angel of Death has no dominion. When they arrived at the district of Luz, they died.

The following day, Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was happy. He said to him: Why are you happy? He replied: In the place that they asked me to take them, there you sent them. The Angel of Death was instructed to take their lives in the district of Luz. Since they resided in Solomon’s palace and never went to Luz, he was unable to complete his mission. That saddened him. Ultimately, Solomon dispatched them to Luz, enabling the angel to accomplish his mission. That pleased him. Immediately, Solomon began to speak and said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.

This seems to consist of a historical kernel that is embellished by other details to highlight the meaning of the story. The superfluous details exist to embellish the story being told.

In Eruvin 63a, there is a story of Rabbi Eliezer who had a “certain disciple who issued a ruling in his presence” which the Rabbis say results in death. The story says this student did not last the year. Eliezer’s wife asks if he is a prophet but Eliezer says that he is not, only that he received the tradition from his teachers that anyone who rules in his teacher’s presence is liable for the death penalty, hence the student’s death. Rabba bar bar Hana says in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that the name of the student was Yehuda ben Gurya and that he was not that close to his teacher. The Rabbis respond that it was close enough and that the details were given so that it would not be interpreted as a parable. 

Complicating matters further is the fact that some narratives blend real events with dreams or other non-literal allegories (Hagiga 14b). 

How should these narratives be interpreted? Some passages are simply interpreted, such that the intended meaning is easily interpreted from the text. Some passages hold both a literal and hidden meaning. However, the Talmud is arranged in such a manner that the literal meaning is often in conflict with the hidden meaning. 

Another example of this type follows:

Ta’anit 31a

Ulla of the city of Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: In the future, in the end of days, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will arrange a dance of the righteous, and He will be sitting among them in the Garden of Eden, and each and every one of the righteous will point to God with his finger, as it is stated: “And it shall be said on that day: Behold, this is our God, for whom we waited, that He might save us. This is the Lord; for whom we waited. We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation” (Isaiah 25:9).

The literal meaning here is understood to be impossible, however, the hidden meaning that the righteous will be able to fully comprehend the mysteries of God in the World-to-Come is the “height of delight.” This is allegorized as dance in the passage, an equivalent human experience. 

There are additional passages whose intended meaning is difficult to understand, due to the way they are expressed in the text, often due to a vague word or phrase in the passage. The fourth way of interpreting certain passages involves poetic or rhetorical presentation of ideas. For example:

Ta’anit 9a

A tithe shall you tithe [te’aser]” (Deuteronomy 14:22)? This phrase can be interpreted homiletically: Take a tithe [asser] so that you will become wealthy [titasher]

This final type will be important in our understanding of part of the analysis of Sanhedrin 43a.

Jesus’ Trial in Sanhedrin 43a Read as Aggada

Should the narratives about Jesus in the Talmud be regarded as presenting historical realities or allegories? The answer is not clear and generalizations cannot be presented as applying to all of the passages. Each passage must be analyzed separately and, only then, can a conclusion be presented for the entirety of the Talmud’s narratives about Jesus. 

Perhaps one of the Talmudic narratives most accepted as reflecting a historical record of Jesus is found in Tractate Sanhedrin, which deals with the practical implications of a Jewish state with a functioning legal system. The sugya occurs in a chapter that deals with capital punishment, only delivered as a sentence in the most serious of cases. The first mishnah in the chapter explains a few important details for the case of Jesus the Nazarene. First, the mishnah explains the procedure of stoning, one of the means of administering capital punishment. If a person is found to be guilty, they are taken “outside of the camp” (Lev. 24:14). The mishnah then explains how many people accompany him and other details of the procedure. The latter part of the mishnah emphasizes the capacity for acquittal, if facts about the case should change before the moment of execution. The latter part of the mishnah introduces an important aspect of this idea in that a crier is supposed to go forth before the execution and announce the execution and inquire if there are any witnesses that could acquit the guilty party. This will become an important aspect of the Talmudic sugya related to Jesus. 

M Sanhedrin 6:1

When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (Leviticus 24:14). One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.

A later mishnah makes another important point about criminals sentenced with stoning. Rabbi Eliezer states that all those who are stoned are later hung after their death by execution. The Rabbis clarify that this is only the blasphemer and idolator who are later hanged. Additionally, only a man is hung, whereas women are not hung. 

M Sanhedrin 6:4

The corpses of all those who are stoned are hung after their death; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only the corpse of the blasphemer, who has cursed God, and the corpse of the idol worshipper are hung. The corpse of a man is hung facing the people, but the corpse of a woman, out of modesty, is hung with facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: the corpse of a man is hung, but the corpse of a woman is not hung.

The Gemara opens the discussion after the latter clause in M Sanhedrin 6:1 above. Abaye, a fourth-century Babylonian sage states that a crier must publicly proclaim the transgression and announce the time and place of the transgression when making the required announcements. The Gemara then makes a clarifying statement about when the crier goes out, i.e. while he is being led to the place of execution but not before the conviction of the accused. This directly relates to the baraita that follows which presents the tradition, “On Passover Eve they hung Jesus the Nazarene,” meaning after they stoned him and that, “And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray,” meaning Jesus was given extra leniencies above the average criminal, since the crier went out before his conviction. Ulla, a third-to-fourth century Palestinian sage explains how this is to be understood. He states that Jesus was given unusual leniencies because he was “close to the government”, even though the blasphemer and idolator should usually be neither “spared” nor “concealed” (Deuteronomy 13:9). This implies the court wanted to avoid a false conviction in this high profile case.

Instone-Brewer argues convincingly for the progressive layering of these traditions, beginning with the simple traditions about Jesus’ execution and disciples in around 200 CE, which was later augmented by the statements of Abaye and Ulla, which were added in the early fourth century (perhaps around 320 CE). It is important to note that the core tradition about Jesus’ trial predates the composition of the Mishnah, as Justin Martyr references the charges against Jesus as stating that he, “dared to call him a magician and an enticer of the people” (Dialogue 69:7). Graham Stanton also agrees with the antiquity of the charge by comparing the wording between the Talmud’s baraita and that of Justin Martyr. Stanton also brings up the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, stating, “In a strongly polemical passage in chapter 96, Charisius rounds on his wife Mygdonia: ‘I have heard that that magician and deceiver…teaches that a man should not live with his own wife.’ He said to her again, ‘be not led astray by deceitful and vain words nor by the works of magic’. The phrase ‘magician and deceiver’ recalls Justin’s Dialogue 69.7 and the rabbinic allegations against Jesus. The same phrase is used in chapter 102, and again (though in separate sentences) in chapters 106–7. 1.” Here Thomas stands as a representative of Jesus. The Christian gospels make references to these charges but not in reference to Jesus’ trial.

B Sanhedrin 43a

Abaye says: And the crier must also publicly proclaim that the transgression was committed on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, as perhaps there are those who know that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, and they will come forward and render the witnesses conspiring witnesses.

The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.

Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.

The sugya does not read as an exaggeration or a presentation of dream material, as other sugyot presented earlier did. The peshat (‘simple’) meaning of the text is clear: this is an account of how Jesus was tried and executed. Instone-Brewer has noted many problems with the tradition. The tradition seems to predate the stabilization of rabbinic halakhah. The later Talmudic text works with the base tradition, “On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu for sorcery and enticing Israel,” and then attempts to smooth over the complications with halakhic norms. This conforms with Talmudic norms as the tradition is introduced as a baraita, with the technical phrase, Tanya, it was taught. The baraitot were mishnaic statements that were not included in the Mishnah. However, within the legal debates preserved in the Gemara, they are introduced as proofs for various legal positions. Therefore, it is likely that the original tradition did not envision Jesus’ trial by the Sanhedrin (alone?) and likely envisioned the Romans “hanging” (crucifying) Jesus, perhaps with the collaboration of the Jewish court. 

However, Talmudic texts are multi-layered and can have different meanings. This is where the attempt to apply the methodology of analyzing aggada from the first section of the article comes into play. The text can be read as exaggeration when focusing on the elucidatory remark made by Ulla about why Jesus was worthy of a search for a reason for his acquittal. This might mean that the story of Jesus’ execution was worked into a halakhic framework about the crier who goes before executions in order to explain the historical nugget: Jesus was close to the government. The story serves to note that the case of Jesus was different in some way from what might have been expected. The area where Jesus’ case is different is that he is shown mercy and a crier is sent out, even though he is charged with being a mesit, enticing others to idolatry. In such cases, typically there is no process to provide a means of acquittal (Sanhedrin 29a; 33b; 36b). Typically, Jews are commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:12), yet, in this case, the verse explicitly says not to show compassion. This is the manner in which the trial of Jesus was different – the severity of the charge did not match the procedural leniencies provided. 

Various Gospel accounts assign some agency to Jewish actors in the trial of Jesus, even if the ultimate decision fell to Pilate himself. It is perhaps these memories that fuel the rabbinic assertion that Jesus was tried and executed by the Jewish court without any Roman involvement. It is perhaps the traditions in the Synoptic account, the Gospel of Peter, and John that inform the rabbinic narrative here. There is some acknowledgement that the trial did not take place according to rabbinic halakhah, and perhaps a level of commentary on the leniencies provided to Jesus in the Gospel accounts.

It is challenging to know exactly what the Rabbis might have meant by קרוב למלכות (qarob lamalkhut). There have been some suggestions. For example, Schäfer reads the phrase as evidence that the Rabbis were familiar with the Gospel narratives, particularly of John, and read the actions of Pilate’s continued efforts to exonerate Jesus as evidence of his “closeness to the government,” here, Rome. A point in support of Schäfer’s reading is a parallel sugya describing the permission given to Rabban Gamaliel to learn Greek “wisdom” (i.e. philosophy and language) because his family was qarobim lemalkhut:

Bava Kama 83a

The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government.

In fact, the usual reading of malkhut does refer to the civil authorities.

Some evidence from the Church Fathers also points in this direction. Federico Dal Bo states, “the Rabbis clearly assume that Jesus was not only a sorcerer who incited Israel to apostasy but he also had strong connections with the Roman government: ‘he was close to the Kingdom.’ There is no need to say that ‘Ulla is describing Jesus’ ties with the Roman oppressors in sarcastic terms; the one who claimed to be close to ‘the reign of heaven’ (malkhut ha-shamayim) was indeed only close to the Roman Empire – that is not unfrequently depicted as ‘a wicked kingdom’ (malkhut ha-rish‘ah), in tractate Sanhedrin Itself”, opting for a literal reading of the term. This ties to a different reading between the Roman and Christian West which saw Jesus as a victim of the Sanhedrin and a rioter, whereas the Rabbinic East saw Jesus as a Roman collaborator and agent. 

Is there another way of reading qarob lamalkhut, in addition to the understanding presented above?

As mentioned previously, Schäfer sees the Rabbis as having access to the text of the New Testament, through either the Syriac Diatessaron or Peshitta. Additionally, there is textual evidence within the Talmud to indirect quotation from the Gospel of Matthew (Shabbat 116a). I wish to read the phrase in a different way and propose that the Rabbis had access to more than just Matthew and, perhaps John, and that the Rabbis also had access to Mark. By re-examining the phrase, קרוב למלכות, I will show how this could be a possible understanding of the text. The phrase is typically translated as “close to the government”, as we have seen. However, the word מלכות has more than one meaning. It can also refer to the kingdom of God, as explained in the phrase: עול מלכות שמים (‘ol malkhut shamayim), accepting the kingdom of God upon oneself, as accomplished in the recitation of the Shema (Berakhot 13b). This meaning is also found in other places throughout rabbinic literature. In this case, the phrase, קרוב למלכות, would be translated as close to the kingdom [of heaven]. This immediately reminds of a passage in Mark, where Jesus disputes with a lawyer about the greatest commandment.

Mark 12:28-34

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; 33 and ‘to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.

Upon a satisfactory answer, Jesus responds to him in Greek, “Οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mark 12:34)” – you are not far from the kingdom of God. βασιλεία is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew and Aramaic מלכות. In this reading, the Rabbis present a counter-narrative to Mark 12:34 in their account of Jesus. In the Gospel account, Jesus commends a Pharisee, who he usually opposes, to have some kernel of truth. In this regard, the Rabbis are saying that Jesus was “close to the kingdom of heaven” but did not fully arrive at where he should have (from a rabbinic point of view) to fully accept the kingship of God upon himself. In the pericope, Jesus references the rabbinic text which embodies the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom (‘ol malkhut shamayim). Jesus’ answer echoes Hillel’s answer about how to summarize the precepts of Judaism in one statement, he replied, “Do not do to anyone else what is hateful to you” (Shabbat 31a; Tobit 4:15).

This is similar to another of the narratives about Jesus in the Talmud, where the Rabbis seem to be indicating that there was an element of misunderstanding at the heart of the separation between Jesus and the Rabbis.

Sanhedrin 107b

The Sages taught: Always have the left hand drive sinners away and the right draw them near, so that the sinner will not totally despair of atonement. This is unlike Elisha, who pushed away Gehazi with his two hands and caused him to lose his share in the World-to-Come, and unlike Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed away Jesus the Nazarene with his two hands….What is the incident involving Yehoshua ben Peraḥya? The Gemara relates: When King Yannai was killing the Sages/rabbis, Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and Jesus, his student, went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace between King Yannai and the Sages, Shimon ben Shataḥ sent a message to Yehoshua ben Peraḥya: From me, Jerusalem, the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt: My sister, my husband is located among you and I sit desolate. The head of the Sages of Israel is out of the country and Jerusalem requires his return. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya understood the message, arose, came, and happened to arrive at a certain inn on the way to Jerusalem. They treated him with great honor. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: How beautiful is this inn. Jesus, his student, said to him: But my teacher, the eyes of the innkeeper’s wife are narrow [terutot]. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said to him: Wicked one! Do you involve yourself with regard to that matter, the appearance of a married woman? He sounded four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him. Jesus came before Yehoshua ben Peraḥya several times and said to him: Accept our, i.e., my, repentance. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya refused to take notice of him. One day Yehoshua ben Peraḥya was reciting Shema and Jesus came before him with the same request. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya intended to accept his request, and signaled him with his hand to wait until he completed his prayer. Jesus did not understand the signal and thought: He is driving me away [yet again]. He went and stood a brick upright to serve as an idol and he bowed to it. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then said to Jesus: Repent. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry, and led Israel astray. Had Yehoshua ben Peraḥya not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil.

The framing of the passage indicates that rabbinic leaders should be firm to reject evildoers but not so firm as to push them away entirely. The story of Yehoshua ben Perachiah is intended to show an example of being too eager to reject the sinner, instead of welcoming them back into the community. This story also shows an element of misunderstanding, where Yehoshua is quick to judge Jesus’ intentions and this is the reason that Jesus was ultimately not forgiven and welcomed back into Israel. 

Some scholars conclude that Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least shared some of their core tenets, while differing in matters of ritual law. This is, in fact, the vision of Jesus presented in Sanhedrin 107b, that of a wayward Pharisee. Magda and Zemunović (2019) see a progression in the development of Jesus’ relationship to the Pharisees throughout the Gospel, with the Pharisees seeing Jesus as a provocateur who was becoming too popular with the crowds (p. 239). They fulfill an important narrative function by pushing Jesus towards the cross. 

The point is further evidenced by the latter part of the sugya, which presents the Rabbis’ understanding of Jesus’ disciples. The Gemara continues, “the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda” (Sanhedrin 43a). The Gemara proceeds to present a series of arguments between Jesus’ disciples and the Rabbis as to why they should or should not be executed. Each of the disciples presents a case as to why they are righteous and should not be executed, using rabbinic scriptural allusions, using plays on words to create linguistic associations with their names and biblical verses. The Rabbis respond and show how the same word can be used against them. Jesus is awarded the honor of having five disciples like Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai (Pirke Avot 2:9) and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava (Sanhedrin 14b). There have been some attempts to link these names to various individuals in the Christian tradition. For example, Nakai is linked to Nakdimon ben Guryon (Ta’anit 20a) or Matai with “Matthew”, etc., yet, these attempts seem to miss the point of the provision of their names in this passage. The idea that all five disciples were executed on the same day seems to be rabbinic exaggeration. However, it might be linked to the myths of the disciples’ ultimate fates. Christian tradition developed around the deaths of the Twelve Apostles, which were the result of martyrdom. 

With the exception of Matai, all of the names have Christian theological significance. Nakai (innocent), Netzer (branch), Buni (my son), Toda (thanksgiving). Netzer reminds of the name Notzrim (Nazarenes), the Talmudic name for Jesus’ sect, shared with some passages in the New Testament (Matthew 2:23; Acts 24:5) Toda reminds of the Eucharist, which means ‘thanksgiving’ in Greek. Buni reminds of Jesus as God’s son, etc. When each disciple presents his case, the Rabbis respond in kind. Matai brings Psalms 42:3 and the Rabbis respond with Psalms 41:6. Nakai brings Exodus 23:7 and the Rabbis Psalms 10:8, Nezter bring Isaiah 11:1 and the Rabbis Isaiah 14:19, Buni brings Exodus 4:22 and the Rabbis Exodus 4:23, and, finally, Toda brings Psalm 100:1 and the Rabbis Psalms 50:23. The point made by Mark (2009) about the presentation of these parody Scriptural battles seems to be supported by the fact that nearly all of the Rabbinic responses to the Christians’ exegesis is based within the same biblical book. It is almost as if to say that the Rabbis are commenting that the Christians do not even know how to properly interpret the book they are reading. 

In each case, we can substitute the name of the disciple for the Hebrew equivalent word in the text:

“Matai shall come and appear before God” (Psalms 42:3).	“Matai shall he die, and his name perish” (Psalms 41:6).
“And Nakai and righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7)	“In secret places he kills Nakai” (Psalms 10:8).
“And Netzer shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1)	“But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred Netzer” (Isaiah 14:19).
“Buni is Israel” (Exodus 4:22)?	“Behold, I shall kill Buni” (Exodus 4:23).
“A psalm for Toda” (Psalms 100:1)?	“Whoever slaughters Toda honors Me” (Psalms 50:23)

Schäfer makes several important observations about the verses used in this discourse. First, Psalm 42 contains references that could allude to Jesus (v. 10). Schäfer reads the debate as a rabbinic condemnation of the name of Matai (Jesus) who will not rise again and whose name will be forgotten. The passages about Nakai can be read as a version of Jesus pleading for his life and innocence but the Rabbis rejecting his claim. The latter disciples contain explicit messianic undertones and allusions to Jesus’ self-identity, each of the rabbinic responses can be seen as a rabbinic refutation of core elements of Christianity theology. 

Several of the examples provided by Schäfer indicate an engagement by the Rabbis with various Christian texts. Several of the debates above allude to texts in Mark. For example, the passage quoted by Matai from Psalm 42 later states: 

Psalm 42:10-11

I will say to God, “My supporter you are; wherefore did you forget me? Why must I walk about sullenly, as the enemy oppresses me?” As my oppressors crushed my bones, they insulted me, while they say to me day after day, “Where is your God?”

This passage reminds of the cry of Jesus at the end of his life: 

Mark 15:34

“Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

The name Buni can be a reference to the identification of Jesus as the firstborn son of God, as shown in his baptism, and later in the Transfiguration. 

Mark 1:11, c.f. Mark 9:7

You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.

The Rabbis’ response is that Jesus is not the firstborn son of God, nor are the Christians the new Israel, but both are the firstborn of Pharaoh, one of the strongest symbols of wickedness in the Jewish tradition. 

Perhaps one of the stronger cases is that of Nezter, which points to Jesus’ identity as a Son of David, as found throughout the New Testament. The rabbinic response is that, no, Jesus is not a Son of David, but a branch from an abhorrent tree. This is an allusion to the rabbinic understanding of Jesus’ birth to Miriam and Pantera in adultery. 

These are highly unrealistic debates presented in the passages about Jesus’ trial. However, it is possible that they reflect some sort of real debate between rabbinic and Christian Jews. The Talmud records later evidence of Scriptural debate between themselves and the minim (Judeo-Christians). 

The manner in which Jesus’ disciples engage in debates about the interpretation of Scripture suggests a comparison with a well-known figure in the Talmud, Ya’akov the heretic, who shows up in a number of stories in the Talmud. Ya’akov is mentioned in conjunction with a story about Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus’ heresy under the name Ya’akov of Kfar Sakhania (Avodah Zarah 16b-17a). He came to heal Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama who had been bitten by a snake but Rabbi Ishmael encourages Rabbi Eleazar not to receive his healing in the name of Jesus ben Pantera and he dies (Avodah Zarah 27b). Ya’akov the heretic conversed with Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, or bar Ma’arava (of the West) on matters of halakhah. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai was a fourth generation tanna of the 2nd century CE born in Usha in the Galilee. His father, Rabbi Ilai, was a student of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus. Rabbi Yehuda studied under Rabbi Tarfon (Megillah 20a) in Lod. He was ordained by Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba at a time when ordination was forbidden by the Romans. Rabbi Yehuda had to flee Usha, due to this. He became associated with Shimon ben Gamaliel (Menachot 104a). He eventually won the confidence of the Romans by praising their civility (Shabbat 33a). He is associated with a vegetarian diet and gave up wine, except for religious duties and was notably poor (Nedarim 49b). He taught halakha according to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, but in matters of exegesis follows Rabbi Akiva (Bekhorot 43b; Pesachim 42a). He was dedicated to his study of aggadah as well as halakhah (Bava Metzia 33b).

Megillah 23a

Ya’akov of Mina said to Rav Yehuda: Corresponding to whom were these six readers on Yom Kippur instituted? Rav Yehuda said to him: The number six corresponds to the six people who stood to Ezra’s right and the six people who stood to his left, as it is stated: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a platform of wood, which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand, and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadanah, Zechariah, Meshullam” (Nehemiah 8:4).

The narrative in Sanhedrin 43a does not show signs of being a dream, nor as existing to describe the character traits of an individual. It seems that this narrative is most similar to the category of exaggerated story with details presented to avoid this narrative being interpreted as a parable. However, the inclusion of extraordinary details turns the narrative into a sort of pseudo-parable, similar to the story of Rabbi Eliezer in Eruvin 63a. In both cases, we have a story that is presented as a true event, which is told to support a halakhic issue. Specific names are given to support the veracity of the story in each case. The interpretation of these passages involves conflicting literal and hidden meanings (as in Ta’anit 31a above) and in rhetorical presentation of ideas (as in Ta’anit 9a above). The first part of the narrative is meant to look like a historical record with specific details: the charge against Jesus, the place, time, day, and other supporting details. However, I have argued that this passage is also engaged in a highly complicated intertextual debate with the Gospel of Mark and presenting an allegorical interpretation of Jesus’ life vis-a-vis his place within rabbinic Judaism. Secondly, the narrative about Jesus’ disciples relies on the complicated rhetorical styles with sophisticated allusions to several New Testament texts. 

Conclusion

This research proposed to extend the understanding of rabbinic knowledge of New Testament texts proposed by Schäfer and provide an analysis of aggada surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus as containing another possible reference to the Christian Gospels. The sugya in Sanhedrin 43a discusses the trial and execution of Jesus and his disciples, as understood by the Rabbis. The text begins, presenting itself as a report about a historical fact, used to support the legal conclusions of the rabbinic scholar community. However, as the sugya unfolds, it becomes increasingly divorced from reality. 

The analysis of this research merged aspects of traditional, rabbinic analysis with those of modern scholarship to ascertain the following items. First, with Instone-Brewer, the likely kernel of historical truth behind the sugya is the charge against Jesus the Nazarene for practicing sorcery and “enticing” the people. For these crimes, he was “hung”, likely a veiled reference to the crucifixion. This historical kernel was read into rabbinic halakhah, particularly to make salient points against Christianity. The shift in tone in the aggada occurs with the clarifying question of Ulla, asking why Jesus was granted such leniency. The narrative in the sugya shifts to make an overly exaggerated and illogical claim, that Jesus was “close to the government” (as the Koren translates it). The various proposed solutions to the problem of this statement make little sense, requiring an alternative reading. 

If the problematic phrase, qarob lemalkhut, is read with other passages, such as Sanhedrin 107b, the methods of midrashic analysis reveal a possible, alternative reading that makes more sense. Sanhedrin 43a can be read as a rabbinic meta-narrative regarding the issue of Jewish Christianity and its founder. The historical kernel in the text is not denied but its interpretation is given another layer of meaning. The word malkhut is read as “kingdom” making the phrase mean, “close to the Kingdom [of heaven]”, noting Jesus’, and implicitly Jewish Christianity’s, proximity to the truth, from the rabbinic point of view. This phrasing echoes statements made by Jesus in Mark 12:38, indicating rabbinic familiarity with that Gospel and capability of using its text in a complicated and layered aggadic statement about Jesus in the Talmud. The subsequent part of the sugya about Jesus’ disciples indicates the aggadic nature of the previous statement and serves to support the claim about Jesus made in the statement qarob lemalkhut. Jesus’ five disciples are caricatures of Jewish Christians and serve as examples of the type of exegesis given by Christians that is easily refuted by their rabbinic interlocutors. The latter portion of the sugya indicates that the Rabbis regarded the Jewish Christians, and by extension, Jesus himself, as “close” to their own community, and that closeness made them especially dangerous, because they could “entice” the people of Israel from the truth.