Jesus in the Talmud (review)

Abstract

Jesus in the Talmud, by Peter Schafer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. 210 pp. $24.95. A book concerning the Jesus passages in the Talmud is bound to capture the attention of broad authence of Jews, Christians, and anyone interested in knowing what the central text of one of history's most oppressed religions has to say about the forefather of the religion that oppressed it. The rich history of antisemitism based on the talmudic passages concerning Jesus should dictate that any scholar approaching the subject proceed with great caution. Unfortunately, Peter Schafers study of the Jesus passages in rabbinic literature is replete with speculations, exaggerations, and inaccurate interpretations of the text. The central claim of Schafers work can be summarized in the following sentence (p. 48): As far as the stories about Jesus and his followers are concerned, they indeed reveal some knowledge of the Christian sect and of its hero, and this knowledge is not just distorted and vague of this and that, but against what the rabbis experienced as the reality of the Jewish-Christian message (emphasis mine). Since the conclusion of the book relies on the evidence of there actually being we should first ask what the rabbis seem to have known about Jesus. The following is the list that I came up with by reading Schafers book: 1) His mother was an adulteress. 2) His father's name was Pantera or Stata. 3) He engaged in magic. 4) He is associated with sexual impropriety. 5) He was rabbinic disciple who went astray and led others astray. 6) He worshipped brick. 7) He and his students were healers. 8) He taught midrash about Deut. 23:19, shall not bring the hire of harlot or the pay of dog into the house of the Lord. 9) He was executed on Friday (according to one manuscript), the eve of Pesah, by being stoned and then hung. 10) He does not enter the world to come, and instead spends eternity boiling in excrement. 11) The names of his five disciples are Mattai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. Of this information, most seems to be polemic against well-known Christian claims - they say his mother was virgin, we say she was whore; they say he is of Davidic lineage, we say his father is unknown, or perhaps Roman soldier, etc. Can this information be construed as a attack? Hardly. The simplest explanation for why all this information comes scattered, embedded in other discussions, is that Jesus was not of major concern to the rabbis. The well- designed attack by the talmudic rabbis is the result of Schafers gathering what actually is hodgepodge of this-and-that. In cooking up well-designed attack, Schafer frequently exaggerates the evidence. I shall bring only the most extreme such case, Schafers interpretation of the story of R. Eliezer, accused of minut (heresy) by the Roman governor. The governor says to R. Eliezer (Bavli AZ 16b- 17a), How can an old man [shehasevot] like you occupy himself with such idle things? The difficulty in this text is that the word for old man, which is actually old hairs, is missing final tav. Schafer therefore translates the line (pp. 43-44), Is it possible that they (R. Eliezer and his friends) were reclining [shehesevu] for meal? These [accusers] err with regard to these matters. This translation is problematic and its syntax is awkward, but let's accept it as correct. What type of meal was R. Eliezer lying down for? At first (p. 44) Schafer speculates that it's either Christian agape or some kind of orgiastic cult (Bacchanalia) or both. He also writes that R. Eliezer may have been accused of participating in the forbidden cult of Christianity, probably the correct interpretation. …