OLIN 
 
 BT 
 
 303 
 
 . DIA 
 
 1393i 
 
DUK] 
 
 £r 
 
 303 
 
 .2- 
 
|_3 1924 074 488 1 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924074488150 
 
In compliance with current 
 copyright law, Cornell University 
 Library produced this 
 replacement volume on paper 
 that meets the ANSI Standard 
 Z39.48-1984 to replace the 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 
 1994 
 
JESUS CHKIST IN THE TALMUD, 
 MIDKASH, ZOHAR, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 LITURGY OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 
 
ffiambtiligt : 
 
 PKINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., iXD SON'S, 
 AT THE UXIVEKSITT PBES3. 
 
JESUS CHEIST IN THE TALMUD, 
 MIDRASH, ZOHAR, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 LITURGY OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. DR GUSTAF DALMAN, 
 
 LECTnEER OF THE ONIVEKSITY OF LEIPZIG; 
 DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITDTUM JCDAICOM DELITZSCHIANUM, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY BY 
 HEINRICH LAIBLE, 
 
 MASTER IN THE HIGH SCHOOL OF ROTHENEnRG OX TAUBEB, 
 
 TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY THE 
 
 REV. A. W. STREANE, B.D. 
 
 FELLOW AND DIVINITY AND HEBREW LECTURER, CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, 
 AND FORMERLY TYRWHITT'b HEBREW SCHOLAR. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. 
 
 LONDON AND NEW YOEK: GEORGE BELL & SONS. 
 
 1893 
 s 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 The attractive subject of Heir Laible's recently pub- 
 lished essay ("Jesus Christus im Thalmud") leads ijie to 
 think that the passages ou which he bases his work, and 
 the comments which he makes upon them, cannot be without 
 interest for the English reader, even though the conclu- 
 sions which he reaches maj^ not on all occasions appear 
 entitled to equally full assent. On my suggesting this to Dr 
 Hermann L. Strack of Berlin (at whose suggestion, as will 
 be seen from the preface to the German edition, Herr Laible 
 undertook the task) I received permission to make use of 
 a large number of spare printed copies of the original texts 
 (numbers I — xxiv ; pages 5* — 19*) which had been edited 
 by Dr Gustaf H. Dalman of Leipzig. ]u oi-der to secure 
 in each case the best available (unexpurgated) text, the 
 following editions were used by him : 
 
 1. Palestinian Talmud, Venice, 1.523 — 4. 
 
 2. Babylonian Talmud, Venice. B'ralchoth, Shabbath, 
 Sota, Gittin, Sanhedrin, 'Aboda zara, 1520; Ctiagigah, 1521 ; 
 Soph'i'im, 1522 ; Aboth, 1526 ; 'Erubin, Kallah, J'bainoth, 
 152iS. Variants in the MSS. used by Rabbinovicz {Dikduke 
 Soph'rim, or Variae Lectiones in Mischnara et in Talmud 
 Babylonicum, Munich, 1867 — 1886) are indicated thus : 
 M = the Munich, = the Oxford, FL = the Florence, K = the 
 Karlsruhe MS. For the treatises not dealt with by 
 Ra.bbinovicz, 'En Ja'akob, ^'enice, 1546, was specially used. 
 
 3. Tosephta, Zuckermandel, Pasewalk, 1880. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 For the present edition Dr Dalmau has also supplied a 
 translation (see pages %9* — 40*) of the above-mentioned 
 original texts, so far as they do not already appear in 
 Herr Laible's essay ; and further, he has now collected from 
 unexpurgatod MSS. of Jewish liturgies numerous interesting 
 extracts relating to the same subject (pages 21* — 28*) and 
 followed by an English translation (pages 40* — 47*). 
 
 Hereby, as well as by the introduction of other matte, 
 contributed by Dr Dalman and Herr Laible, and incorporated 
 by me with the body of the essay, or appended in the form 
 of foot-notes, the value of this edition of the work is much 
 enhanced. 
 
 It has been my aim throughout to render the German 
 as closely as regard for English idiom would permit. At 
 the same time I have ventured to deviate from this rule 
 (a) in dealing with the earlier pages of the essay, which 
 appeared to me to be capable with advantage of some con- 
 densation for the English reader, and (b) very occasionally, 
 in modifying expressions used by the Talmud in reference 
 to our Blessed Lord. It may perhaps be considered that I 
 have not gone quite far enough in this latter respect. 
 
 Words inserted between square brackets in the text are 
 to be understood in all cases as Herr Laible's. On the other 
 hand all notes for which he is not responsible beai- the 
 initials of the writers. 
 
 In conclusion I have to express my grateful acknowledg- 
 ments to the Rev. R. Sinker, D.D., Librarian of Trinity 
 College, for reading the proof-sheets of this work and for 
 many valuable suggestions. 
 
 A. W. S. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The attractive subject of Herr Laible's recently pub- 
 lished essay ("Jesus Christus im Thalmud") leads tne to 
 think that the passages on which he bases his work, and 
 the comments which he makes upon them, cannot be without 
 interest for the English reader, even though the conclu- 
 sions which he reaches may not on all occasions appear 
 entitled to equally full assent. On my suggesting this to Dr 
 Hermann L. Strack of Berlin (at whose suggestion, as will 
 be seen from the preface to the German edition, Herr Laible 
 undertook the task) I received permission to make use of 
 a large number of spare printed copies of the original texts 
 (numbers I — xxiv ; pages -5* — 19*) which had been edited 
 by Dr Gustaf H. Dalman of Leipzig. In order to secure 
 in each case the best available (unexpurgated) text, the 
 following editions were used by him : 
 
 1. Palestinian Talmud, Venice, 1.523 — 4. 
 
 2. Babylonian Talmud, Venice. B'rakhoth, Hhahhath, 
 Sotu, Gittin, Sanhedrin, 'Aboda zara, 1-520; Ghagigah, 1521 ; 
 Soph'rim, 1522; Aboth, 1526; 'Erubin, Kallah, J'bamoth, 
 1528. Variants in the MSS. used by Rabbinovicz (Dikdjike 
 Soph'rim, or Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud 
 Babylonicum, Munich, 1867 — 1886) are indicated thus : 
 M = the Munich, O = the Oxford, Fl. = the Florence, K = the 
 Karlsruhe MS. For the treatises not dealt with by 
 Rabbinovicz, 'En Ja'akob, Venice, 1546, was specially used. 
 
 3. Tosephta, Zuckermandel, Pasewalk, 1880. 
 
PUEFACK. 
 
 For the present edition Dr Dalman has also supplied a 
 translation (see pages 39* — 40*) of the above-mentioned 
 original texts, so far as they do not already appear in 
 Herr Laible's essay ; and further, he has now collected from 
 unexpurgatcd MSS. of Jewish liturgies numerous interesting 
 extracts relating to the same subject (pages 21* — 28*) and 
 followed by an English translation (pages 40* — 47*). 
 
 Hereby, as well as by the introduction of other matte: 
 contributed by Dr Dalman and Herr Laible, and incorporated 
 by me with the bodj^ of the essay, or appended in the form 
 of foot-notes, the value of this edition of the work is much 
 enhanced. 
 
 It has been my aim throughout to render the German 
 as closely as regard for English idiom would permit. At 
 the same time I have ventured to deviate from this rule 
 (a) in dealing with the earlier pages of the essay, which 
 appeared to me to be capable with advantage of some con- 
 densation for the English reader, and (b) very occasionally, 
 in modifying expressions used by the Talmud in reference 
 to our Blessed Lord. It may perhaps be considered that I 
 have not gone quite far enough in this latter respect 
 
 Words inserted between square brackets in the text are 
 to be understood in all cases as Herr Laible's. ■On the other 
 hand all notes for which he is not responsible bear the 
 initials of the writers. 
 
 In conclusion I have to express my grateful acknowledg- 
 ments to the Rev. R. Sinker, D.D., Librarian of Trinity 
 College, for reading the proof-sheets of this work and for 
 many valuable suggestions. 
 
 A. W. S. 
 
Inhaltslibersicht. 
 
 Seite 
 I. Ben Stada, Ben Fandera, Paphos ben Jehuda, Mirjam die 
 
 Frauenhaarfleohterin : Schabbath 104''; Sanhedrin 67^ ... 5 
 II. Karikatur von „Evangelium": Schabbath 116^ ... .6 
 
 III. Das Weib des Paphos ben Jehuda: Gittin 90" 6 
 
 IV. Marienlegende : Chagiga 4'' und Thosaphoth; Thosaphoth 
 Schabbath 104'' .6 
 
 V. Mirjam Tochter Bilga's: pal. Sukka 55'' 7 
 
 VI. Die jerusalemische Urkunde: Jebainoth IV, 13 . . . . 7 
 
 VII. Die Selbstaussage der Maria: Kalla IS*" . . . . . . 7 
 
 VIII. Jesus und Jehoschua ben Perachja: Sanhedrin 107*'; Sota 47*; 
 
 pal. Chagiga 77* ... 8 
 
 IX. Der Zauberer Jesus: Thosephtha Schabbath XII . . . .10 
 X. Das Selbstzeugnis Jesu: pal. Tha'anith 65*'; Jalqut Sohim oni 
 
 zu 4 Mos. 23,7; Fesiqtha Babbathi lOO'' 10 
 
 XI. Jesus, ein Gotzendiener: Sanhedrin 103"; Berakhoth 18" . . 11 
 XII. Bileam-Jesus: Sanhedrin 90". (lOO''); Aboth V, 19; Sanhedrin 
 
 106''" 12 
 
 XIII. E. EU'ezer und Ja aqob aus Kephar Sekhanja : ' Aboda zara 16''. 
 17*; Qoheleth rabba zu 1,8 . . 13 
 
 XIV. Imma Salome, Rabban Gamliel und der „Philosoph": Schab- 
 bath 116"'' . . .... 14 
 
 XV. Die 5 Jiinger Jesu: Sanhedrin 43" . . 15 
 
 XVI. Der wunderthatige Ja'aqob aus Kephar Sekhanja: pal. Schab- 
 bath 14"*; bab. 'Aboda zara 27'' ... .... 15 
 
 XVII. Noch ein wunderthatiger Christ: pal. 'Aboda zara 40''; Qohe- 
 leth rabba zu 10,5 ... .... 16 
 
4* 
 
 Seitc 
 
 XVIII. Jesu Verurteilung: pal. Sanhedrin 25<^* 17 
 
 XIX. Jesu Hinrichtung: Sanhedrin 43% s. Nr. XV 17 
 
 XX. Die Lehrhalle des Ben Pandera : Thargum soheni zu Esther 7,9 17 
 
 XXI. Jesus in der Holle: Gittin 56''. 57' ; Thosaphoth 'Brubin 2l'> 17 
 
 XXir. Mirjam, Tochter des 'Bli, in der HoUe: pal. Chagiga 77'' .18 
 
 XXIII. Jesus, Pilatus und Herodes, Vorfahren Haman's: SophTim 
 XIII, 6 18 
 
 XXIV. Anhang: Jesus im Zohar 19 
 
I. Ben Stada, Ben Pandera, Paphos ben Jehuda, Mirjam die 
 Frauenhaarflechterin. (S. lo.) 
 
 a) Schabbath 104''. 
 
 ni£5tJ'3 N''3in NnuD ]n abni n-'ODn'? ntj;"''?^ im ]nh ion «^in 
 p ni«n i''«"i2i3 i-iNi mn ntaw i"? noN iiE'a "^j;!? nanoa ansoD 
 ^j;n «ii3D byn K^D^ m now Nin Nnnis 12 xitso p n-'own 
 K"'»3 «^n3o 2Dno io« «"iDD 10K i«in min'' ]3 diss by^ s-nas 
 
 b) Sanhedrin 67». 
 
 imN n«n win Kim i'?ip ns \yaivf) win ]iNn inity ns jisinn 
 TDiN nSm 51^ TDiN Nim nin^ ">!? mnNt:' no iion ^h -iniN nSni 
 2010 13 inn DN T"j; nnyai n^trnB' ^M^nb^ ns n''ij ^N^^ i"? 
 I'inao iipDWiy D'^TVn uV ns' ^^^ u-'nain N\n p idn dni 
 iniK'?ni ni^3 sntso p"? wy pi iniN ]''^piDi in nia"? iniK ]''N'>3d 
 
 NTBD '7j;3 NTOn 31 ION NIH NTliS p NTDD p .nDDH 31J?3 
 1DN NltSD ION 'ND^N N^N Nl.l mini p DISS '?J?3 NiniS !?yi3 
 
 1 M add. K^« II 2 so auoh O; M om. || 3 M add. N*?** || * M 
 ]''3''»I31 ohne 1^ I 5 M om. l!? IBIK Kim || « M lyns H ' M om. Ka^« || 
 8 M «''»3 
 
6* 
 
 II. Karlkatur von „Evangelium". (S. 14, vgl. 65.) 
 Schabbath 116* (nach Ms. Munchen). 
 
 •.]vbi ])V ni"? np ]inv -i ]vbi jis n-''? np T'«d m 
 
 III. Das Welb des Paphos ben Jehuda. (S. 26.) 
 Gittin 90^^ (vgl. Thosephtha Sota V, i). 
 
 DISS mo N^n in mmtr irsi ipnn idd ^^n'? "jsia 2uib' ms -[b 
 •]^nb '?si2 nnttj' m« ^'7 tyM «3n intyx li-in '?j;u n'-nty nnn" ]n 
 rr'anpi n^r\n nj? mmati' ms "jd ma «^n in wniE'i ipnin idid 
 K''n It i'?DiNi is^i'iD "'inan ']in'? "pbu nnt^' ms "f? b'^i nn-iioi 
 piB'a miDi yns nty«ni nNsr ine^N nx nsnc' j?t mx mo 
 :mN ■'J2 Dj; nsnm n>'\'rs "liCD nansi 
 i<s"'a>3i N^'t^i «'?iJD ana bn; n'?];^ mirr' ]3 diss •.''"&^ 
 ni^Nts' moi mx "pa^ nmn s^tj' n-'jsn nVn ^yi pitr^ ircno 
 nTinn nitDi onii^a noiDJ na-iN p ^1n)^{2' it N\n najin 
 
 IV. Marienlegende. (S. 28.) 
 a) Chagiga 4*". 
 
 "•D nD« BSB'tt «'?3 nsDi wi •'D2 Nip ''«n'? ■'lan -"d «)dt' m 
 nisti' nin •'•'ns -u •la-'a 2"n «n ^d v« n^jot N'?n ^-itNT to\s 
 ^-lyity K'?^io ana 3i^ in^N ^•'t n^ni^t?^ 2ni'? nD« nion ■]«'?o n^a: 
 «'?ijtt ana «i« n-''? idn ■'pTn «'?nja ana .T'^ in''"'N 'jts xi^tr: 
 nnwNi '?''Nin n'^b na« 'n"nn« sian •<« n^^ nas "f? naw N-'B'i i^y^ 
 
 b) Thosaphoth Chagiga 4''- (S. 30.) 
 
 b^ laN nn-im n^n ■'itj' n-ian a^m sbnja anan xnaij; \sn 
 
 I M/en, II 2 M om. n''j || 3 m om. '■? II 4 M om. ^V^v II 5 M om. 
 -iv'tf II 6 M om. ■'sn 'N V'N II ' M nynns || 8 m ^in^n || 9 'En Ja'aqob itr 
 
o) Thosaphoth Schabbath 104'> (vgl. 8. 30). 
 
 Nira 'S3 naims N2'<pj? 'n "'D''n mm mini p diss idid mm 
 ntaim Nini 'B2 naima n^ms \z vii^m-^ loin nin W) niDnm 
 ytj'in"' m m'' Ti^a nsiin w"? nmc' n^ms ]n yts'in'' ^ns x"?! 
 lONpT Km Kfl K-'B'i K^iJn Di-ia lOK iK^ipj; 'nb K^ita nnp mn 
 ni"? n»K '13 man ")k^o n^aj n^Dty mn lain m nj^jm KDp nsn 
 1313 3T ''D"'3 nninty j?»tyD "'a'j n!?n3n d^d •''? "■n-'-'K "^n n^m'jty'? 
 3n'? nsDa n^n man "]K'7a lai ^k nn^n mnK Kits'! K'jnaa nna 
 
 :'7nj ]ata n33 j?T'kb' ntj^ya •'313 
 
 V. Mirjam Tochter Bilga's. (S. 21 Anm.) 
 
 pal. Sukka 55*- 
 
 mana'itj' nj'?3 n3 nna iisa Di-n3 np'?in n'?ij?'? n2'?3 
 ^3; nnstsi nK3i ^v n''3 nnba 'jti'a nnK Vivnch nKJj'iii n3'?m 
 ■jty ^niDsa nn3nnn nriK aipiV oipi"? i*? maK n3ta bw uj 
 
 qpnn nj?tr3 ]n^ maj? Kbi ^kie^i 
 
 VI. Die jerusalemische Urkunde. (8.; 31.) 
 
 Jebamoth 49*, Mischna IV, 13. 
 
 B'lK n3 3in3i n^tyn'>3 ]iDnr nbja TiK^ja iktj? p ti^n 'aK / 
 
 :t:'iK nt^Ka itaa liibs 
 
 VII. Die Selbstaussage der Maria. (8. 33.) 
 
 Kalla 18'' (41"= ed. Yen. 1528). 
 
 (mit den Varianten der Ausgabe von N. Coronel: D'OltsjIp n»Bn Commen- 
 
 tarios quinque dootrinam talmudicam illustrantes, Massekheth Kala .... 
 
 edidit Nathan Coronel, Wien 1864, Bl. 3''.) 
 
 'T man p naiK ysnn^ -\ ntaa naiK ^tyba 'i oiis tj; 
 nVtJ's Di3i2'ii nijpt vn nnK dj?s .*min ]3i ntaa T81k K3ipj; 
 riK sn^ij nnKi wkt riK ^nos nnK mpuTi ^inty onias^ 2n3j;i 
 
 * Zusatz. II « om. iswa || 2 i-qs || 3 ^jtb II ■ * ri:i \\ 6 nd3 
 
.i3D"p« ■'i« *nt ^inb ^D« ?T'-i3n nan ^v ^nJ;^ la"? i^te 
 arcio-'p maiiai nntj'r snn-'nB' 'n«ii pw^n e^?!? id« ^s« Y'" 
 
 yaB'a N2''pj; 't n'n .'h ynt^n i"? n-iD« .«3n "qI^ij; -.^nf? ns'-nn 
 
 li^atyitf i8i^j) «m i^ya ijDo B'T'Di Ti^n mi nsin"? •riDaaaB's 
 
 '-\ n\n '?nj n»« .min ]3i ntoo aopiainn ssni .nt p •>'? 'sn^m 
 
 •in^N 'n ^1•n noN nytJ* 22nniN3 .vnm n« sity-iamty Ka-ipv 
 
 :;^Dr p 24K3'<pj; 'n^ niD 23n^^j nti'N hKisr 
 
 Vltl. Jesus und iehoschua' ben Perachja. (S. 40.) 
 a) Sanhedrin lO?*". 
 
 ytri^KS N*? naipo ^'d-'I nnn '?«oe' snn n"?!};^ pm lan 
 27w^ ismty n-'ms p ^ej^tyin-' 261313 «^i 25n->T ••nE's "tna"? ismty 
 29ini''^Bpn3 «in >nd n^mB p y^in'* n . . . . 3in3T itm asnit^ incs 
 Vtj' Nm3D3'?N'? 3W1 n^ms p v's'I'T' ^^'ST !?t« lasi"? «3^o iw^ 
 T>j? 32n'?Bfn' ''i"'0 nuE' ]3 ]'\yK)W n'h nbv »nhvf nin 13 q-'Tsd 
 isaKi pina ^ncy i^ys 33inin« nnsn '?e' xmios^N ^yh vmpn 
 n-h n3j> Kfstj'iN 35>5inn 34ni'? io-in«i «n« np .nDiow raefv 
 niunD niyy ''3T ^^n-h id« it «^aD3N ns^ no3 idn «3iis Kipi 
 «nN nTiDt^i "iiis''tj' niN'D vniN piSN poij? nns ^33 ytrn n^^ los 
 in NDV n'<3 njE'tt up mn «■? i'?3p ni"? idk i^ion ni23 map'? 
 
 » om. n« II 2 om. II 3 T« II « D7\b II 5 om. || « add. W1.S 
 7 n.sst3i II 8 «\i» 11 9 n-wp II 10 -iBsn || h add. m || u -f? ibis 
 13 ^3^-|^ II 14 ohisn II 15 vnins»2 || is add. i^ || " ^i3 || « -i^sai 
 •9 nt nN 'nasi || 20 pirn ^n» \\ 21 vrmmt \\ 22 miwa || 23 nbat? ina 
 2« KaT35^ II 25 M VT II 26 M vvnn^^ \\ 27 m 'isun «?'!? | 28 m vt 
 29 M wr'jtsp 'an || 30 m om. -a-i |1 31 m om. w \\ 32 m cm. ohvny 
 -3' M om. 'wnK II 3* M om. n^b II 36 M xi^na || ss M iBT .-rb nex 
 
nnn i)nh iin« •h^2pb "dd n^ph «n« v^v n^np np «p nin 
 rr-^ na« ni? mnriB'm «nii2b «)pT ^t« n>^ •-m nht'o "i2d «in 
 D-'a-in n« s'^ianai Noinn ba -joa •'i'jnipD -[d .t"? idn "jn inn 
 mm n-ioni *ii2''<3 2ityi no -io«i nawn nitfj?^ ni2 )'<p''SDo )''n 
 
 b) Sota 47*. 
 
 p j?t2'in^ K\T ''«o j?£!'"i'?« VT ^nt^n nsun W'<^ isma' 
 
 nDK' )3 ]is>»ty ]im^ to^o ■'nji ^•>t3p «p nimn n\t '«» n^niEs 
 bw «niiD3'?N'? pij; •?{« .T-ms p ytj'in^ ■'an n^nnw ini^at3« 
 tynipn iij; d^k'it' •'Jo nDSJ* 12 pyDK* n^^ n'ptj' no'pb' nin •«3 ditsd 
 naoiK' nats'v ''i«i pinn '<nty I'jj^a TiinN onsa '?b' smioa'pN ^'? 
 ini-'Dp Dp «t"'£5K'i« Ninn*? lybpiNsriK •'D Ka'jtf m"? mn ^''ti' -id« 
 n«i nns n^ntyo «pi aTi-' xnita Nnp-i n^"? nnj; T'sty Nipia 
 nn« ^^n j^trn n-i*? no« mtsna n'^jij; ^m n-'b nD« it x-iiODN 
 N^i n^op^ «n« Kor "jd n-ritDti'i nms-'ti' n«» j>mK p''3« pDij; 
 n-'VnpV nTivna nin n-'Op'? Nn« j?»e> nnp np mn nn «ov ni'?ap 
 nD« «n^B wnao'? f)pi h\K n'h ^ni Nmia "qd mn m^ '<in« 
 n« w-'tanDi xtsinn ^3 *]»» "'i'jnipo p ni"? idn n^ nun n'''? 
 
 c) pal. Chagiga 77"*. 
 
 .n'jtJ'iTn «'<K'i n^niiao pj^a o'jtj'n' ■'in )iin •'wata ]n mm' 
 n^njn d?0)y<Q lonis n'jB'n"' 132 vm nNm3D3'?«'? n-''? VtNi pnj; 
 nouj? natrr "lisi na'jsK atyr •'onN ^no nj? naispn nxmios^'? 
 no pVapT «n''2T nmo mm no« ns'?in u ^n^n k'td ,vby 
 V'K .mntj' mm ni^j? 01 "'iT'o'^n jd in n'^b inN .m^'on mm 
 «•'•'«"' nno« nn na n'7DnD''Nn wnm 'imtj'm t<nn .^aj "mn «n 
 :'?t«i vhy Dj>Di .«n3ij>3 «"?« mno« vh .Nina 
 
 I M n"^ II 2 M '-fitwn ir' || * *En Ja'aqob add.: to lOKT 13? 'SB 
 •.b»ivi^ fiN «'Bnni mm n^'oni tiw'3 'isun ler 
 
10* 
 
 IX. Der Zauberer Jesus. (S. 45.) 
 a) Schabbath 104"' ». oben Nr. I. 
 
 b) Thosephtha Schabbath XII g. E. (ed. Zuokermandel S. 126). 
 
 'T nnb "yon jncsis Q'-osm n^no •vv'htA 'i nca "jy onDon 
 in« ntaiE' ^ists ib no« n^n wbs na"? nV niisd p N'?m ■itv'''?« 
 
 c) pal. Schabbath 13<*. 
 
 niBtya «''an «*? xntsD p xSni nt^'^x "'m jn"? ^»N ^1t^s nns 
 :|'<nj5*'S noD ^inwD ii« ins* nt3iB> •'iso i"? noN i32 sVn nnsDo 
 
 X. Das Selbstzeugnis Jesu. (S. 48f.) 
 a) pal. Thaanith 65*'. 
 
 jnya-'p'' x"?! "iD« «inn d'>»12''? n^ij; "'ixa' id mnn"? ibid ■<:« 
 
 b) Jalqut Sohim' oni (Saloniohi 1526) zu 4 Mos. 23, 7, nach Midrasch 
 J'lamm'denu. 
 
 "iDN ]inii 'n nj;'?3 '?ti' i'?ip n^n no3 "phj "pipn inyn iidd 
 Dj^'ja btif i'?ip lyDB' nioi« D''j;na' -i»n •'i'? )d j^t^ini 't yb^n a^t^w 
 nh)vn 11DD nVij; n^m iVipn ns n^nbxn inj noix ispn ity'jN 't 
 nT''?i tJ'DK''? ]'<inntJ'Dty moi«n n«ni nsis n^ntr 'jide'd idid nj?i 
 ^1l2J>'7 T-nytJ' nti'N p mx ty-'ty nxni nssi iiaK"?! ^'j;'?! Di^Dia'ji 
 I'jiptJ' ns ]n3 "is"? lb D^ij;n "pd niytsn"?! ni'?N* idsj? n^^yh tfpaot? 
 n"?^ D3''nj;n lan ioin n\n pi ^a'piyn meis b^ lyoB'-'c [i. ibiipa] 
 
 » Ed. Frankf. 1687 om. l'?3--nBS1 || 2 Ed. Pvankf. om. ni"js~pi 
 S. auoh Bechaj zu 4 Mose 23,19 (Pesaro 1507) 3t3''l ^>S trx «b Bmoai 
 mis ^nnn m^.s «int» -1121^1 o'jisn ns ni»t3n'7 ins din Tn>v asb^ nBS» 'b^ 
 11SK Kinn itssiw init»»^ ^c i:^ni lan ittisi oninn'? .sin i^n» mVs n»»3 »'s 
 
11* 
 
 Ninti' noiN DNi 3t3ii "?« E'^N nb 'Hi^ E'^Nn iniN nnx mvta'? 
 di:j"'P'7 «21 p'?nDD Ninti' nci"?! mj?t3n^ n^nj; Nim ntso Nin ^n 
 n'^n-' "ID ■'IN itiN-'i i^t^D NE'-'i 2-^13 no nsi ntj'y^ n'ji nns Ninn 
 iniN -inN n^DtJ't!' noiN nmsD n'-n*' •'a •'In ny'?n nox "jn idwo 
 
 c) Pesiqtha Rabbathi lOO'' (Ausg. Friedmann). 
 
 Din'?N fin «n''jn sin ■;'? nas-' as n2n nn N"n n ids 
 N''in 'T -iDN .... ^yoi sin njn Nnn Nin NiN n-b no-iN piN 
 
 :n3ov 'n nm s^n ]h^ ana i^s D''n'?« nan o-'isn 
 
 XI. Jesus, ein Gotzendiener. (S. 49.) 
 a) Sanhedrin 103^ 
 
 yiii animm d''J?i m»ibin ^^nJ;a•' N'?ti' n;?T ^''?N nii«n nb 
 □^213 I'piE'nn nnpat:' T'o'pn in )n i"? nhi n'pe' ^'7^Nn mp'< n"? 
 
 b) Berakhoth 18». 
 
 nb i-iDNi ^Nioti'i m 2'i'?2iD» li'Di^N ''Dn n'''? »noN 'ioni in 
 iDN nm niSD3 D''bnD»i miro ii-'Di^n -i»n nn nty^N m ]inv 'i 
 liinyD Nnn n'?^' I'ls j-in n''"nDi''3 D'''7nDni nisnai miro ijisi'pn 
 Nnn i6w riNsr 1'<ni •'DiiNn :Nn lino NS-'tJ' '?ine' ^e' inyiDD 
 Nnn N'?a' nnis ]ini '?i3in''nN lioo ns-'E' nn bE' inj?"'D3 ii>nj?^D 
 NH'' n'pe' UTiinima ■'inj udd n^-'E' jj^J^^n ''tJ' inyioa li^nj^io 
 
 1 M ^taK II 2 M add. la'si^.x 'Ktt irnmn-o nnis i^w n^sv i\si yis i\s 
 n'''?3iDo II 3 M nnp't» || < M add. ^v 
 
12* 
 
 XII. Blleam-Jesus. (S. 5if.) 
 a) Sanhedrin XI, 90*; Mischna X, 2. 
 
 □■jiv"? p'?n 1^ tj'"' nt^ia idi« miiT >3t ntj'ioi 2NnN dj^dt' D"'d!?d 
 inis'poV ubmy m^^tif^) inj^nn j;ot:'ii rbh* "jVan^i nowit? Nan 
 
 a) Sanhedrin XI, 90*; Mischna X, 1 (S. 52 u. 53). 
 
 nsnn by K'm^ni niiii'inn ansDn Niipn •>* iidin sa^pj; 't 
 
 P) Sanhedrin lOO'' (vgl. S. 53). 
 b) Aboth V, 19 (8. 55). 
 
 ■:^ nnE' ixn^ ]"itivi owj ]i»iv j;E'in dj;'?^ hm v^^»^n 
 nn^D"! isn'' «"? nonai qiot ijj'iN nne' iKab mnin DNnbK nnsi 
 
 e) Sanhedrin 106''. 
 
 nD3 "in ayb^ ■^b ynti' 'd Niijn ^2-\b si-'o «inn ni"? ids 
 nb na-iDi D^m ^tsf^x aTimo n^n dtid n^ nro-'a n^b ids nin 
 n^"? -in« j?2"iNi vn^n in in ]'iB' n'?ni ]in^n in in dh^'d^ isn^ 
 l^n'?n nn n'ln nvin nin ny'pm n^opjs ■«"? nn mb m»Np T'se' 
 tnNtsD'''? Dni£3 in''n'?''»p nn Ni"'5n ny'?n )>3E' ^\bn^ 
 
 d) Sanhedrin 106'' Ende (S. 56). 
 
 inn loi N-iin nn'^n^ isn n"? "j-sminNi jnh lanr im iiiN 
 «"?« vn i6 JNH •?» vniiK' ^n DniDi isn^ n"? nmoi n^DT •'ts'iN 
 
 1 Fl. nw ^)op 
 
13* 
 e) Sanhedrin 106" (8. 58). 
 
 ni'?« iDsj; nts'ij; ni'jK Dt^a lasj; ninety Dj?^n n"t?i 
 
 XIII. R. Eirezer und Ja'aqob von Kephar Sekhanja. (S. 58f.) 
 a) 'Aboda zara le*", 17*. 
 
 in'''? Drnj*? m)hyn niiiob 3ntj;''VN '«3T Dsrutya )i3-i lin 
 
 nD« «^ Nini nni« «in vhv ]iojn win nnoa ]i"inn -hv jdni 
 "iiBD Dian 5-|>V^ ^niaxni !?i«in i^ io« QintynB' vsn *iii:> aha 
 "'ttinin r"?}? b^p »h'\ inni^ iVsw VTc'?n loisa inia^ xnt^D nnx 
 no« "'jmo-'^K' HDo nns 13T noib ^3^»-in lan N^-ipj; 13-1 i"? 'on 
 nD£5nj r'?j;i "jNam ^^^^ n3 niyn NDty m i"? "iisn iidn n''^ 
 ir^n piti>2 ']hna wm nnw dj>£3 limDtn nTpv )h 'on mi'^o'? 
 N-iasD nsD t^N ipj;ii nsian iti^i ■'To^no e-inx tisoi ■'■ns-'S '?b' 
 'lio-in niiyp'? ino nan jariN «''nn «^ ODminn nina i"? noN lotr 
 15?^ "'ino''!? 13 "h -ION di'?3 iV "rnoN n^i hm ]n:h Noan jt'3 
 1N3 nsiitsn nipoo aw niit pnN ny nsaip nil? ]3nNo nsun 
 ni3''o'? inDsnj "nt iti by lann •'iNini i3"?"i snsiitan ^uipab 
 mpn ^Ni niiio 11 laTi n^!?j>o pmn mira ainDty no by in'Tnyi 
 mi^D It ism "i^po pmn noNT ns^ni nit^nn it nn''2 nns !?n 
 :n3it It nni3 nns bn mpn bn) mtynni 
 
 1 Jalqut Sohim. Saloniohi 1526 ^ab \\ 2 'En Ja'aqob I'lOWBI || 3 M 
 -add. ^™n II « M ras"? II » M "hv rcBKni || e m nns Dn« || 7 M pe || 
 ^s M DipD n» I 9 M add. mvr II 10 M v!?»i 
 
14* 
 
 b) Qoheleth vabba zu 1,8 (Pesaro 1519). 
 
 i^j?m ])am iniN \bai nya D^wb ozny^ ntj;'''?K '<m2 nwya 
 Dnmn piDj;-' ^n1D2 !?nj m« ^m i"? ion im« ^n"? no'-an "jj? 
 Nini ^»N I'^^atrnE' -i^d ^-im )"in- •'by jasi ib id« i'jSt n-'Vtaa 
 ''j« .>s ^''pv ^niCiSnty -in.SD i"? idn d^ob' miffb Nb« ids k"? 
 n'<'?Dn nnma )n mpiD ibbn nn-'triB' ntrss nDi«i nuo Ti^n 
 n\n nG'':in p •Wy^ba oi ntssit? inx nnx mtsD Dion ib!?n 
 
 in« Ntttj' im V'N ibi'N «:i^pj; •-m did: bap Nbi lonab ibss 
 "'imntn n^etyn )n ib nas ^>is'? myi nan T'isb nD« i^a-'on ]d 
 npyi nn« ons •'b^ xm nss bty xantsD-'xa nbij? ■'n^n nns oya 
 "'JNJm i«nnis )a itri mtrD nnx nnn "ib n»«i iDtr x'^iao nsa e'-'N 
 n'^noi niit pn« N^an «b aannina aina hnt nann im«i nann 
 nniD ]n2«b pioK ^anpb ^b nox .]niDN ib Tinaw ]n hd nba 
 ni«snnD Tia jna nc-'j;^ ^b 'as ana nti'j;'' no p dni ib TinaN 
 ]V3 ♦nyti'b nabn ■'iaa nabynji nn»N ns'' ib inna« msoD "toi 
 n«isbi 1N2 HNi^jn N-nnis )3 naN la •'b n»« vnanb ■^nmntr nsn^ 
 pioms itj*}?^ nw -:it )ins nj;i nsap niit lin^a •'D 'it:' issi 
 «b« nij> Nbi nii^a nt:''? 'TityDnj nann im« byi ■'iKam cnnb 
 jniyan it i^nn iT^bj/'a pnnn nmna airiDty na bv "'nnaytr 
 
 XIV. Imma Salome, Rabban Gamliel und der „Philosoph". (S. 62f.) 
 Schabbath 11 6*''. 
 
 nin "iNin bt^'ha^ jann n^nns ntj;''bN ■'nnn inn^nn mbt? Nai« 
 ij?a NnniiJ' bnpa ^bn «aK' b^pti* ninn nTuatyn ^NsiDibis xinn 
 «i''Va n-i"? nnax niapV sbitt^i xnnnn NJntp n^b n'?"!?^ ni3 •'ainsb 
 «na mpon ^^b ^sna ^''n uibs inb nax ityj lan "'onia i"? 'i'?3''in 
 Kn^niN "-bDinix iDj;nNa im-ibin «av ]d "?"« ninTi n*? xnna 
 
 1 Thosephtha Chullin 11,24 (ed. Zuckermandel S. 503): p VW 
 
 "■:BJ3 II 2 M Xap NSDJ'PB II 3 31 n'jiKi II 4 M Nn"-|1N3 
 
15* 
 
 \]nr Nnns «mm sin n-'i nin3i iv^ij ])]) in3\Tn''Ni nn^^i 
 n^s^D"? 2n'<!?"'ati' in"? iok snib «-i»n in-'x n^b '^^''j; nn nnn"? 
 nti'oi Nn-'niNo sflij^oV tub \\-h>:, ]ij? «j« ,t'3 'nai ]T'!?'<j pn 
 DipD3 n-'D n-TiDi Ti^riN *nwai sriniN "pj? ^sdin"? «■?« titin 
 
 •.Ninti''? tytarii Nion nhn 
 
 XV. Die 5 Jiinger Jesu. (S. 66f.) 
 Sanhedrin 43". 
 
 7D11 '» vitb Nsr tnsm sitj;^"? imx'^n ^nosn 3-ij;2 N"'inm 
 i"? ynvE' •'D "^a '?NnB'^ ns n^i^ni n-'oini .•jk^'du' sipj; "jpbib nsv 
 ith^y "ION SHDS mj>2 ims'^ni mat ib insd k"?! v"?); lah'') «2'' niDt 
 «^i "jinnn ^h io« «iDmi lONin n>DO Kin nist oisn nn Ni2Dm 
 n'«T'o'?n nti'an m .mn ni3'?n'? anisn I'w ■'ixtr «■?« r^y noDn 
 •'no in"? noN '<no'? nvriK mim ■'iui nsi •'Np: ^sno w*''? i^ vn 
 D-TiaT inn"' •'nn |i« iV ttdn D''p'?N lis n«-iNi kus •'Hd ^''nan Jin-' 
 ''(3ii ^''nsn Jin'< ■'Npa in"? nnx •'Npi'? nw^ i»b' naxi nio'' ■'na 
 nsi"? nrn« ""pi Jin'' nnnona a^nDT jnn''"'Npj ]''n innn "jk p'^isi 
 a^nDT JTni "isi i'<« n^-!? nan mEs"' vu'ityn nsii stist jnn-' isi "id« 
 iinan ann-' "liu "io« on^ nvns aym -isjs TopD ns'p^n nn«i 
 nx jnn ••DiN nin s-'nai iin'' •'in !•'« i^ nas '?«"ib'^' •'iDn •'ia 
 V'K mm"? Tioto n'-nnn iin^ min n»K min^ nvns ^tod 112 
 {•'Jinna^ mm nan a^inDn iin-' min 1''n 
 
 XVI. Der wunderthatige Ja'aqob aus Kephar Sekhanja. (S. 72.) 
 a) paL Schabbath 14* unten. 
 
 i2NaD "i£3D »•'« apy «Di K'na iDt^ity non ]3 nrybs na ntyj?» 
 1^ ION .'jKjjoty ■'m ^h n'^in n'?i ninisn*? Js^iniD its'' buf num 
 
 ' M ,T3 n^3n''WSl II 2 M n'l? "b^Srs \\ 3 'En Jaaqob pB-fi^ || 
 
 < M om. nvmi W-I1X ^» II 5. Fl noBn msai raw ais: || s m add. "isijn || 
 ' M add. "isian "wr II 8 M Ijijc!? II 9 PI nosn aisai ra» msa || >» M s-ODm 
 nin n''0t5 mn nist iT^ ■'aisn nn nsun ler || n m add. nsiin || 12 kod ib3 
 auoh pal. 'Ab. zara 40'' u. Thosephtha Chullin 11,23 1| " Thosephtha 
 SIWS p sner || " pal. 'Ab. zara 40* add. Sin:D p W nW2 1*? K»'': 1^ ION 
 
16* 
 
 .nmi2 nDti'nj? n-^'^ni xnn"? pison t^b .^iNBTty n^Ni «^3o "'Jn 
 i3ti»3 lym Hb\ irni lists'^ mj I'nisi a^nai d-'Ddh ^^ts* pna nnsis 
 
 b) bab. 'Aboda zara 27*'- 
 
 N21 tyni itf-iDntr '?«j;at!'^ on ^» ininN ]n not 122 nvya 
 
 Ninty minn p snpD Nn« ■'iNi udd NsnNi \b nan '<nN !?«j;ot5''< 
 vby Kip ^nm inoB'i nm^K' ly nain n« nim"? p^son «■?! iniD 
 «^i mnD2 •jnoB'i nn:j'>i lints ^suty «m p T<n»N !?«j;Dt9'' 't 
 
 nn-ian n2T by may 
 
 XVII. Noch ein wunderthatlger Christ. (S. 48, Z. ii; S. 71 ff.^ 
 a) pal. 'Aboda zaia 40" (Varianten aus pal. Schabbath 14''). 
 
 6p iB'n n'Dtya n-iV wnVi snn sriN j>!72 n^"? nin onna T3 
 n^''D'? n^"? no« sii'jjj nios si^d n^^ ion 'pDJo Dm''«i Ninas 
 mini iz.NnbD Nnn yaw i2n1?i nrws li^-iN n^!? nin »»no 9*ion .]"?£) 
 
 :Bi'?tyn '':b'7d Nsvty najt^D )d n^^ 
 
 b) Qoheleth rabba zu 10,5 (Pesaro 1519). 
 
 p nn '■n^Ni "pin kj?'?3 nn n'''? mn ••i^ p j;tyin"' •■mn nnn 
 nil? naN .■'i'?j; moN no ri'^b n»N n"ij;^2 NpsN"? NT>n3s nan ]i!?is 
 'iVj> nD« nin n'?i nnnpn ni"? ni"'j mn nnx ,]^s nna ]"?£ pios 
 joiiptj^n ■>as!?o Nsvty njjt»3 n"!"? mn p) ,NpiDs pn 
 
 1 M »yK> 3pP' II 2 M «<33D ISS Qohel. rabba zu 1,8 m2V "1113 
 3 Qoh. rabba add. nnas ]3 ■or Diwe || « M om. noi || o Naeh dem'l 
 Vorausgehenden der Enkel des Josua ben Levi. || » »a 12 nn |1 6 om. 
 
 p II ' pB3 ns II » n^^ nn»n^ )«» || 9 n^i, lox || lo n-: || n n"ti nin || 
 
17* 
 
 XVIII. Jesu Verurteilung. (S. 73 f.) 
 a) Sanhedrin 67* (s. oben No. I.) 
 
 b) pal. Sanhedrin 25"". 
 
 DDH nt j-iN rcon »muf ]r3t3 n^ nan «n 'd tsvnnn nt n^onn 
 Tij'<a3tt v!?jr D.iij>n^ i"? ^^y ns'-s asn nt ]•>« n^o-ii Nina' ]V3a 
 
 p"? wj? 113 i'?ip n« T'j^Ditri iniK T'Nit inic nn raj by ijn 
 
 nm'jpDi 
 
 XIX. Jesu Hinrichtung. 
 
 Sanhediin 43» (s. oben No. XV). 
 
 XX. Die Lehrhalle des Ben Pandera. (S. 83.) 
 Thargum scheni zu Esther 7,9 (Tenedig 1591). 
 
 n-'B'ei hy Nnom «''!7''« hai "iiljin y^^iiTwa nht ]Dn stn nai 
 nm smiDss'? piD''a ''j;^ «mDn nan rcB'wia •'DV p rfVnty 
 
 XXI. Jesus in der Hijlle. (S. 84 f.) 
 
 a) Gittui 56'', 57* 
 
 b^K nvjiN'? lya nin diijidi nTin« "la Dip"'3i'?p na Di^p3« 
 inn IjKity h"H Hahy Ninna S'^B'n ]«» h"ii uTii^ oitsits'? n^'poN 
 inn 3ni'« h-'i ini-ioi^pb nists k^i y&'^si ^7V'b^n V'k ma ■'PUT'n'? 
 '?«nt4'i^ ns"'on b 'ui trKT"? nn:j vn ninsn NC'n nimi «»"?}> Ninna 
 n-'B'sis p''D!n ■'Ndd !?"« ino3 «133 Ninm nij''T •?"« ty^n na'^j 
 •ptN "'01 aiyx mnni n^^ i'?pi n"!"? "lyni n^oD^p^ n^"? ^didd «dv ^d 
 ni"? -iDN «D^j? Ninnn n"'B'n ^ko n"!^ ton «n>j33 nybn'? nipoi? 
 
 I pal. Jebamoth 15"* 13» |1 ^ ebenda Kltso p^ || 3 'En Ja'aqob "'■IJS 
 
^D DnniDi nai'pty tymn n^ T^-h idn ina ■'pm-'K^ ino ^xnc-' 
 nnnn 3;it n^Dtrn "?"« ^s»:3 snnJ t<mni n-'yi n-b noN D'-n-'n 
 ni"? now Nn'?j? Ninnn n-icyn ind n''b '»« «n^3i3 iw*? nvD« ""« 
 b ts'mn ab nnyi B'm nraita ■?"« inn ■'pm^w^ inn 'pkib''' 
 
 pTi D''DDn '-QT by 3"'j;'?Dn "^^ id nnxn nnnn n«i3D n-'^ noN 
 jD'jiyn mciK ■'N-'ni'? 'pNia''' •'JJB'is 1''3 no ■'tn «n nnnn nxisa 
 
 b) Thosaphoth zu 'Erubin 21*'. 
 
 ]3naNn3 nnnn hnisd initj* Nin noN mpo "psd 'OJ?*? a'-ns ■'o,, 
 
 p-isiin w^ •'33 iv'^na 
 
 XXII. Mirjam, Tochter des 'Eli, In der Hblle. (8. 30.) 
 pal. Chagiga 77* (mit Varianten aus pal. Sanbedrln 23'). 
 
 ^''''bn 3"ins -Dv ni ^1)}b •'3T D'l'psn •''?j? 2n"in nno'? soni 
 n:ni«2 ;;np oan^jn ^xj^-mn sn^s "id« N3''in )3 •'Dv "i K''''»''3 ■'to'^nn 
 nasi n''«i noonsDi na'-is nnm n-iV ion p «i no"? p"? id« 
 'D« p «''n no-'N nj; 11!? noN ^"nn rfb ntpDi dv nn n»"3 niim 
 n''V i''j;Dpi ni-is u i» nb iiono pxi naty in iij>otJ' ■'n''''n iv n'h 
 
 tn-'iiiN u 
 
 XXIII. Jesus, Pilatus und Herodes, Vorfahren Hatnans. (vgl. S. 29 u. 8i.) 
 Soph-rim Xlir, 6: Varianten aus Targum scheni zu Esther 3,1, Veu. 1591. 
 
 6«i3« Nmon ]2 pn n'' wnia^nx to'?o ■'an yb^t^n s'-mns nnn 
 13 "IT'i n3 1 ions 13 lociDin n3 som n3 sdw'pidn 13 'ntis 13 
 
 * 'En Ja'aqob add. ''ISUn || 2 ^,3 || 3 o,n. -|B{< ,-|oi> ^^ Its'? "'an || 
 4 «nn plan n\si statt snm xts icn Nran la 'dv -\ \\ 5 om. no"? 11^ nas 
 p ST bis "in II 6 mo -a tfjj.s || 7 ntn || s nBi'7S\s || 9 tjon || 10 n^Din || 
 " nno II 12 "i-a 
 
19* 
 
 -13 133 13 njt? "13 Dnnn 13 ^onn 13 "ono'Dix i3 '\phv2 
 :iB'Vi nn3i3 ts'Ipnt M^nrni? 13 p'?w i3 »Nnt'i i3 NntJ-Dis 
 
 XXIV. Anhang: Jesus im Zohar. (S. 2.) 
 Zohar III, 282" (Ea'ja mehemna). 
 
 Die Stelle ist verstiimmelt in den ersten Ausgaben des Zohar, Mantua 
 uud Cremona 1560, wird nach einer orientalischen Quelle eiganzt von 
 Mose Zakuth in Derekh Emeth (o. J. u. O. — nach Wolf, um 1663), 
 erseheint zum ersten Mai vollstandig im Text in Ausg. Konstantinopel 
 1736. Hier wird sie nach Ausg. Mantua 1560 und Derekh Emeth mit- 
 geteilt. Die in Ausg. Mantua ausgelassenen Stellen sind durch Klammern 
 eingefasst. 
 
 i'33 n3n5)D iisK'N n'h'h 'Nn3c nxnpns* ,iit rnuyi niddd 
 □ninni qmd Dub3 nz j'pm pa*! «ii3D 'vd !?3D n3iiUD nxivi 
 
 □m3pi Q'riD DuV3 ;i3\S1 nD"nDl r^"< M31 bNUDB^I ■\^V 'J3 dtidi 
 
 nni yp^ [dtid Dub^ 'D'biii? p"? r"'3pi mt mun i3p mw »in3 
 □''3iii;a 31 3ir3 ntrxi K31d m'n «b'»3 nnacD miDD ^ijidd yi 
 
 IEJ'31 DD DVD 6nUC2"1 IE'J? '331 ;i2\\*1 IE'31 aVU3 XITHNI !?Kia"3 
 
 : iniiX ns'bETi sbab loriN nl?j?i nam mB'3 Tiy3 kdd 
 
 1 ipi;'?3 II - DllD'njN II ■> om. 1| •• Dimn H « Tharg. scheni, 
 Amst. 1670 add. 'pDID 13 J3S 13 || " njlJ'n'? — Vgl. noch Joel Miiller, 
 Masechet Soferim, Leipzig 1878 S. XXII, Eiul. S. 34, Aumerkungen S. 176. 
 Der von Miiller fiir diese Stelle gegebene Text ist ohne handsohriftliche 
 Bezeugung. || ' Ausg. Konstant. 1736 .13 nni3p || » n3 || .« add. 
 
 Iirxi 
 
XXV. JESUS IN THE LITURGY OF THE 
 SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 [This did not appear in the German edition.] 
 In mediaeval Jewish prayers Jesus is called 3^03 1X3 (cp. Is. 
 
 xiv. 19), 1123 1V3, •'•hn, abs, no, ^^"^ ^^^, ri^^n aSan, no ijs, 
 D31D MS (cp. Is. xiv. 19), 10S1 •T\b\ HD'Tn !?iy, HD'Tn ncs Din" 
 (cp. Ezek. xxiii. 44), mi nc^N ni!?' (cp. Lev. xx. 18). For other 
 names see Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des MittelaUers, pp. 
 451 ff., and Chr. W. Christlieb, Kurzer Auszug aus denen Se- 
 liclwth oder Jiidischen Bussgebet&n (1745). It may be added 
 that such names for Jesus are no longer to be found in modern 
 Jewish prayer-books. 
 
 (1) Selielw, 101? W-W> by Isaak ben Meir (12th century, 
 vide Tiwaz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, p. 303, 
 Landshuth 'Ammude 'Aboda, p. 123). Text from Selichoth, 
 MS. Civit. Lips. B. H. 2 with readings from Machzor, Cremona, 
 1560, Baer's Seder 'Ahodath Jisrael 1868, and Selichoth, Am- 
 sterdam, 1751. — German rite, Selichoth le-jom sheni. 
 
 73^3nnS 'D53n inNi Ton"? piaa 
 
 ••^np!? ni^x"? ='ai;r»i nvj 
 
 :»S3n'?i nnaS ncnpn ^n^5^»1 
 
 > 'Ab. Jisr. D^yiD. ' M. Crem. "jannnb. * Sel. Amst. ysm nV3. 
 « 'Ab. Jisr. ^apS inni lOmO niOJ. ^ m. Crem., Sel. Amst. SajSl. 
 
 c2 
 
22* 
 
 (2) SelicJm inn )1tK by an unknown author (11th or 12th 
 cent., Zunz, 1. c, p. 223, 229). Text after SelicJioth, MS. Civit. 
 Lips., agreeing with notices from a manuscript in Ej^istolario 
 Italiano Frmicese Lathio di Samuel David Luzzatto, ii. (1890), 
 p. 633, with readings from Machzor, Cremona, 1560, Venice, 1568 
 and 1715, and Sdichoth, Amsterdam, 1751. — German rite, 
 SelicJioth le-jom cliamishi. 
 
 'i!?''n3 -|''inc'o niyicj'' nix 
 :'"i^n'? 'nmB' isspa nns 
 
 ' M. Veu. 1568 D^pV. = MS. Luzz. 5)13X3 nsn, M. Yen. 1568 
 
 SlIDB'!? ni3n:i. -" M. Ven. 1568 lajroi'. * M. Crem. 1560, M. Yen. 1568 
 and 1715 *1^33 Wy^tfin D'D^IJ? 11V, Sel. Amst. 11^31 inDD 13^3 Dpnif. 
 
 (3) Seliclw, IISS 'pa's ''?17 miN by an unknown author. Text 
 after Selichoth, MS. Civ. Lips., with a reading from Machzor, 
 Sulzbach, 1699. — German rite, Selichoth. le-jom rebi'i site-hen 
 Hash ha-Shana we-Jom Kippur. 
 
 ■131D nuph W'DT 
 
 -laina "nS no 
 
 ■13T "h 3B'lni 
 
 nnn nx pn!? no 
 > M. Suizb. nhih Sds. 
 
 (4) ^«ZM/ia Drx Nnpx i^^s by Gershom ben Jeliuda (11th 
 cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 239, Landshuth, L c. p. 55). Text from Seli- 
 cJioth, MS. Civ. Lips., with reading from MacJizor, Sulzbach, 
 1699. — German rite, SelicJioth le-jom cJuimislii. 
 
23* 
 
 anpa Kan cnn noi Nota 
 
 ait?!? 'innni; i!?xt< no uo 
 
 anp nDN3 vsiip'? nn^s !?3n ivr 
 
 ;3nr ra'Ni iiir» njD^Ni mn< 
 
 ' M. Suizb. Tianj? 'Ijsk. 
 
 (5) Sdiclia ?** 'DT 7N D»n?X by an unknown author. Text 
 from Machzor, Sulzbach, 1699. Seliclwth le-jom cJtamis/d sJie-ben 
 R. h. S. we-J. K. 
 
 iD''?i'?'Ji n}!Q\>r\ '!?DD 
 
 • •\th IKIp NDD niD 
 
 (6) Sdiclw, VDB' Nn by Bphraim ben Jacob ben Kalonymos 
 (12th cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 292, Landshuth, 1. c. p. 47). Text from 
 Seliclhoth, MS. Civ. Lips., with readings from Machzor, Cremona, 
 1560, from S only after the last named source. — German rite, 
 Selichoth le-jom cliamishi sJie-ben li. h. S. we-J. Kijypwr. 
 
 N-i'DN inosi 'u NOV b>3 hpm no 
 
 N-IIVn NiDId!? NpDD t<TI113 NHV^V ^1? 'S< 
 
 Nnpjji N^ano t^wd dn n'?inj noa 
 
 sniD'S nonoi 'din^d nana niipnn 
 mTya mn laEroi nnui "pwaa 'n'jDSo 
 
 N-iDi^o"? "N^n 7aiSD nnin'ps 'pp'so j^no 
 
 mt muvT Nni;T ikhd j"?V'!? Njom wjy 
 
 nidjd'? too xhv t|'Di^ N^T un pnna 
 
 Ni^ao n'pt *!? r'DS^' ^5b istudn n!?ap 
 
 Nipira n'"? nspi 'nd nO n^5p^ rtn 
 
 Nina N^m nr n'3*p3E'j n^t nvnts' 
 
 tMsaa'? n!?t i"?!; pini i"?!; pin NS'pn 
 
 ' M. Crem. NOV ^3 ^1. "- M. Crem. ND1ND. ^ m. Crem. n^DSnO. 
 - M. Crem. NIB'd!? l^'piS'l. = M. Crem. NJp'aD, « M. Crem. n"?! 1J1N0. 
 
24* 
 
 (7) Seliclui inni DSK D>15n probably by Kalonymos from 
 Lucca (11th cent, Zunz, 1. c. p. 108). Text from Machzor, MS. 
 Civ. Lips. B. H. 3 with readings from Machzor, MS. Univ. Lips. 
 3005 and Machzor, Venice, 1715.— German rite, Sliacftarith 
 le-Jom Eippur. 
 
 "nonn nt^a Din" D^vpcD ^kicj 
 n'n'ipsD nSsj n^ion Ipdd D'un 
 
 Dn'!?3n nnnQ d31d nas D^jn 
 :Dnbi'nn db'i' mip nnx T''^^ 
 
 i MS. Uiiiv. Lips. na^m. = M. Ven. HDti nny. 
 
 (8) .S«ZicAa I'JS^ t2rO» bx by Moses ben Samuel ben 
 Absalom (12th cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 263; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 260). 
 Text from Selichoth, jNIS. Civ. Lips, with readings from Maclizor, 
 Sulzbach, 1699, and Selicltath, Amsterdam, 1751. — Grerman rite, 
 SelicJwth le-Mincliath Join Kippur. 
 
 n^:ip2 n^'JpD bv ^3n^ -Its 
 
 ' Sel. Amst. ^n^lN. - M. Sulzb. nJS, Sel. Amst. h\2'> 'D. •* M. 
 
 Sulzb. HiXIJ TM<\h. 
 
 (9) .SV/iVw 'Ol^ 'OT "?« D'n^N by David ben Meshullam 
 (perhaps 12th cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 254, but cp. p. 510 ; Landshuth, 
 1. c. p. 59). Text from Seliclioth, MS. Civ. Lips, with readings 
 from Machzor, jNIS. Civ. Lips. B. H. 3, and Sulzbach, 1699; 
 Amsterdam, 1736. — German rite, Selichoth le-'ereb liosh lui-Shaiia 
 loe-Jom Kippur. 
 
 hv-\ 1DD '11D in' ivrnn 
 
 'pvn'? yt&n !?3 'jq 'hy a\bn Di'?n 
 
 hvmn 'biii&'< a& •\:>v t6\ 
 
 > M. Sulzb. niD. ' M. Civ. Lips. om. hv. ' M. Sulzb. tj'np. 
 
25* 
 
 !?j?JiDi 'npniD ininn nnx n:h\ 
 
 'npE'ji nm n'^5> nb'ji Tm 
 mp^bo csT v^x »nD'?n Din" 
 
 ■■ M. Sulzb. I'piE'D. •'' M. Sulzb. ID^^BTI nnv « M. Amst. vSp. 
 
 ' M. Civ. Lips. IpD'ai. ° M. Sulzb. nny niH*. » M. Sulzb. 12^ lb 
 
 np''!? CSn, M. Amst. Tip'"? >•?! CNn. 
 
 (10) ^eiicAa T'n1^5'?a3 ^3 n^K by Gershom ben Jehuda (11th 
 cent., Zunz, I. c. p. 239 ; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 57). Text from 
 Selicholh, MS. Civ. Lips, with readings from Machzor, Venice, 
 1568; Sulzbach, 1699; Seliclwth, Amsterdam, 1761; Furth, 
 1755. — German rite, Selichoth le-jom slielishi. 
 
 nvn T11V pnn nnbuD 
 :ns« ''!?33 yr:>ih man 
 
 1 M. Sulzb. -n-i-hn imipa npnn, Sei. Furth iDH Tvhii \>rm. 
 
 2 Sel. Amst. D13J?, Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, p. 452, ''I'jn, M. Ven. n3DX3, 
 M. Sulzb. nnU3. » M. Sulzb. IV TOa, Sel. Furth TniSD^ 0130 
 
 (11) Zidath D»obK3 1103 fN by Isaak ben Shalom (12th 
 cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 458 ; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 127). Text after 
 Machzor, Amsterdam, 1681, with reading from Seder TephUloth, 
 Sulzbach, 1797. — Polish rite, ^rs« Sabbath after Pesach. 
 
 D'^^DNn omn'n no 
 nvDi 2^-h p-nvnty'? vnn lo-nvv 03b \2n 
 :i3«ni nnx ov^-uan 'ayn: nvjS-i3a3 vnn on 
 
 ' Teph. Sulzb. O'JIJJTI nnw"?. 
 
26* 
 
 (12) Baqqasha ninnn ■>rh^ i?t< by Isaak Tarplmii (14th or 
 ISth cent., Zunz, I.e. p. 558; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 128). Text 
 from Qobez Wikkuchim, s. 1. et a. (Breslau, 1844). — Not to be 
 found in the Liturgy of the Synagogue. 
 
 ntn nvnon ip-niDsyn ju '?'?Qnn'?i liny'? 
 
 n'S' am ipE'i-n''3' inxi ins i?3 
 
 nr 133 IpsN-c-n: mr\ icn dji 
 
 nnn^D D3''3»31 13i:'3-nDp3 DIpJJ D3TD 
 
 ntn pyn -i3i3' DN-noiE' ns ^3 hy o 
 
 in3i wnr la's DCJ'n-in^K'D ijji « njj 
 nr Nvi »3 nDN» nK'N-inn* mn3 mn< 
 fin^ NV'i nnci ^3x^-^x1 njp bv D'3D1d 
 ntn B'*Nn nx unn-j-'isj nt3D ntn awn 
 !?y3n' '3inD nobi-'py^b e"n nx nsi; 
 ntn ntyyon no-^va'? innn onsn 
 i!?nji nu3 ijxnn N'?-iij3 jDao vcis 
 »ntn n3nn Dn'E'y yno-i!? ntiy pxi n'n Din» 
 
 " ^np3 nt3 N3' Nb-''rD3 iidxj "jnie" niN3S 
 
 ^^Tn B'^xn ns I3n3-'':D'? 3in3 xin n:n 
 noipn rh ps ncx-non px^ D^xnip 
 'ntn "pjyn NV<i-nDn33 ^btj 
 ne'u nDi3D sin liJ'N-nE'N ni^» ^3 nsT 
 !snt uvB'v nD-nB'3' ue'sj nnyi 
 
 1 leg. p 2 Keg. vi. 32. 2 2 Sam. xvi. 9. ^ e^. i. I8. -i Jerem. 
 
 xxii. 30. ' Ex. xxxii. 24. « 1 Sam. x. 27. 
 
 (13) §ina 3"il? '3Nt by Zerachja ha-Levi Gerundi (12th 
 cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 461 ; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 63). Text from 
 Seder chamesh Tdanijjot.h, Livorno, 1877.— Spanish rite, Shac/ui- 
 rith le-tish'a be-Ab. 
 
27* 
 :3iin niniSi pisn nnn-mvi ''nca hnii 5?331 
 
 (14) 5eiic/io ^3^0^ ^3N 'JS by Ephraim ben Isaac (12th 
 cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 278; Landshuth, 1. c p. 48). Text from 
 Seliclioth, MS. Civ. Lii»s., with readings from Machzor, Cremona, 
 1560; Venice, 1715; Amsterdam, 1736. — German rite, Selichoth 
 le-Musaph Jom Kippur. 
 
 ninn nisD ;j(d'? 
 -«Di?3»D NiB'j'?-' nSana innn'j-'o'jana ^juao 
 :Min ncN 'nib<3 
 
 1 M. Crem. Ven. Amst. UISJJ. ' M. Amst. Wma. ^ m. Vga. 
 
 ant. ■• M. Crem. d'?3M3, M. Veu. D^ana. , = M. Ven. o'pDy'?. 
 
 6 M. Crem. Ven. Amst. d'?3D DN. ' M. Amst. llV HE^VD. » M. Veu. 
 N3 »3N N3N ^N. 
 
 (15) Zulath piN 'n 'PN 7N by Simeon ben Isaac ben Abun 
 (10th cent., Zunz, 1. c. p. 114). Text from Madizor, Amsterdam, 
 1681, with readings from Seder 'Abodath Jisi-ael, and Seder 
 TephiUoth, Sulzbach, 1797. — Polish rite, second Sabbath after 
 Pesach. 
 
 Tiihn nana 'JiajDi 
 ns'?nD r\^r\ nasi 
 
 tabo riDD Dnnaa'j 
 
 1 Teph. Sulzb. ^KrOCV = 'ai,. jier. 3^j; T5?n nnn3, Teph. Sulzb. 
 3^n n'?'3N !?5?. 
 
 (16) ^wto/t y^^< kV 0'n!?K by Ephraim ben Isaac (12th cent., 
 Zunz, 1. c. p. 376 ; Landshuth, 1. c. p. 48). Text from Maclizor, 
 
28* 
 
 Amsterdam, 1681. Baer has in Seder 'Abodath Jisrael "rt31?3 
 DIpBTI " for peace's sake " quite another text. — Polish rite, ffth 
 Sabbath after Pesach. 
 
 T\'\•Q•^ -^ WTWS nnt 
 VN(hr\ nna di?d3 
 
 ^p ay ^v 33n *n 
 
 hpOi B"N3 ITOn 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 P. 3* IX. Add "iiat Schahhath 13''." 
 
 P. 3* and 11* xL Bead "Berakhoth 17 a.'' 
 
 P. 18* XXIII. For other readings see Targum Bishon to Esth. v. 9, ed. 
 Venice, 1518, Targum Sheni to Esther iii. 1 in the same edition and p. 39* 
 of this work. 
 
TRANSLATIONS OF THE FOREGOING TEXTS. 
 I. Ben Stada, Ben Pandeea, Pappos ben Jehdda, 
 
 MiRJAM, THE women's HAIRDRESSER. 
 
 (a) Shabbath 104 b. For translation, see Laible, pp. 46, 
 and 8. 
 
 (6) Sanhedrin 67 a. 
 
 " And for all capital criminals who are mentioned in the Law 
 they do not lay an ambush but (they do) for this (criminal)." 
 How do they act towards him ? They light the lamp for him in 
 the innermost part of the house and they place witnesses for 
 him in the exterior part of the house, that they may see him 
 and hear his voice, though he cannot see them. And that man 
 says to him : Tell me what you have told me when we were 
 alone. And when he repeats (those words) to him, that man 
 says to him : How can we abandon our God in Heaven and 
 practise idolatry ? If he returns, it is well ; but when he says : 
 Such is our duty, and so we like to have it, then the witnesses, 
 who are listening without, bring him to the tribunal and stone 
 him. And thus they have done to the Son of Stada at Lud and 
 they hanged him on the day before Passover. 
 
 (For the rest see the translation of Shabbath 104 b.) 
 
30* 
 
 II. Caricature of Evayyiktov. 
 
 Shabbath 116 a. See Laible, p. 13. 
 
 Rabbi Meir' calls it, '"A wen gillajon" (blank paper, lit. 
 margin, of evil). Rabbi Jochanan calls it, "'Awon gillajon" (blank 
 paper of sin). 
 
 11v3 is margin, paper which is left unwritten, and therefore 
 blank. The Rabbis seem to have thought it remarkable that the 
 name of the "EvayyiXiov did not indicate a book ("'=^0), but an 
 unwritten page. 
 
 Note. These words do not stand in the Talmud in their 
 proper place, but are a gloss to the words I'^'O nSDI JlvJn^ on 
 the same page, 18 lines from the bottom. 
 
 III. The wife op Pappos ben Jehuda. 
 
 Gittin 90 a. For translation of the first part see Laible, 
 p. 26. 
 
 Ajid there is another who, when a fly falls into his tumbler, 
 throws it out and drinks it, and this is the way of men gene- 
 rally. When she is speaking with her brothers and relatives, 
 he does not hinder her. But there is also the man, who, when a 
 fly falls into a dish, sucks it (the fly) out and eats it (the dish). 
 This is the manner of a bad man, who sees his wife going out 
 bareheaded and spinning in the street and wearing clothes 
 slit up on both sides and bathing together with men. 
 
 (For translation of the words of Rashi, see Laible, p. 27.) 
 
 IV. A LEGEND OF MaRY, AND A PuOVERB. 
 
 (a) Chagiga 4 b. 
 
 When Rab Joseph came to this verse (Prov. xiii. 23) " But 
 there is that is destroyed without judgment," he wept. He said : 
 
 1 Munich MS. has nh lip n^KD '3m. 
 ^ This is the reading of the Munich MS. 
 
31* 
 
 Is there really somebody who is going (away), when it is not his 
 time? Certainly, (for) so has it happened with Rab Bibi bar 
 Abbai, the angel of death was found with him. 
 
 (For the rest of the translation see Laible, p. 27 seq.) 
 
 (i) Tosaphoth Chagiga 4 b (after 'En Ja'aqob, ed. Veri. 
 1546). 
 
 : naca Nn'Nia ib" ^B' ion* nrr'm n»n ^acf n'33 n^cj N^nan onoT 
 
 " The angel of death was found with him," who related what 
 had happened to him long ago, for this story as to Mirjam, the 
 women's hairdresser, took place in the time of the second temple, 
 for she was the mother of Jesus, as it is related in (treatise) 
 Shabbath. 
 
 (c) Tosaphoth Shabbath 104 b. 
 
 "The Son of Stada." Rabbenu Tarn says, that this is not 
 Jesus the Nazarene, for as to the Son of Stada we say here that 
 he was in the days of Pappos ben Jehuda, who lived in the 
 days of Rabbi Aqiba, as is proved in the last chapter of 
 Berakhoth (61 b), but Jesus lived in the days of Jehoshua ben 
 Perachja, as is proved in the last chapter of Sota (47 a) : " And not 
 like Rabbi Jehoshua ben Perachja, who pushed away Jesus the 
 Nazarene with both hands," and Rabbi Jehoshua was long before 
 Rabbi Aqiba. " His mother was Mirjam, the women's hair- 
 dresser," and what is related in the first chapter of Chagiga (4 b): 
 " Rab Bibi — the angel of death was found with him etc., he 
 said to his messenger: Go and fetch me Mii-jam, the women's 
 hairdresser," that means that there lived in the days of Rab 
 Bibi a Mirjam a women's hairdresser. It was another (Mirjam), 
 or the angel of Death was also relating to Rab Bibi a story 
 which had happened a long time before. 
 
32* 
 
 (d) Sanhedrin 106 a (after edit. Constant. 1585). 
 
 n^'nni pni* 'n idn Kin suj ddip DDipn niva p oy^a nsi 
 'Nin 'd^'lJ'i '33Dn ''^j'rN noNT ij"n iSaa an nox ddip f\'\D:ihi K'2j 
 
 "And Balaam, the Son of Beor, the soothsayer" (Josh. xiii. 
 22). Soothsayer? he was a prophet. Rabbi Jochanan said : At 
 first a prophet, at last a soothsayer. Bab Papa said : This is 
 what people say : She was of prominent men and princes, (and 
 then) she prostituted herself for mere carpenters. 
 
 V. MiRJAM, DAUGHTER OF BiLGA. 
 
 Pal. Sukka 55 d. (See Laible, p. 20.) 
 
 Bilga always receives his part on the south side on account 
 of Mirjam, daughter of Bilga, who turned apostate and went to 
 marry a soldier belonging to the government of the house of 
 Javan [Greece], and went and beat upon the roof of the altar. 
 She said to it : Wolf, wolf, thou hast destroyed the property of 
 the Israelites and didst not help them in the hour of their 
 distress ! 
 
 VI. The document of Jerusalem. 
 Jebamoth 49 a, Mishna iv. 13. 
 For translation see Laible p. 31. 
 
 VII. The confession op Mary. 
 Kalla 18 b (41 c ed. Ven. 1528). 
 See Laible, pp. 33 seq. 
 
 VIII. Jesus and Jehoshua ben Perachja. 
 (a) Sanhedrin 107 b. 
 See Laible, p. 41. 
 
 ' M in margin njj naj^ N»in t6\ti. Eashi lias also the reading n)3. 
 
33* 
 
 (6) Sota 47 a. 
 
 The text is substantially the same as Sanhedrin 107 b (see 
 Laible, p. 41), therefore no special translation is necessary. 
 
 (c) Pal. Chagiga 77 d. 
 
 The inhabitants of Jerusalem intended to appoint Jehuda 
 ben Tabai as "Nasi"' in Jerusalem. He fled and went away to 
 Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem wrote : " From 
 Jerusalem the great to Alexandria the small. How long lives 
 my betrothed with you, whilst I am sitting grieved on account 
 of him 1" "When he withdrew to go in a ship, he said : Has 
 Debora, the landlady, who has taken us in, been wanting in 
 something 1 One of his disciples said : Rabbi, her eye was bright 
 {i. e. a euphemism for blind) ! He answered him : Lo, you have 
 done two things ; firstly, you have rendered me suspected, and 
 then you have looked upon her. What did I say ? beautiful in 
 appearance? I did not say anything (like this) but (beautiful) 
 in deeds. And he was angry with him, and he went his way. 
 
 IX. Jesus, the sobcrrer. 
 
 (a) Shabbath 104 b. See No. I (o). 
 
 (6) Tosephta Shabbath xii. vers. fin. See Laible, p. 46. 
 
 (c) Pal. Shabbath 13 d. See Laible, ibid. 
 
 He who scratches on the skin in the fashion of writing, is 
 guilty, but he who makes marks on the skin in the fashion of 
 writino' is exempt from punishment. Rabbi Eli'ezer said to 
 them : But has not the Son of Stada brought (magic) spells 
 from Egypt just in this way ? They answered him : On account 
 of one fool we do not ruin a multitude of reasonable men. 
 
 X. The testimony of Jesus as to Himself. 
 
 (a) Pal. Ta'anith 65 b. 
 See Laible, p. 50. 
 
 ' President of Sanhedrin. 
 
34* 
 
 (6) Jalqut Shim'oni on Numb, xxiii. 7, under the name of 
 Mid rash Jelamniedenu. 
 
 "He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice" (Prov. xxvii. 
 14). How strong was the voice of Balaam? Rabbi Jochanan 
 said : (It was heard) sixty miles. Rabbi Jehoshua' ben Levi 
 said : Seventy nations heard the voice of Balaam. Rabbi Ele- 
 'azar ha-qappar says : God gave strength to his voice, and he 
 went up from one end of the world to the other, because he was 
 looking about and seeing the nations adoring the sun and the 
 moon and the stars and wood and stone. And he looked about 
 and saw that a man, son of a woman, will arise, who seeks to 
 make himself God and to seduce all the world without exception. 
 Therefore, he gave strength to his voice, that all nations of the 
 world might hear (it), and thus he spake : Take heed that you 
 go not astray after that man, as it is written (Num. xxiii. 
 19) "God is not a man, that he should lie," — and if he says 
 that he is God, he is a liar ; and he will fall into error and 
 say that he is going away and will come (again) at certain 
 spaces of time, (then) he hath said and will not do it. Look 
 what is written (Num. xxiv. 23) "And he took up his parable 
 and said, Alas, who shall live when he makes (himself) God !" 
 Balaam intended to say : Alas, who shall live from that nation 
 which gives ear to that man who makes himself God ? 
 
 (c) Pesiqta Rabbathi 100 b. 
 See I^aible, p. 50 seq. 
 
 XL Jesus an idolater. 
 
 (a) Sanhedrin 103 a. See Laible, p. 51. 
 
 " There shall no evil befall thee," Ps. xci. 10. (That means,) 
 that evil dreams and bad phantasies shall not vex thee. " Neither 
 shall any plague come nigh thy tent," (that means,) that thou 
 shalt not have a son or disciple who burns his food publicly 
 (i.e. who renounces openly what he has learned) like Jesus the 
 Nazarene. 
 
35* 
 
 (b) Berakhoth 17a seq. 
 
 When our wise men left the house of Rab Chisda or, as 
 others say, the house of Rab Shemuel bar Nachmani, they said 
 of him: "Thus our learned men' are laden" (Ps. cxliv. 14). 
 Rab and Shemuel, or, as others say. Rabbi Jochanan and Rabbi 
 Ele'azar (were of a different opinion). One said : "our learned" 
 in the Law, and "are laden" with commandments (i.e. good 
 works), and the other said : " our learned " in the Law and in 
 the commandments, and "are laden" with sufferings. "There 
 is no breaking in," that our company shall not be like the com- 
 pany of Saul, from whom Doeg, the Edomite, has gone out, 
 "and no going forth," that our company shall not be like the 
 company of David, from whom Ahithophel has gone out, "and 
 no outcry," that our company shall not be like the company of 
 Elisha, from whom Gehazi has gone out, "in our streets," that 
 we shall not have a son or disciple who bums his food publicly 
 like the Nazarene. 
 
 XII. Balaam-Jesus. 
 
 (a) Sanhedrin xi. 90 a, Mishna x. 2. 
 Laible, pp. 53 seq. 
 
 (a) Sanhedrin xi. 90 a, Mishna x. 1. 
 Laible, pp. 55. 
 
 (^) Sanhedrin 100 b. 
 Laible, p. 55. 
 
 (b) Aboth V. 19. 
 Laible, p. 58. 
 
 (c) Sanhedrin 106 b. 
 Laible, p. 59. 
 
 (d) Sanhedrin 106 b (end). 
 Laible, p. 59. 
 
 1 13'31^K, from Sj^N, to learn. 
 S. d 
 
36* 
 
 (e) Sanhedrin 106 a. Laible, p. 61 seq. 
 
 "Woe to him who lives because he takes God" (Num. xxiv. 
 23). Resh Laqish said : Woe to him, who vivifies himself (or, 
 who saves his life') by the name of God. 
 
 Rashi. 
 
 " Balaam, who vivifies himself by the name of God," making 
 himself God. Another reading has it : " who vivifies himself as 
 to the name of God," that is, woe to those men that vivify and 
 amuse themselves in this world and tear the yoke of the law 
 from their neck and make themselves fat (t'JOB'D). 
 
 XIII. R. Eli'ezer and Ja'aqob op Kephar Sekhanja 
 (a) "Aboda zara 16 b seq. 
 Laible, pp. 62 seq. 
 
 (6) Qoheleth rabba to Eccles. i. 8 (Pesaro, 1519). 
 
 It is related of Rabbi Eli'ezer that he was seized for heresy. 
 A certain governor took him and brought him up to the place 
 of judgment to judge him. He said to him -. Rabbi, shall a 
 great man like you be occupied with such vain things? He 
 answered : The judge is faithful towards me ! and as he (the 
 governor) imagined that he was speaking (so) on account of him, 
 though he had only spoken in reference to Heaven (God), he 
 said to him : Because I am faithful in your eyes, I also venture 
 to say : Can it be that these academies are erring (and occupv 
 themselves) with those vain things 1 DimMs (= dimissus es), you 
 are set free. When Rabbi Eli'ezer had been dismissed from the 
 tribunal, he was pained because he had been seized for heresy =- 
 His disciples came to see him in order to comfort him, but he 
 did not accept (their consolation). (Then) Rabbi Aqiba came 
 to see him and said to him : Rabbi, perhaps one of the heretics 
 has said before you some word which pleased you. He answered : 
 Lo, by Heaven, you remind me. Once, when I was going up 
 
 ' Comp. Midrash Tanchuma. Matioth, ed. Mantua 1563, fol. 91 c. 
 
 ' niJ'D nan bv is a gioss. 
 
37* 
 
 in the street of Zippori, a man, named- Ja'aqob of Kephar 
 Sekhanja, came to me and told me something from Jesus, son of 
 Pandera, and I liked it. And this it was : It is written in your 
 Law (Deut. xxiii. 18); "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore 
 or the wages of a dog (into the House of Jahve):" how is it with 
 them ? I said : They are forbidden. He said to me : Forbidden 
 for sacrifice, but allowed for purposes of destruction. I said to 
 him : But what may then be done with them 1 He answered : 
 You may build with them baths and privies. I said to him : 
 You have said well, for at this time the Halakha was hidden 
 from me. When he saw that I praised his words, he said to me : 
 Thus the Son of Pandera hath said : from filth they went, to 
 filth they may go, as it is said (Mic. i. 7): "for of the hire of 
 an harlot she gathered them, and unto the hire of an harlot 
 shall they return;'' they may be applied to public privies. This 
 pleased me, and, therefore, I have been seized for heresy, and 
 also because I transgressed what is written in the Law (Pro v. 
 V. 8): "Remove thy way far from her" — that is the heresy. 
 
 XIV. Imma Shalom, Rabban Gamliel and the 
 "Philosopher." 
 
 Shabbath 116 a seq. 
 Laible, pp. 66 seq. 
 
 XV. The five disciples op Jesus. 
 
 Sanhedrin 43 a. 
 
 Laible, pp. 85 seq. and 71 seq. 
 
 XVI. Ja'aqob of Kephar Sekhanja, the performer op 
 miracles. 
 
 (a) Pal. Shabbath 14 d (lower part). 
 
 Laible, p. 77. 
 
 (6) Bab. 'Aboda zara 27 b. 
 
 Laible, p. 78. 
 
 d2 
 
38* 
 
 XVII. ANOTHER Christian who performs miracles. 
 
 (a) Pal. 'Aboda zara 40 d. Laible, p. 77 seq. 
 
 His grandson (the grandson of Jehoshua' ben Levi) had 
 swallowed something. A man came and whispered to him (a 
 spell) in the name of Jesus son of Pandera and he got well. 
 When he went out, he (Jehoshua' ben Levi) asked him : What 
 did you say over him (read 'l'?J') 1 He answered : According to 
 the word of somebody. He said : What had been his fate, had 
 he died and not heard this word? And it happened to him, 
 "as it were an error which proceedetli from the ruler" (Eccles. 
 X. 5). 
 
 (b) Qoheleth rabba to Eccles. x. 5. 
 
 The son of Rabbi Jehoshua' ben Levi had something in his 
 throat. He went and fetched one of the men of the son of 
 Pandera, to bring out what he had swallowed. He (Jehoshua' 
 ben Levi) said to him: What didst thou say over him? He 
 answered : A certain verse after a certain man (?). He said : It 
 had been better for him, had he buried him and not said over 
 him that verse. And so it happened to him, " as it were an error 
 which proceedeth from the ruler" (Eccles. x. 5). 
 
 XTIII. The condemnation of Jesus. 
 (a) Sanhedrin 67 a (see i. above). 
 (6) Pal. Sanhedrin 25 c seq. Laible, p. 79 seq. 
 
 XIX. The execution of Jesus. 
 Sanhedrin 43 a (see above, No. xv.). 
 
 XX. The Academy of the Son op Pandera. 
 
 Targum Sheni to Esther \-ii. 9. 
 Laible, p. 90. 
 
39* 
 XXI. Jesus in Hell. 
 
 (a) Gittin 56 b seq. 
 Laible, pp. 92 seq. 
 
 (b) Tosaphoth to 'Erubin 21 b. 
 
 "Is tliere (Eccles. xii. 12) then really written 3U7 (derision)?" 
 At all events' it is true that he is punished by boiling filth, 
 as we are saying in Ha-Nezaqin (Chapter v. of treatise Gittin, 
 fol. 56 b). 
 
 XXII. MiRJAM, DAUGHTER OF ElI, IN HeLL. 
 
 Pal. Chagiga 77 d. 
 Laible, p. 30. 
 
 XXIII. The ancestors of Haman. 
 
 Sopherim xill. 6 ; various readings from Targum I to Esther 
 V. 1 (Ven. 1518) and from Targum II to Esther iii. 1 (Yen. 1518). 
 
 "13 'p'J 13 ^DIID -\2 «D1Din 13 «DVT -\2 ^DlDiblD:-; n3 'NtlD 13 
 
 -13 133 -13 -iiz> -13 '-Dnnn -ii "onn n3 '°Dna''DiN -i3 '|p'?3;3 
 :i=iE'3>i nn3i3 "tB*!?Ni n*n3in!? n3 pboj? -i3 "Knn -i3 ndc^'d-id 
 
 1 Targ. I -13. ' Targ. I KIJJ -I3, Targ. II mO -13 t<i33S. ^ Targ. I 
 iN3T'3, Targ. 11 nt13. ■■ Targ. I D1D»'?S^?, Targ. II D13l'?Q''N. 
 
 5 Targ. I om. « Targ. II D^DIH. ' Targ. I DniQ, Targ. II DIIS. 
 
 8 Targ. I pan, Targ. II ]1Va. » Targ. I p*^n, Targ. II tPV^3. 
 
 10 Targ. I DIOIDijnX, Targ. II D'nD'n3N. " Targ. I Dnn, Targ. II 
 
 om. '- Targ. I DIDin, Targ. II DITIH. " Targ. I add 
 
 -IPDID -13 33X -13. " Targ. I t3''?N 13. " Targ. I Nr'Cf-l WV -|3. 
 
 After these events King Achashwerosh made great Haman, 
 the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, son of Kuza (comp. 
 Xou^as, Luk. viii. 3), son of Apolitos (comp. nXoC-ros), son of 
 
 1 The Tosaphoth mean, although it may not be allowed to derive this 
 manner of punishment from the words in Eccles. xii. 12, as Eab Acha bar 
 UUa does, 'Erubin 21 b, it is nevertheless true. 
 
40* 
 
 Dios (comp. Aio's, gen. of Z«i5s), son of Diosos (comp. AioVuo-os) 
 son of Paros (comp. Varus), son of Nedan (comp. Nvp"^'')! ^o" 
 of Be'elqan (?), son of Otimeros (1), son of Hados (comp. "ASj/s), 
 son of Hadoros (comp. 'H/ko'Sj^s, Ta'an. 23 a DHnin), son of Sheger 
 (a young calf, comp. "^i^, Exod. xiii. 12 and Targ. Onk.), son of 
 Naggar (a carpenter), son of Parmashta (comp. Esth. ix. 9), son 
 of Vajzatha (comp. Esth. ix. 9), son of 'Amaleq, son of the con- 
 cubine of Eliphaz, the firstborn of 'Esau. 
 
 XXIV. Jesus in the Zohar. 
 
 Zohar iii. 282 a (Raja mehemna). 
 
 From the side of idolatry Shabbethaj (Saturn) is called Lilith', 
 mixed dung, on account of the filth mixed from all kinds of dirt 
 and worms, into which they throw dead dogs and dead asses, 
 the sons of 'Esau and Ishma'el, and there (read HQl) Jesus and 
 Mohammed, who are dead dogs, are buried among them. She 
 (Lilith) is the grave of idolatry, where they bury the uncir- 
 cumcised, (who are) dead dogs, abomination and bad smell, soiled 
 and fetid, a bad family. She (Lilith) is the ligament^ which 
 holds fast the "mixed multitude" (Ex. xii. 38), which is mixed 
 among Israel, and which holds fast bone and flesh, that is, the 
 sons of 'Esau and Ishma'el, dead bone and unclean flesh torn 
 of beasts in the field, of which it is said (Ex. xxii. 31): "Ye 
 shall cast it to the dogs.'' 
 
 XXV. Jesus in the Liturgy op the Synagogue. 
 
 1. Selicha lOV "jSIEJ" 
 
 Unclean are they who mean to spoil thy inheritance, 
 
 that it may barter away thy glory and become entangled 
 
 after their vanity, 
 to accept the "abominable branch" (Is. xiv. 19) as God, 
 and to cast away and to spoil thy holy fear. 
 
 1 Lilith is a female demon, comp. Is. xxxiv. 14 and Weber, AltsytuigogaU 
 paliistinische Theologie, p. 246. 
 
 ' JOID is a fibre attached to the lungs. 
 
41* 
 2. Selicha 'nn ptN, 
 
 They that are raising lamentation in a depressed condition, 
 
 asking forgiveness with a head bowed down, 
 Their oppressors make them angry by the branch of adultery. 
 
 With perverseness may they be mingled (Is. xix. 14) and be 
 left to destruction, 
 Deliver thy adherents from doojn and consumption (Is. x. 23), 
 
 let them escape from the oppressor and make them the 
 highest (Deut. xxvi. 19). 
 Command the salvation of those that search thee with appeasing, 
 
 destroy in thy wrath those that bow to a hanged one ! 
 
 3. Selicha nis"? ■'WS ^il miN. 
 
 We are like the pelican of the wilderness (Ps. cii. 6), 
 
 as though a dead man were joined to a living one' (Eccles. 
 ix. 5), 
 
 And it is answered to me. 
 
 What is the straw to the wheat (Jer. xxiii. 28) ? 
 
 4. Selicha DVX SipX I'^N. 
 
 An unclean and dead man, a new comer from nigh at hand, 
 
 what is his person to me (vVX) that I should become surety 
 for him (Prov. xvii. 18)] 
 I will praise the unity of him who formed the universe, nigh to 
 them who call upon him in ti-uth, 
 the fatherless and the widow he upholdeth (Ps. cxlvi. 9), but 
 he pulls down" his enemies. 
 
 * Our position is quite as unnatural as the conjunction of a dead and 
 a living man would be. This may be an allusion to our Christian belief 
 in the Crucified who is the Son of the living God or to the idolatry of the 
 Romish Church, but it is not necessarily so. 
 
 ^ See Job vi. 17 and comp. the Targum. 
 
42* 
 
 5. Selicha ^X 'OT ^N D'n!?K. 
 
 The images of jealousy (Ez. viii. 3) and their idols, 
 they ai-e dragged, the child and his mother ; 
 depart ye, unclean, they (the Jews) cry unto them (Lament, 
 iv. 15). 
 
 6. Selicha moB' Hn. 
 
 They dispute with me all the day and hold their talk. 
 Poverty fits thee as a red rose to a white horse (Chag. 9 b). 
 How greatly art thou weaned from thy husband, who art 
 
 bereaved of children and barren, 
 Here is for thee from him the letter of divorce (Gitt. ix. 3) ! 
 Thou hast been declared separated (nVpID) because of offensive- 
 
 ness and because of prohibition (Shabb. 44 a), 
 Thou hast been declared illicit (?1DS) by pronouncing thee " an 
 
 abomination" and " remainder'' (Lev. xix. 6, 7) and 
 
 (an oifering) the blood (of which) has been shed on 
 
 the court (Zebach. ii. 1)', 
 There is no carpenter, son of a carpenter, who could release thee 
 
 (Ab. zar. 50 b) in order to declare (thee) allowed^. 
 They say : We shall remove thy deity from thy ear (Jeb. 60 b), 
 
 (so as) not to C'l) remember it. 
 We answer : The Merciful One save us from such an idolatrous 
 
 thought (Shabb. 84 b) ! 
 They begin : Come on, (so as) not to continue with it, in order to 
 
 learn from it^, 
 
 ' Both this verse and the preceding one begin with D. Probably the 
 first of the two is spurious and a gloss to the second. — The remainder of a 
 peace-offering may not be eaten and is Sl33 ; likewise an offer is illioit 
 when its blood has been shed into the court instead of being brought to the 
 altar. Perhaps the last words are an allusion to the killing of Zachariah 
 in the Temple (2 Chron. xxiv. 20, Matt, xxiii. 35, Gitt. 57 b) and fmther 
 to the crucifixion of Cluist. 
 
 - No wise man exists who can remove all objections and declare thee 
 allowed, that is, nobody can put an end to thy repudiation hy God. .\n 
 allusion to Jesus, the carpenter, is not intended. 
 
 ' The law of Moses shall be left. 
 
43* 
 
 They cry : I will select Gods for thee, but we say : There is 
 
 (already) a selection (Bekh. 57 a), 
 The tradition of your faith I do not hear nor understand 
 
 (NIUD N'!?1), 
 
 (Him), the wicked one whom they call as they call him by fraud'. 
 We swear that we shall not forsake Him till the last shovel 
 
 (Ber. 8a)^ 
 Almighty one, we return to thee and thou returnest to us^, 
 
 never to he denied. 
 
 7. Rahit inni DSN D^Un. 
 
 The nations impute thy holy name to a child of lewdness. 
 
 They that are borne by thee make to be abominable the 
 offspring of the lust of a lewd woman (Ez. xxiii. 44). 
 The nations deify the idol of the image of a corrupt man (read 
 nPNJ and comp. Job xv. 16), 
 Thy people bear witness to thy supremacy, thou, God of 
 Gods, 
 The nations — a carcase trodden under foot (Is. xiv. 19) is the 
 wantonness of their impudicity (Is. x. 25 and Targum), 
 Thy hosts — thou art the holy one, inhabiting their praise 
 (Ps. xxii. 4). 
 
 8. Selicha I'^sS Dro' !?N. 
 
 Scatter thy wrath on them who make thee jealous with jealousy, 
 who join a dead carcase to the Most High (Ex. xv. 1). 
 
 1 Jesus is this " wicked one" who is called by a certain name (i.e. by the 
 name of God). 
 
 2 Till the last shovel, i. e. until we shall lie in our grave. 
 
 * This formula is written at the end of all the treatises in the Talmud. 
 It originally refers to the treatise, not to God. 
 
44* 
 
 9. Selicha '»^'? 'm *?« D'n^S. 
 
 They take counsel together to pour out the mixed wine of 
 reeling, 
 
 to lift the covering veil (Is. xxv. 7) (to spread it) over all 
 the earth, 
 
 and the exalted holy name (B'lp DK') shall not be re- 
 membered, 
 
 and to follow the vanity which is abominable and dis- 
 gusting. 
 
 Children and women made a covenant together to be bound 
 
 like lambs which are examined in the chamber of the house 
 
 of burning'. 
 Thou, the sole and exalted One, for thee we will be killed 
 and pierced (comp. Lam. i. 14 and the Jewish Com- 
 mentaries), 
 (so as) not to bow down the head to him, the (offspring of 
 the) lust of lewdness. 
 
 10. Selicha TOI^'^aS b n^K. 
 
 Thy peculiar people is forced on by an adversary oppressing, 
 
 To fix its hope in exchange on the hanged one, an idol 
 (literally, who is made) (1V13 'l'?n3)2. 
 
 11. Zulath D'oVxa 11D3 ps<. 
 
 They that seek unto wizards and idols, 
 
 our enemies and judges (Deut. xxxii. 31), say : 
 What (do) these feeble Jews (Neh. iii. 34) ? 
 
 Give ye your counsel (2 Sam. xvi. 20), 
 
 that you may not be for a derision (Ex. xxxii. 25), 
 behold, for strife and contention (Is. Iviii. 4). 
 
 ' A ijlaoe in the Temple, see Tamid i. 1. In fact, however, the lambs 
 were not examined there, but in a chamber near to it. See Tamid in. 3. 
 '' "IV13 is an allusion to *^V1J ' Nazarene. ' 
 
45* 
 
 If ye will be as we be (Gen. xxxiv. 1 5), 
 
 and turn to the abominable branch (Is. xiv. 19), 
 then we will become one people (Gen. xxxiv. 16). 
 
 12. Baqqasha ninnn ^n^N ha. 
 
 The priests of the high places have resolved 
 
 to seduce all nations, 
 
 to stand and to pray between the bones 
 
 of this son (read P) of a murderer (2 Kings vi. 32). 
 Everyone barks (in derision : read n'2i) 
 
 and breathes out falsehood and lies, 
 
 he gives us an (insulting) nickname and pours (it) out, 
 
 this dead dog (2 Sara. xvi. 9). 
 Why did you kill the miserable and poor 
 
 and him who was driven away from his house of rest ? 
 
 Therefore, also, behold, his blood is required (Gen. xlii. 22), 
 
 this grievous mourning (Gen. 1. 11). 
 On you we will take revenge, 
 
 between us and you is war, 
 
 for it is the resolve of all (literally, it is laid on every mouth 
 2 Sam. xiiL 32): 
 
 surely this iniquity shall not be purged (Is. xxii. 14) ! 
 In the presence of the Lord and His anointed (1 Sam. xii. 3), 
 
 he who makes flesh his arm and his strength, 
 
 be anathematized as with the anathema of Jericho (Josh, 
 vi. 17, 26); 
 
 he who says, This is he (Ex. xxii. 8). 
 They that rely on a bruised reed, 
 
 (on a man) who ate and drank and went out, 
 
 this despised broken image (Jer. xxii. 28), 
 
 kill ye this man (Jer. xxxviii. 4) ! 
 
46* 
 
 Leave ye (read 13tU^ tlie man of Belial, 
 
 and learn from the ways of Jerubbaal'. 
 
 Will ye plead for Baal (Judg. vi. 31) ? 
 
 What deed is this (Gen. xliv. 15)? 
 He is a transgressor from the womb altogether, 
 
 he has not shewed us his glory and his greatness (Deut. v. 
 24); 
 
 fatherless he was and had none to help him (Job xxix. 12). 
 
 Why have ye done this thing (Ex. i. 18) ? 
 The hosts of Israel have received commandment on Sinai, 
 
 such a one^ shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord 
 (Deut. xxiii. 3), 
 
 behold, of him is written before me : 
 
 write ye this man (as childless, Jerem. xxii. 30) ! 
 They that invoke a dumb stone (Hab. ii. 19), 
 
 which has not power to rise (Lev. xxvi. 37), 
 
 it is like a beast, 
 
 and there came out this calf (Ex. xxxii. 24). 
 8ee he is (a man,) born of a woman, 
 
 who is covered with shame, 
 
 and now, our soul is dried away (Num. xi. 6), 
 
 how shall this man save us (1 Sam. x. 27) ? 
 
 13. Qina 210 UNT. 
 
 My head is like water for weeping and wailing 
 
 for the sanctuary that is a possession of the pelican and the 
 
 porcupine (Is. xxxiv. 11), 
 and how shall I wail and spread (?) for weeping, 
 when I see Teraphim in the place of the Ephod, 
 and a stain is to be seen in the warp and woof (Lev. xiii. 
 
 47, 48)' 
 in the house of the ark and the tables of Iloreb. 
 
 1 Jerubbaal said of Baal, whose altar he had thrown down : If he be 
 a god, let him plead for himself ! 
 
 2 A bastard (ItDD) lite Jesus as the offspring of an illegitimate birth. 
 
 J "Warp and woof is a Jewish terra for the cross. The raeanin" is 
 
47* 
 
 14. Selicha naiDn 'DN '3K. 
 
 Vexations have slain us (read 131333), 
 
 cutting up our vineyards, 
 
 when the Nazarenes call (us), 
 
 to add moist (to dry, Deut. xxix. 18)'. 
 They have surrounded me with their cord, 
 
 to seduce me by their vanity, 
 
 to bear their burden, 
 
 the work (image) of a child of a woman having her sick- 
 ness (Lev. XX. 18). 
 
 15. Zulath ]:-\i< T\ ha "PN. 
 
 My oppressors oppress me by weariness 
 
 and defile me by "great rust" (Ez. xxiv. 12), 
 and say : Behold, what a weariness (Mai. i. 1 3) ! 
 
 And why should ye be anxious 
 about the sin of the cross ? 
 
 (or, else) ye are forgotten as a dead man out of mind (Ps. 
 xxxi. 13). 
 
 16. Zulath l'^^< t6 DTha. 
 
 Proud men make to thee a comparison (Is. xl. 18), 
 as the taste of the white of an egg (Job vi. 6), 
 should he (as God) die as' a fool dieth {2 Sam. iii. 33) ? 
 
 The living one who rideth upon a swift cloud (Is. xix. 1) 
 they have exchanged for a stoned man 
 and one who did not whet the edge'' (Eccl. x. 10). 
 
 that the cross in the place of the former temple is a profanation and defile- 
 ment of the holy place. 
 
 ' Targ. Onkelos translates Deut. xxix. 18: to add the sins of error to 
 (the Bins of) presumption. Perhaps something like this is intended by the 
 poet. 
 
 ° His iron had been made blunt, and he did not whet it, — that is, he was 
 killed and could not restore himself to life. 
 
JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD 
 
 HEINRICH LAIBLE 
 
 TBANSIiATED BY 
 
 REV. A. W. STREANE. 
 
JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is a fact well known, alike to Jewish and Christian 
 students of Hebrew literature, that certain passages of the 
 Talmud have been erased by the " censure '." 
 
 Nor is this merely a matter of somewhat ancient history. "We 
 cannot quite accept the plea, if adduced by Jews of the present 
 day, that such passages contain no interest for them ; that Jesus 
 was a zaken mamre (a heterodox teacher; cp. e.g. Mish. Sank. 
 XI. 2), who no longer concerns them, whom they neither love 
 nor hate. 
 
 On the other hand it is a fact, known to Jews much earlier 
 than to Christians, that the Jewish collections of passages thus 
 excised^ belong to a very recent date, that they have only 
 been printed within the last few decades and some of them in 
 Germany. Accordingly the passages in the Talmud referring 
 to our Lord are by no means unknown to the Jews of the 
 
 • The action of the "censor," as representing the secular (Christian) 
 power. Many passages were excised in this way, under the belief that the 
 Talmud contained attacks on Christianity. [A. W. S.]. 
 
 ' H. Straok, Einleitung in den Thalmud, Leipzig, 1887, p. 53, adduces 
 four of them. In that work much is explained, which here for brevity's 
 sake had to be presupposed as known, snch as the names of the treatises 
 which form the Talmud, the mode of citation, technical expressions, such as 
 Boraitha, Tosephta, etc. (An enlarged and improved edition will shortly 
 appear.) 
 
 S. 1 
 
2 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 present day; much less are they wholly unimportant in their 
 eyes J otherwise they surely would not have been purposely 
 circulated by them through the press'. It follows that a 
 treatise, which bears the title "Jesus Christ in the Talmud," 
 were it only by reason of its subject, addresses itself to living 
 Jewish interests. 
 
 We may here be permitted to comment briefly upon a state- 
 ment which appears in a recent publication. Ad. Blumenthal 
 in his " Open letter to Prof. Delitzsch " (Frankf ort-on-the-Main, 
 1889, pp. 7 fF.) has alleged that the invectives against Christ, 
 as contained in the Talmud, have been evoked by Christian 
 persecutions ! He transfers the later persecution of Jews to the 
 infancy of the Church. But the Jewish hatred of Christianity, 
 which began with the Crucifixion of Christ, is much older than 
 the Christian hatred of the Jew. It is enough to recall the 
 two names of St Paul and Justin '. Further, we may note that 
 Blumenthal himself declines on any one occasion to write in full 
 the name of Jesus, but contents himself with signifying it by 
 the initial letter. Again, Lippe, while denying in his pamphlet ' 
 that any Jesus myths in the Talmud have to do with Jesus of 
 Nazareth, is yet himself capable of very intemperate language 
 towards the Founder of Christianity. 
 
 Our aim in this treatise is not to wound the Jews, or to 
 supply their enemies with a weapon. Rather it is to make good, 
 as far as we may, the faults which the 'censorship' of earlier time 
 has committed with regard to the Talmud. The Amsterdam 
 edition of the year 1644 is the last which contains a considerable 
 portion of the passages in question. Even of late, not\vithstanding 
 that outside Russia the 'censorship' on the part of Christians 
 does not stand in the way, only mutilated texts of the Talmud 
 
 ' These collections of passages excluded by the Censure are for the 
 most part intentionally printed without mention of places, and have not 
 been announced in the book trade. 
 
 ^ See Appendix i. for quotations from the latter. [A. W. S.] 
 ' The Gospel of St Matthew before the tribmial of the Bible and of the 
 Talmud, Jassy, 18.->9. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 have been printed. Compare, for the 'censorship' which the 
 Jews themselves wilfully practise with regard to the Talmud, 
 Strack's Eirdeitutig {Introduction), p. 52. Everyone therefore 
 who desires to see with his own eyes what the Talmud 
 contains as to Jesus and Christianity, must either go to those 
 libraries where there are still to be found old editions of the 
 Talmud, or must seek to provide himself with a copy of the 
 collection of passages omitted by the ' censure,' such as I have 
 already referred to. It is a general wish of all Christian, and 
 surely also of some Jewish, men of learning, who study the 
 Talmud, that once again it should appear in a complete form. 
 " And since," as Strack says (p. 50), " we shall still have to wait 
 long for a critical edition of the Babylonian Talmud, the desire 
 may be permitted, that meanwhile some amount of compensation 
 be offered by a speedy printing of the text of the Munich Manu- 
 script." A sample, but only just a sample, of a critically restored 
 text is presented to us in the edition of the treatise Makkoth by 
 Friedmann (Vienna, 1888). It was at bottom a thoroughly 
 Talmudic' principle, whicji the Romish Church followed, when 
 it gave the order, to purify the Talmud from everything hostile to 
 Christianity. Very different was the view of the Church teacher, 
 Origen. His words directed against the slanderous writings 
 of Celsus (i. 1) are as follows : " Our Saviour held His peace, 
 when He was charged before the heathen governor. He believed 
 that the holiness and innocence of His walk would vindicate 
 Him much more forcibly than scorn however eloquently phrased. 
 Let us also in this matter tread in the steps of Jesus. We are 
 abused, reviled, slandered, accused, persecuted, slain. Let us 
 with our Redeemer keep silence, and oppose to our enemies 
 nothing save our piety, our love, our meekness, our humility. 
 Piety speaks without words more eloquently and powerfully 
 
 ' B. Tarphon [head of the Jewish academy of Lud (see p. 38), a con- 
 temporary of Akiba, A. W. S.] said : "During the lifetime of my children, had 
 the writings of the Christians come into my hands, I would have consumed 
 them together with the names of God, which they contain." Shabbath, 
 lol. 116 a. 
 
 1—2 
 
4 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 than the most eloquent reasoning.'' Have then the burning of 
 the Tahiiud and such other violent measures as may have been 
 adopted against it eflfected what the Church must desire, viz., to 
 diminish the Jews' hatred of Christ, or to make them more 
 friendly towards Christianity ? The result was the opposite of 
 that aimed at. The passages erased from the Talmud became so 
 much the dearer to the Jews. They took care that they should 
 be secretly propagated. What at an earlier time was scattered 
 through the Talmud, the Jews have now in a combined form 
 in the above-mentioned collections of passages omitted by the 
 ' censure,' and there is no question that such a collocation, in 
 itself already adapted to carry forward the opposition more 
 vividly and to accentuate it more sharply, furnishes fresh nutri- 
 ment to the existing hatred against the Christians, inasmuch as 
 the Jew says to himself, " These are the important passages 
 from our Talmud, of which the Goyim have desired to rob us." 
 
 Agairust such a policy of destruction however a protest must 
 also be made in the name of history. It is thoroughly objection- 
 able, that an ancient literary work should be arbitrarily altered 
 or mutilated by after ages. And what a misdemeanour towards 
 history it is, forcibly to suppress historical facts I What the 
 Talmud contains concerning our Lord, even though it be for the 
 most part a distortion of truth or even a purely imaginary 
 picture, yet is history all the same, a history, that is to say, of 
 Jewish ideas concerning a Person of transcendent interest. 
 
 We consider therefore that in restoring to the Jews the 
 passages in question, we are in some sense making amends for 
 the acts of folly committed towards them by the Church in its 
 unwisdom. This is possible, notwithstanding that the Jews 
 have never been altogether deprived of them. For it may still 
 be rightly named a restitution, if we, unlike the Pope, call upon 
 the Jews: "Do but study just these Talmudic passages about 
 Christ with real thoroughness. For a thorough study of these 
 passages must, as we think, shake the belief of the Jews in the 
 authority of the Talmud, by their perceiving how far in all 
 matter concerning Jesus it has departed from the sources of 
 
INTUODUCTION. 5 
 
 truth," and must further induce the Jews to read the New 
 Testament, the perusal of which Prof. Delitzsch has made more 
 attractive for them by liis chissical translation of it into Hebrew. 
 Since however it is confessedly a difficulty to many a Jew to 
 examine into the truth of the Talmud, in whose authority he 
 comes prepared with an unconditional belief, it is now a task 
 for Christians on their side to examine scientifically the Tal- 
 mudic traditions concerning our Lord, and to point out their 
 origin. 
 
 However, to render a service to the Jews is not the only 
 point of view from which the subject of "Jesus Christ in the 
 Talmud " seems deserving of a thorough investigation. Jesus is 
 a name which has no parallel. No one passes Him by with in- 
 difference. And the question which stirs all the world. What 
 think ye of Christ? experiences from none a more significant 
 answer than from the people of the Promise. In unbelief, as in 
 belief, the Jews are the leaders of mankind. And therefore it 
 is that we also read in the Gospels, with an interest quite other 
 than if the case concerned the heathen, how the Jews dealt with 
 Christ. With precisely the same interest must we read the Jewish 
 traditions about Jesus in the Talmud. 
 
 But then, although we might have cherished the expectation 
 of finding in the huge Talmud, containing, as it does, specially 
 religious discussions of every kind, the Person and the acts and 
 teaching of Christ very expressly and frequently debated, the 
 astonishing fact confronts us, that Jesus is very seldom spoken 
 of, and but little is known of Him. The case, that is to say, is 
 not, as was formerly believed on the part of Christians, that the 
 Talmud abounded in abuse of Christ. This is a Christian error, 
 which sprang probably from the belief that everything said in 
 the Talmud in reference to idolatry and to Rome was aimed at 
 Christians. No, in the Talmud, so far as the existing matter 
 permits us to judge, mention of Jesus occurs but sparingly. It 
 seems inexplicable that the scribes, who in Jesus' lifetime busied 
 themselves with Him day and night, whose disposition also in 
 the Talmud is still the same one of hostility, have become com- 
 
6 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 paratively so silent, and that too in spite of the fact that Chris- 
 tianity was advancing with such rapid strides. But in tlie first 
 place it must be borne in mind that the growth of the Church 
 was ever, so to speak, developing itself less under the eyes of the 
 Jews, and more at a distance from them. It was not where the 
 Jews dwelt and their Academies existed, viz. in Palestine and 
 Babylon, that the Gospel had extended itself, as a tree em- 
 bracing all within its shade, but like the sun and the history of 
 the nations of the world it made its way to the west, where by 
 its gentle power it gained one victory after another. It is con- 
 ceivable that when the occasion for combating an enemy is 
 lacking, he may not be particularly frequently spoken of. Only 
 once there arose an embittered strife against the Christians, 
 namely in the time of Bar Kokh'ba, the false Messiah, and of 
 R. Ayba, his prophet, who was a fierce enemy of Jesus (see 
 below, p. 38). But otherwise there was peace, and so they 
 might easily, absorbed in the study of the Law, and disturbed 
 therein by no Christian, have altogether ignored Jesus, if it 
 were not that He was just a Person whom the Jew cannot in 
 the long run pass by, without crucifying Him, or else — wor- 
 shipping Him. As long as the earth remains, Jesus will never 
 be forgotten by the Jews. But what could the Jews know 
 about Jesus? The writings of the Christians, in which there 
 stood much concerning Him, were burnt rather than read ; and 
 oral teaching was just as little sought at the hands of Christians. 
 What therefore out of tlie whole rich history of Jesus could 
 remain over, except certain main features, which had already 
 become indistinct, when a Rabbi gave them stereotyped expres- 
 sion, and which, in later time, were still less understood? Or, 
 prompted by such traditions, people yielded to the impulse to 
 complete them, or even delivered themselves altogether to poetic 
 fancy, which of course introduced no historical features, but yet 
 did introduce such as fitted well into the picture which they had 
 formed of Jesus. But, as has been said, while on the side of 
 Christianity, no considerable inducement was given to the Jews 
 to call Jesus to mind, so the really vigorous current of Jewish 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 life failed to concern itself much about Him. How totally 
 different was it in the middle ages ! In that period, the time of 
 the Jewish persecutions, the hatred of Jesus, which was never 
 quite dormant, reached its full expression, and begat a literature, 
 in comparison with which the Talmud must be termed almost 
 innocent. Then there was found in the very name of Jesus tiie 
 treatment which He deserved, viz. to be blotted out', and in the 
 Tol'doth Jeshu there was put together a detailed picture of the life 
 of Jesus, of which the authors of the Talmud had no anticipation'. 
 
 Our examination of the sayings in the Talmud falls into 
 three main divisions : the first, and at the same time the most 
 comprehensive, is concerned with the designations of Jesus and 
 His origin, the second deals with Jesus' works, the third with 
 His Death. 
 
 I. DESIGNATIONS OF JESUS AND HIS ORIGIN. 
 
 Common appellations of Jesus in the Talmud and in Tal- 
 mudic literature are the expressions "Son of Stada (Satda)," 
 and " Son of Pandera." They are so stereotyped that they 
 appear constantly in the Babylonian Talmud (cp. the Targum 
 
 ^ The three consonants j, s (shin), v, with which the name Jeshu 
 was written, are explained as being the first letters of the three words 
 Jimmach sh'mo w'zikhro (May his name and his memory be blotted out!). 
 It is not certain when the Jews began to explain IK" by nDtl IDa* PIDV 
 The first witness is the mediaeval Tol'doth Jeshu. But the edition of this 
 work by Joh. Jac. Huldrich (1705) has 1DK' RDM nDT HD' as explanation of 
 the name E'll' "Jesus." The ritual of the Synagogue has n^Il IDE' TVy on 
 Amalek or Edom in the liturgy for Shabbath Zakhor. See the German 
 Maohazor, ii fol. 79", ed. of Venice 1568. It is well known that Amalek or 
 Edom is for the mediteval Jews the representative of the Christian nations 
 or even the Church. [G. D.] 
 
 2 A new edition of the Tol'doth Jeshu has been edited by Gershom Bader 
 under the title Chelkath M'chokek, 1st ed. , Jerusalem, 1880; 2nd ed., Krakau 
 without year. The editor speaks of three hss., which he used for his edition, 
 but confesses that he did not utilise them fully. [G. D.] 
 
8 JESUS CUllIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Slieni on Esth. vii. 9) without the name Jesus. It might for 
 this reason seem to be a question who it is precisely that is to 
 be understood thereby. But in the Jerusalem Talmud, Aboda 
 Zara ll. 40 d, the name is Jeshih ben Pandera (for which more 
 briefly Sluibbath xiv. Hd has Jeshu Pandera); and in the 
 Tosephta on Chullin II. near the end (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 503), 
 JeshvF ben Panfera and Jeslvio''' ben Pantere. Moreover, tlie 
 Jesus who (Sanhedrin 4:3a)' "is hanged on the evening but one 
 before the Passover," is on the other hand (SanJi. 67 a)'' called 
 son of Stada (Satda). It is evident that in both places the same 
 person is treated of. The passage of singular import, occurring, 
 as it does, twice in precisely similar language, and further, in that 
 treatise which is chiefly concerned with Jesus, proves clearly the 
 identity of Jesus and Ben Stada (Satda). 
 
 How indiscriminate however was the use of the two titles 
 Ben Stada (Satda) and Ben Pandera, and not only so, but also 
 how little clearness there was with regard to them is shewn by 
 two remarkable and almost verbally identical passages SJbobbath 
 104b' and San/iedrin 67a, the former of which'' we present here in 
 a literal translation. It runs as follows : " The son of Stada 
 was son of Pandera. Rab Chisda said : The husband was Stada, 
 the lover Pandera. (Another said). The husband was Paphos 
 ben Jehudah; Stada was his mother; (or) his mother was 
 Miriam, the women's hairdresser ; as they would say at Pumbe- 
 ditha', H'tath da (i.e. she was unfaithful) to her husband." In 
 
 ' See (German) p. 15*, xix. 
 
 = See do. p. 5*, i. (b). 
 
 ' See do. p. 5*, i. (a). 
 
 •■ Shabbath 104 b is not a discussion between Bab Chisda and other learned 
 men, but the Gemara here collects different views. It is only the sayiug, 
 " the husband was Stada, the lover Pandera," which is with certainty to be 
 ascribed to Kab Chasda. [G. D.] 
 
 ■' Called also Golah (captivity), as an abode of Jewish ejdles, about seven 
 miles N. of Sora; probably at the month {pum) of a canal called Beditha. 
 It was the residence of the chief Jewish families of Babylonia, but as the 
 seat of an academy it was later than Sora, while on the other baud its school 
 was more permanent and of a still more influential character. The people 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 9 
 
 more intelligible language, with the needful additions, which are 
 so constantly lacking in the Talmud by reason of its conciseness, 
 the passage runs thus : " He was not the son of Stada, but he 
 was the son of Pandera. Rab Cliisda said : The husband of 
 Jesus' mother was Stada, but her lover was Pandera. Another 
 said Her husband was surely Paphos ben Jehudah ; on the con- 
 trary Stada was his mother : or, according to others, his mother 
 was Miriam, the women's hairdresser. The rejoinder is : Quite 
 so, but Stada is her nickname, as it is said at Pumbeditha, 
 S'tath da (she proved faithless) to her husband." 
 
 This passage, noteworthy from every point of view, dates 
 from the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century 
 after Christ. For R. Chisda (died a.d. 309') belongs to the 
 third generation of the Amoraim, and lived at Sora, the Baby- 
 lonian Academy founded by Rab ". At this late date accordingly 
 the question was started, which of the two familiar designations 
 (son of Stada, son of Pandera) was the correct one? It was 
 natural that this question should some time emerge. One of the 
 two appellations appeared to be necessarily false. Which was 
 correct 1 
 
 The subject treated in the preceding context was that Ben 
 Stada had brought charms with him out of Egypt in an incision 
 in his flesh. Thereupon some one objects: "The designation 
 Ben Stada is false ; he was the son of Pandera." Whereupon 
 the opinion of Rab Chisda is at once adduced: "No; both 
 names are easily possible. You know at any rate that Jesus 
 was illegitimate. Consequently the one name is that of his 
 legal, the other that of his natural father, and indeed I give as 
 my decision that Stada was the husband of the mother of Jesus, 
 while Pandera on the other hand was the name of her paramour. 
 
 of the place had an evil reputation for theft and fraud. See further in Neu- 
 
 bauer's Geographie da Talmud, p. 349. [A. W. S.] 
 
 I He was head of the Sora Academy a.i.. 290—300. [A. W. S.] 
 
 '^ Thus called par excellence, as the greatest of all teachers of that period. 
 
 He was a Babylonian, and presided at Sora for twenty-four years, dying 
 
 A.D. 243. [A. W. S.] 
 
10 JESUS CHRIST IK THE TALMUD. 
 
 It is accordinj;ly right to call him indifferently a son of Stada or 
 a son of Pandera." But against this a different tradition is 
 quoted. " The husband of the mother of Jesus was surely 
 Paphos ben Jehudah. Stada on the contrary is not a man's 
 name at all, but by it we are to understand Jesus' mother.'' This 
 does not deal with the name Pandera ; but grants Rab Chasda's 
 view, that Pandera was the paramour of Jesus' mother. Some- 
 one else opposes the assertion that Jesus' mother was named 
 Stada, in the words : " But it is admitted, that the mother 
 of Jesus was Miriam, the women's hairdresser." Thereupon 
 follows as rejoinder to this the conclusion : " Of that we too 
 are aware. But she is also called Stada, i.e. as her nickname. 
 Insomuch as she had intercourse with a lover and bore him 
 Jesus, she was given the sobi-iquet Stada, which consists of 
 the two words s'tath da, i.e. she has been unfaithful, namely 
 to her husband. So at least the word is explained in the 
 Babylonian Academy at Pumbeditha." 
 
 From these passages two things are clear ; first, that at that 
 time Jesus was in truth still a most weighty name, but secondly, 
 that there was very seldom among the Jews any discussion as 
 to the circumstances of His life, so that, on the occasion of any 
 question being raised as to those circumstances, great uncertainty, 
 coupled with complete ignorance, was shewn. This would have 
 been impossible, if at that time any intercourse had still obtained 
 between Jesus and Christians. Both parties, as we clearly see, 
 had long since done with one another. 
 
 1. With regard to the individual assertions set forth in the 
 passages, we must in the next place examine an historical remark 
 as well as an etymological explanation. We begin with the 
 etymological explanation of the name Stada. This word, without 
 parallel elsewhere, is only intelligible through the explanation 
 which the Talmud itself gives: "she proved faithless'." But 
 how came the Jews in so awkward a fashion to give Mary a 
 nickname, in which two words, which made up a sentence, were 
 
 ' N1DD may perhaps be derived from XT t<'t3D = hebr. DDIDn nniS = this 
 (well-known) adulteress. Cp. mi310 p Jer. Sanh. 25''. [G. D.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 11 
 
 united in one, while they had at their disposal the name Sota, 
 which was in such familiar use, that a ti'eatise of the Mishnali 
 drew its name from it.' A. Furst's' view is: "Mary was so- 
 called in reference to Numb. v. 19, since, as the Talmud itself 
 explains, people said, pointing the finger at her, S'tath da mibba- 
 'Hah, i.e. she has proved unfaithful to her liusband. We should 
 accordingly have to imagine, that, as often as Mary shewed 
 herself in the street, the Jews who met her aimed at her the 
 words S'tath da. The time at which the Jews thus began to 
 mock her would at the earliest be Pentecost. For Jesus in His 
 lifetime, as John vi. 42'' shews, passed for the actual son of 
 Joseph. But when at Pentecost the preaching of the Apostles 
 sounded abroad concerning Jesus, the Son of God and of the 
 Virgin Mary, when the answer was often made to the Jews' 
 enquiries, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but conceived 
 of the Holy Ghost, then the logic of Jewish unbelief said : Since 
 God has no son, while Jesus, as the Christians themselves admit, 
 is not Joseph's son, it follows that he is born of Mary out of 
 wedlock. Mary is said^ to have died, at the age of 59, in the fifth 
 year of the Emperor Claudius — certainly time enough, to allow 
 of her experiencing in abundance Jewish hate and insult which 
 will have poured itself out in stinging speeches, to the effect that 
 her son is a bastard and herself an adulteress. But was this 
 insult and hate likely to have found expression only in the single 
 stereotyped formula S'tath da? And it is still more difficult 
 to perceive how this outcry should have gradually passed over 
 into a proper name, so that tliey no more called her Miriam, but 
 Stada, while nevertheless, as the conversation given above 
 proves, the name Miriam itself was still in the memory of the 
 Jews at such a late period. Moreover we must not say that 
 Mary may have actually had both names among the Jews, and 
 have been called Maria Stada. For it is just this kind of name, 
 
 ' Saat (III/ Hoffiumg, 1877, S. 45. 
 
 ' The Jews said, "Is not this Jesus, the soa of Joseph, whose father and 
 mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven? " 
 ' See Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl. ii. 3. 
 
12 JESUS CHUIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 formed from the scoffing of the people, wliich is wont completely 
 to supplant the real name. 
 
 Accordingly it is supposable, that the nickname from its first 
 origin onwards was not Stada (Satda), but Ben Stada (Ben 
 Satda). And in fact we always find these two words taken 
 together, never Stada (Satda) alone. It is a mockery of Jesus, 
 which, contrary to the above-mentioned law as to the usual 
 effect of nicknames, has not supplanted the name Jesus, simply 
 for this reason that in fact the latter, as the Jewish conscience 
 avouches, can never be supplanted and forgotten, as well as 
 because the designation "son of so and so" very naturally 
 demands a preceding name. But how nevertheless the nickname 
 strives to assert itself, is clear from this, that in the Babylonian 
 Talmud the expression used is always Ben Stada (Satda) only, 
 with the alternative, Ben Pandera, never Jesus ben Stada, or 
 Jesus ben Pandera. 
 
 A particular species of nicknames consists of caricature 
 names. Under this head we are to understand such nicknames 
 as have arisen in dependence upon an actual name, to which by 
 a shifting or alteration of certain letters an odious or con- 
 temptuous meaning has been given, while the sound has remained 
 but little afiiected. Paulus Cassel in a clever essay on caricature 
 names' has attempted to explain the expression Ben Stada as 
 a comic form of Ben Stara. We will first exhibit his explana- 
 tion in a somewhat improved shape, and then a conjecture of our 
 own. Through the utter lack of historical foundation the origin 
 of this remarkable expression can never reach demonstrative 
 proof, but in such a case the conviction must suffice : in this or 
 in some similar way we can picture the thing as happening. 
 
 In Kiddushin 70 a, it is related that once a man asked for 
 meat at the butchers' shops, and received the answer, " Wait, till 
 the servant of R. Jehudah bar J'chezkel is first served." There- 
 upon the man answered, "Who is this Jehudah bar Sh'wiskel, 
 who has the advantage of me?" Sh'wiskel is a. comic form of 
 
 1 Aus Litteratur und Geschichte, Berlin und Leipzig, 1885, pp. 323 — 347. 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 13 
 
 J'cheskel, and signifies, devourer of roast meat'. Such nicknames, 
 formed- by means of caricature, are found abundantly in the 
 Talmud, rich as it is in witticisms. In Ahoda Zara 46 a, tiiere is 
 even expressly given the rule for changing by caricature the 
 names of idols and their Temples into opprobrious names; e.g. 
 instead of heth galja (abode of brightness) we are to say beth 
 karja (abode of pigs). In Shahbath 116a^ E. Meir calls the evan- 
 gelium (message of salvation) awen-gillajon (mischievous writing), 
 R. Jochanan 'awon-gUlajon (sinful writing) ; such an awen-gil- 
 lajon or 'awon-giUajon one is bidden not to save from the burn- 
 ing. The notorious false Messiah Bar-KokKba (son of a star), 
 was named after his overthrow Bar kozebd (son of lies). 
 
 We pause beside Bar-Kokh'ba; he will build us the bridge 
 we need to the son of Stada : Why did that pseudo-messiah call 
 himself son of a star ? Plainly in order through this very name 
 to designate himself as the Messiah, supported by Numb. xxiv. 
 17, "There came forth^ a star out of Jacob." This passage 
 must at that time have been generally esteemed Messianic, and 
 as such must have been held in high authority. A century 
 earlier Herod I.* had caused a medal to be struck, on which 
 a star stands above a helmet, having, according to Cassel, a 
 like reference to Numb. xxiv. 17 ; many of his actions were in 
 literal accord with this passage. (For instance he had smitten 
 the Arabs, who dwelt in Edom ; he ruled over Moab, he had 
 success against Cleopatra ["children of Sheth'" was perhaps re- 
 ferred to Egypt, SetJws, SotJds].) 
 
 Also the Targums of Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, the 
 Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'^'nith, iv. 8), and the Midrash Rabba on 
 Deut. i., and the Midrash on Lam. ii. 2, refer the passage in 
 question to the king Messiah. 
 
 ' 'pP'1E'=meat roasted on the spit. See Pesae A 96 a. 
 2 See (German) p. 6*, ii. 
 
 ^ So Heb. ^Tf (prophetic) past. Eng. Versions have future. [A. W. S.] 
 ' Ordinarily called H. the Great. [A. W. S.] Illustrations are to be 
 found e.g. in F. W. Madden, Coitis of the Jews, London, 18SI. 
 ■" E.V. has "sons of tumults." [A. W. S.] 
 
14 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 To these testimonies to the lively consciousness, which the 
 Jewish people at the turning-point of history had of the Mes- 
 sianic reference of the passage in Numbers, there may still how- 
 ever be added one, which we consider the weightiest. When 
 the Magi came from the east, they said, "Where is the new- 
 born king of the Jews ? we have seen Ids star, and are come to 
 worship him." If they had only said, " Where is the new-born 
 king of the Jews?" they would have gained no credence, but 
 would have been counted as fools. But that they should have 
 added the reason, "We have seen his star," this stirred men's 
 minds to the highest pitch. That his star had appeared was the 
 best proof of title for the new-born king ; and this is seen from 
 the fact that the words of the Magi received a recognition which lay 
 at the root of the alarm. How utterly absent were all scruples 
 from the mind of Herod, how little those scruples were removed 
 by the doctors of the Law, the death of the children at Beth- 
 lehem gives a striking proof. 
 
 Doubtless from the commencement and onwards the history 
 of this star continued vividly present in the memory of the 
 Christians, inasmuch as they recognised in it the literal fulfil- 
 ment of an Old Testament prophecy, and it must have been often 
 cast up to the Jews. It is however (against Cassel) not likely 
 that Jesus forthwith bore among Christians the name " Star," or 
 "son of a star." The unusual designation will at the most have 
 been used on a quite special occasion. Such an occasion we find 
 in the appearance of the pseudo-messiah, who was named Bar 
 Kokh'ba, i.e. son of a star. With him, whom before his over- 
 throw the Jews took for the real Messiah foretold by Balaam, 
 the Christians may have contrasted their Messiah, Jesus. While 
 a R. Akiba exclaimed with passionate fervour, " Bar Kokh'ba is 
 king Messiah," the Christians may have conceded the claim to 
 the name "son of a star'' only to Jesus of Nazareth, in whom 
 alone the prophecy of the rising star had fulfilled itself; and 
 on this account Bar Kokh'ba, as Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 31) 
 says, inflicted upon the Christians specially severe punishments, 
 if they did not deny and revile their Messiah. It is very easily 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 15 
 
 conceivable that R. Akiba, who, as the Jerusalem Talmud 
 (Ta'^nith iv. 8, p. 6Sd) informs us, was especially eager to refer 
 the prophecy in Numbers to Bar Kokh'ba, was simply met by 
 the Christians with the words "Thou art in error; Jesus of 
 Nazareth and no other is the true son. of a star," and that 
 R. Akiba on this occasion simply altered the Ben Stara of the 
 Christians into a Ben Stada, the son of a star into the son of a 
 harlot. For we shall again on another occasion find this R. 
 Akiba anxious to insult Jesus in the same respect. The stara 
 of the Christians would then have its rise in the Greek aar^p or 
 the Persian qtara (star). 
 
 Alongside of this derivation proposed by Cassel, an attempt 
 at another may at least deserve mention. In the Palestinian 
 Talmud (Sanhedrin, tii. fol. 25 d at top) stands Ben Sot'da (with 
 long o after s). Might not this be a parody on a-omjp, Sotera, 
 "saviour"? The expression "mother of Sotera" (of the Saviour) 
 was ofiensive to the Jews. The first letters Sot suggested Sota 
 (courtesan), and thereby the parody Sofda was ready to hand. 
 Naturally then "mother" (Em) had to be changed into "son" 
 (Ben). After the origin of the parody had been forgotten, there 
 might easily arise through Aramaic pronunciation out of Sotda 
 Satda (Stada), which the school of Pumbeditha, as stated above, 
 explained S^tath da. 
 
 The view of the Talmud however identifies itself with neither 
 the one nor the other explanation of Ben Stada (Satda). This 
 is clear from the passage in Shabhath 104 b, to which we now 
 revert. We are fully justified in saying that the Jews for a 
 long time knew absolutely nothing with certainty of Ben Stada. 
 Moreover, what is more natural than that the origin of the name, 
 which belongs to a chance witticism, was soon again forgotten. 
 The greater the delight at the wit, the less interest had the real 
 origin of the name. It is quite a question, whether report, as it 
 disseminated the new nickname, gave even once at the same time 
 with it the original of the same, or whether on the other hand 
 the Jews did not rather simply accept the designation of Jesus, 
 thus stamped perchance by an authority like R. Akiba, and were 
 
16 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMITD. 
 
 not confused by the fact, that Jesus was also called Ben Pandgra. 
 Both names received sanction, since the sound of the one was as 
 hateful as that of the other was non-Jewish, and there was no 
 desire to abandon one of those "gems." The question that 
 would naturally suggest itself was suppressed, viz. which of the 
 two names was genuine and which false. The more generally 
 the two nicknames came to be adopted, the more it was for- 
 gotten that they were nicknames, and with utter lapse of in- 
 telligence, they were taken up quite literally, as meaning, son of 
 an historical Stada or Pandera. 
 
 Yet even such names for Jesus, while gratifying the Jews 
 by their very sound, were also destined to form the subject 
 of further Rabbinic subtleties. In the Academy of Pumbeditha 
 the name Stada was explained by S'tath da. Stada was thus 
 taken as a nickname of Mary. 
 
 2. At the end of p. 10 we said that in the passage given 
 in Slwhhath 104 b, there was still another remark, viz. an 
 historical one, which needed explanation. That is the remark 
 as to Miriam the mother of Jesus. While, that is, the New 
 Testament knows nothing of Mary's following any particular 
 business, the Talmud (not in this place alone) calls her a 
 m'gadd'la n'sajja, i.e. "a women's hairdresser," a designation 
 which does not tend to the honour of Jesus' mother ; for re- 
 spectable married women scarcely betook themselves to this 
 occupation. That it is no authentic designation, but a fictitious 
 one, may be inferred from its mention by the Talmud alone • 
 but that work, inasmuch as it yields no glimmer of the 
 historical circumstances connected with Jesus, cannot be con- 
 sidered as an authoritative source. But how came the Talmud 
 to bestow this comparatively mild insult upon the mother of 
 Jesus, for whom elsewhere it has the characteristic designation 
 of adulteress? 
 
 Among the women who stood near to Jesus, Mary Magdalene 
 claims first mention. Although no stain rests upon her and 
 her moral character, it has fallen to her lot, as Lbhe in his 
 Martyrology puts it, to be very widely accepted as the leader 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 17 
 
 and patron saint of those females, who after a life spent in the 
 commission of sins against the seventli commandment have had 
 recourse to repentance and faith. She is wrongly held by many 
 to be identical with the sinner mentioned in Luke vii. 36 ff. The 
 penitent Magdalene is therefore, to quote Winer's expression in 
 his Biblical Dictionary, an unhistorical art subject. At what 
 date this mistake arose in the Christian Church, does not admit 
 of precise determination. But the Talmud shews that at the 
 time, at which the discourse given in Shahhath 104 b, took place, it 
 had long been current among Christians. For this very mistake, 
 which the Jews turned to their own account, occasioned, as we 
 shall see directly, a very peculiar tradition, from which again 
 was developed the expression Miriam m'gadd'la. 
 
 That Jesus' mother was named ^lary, was known to the 
 Jews ; that she had borne Jesus out of wedlock, was maintained 
 by them. Then they heard a noted Christian woman of Jesus' 
 time often spoken of, who was named Mary of Magdala. What 
 was more natural for those who had already long ceased to 
 ascertain more particularly at the mouth of Christians the history 
 of Jesus, than by this Mary (of) Magdala simply to understand 
 Jesus' mother, especially since their knowledge was confined to 
 one Mary? She was reported to be a great sinner. This har- 
 monized in a twofold way with their assumption, for, that Jesus' 
 mother was a sinner, was maintained by them with the utmost 
 certainty, and now they obtained, as they supposed, actual con- 
 firmation of this from the Christians. Miriam (of) Magdala 
 was accordingly the mother of Jesus. Whetlier then the Jews 
 found in this title an honour not appropriate for a paramour, 
 i.e. whether they took offence at allowing his mother to be born 
 in a place, from which many Rabbis were sprung', cannot be 
 determined. In any case their mockerj- set itself to giving an- 
 other aspect to the above-mentioned title of the mother of Jesus 
 by means of a parody. Thus out of Miriam the woman of 
 Magdala, there came a women's hairdre.<ser. 
 
 1 See Lightfoot, CentuHa Chorographica, ch. 70. 
 
18 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 There are still two names in our passage which need ex- 
 planation ; Paplios ben Jehuda and Pandora. 
 
 3. "Stada's (i.e. Mary's) lawful husband was Paphos 
 (Pappos) ben Jehudah." At first, if looked at merely from the 
 outside, this name presents itself through the addition "son of 
 Jehudah," as a genuinely historical one. Further, while the 
 names Stada and Pandera are unsupported elsewhere, so that in 
 regard to them every unprejudiced person at once asks himself, 
 "Is it to be believed that any one was really so named?" the 
 name Paphos on the other hand is not infrequent in the Talmud 
 generally. P. Cassel' accordingly, possessed by the idea that he 
 is bound to seek the husband of Mary as given in the Talmud in 
 company with the Mary of history, maintains the view that 
 Paphos is the abbreviation of Josephus, and compares the Italian 
 Pepe or Beppo. On the other hand it is to be noted that the 
 abbreviation for Josephus is Jose, a very common name in the 
 Talmud. Comp. so eai-ly a passage as Acts iv. 36. Were it 
 necessary to consider our Paphos as one and the same person 
 with the historical Joseph, the probability of ^le identity would 
 perhaps be best established in the following way. The Paphos 
 of the Talmud, the Syriac Pappos, is nothing else than the Greek 
 TraTTOLs, Wiriras, i.e. father. In the Fathers the Pope, or the 
 Patriarch of Alexandria is designated by this title. Similarly 
 the Syriac Pappios (Greek Tran-tas, irainriai) "little father" is 
 an honourable designation of men of distinction, especially of 
 Bishops and other dignitaries. There was then no title of 
 honour which was quite so perfectly fitting for the foster father 
 
 of Jesus. If he was so named — definite testimony is wanting 
 
 the Jews would have laid hold of this often heard Papas or Papos 
 as the man's real name. And thus among the Jews without 
 their knowledge and against their intention a member of that 
 Holy Family which was held by them in the deepest abhorrence, 
 would have received a name, which actually expi-essed his 
 dignity. 
 
 The complete ignoring of Joseph in the Apostolic letters 
 1 See p. 341 of his work referred to above. 
 
nESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 19 
 
 gives US but slender ground for the conclusion that they had 
 esteemed Joseph as lightly as Protestants, provoked by the 
 excessive honours paid him on the part of Romanists, do at 
 the present day. So the absence of the designation Papas for 
 Joseph in Christian literature is but slight evidence, that it was 
 never used by Christians. But there is something else, which 
 compels us to reject the explanation just now given. That is to 
 say, if we allow the name Paphos ben Jehudah to bear the mean- 
 ing which it has in the Talmud, the matter admits of so simple 
 an explanation that any further enquiry must be considered as 
 absolutely foreclosed. 
 
 Paphos (Pappus) ben Jehudah, to wit, was a contemporary of 
 Akiba, that Eabbi, who had never seen Jesus, since he lived at a 
 later period, but who acquired such a name for his hatred to- 
 wards Him, that in the imagination of the Jews, as we shall see 
 later, he passed as His contemporary. Accordingly Paphos also 
 was thereby held to be a contemporary of Jesus. Now this 
 Paphos had a wife notorious for her life of unchastity owing 
 to the behaviour of her husband'. Therefore it is conceivable 
 that this prostitute, belonging (presumably) to the time of Jesus, 
 the only one, who lived on in the tradition, simply passed for the 
 courtesan, of whom it was held that He was born. Accordingly 
 the maintainor of the opinion that Stada's lawful husband was 
 Paphos ben Jehudah, was quite right from his point of view. 
 
 4. We come now to the fourth and last name, that of 
 Pa/ndera. In our passage the name Stada alone is a subject of 
 difference of view. The remark that Pandera was the para- 
 mour had been much earlier the subject of a detailed narrative. 
 That is to say, about the year a.d. 178 the heathen Celsus, 
 whose words Origen has preserved to us in his Refutation (i. 28), 
 had received the following account from a Jew : " Mary was 
 turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she 
 had been convicted of unfaithfulness. Cast off by her spouse, and 
 wandering about in disgrace, she then in obscurity gave birth 
 to Jesus by a certain soldier Panthera." We must connect this 
 1 Gittin 90 a. See p. 26 below. 
 
 2—2 
 
20 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Jewish narrative in Celsus with the accounts of Jesus in the 
 Tahnud; for it was doubtless current among the Jews of Tal- 
 mudic times, and only the scantiness of oral tradition, added 
 to the circumstance that this tradition received no early treat- 
 ment from any Rabbi', lias occasioned its having after a hun- 
 dred years shrivelled to the brief notice of the form which 
 appears in our passage. 
 
 What marks this narrative in contrast with almost all 
 Talmudic accounts of Jesus is this, that it contains no item, 
 which in itself would be historically impossible. A thing 
 might very well take place in precisely this manner in all 
 respects. What further distinguishes it from the other narra- 
 tives of the Talmud about Christ is the several more or less close 
 correspondences with the gospel history. We call to mind the 
 "carpenter" who is otherwise unknown to the Talmud, the 
 "turning out" of ^lary, evidently a Jewish perversion of the 
 fact mentioned in Matt. i. 19, lastly, the "obscurity" in which 
 Jesus was born. Such correspondences point to a time, at which 
 the Jews had not yet lost every thread of the actual history of 
 Jesus. But on the other hand, to how large an extent their 
 own imagination was already responsible for the history is 
 proved by the peculiar features, which cannot even be taken as 
 distortions of the New Testament accounts. So long as a living 
 
 ' There may however be mentioned here the narrative of Miriam, daughter 
 of Bilga, which is found in substantially identical terms in the Jems. Talmud, 
 Sukka, 55 d, in the Bab. Talmud, Sukka, 66 b, in Tosephta, Sukka, iv. 28. 
 That setting back of the priestly course of Bilga in the Temple compared to 
 other priestly courses, is said to rest upon the following incident, as it is 
 depicted in the Tosephta. It happened namely on account of Miriam, a 
 daughter of Bilga, who fell away from the faith (mDTltJ'JJ}'), and went and 
 joined herself in marriage to a soldier of the king of Javan (Greece) ; and 
 when the Greeks forced their way into the Temple, Miriam went and beat 
 upon the surface of the altar, and called to him. Wolf, wolf (an opprobrious 
 epithet for a non-Jew), ihou hast overthrown the possession of Israel, and 
 hast not aided her in the time of need." I should add however that the 
 course of Bilga, according to Eleazar ben Kalir (op. Zunz, Littcratur- 
 (jeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, p. G03), is not that which had its dwelling 
 in Nazareth. [G. D.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND OIUGIN OF JESUS. 21 
 
 connexion with the histoiy is maintained, whatever be the differ- 
 ence of conception, there must prevail a consonance as to facts, 
 whether the pen of the narrator be guided by good or by ill will. 
 A casting out of devils e.g. was admitted by Jews no less than 
 by Christians ; but by the latter it was referred to the working 
 of divine power, while by the otliers it was explained as sorcery. 
 And if the Jews after Pentecost set up the dogma of the un- 
 chastity of Mai-y and the birth of Jesus out of wedlock, this is 
 primarily a Jewish explanation of the fact, inconceivable by 
 any human intellect, viz., the marvellous Conception and Birth 
 of Jesus. Man's intellect had simply no choice but to reduce 
 the history which surpassed his comprehension to the limits of 
 natural possibility (cp. p. 11 above). But if then the Jews at 
 the time of Celsus wish to know more than that Jesus, as not 
 begotten by Joseph, is doubtless a bastard, if they are able to 
 specify the more immediate circumstances of the unfaithfulness 
 of Mary, and indeed the name of her paramour, this is no longer 
 the Jewish conception of the history related by the Evangelists, 
 but an invention of the uncontrolled imagination. 
 
 The most striking points here are the name and the condition 
 of the paramour. Which of these two items established itself 
 first in the tradition? the name or the condition? For that 
 both things were invented by one and the same author, is 
 unlikely for this reason that, if we assume that the word 
 "soldier" was the first that came into the inventor's mind, the 
 affront was so fully meted out, that, as a matter of psychology 
 it is not conceivable that he should not have been content with 
 it, but should have further sought a name, whicli represented 
 nothing more than simply a foreign sounding appellation, such as 
 there was no scarcity of among the Jews '. If on the other hand 
 the name formed the first item in the invention, then again as 
 a matter of psychology it is not conceivable, that the inoffexisive 
 person, who merely took an interest in giving the anonymous 
 paramour a name, himself devised the "soldier" in addition. 
 
 ' Zunz, SehrifUn, u. pp. 5, 6, has put together a Ust of Greek names 
 borne by Jews before the reign of Herod I. 
 
22 JESUS CHRIST IN TIIK TALMUD. 
 
 "Soldier," namely, Roman soldier, expresses, that is to say, the 
 basest person possible, a man, who was hated and at the same 
 time despised. In the Talmud no people have a name so hated 
 as the Romans, who destroyed the Jews' holy city and took 
 from them the last remnant of independence. But the accursed 
 instrument of the Roman people for the subjugation of the Jews 
 was the Roman army, and again the most despicable individual 
 in this army was plainly a common soldier. If Jesus passed 
 for a contemporary of Akiba, and so of the insurrection of 
 Bar-Kokh'ba and of the persecutions on the part of Rome, which 
 ended in this ; then the discovery that He was begotten of a 
 Roman soldier lay pretty near at hand. This discovery con- 
 tained then such an amount of biting scorn, and of insult 
 scarcely to be surpassed, that, as we said, it is as a matter of 
 psychology impossible, that the inventor should further have 
 desired to give the soldier a name like this, which is absolutely 
 without odious signification (at any rate the learned men of 
 Pumbeditha intend no such signification in the name). But 
 just for this reason, since for the Jew of the Talmud nothing 
 lies hidden in the name Pandera, it is moreover inconceivable, 
 that in later times a Jew would have held it important, to give 
 this name to the " soldier,'' a word the significance of which 
 could, we know, never be forgotten. Neither the inventor of 
 the "soldier," nor any later period can have had a motive or 
 interest in amending this "soldier,'' in completing him after a 
 meaningless fashion. 
 
 How then? Are we thereby led at all to conclude that 
 the word Pandera is to be struck out of the writings of Celsus, 
 out of Epiphanius, John of Damascus (see Cassel, p. 323), as 
 well as the Talmudic documents? That is impossible; for, as 
 our discussion shews, the tradition about the " soldier " was lost, 
 earlier than the name of the paramour; so firmly rooted was 
 the latter among the Jewish people. Since therefore we cannot 
 form any theory, if we start with the name Pandera, we must 
 look at the word with the enquiry, whether it might not have 
 been originally an appellative with a signification answering to 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 23 
 
 the Talmudic views about Jesus, -wliich then in accordance with 
 the customary fashion became a proper name, whose origin and 
 significance disappeared from men's consciousness. What then 
 does Pandera as an appellative signify? Pandcra, or, as it is 
 written, Fantera, Fantere, answers exactly to the Greek -iravOrjp. 
 What then was intended to be expressed by the designation 
 "Son of the panther," from which there came later, "Son of 
 Panther " ? We answer, " Son of the Panther " meant " Son of 
 sensuality'." 
 
 But how was the panther a symbol of sensuality? In the 
 first place the Jews had in their sacred Books a prophecy, in 
 which the Grecian world-empire is represented under the figure 
 of a panther (cp. also Apoc. xiii. 2). In Dan. vii. 6, it is true, 
 the beast represents in the first place a diflTerent idea from that 
 of sensuality, if by this emblem there is above all stamped upon 
 the world-empire the character of " rapacity and of bounding 
 agility, with which the beast overtakes its prey" (Keil's Commen- 
 tary in loc). Still the wantonness and sensuality of the Greek 
 world, which the Jews had before their eyes, simply transcended 
 all limits. So much was this the case, that in fact sensuality in 
 the form which we notice as referred to in St Paul's Epistles, 
 and in particular in the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, was for the Jew, who alone among the nations of that 
 time had still preserved a horror of this sin, the most prominent 
 characteristic of Greek heathenism. But among the Greeks the 
 
 ' nivSapos is a Greek proper name. T1J3 VOp is also the name of one 
 among the supreme judges of Sodom (B'reshith Rabba, 49, ed. of Constant., 
 1512). It is however possible that N11J3 was meant to remind of wi.vBi]p, 
 the panther. plJEJNPp seems to be the Greek crKoXowevSpa. H. L. S.] 
 According to the beUef of the ancients the panther chooses his mate among 
 other kinds of animals. The offspring of panther and lioness is the leopard. 
 See also what is said Kiddushin 70a on the "IDJ. The son of the panther is 
 the same as the son of an illegitimate connexion, a bastard. Epiphanius'' 
 says that Panther was the surname of Joseph and Klopas, the sons of Jacob. 
 Panther was then an old epithet of the father of Christ. [G. D.] 
 
 ^ *'OSros H€V yap b 'lutnj^ d5e\<iios yCveTan. rov KXwTra, ^v £e vlit^ Tou 'laKt^p, eiriK^ijv Se 
 rtdvdj]p KoXovfjLevov, 'A/u^repoc ourot djrb tou ndvdijpQ^ eirtKAiji' y^vvutfTai." Haeres. 78, 
 0. 7, ed. Migiie, p. 1039. [A. W. S.] 
 
24 JESUS CHRIST IN' THE TALMUD. 
 
 sins of the flesh were associated with the cult of Dionysos. Now 
 the panther among and before all other beasts was sacred to 
 Dionysos. He was the beast l>elonging to the Bacchic worship. 
 The worshippers slept on panther skins. It is the panther 
 which mainly appears upon coins exhibiting Bacchus' There 
 was a special form of this coin, in which Bacchus stands be- 
 fore a panther and gives him wine to drink (Cassel, p. 336). 
 Taking this into consideration, we have no difficulty in under- 
 standing it, if the Jews, when they read Dan. vii., thought 
 of the beast sacred to Dionysos and of the sensuality which be- 
 longed to his cult. Thus by the expression "Son of the Panther" 
 they meant to con^•ey that Jesus was born of unchastity in the 
 form in which it appears only among the Greeks ; i. e. that He 
 was sprung from the grossest unchastity. 
 
 But now there arises the question ; How came Jesus to be 
 given a nickname drawn from a circle of ideas lying so far from 
 the beaten track ? We answer : plainly a special motive must 
 have presented itself for designating Jesus precisely thus and not 
 otherwise. Nitzsch^ has recognised in Pandera a mutilated 
 fonu of TrapOevo-;, virgin, except that he took Pandera not as the 
 Greek TravO-qp but as TravOrjpa, of which he maintains — I know 
 not how truly — that it answers to the Latin lupa, courtesan. 
 Cp. also Cassel, pp. 334 f. From " Son of the Virgin," a hostile 
 wit has made, "Son of the beast of wantonness." 
 
 Moreover Mary was not herself on any occasion called as a 
 nickname " pandera " (beast of wantonness), however fitly, ac- 
 cording to Jewish conceptions, she might have been .so desig- 
 nated. For this parody is never found but in connexion with 
 Ben (Bar) "son.'' The hatred and scorn of the Jews was always 
 aimed principally at the person of Jesus Himself. Thus pantera 
 did not arise out of part/iena (-srith an Aramaic ending), but 
 out of Ben Parthena was formed Ben Pandera, a jeer which 
 
 ' See F. W. Madden, Diet, of Roman Coius, London, 1889, p. 119 f. 
 For illustrative gems see C. W. King's Atitique Gems and Bings, London, 
 1872, II. plate xxvii with description, p. 56. [A.. W. S.] 
 
 " Appendix to Bleek in Theol. SluJifn u. Kritiken, 1840, p. 116. 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 25 
 
 was too pointed not to be welcomed and disseminated. Only 
 the expression, just as Ben Stada (Satda), and as nicknames in 
 general, was destined to become a formal proper name, whose 
 character after some time came to be so little understood, that 
 they proceeded to give this Pandera thus changed to a masculine 
 sense a status worthy of his son. 
 
 The origin of the "soldier" we must remove to the time 
 between the war with Hadrian and Celsus. For, as has been 
 already noticed above, the "soldier ' owes his existence to the 
 terrible bitterness towards the Romans aroused by that war ; 
 on the other hand the whole story evidently appertains to a 
 time in which the Jews had already ceased to have intercourse 
 with the Christians, and in which, giving- free rein to caprice 
 and to a spiteful imagination, they merely built upon the 
 remains of tradition. All this tallies with a generation which 
 is subsequent to R. Akiba, and is moulded by him. 
 
 The form of parody "Ben Pandera" on the other hand is to 
 be placed at the time, when the Jews did not yet capriciously 
 invent, but only disfigured and, when possible, caricatured the 
 facts of the Gospel as emphasized by the Christians, with whom 
 they were still in contact. This was the very time of Akiba, in 
 which according to our earlier deduction the designation Ben 
 Stada (Satda) also may have arisen. 
 
 Character of the mother op Jesus. 
 
 Just as in the Christian Church the mother of the Saviour 
 has been gradually advanced to such honours that in one part 
 of it she is taken to have been sinless as the Lord Jesus Christ 
 Himself; so by the bitterest foes of the Church, the Jews, she, 
 the blessed among women, has been overlaid with the deepest 
 contumely. As mother of Jesus she shared the hatred and 
 mockery, which He had to experience. We have seen above 
 (p. 9) that Jesus was taken for a bastard, who was conceived 
 out of wedlock by the espoused JNIary. Now we come to 
 
26 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 consider a passage, which gives Mary the general character of 
 unchastity. 
 
 Gittin 90a', "There is a tradition, R. Meir used to say: 
 Just as there are various kinds of taste as regards eating, so 
 there are also various dispositions as regards women. There is 
 the man into whose cup a fly falls ^ and he casts it out, but all 
 the same he does not drink it (the cup). Such was the manner 
 of Paphos ben Jehudah, who used to lock the door upon his 
 wife, and go out." 
 
 The sense of the comparison is clear. 
 
 Thus Paphos ben Jehudah dealt with his wife^ But is 
 there any word of censure spoken here against the wife of 
 Paphos? In point of fact the passage in the Talmud which 
 we are considering, has to do solely with Paphos, against 
 whom it is brought as a reproach, that he kept himself separate 
 from his wife. Also we are safe in assuming that R. ileir's 
 saying would not have been transmitted, if it had not been 
 distinguished through the singular symbolism in which it is 
 clothed. It was not till later that Paphos became a person 
 frequently named, when people had come to see in him the 
 husband of Jesus' mother. Thereupon there must have entered 
 into the Jewish conception of our passage a new element, and 
 one originally altogether foreign to it. The passage was con- 
 sidered in its relation to Jesus, whose mother was that woman 
 thus treated by her husband. And accordingly out of the notice 
 as to Paphos there was formed a story about Mary. In con- 
 nexion with the idea, that Mary conceived Jesus out of wedlock, 
 our Talmud-passage was taken up as an incomplete piece of 
 a character-sketch of Mary, which pointed out the cause how 
 
 ' See (German) p. 6*, ni. 
 
 ^ The expression mypn 3nt, a fly iu the dish, is explained by Gitt. 6b. 
 [G. D.] 
 
 » A fly fall.s into the cup— some suspicion had befallen the wife ot Paphos. 
 Since that time he had no more intercourse with her, and shut her off also 
 from any other intercourse. Eashi maintains that this treatment has made 
 her an actual adulteress, which she was not hitherto. [G. D.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESLTS. 27 
 
 Mary came to be a, prostitute. It would not be difficult for us 
 accordingly to complete the Gittin passage in that sense. But 
 we are relieved from this by the explanation of Rashi (ob. A.D. 
 1105), the purport of which is naturally no discovery of Rashi's, 
 but belongs to the old time, in which Paphos passed as Mary's 
 husband. Rashi comments thus upon our passage : " Paphos 
 ben Jehudah was the husband of Mary, the women's hairdresser. 
 Whenever he went out of his house into the street, he locked 
 the door upon her, that no one might be able to speak with 
 her. And that is a course which became him not ; for on this 
 account there arose enmity between them, and she in wantonness 
 broke her faith with her husband." 
 
 Our passage, whose original sense cannot be binding for 
 us, inasmuch as soon enough — for the discourse of SluMath 
 104 b puts before us the conception which Rashi shares — it 
 was supplanted by the other, which has thenceforward been 
 believed by the Jews, is the only one which gives to the special 
 reproach that Mary had conceived Jesus out of wedlock, the 
 wider turn, that in consequence of her husband's conduct she 
 had led a generally unchaste life. Not only once had she 
 transgressed, but continually, since she broke through the 
 barriers set by her husband. Jesus was born — so our passage 
 tacitly asserts — of one habitually unfaithful. 
 
 A Legend concerning Mary. 
 
 Any account, which is peculiar to the Talmud, concerning 
 Jesus and His mother, belongs, it is true, to the reign of myth, 
 so that even such a foe of Jesus as David Frederick Strauss, on 
 the whole disdained to meddle with those accounts. But while 
 the preceding narratives are not as far as their import is con- 
 cerned intrinsically impossible, the following one bears from be- 
 ginning to end upon its face the stamp of fable. 
 
 Chagigah 4b': "The Angel of death was found with R. 
 
 • See (German) p. 6*, iv. (a). 
 
28 .TESUS CUIUST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Bibi bar Abbai'. The former said to liis attendant, Go, bring 
 me Miriam the women's hairdresser. He went and brought him 
 Miriam the children's teacher. The Angel of death said to him, 
 I said, Miriam the women's hairdresser. The messenger said to 
 him, Then I will bring her [the other] back. The Angel of death 
 said to him. Since thou hast brought her, let her be reckoned 
 (among the dead)." 
 
 This story R. Joseph" adduces in support of Prov. xiii. 23 
 "Many a one is snatched away without judgment." "Is it a fact 
 then," said R. Joseph to his pupils, "that any one must go hence 
 before his time? Certainly, for so and so has befallen the 
 children's teacher, Miriam." While Miriam the women's hair- 
 dresser ought to have died, she remained alive, and instead of 
 her the other Miriam, who was not appointed to die, was brought 
 by the messenger of the Angel of death. How then it came 
 about, that the Angel of death sent his messenger to bring 
 Miriam the women's hairdresser, the Talmud intimates briefly 
 in the words "The Angel of death was with R. Bibi bar Abbai." 
 A conversation had thus arisen between them, after which the 
 Angel gave the order mentioned. It is easy to conjecture in 
 what spirit R. Bibi had spoken. The assumption that he had 
 requested the Angel to put an end to Mary's life is confirmed on 
 a closer investigation of the origin of this legend. 
 
 The unsatisfactory ending of the story at once invites such an 
 investigation. For this asserts, we see, nothing else than that 
 Mary the women's hairdresser in consequence of the error of the 
 messenger had experienced the good fortune to continue in life 
 longer than had been appointed for her. But how — we must 
 ask^does the Talmud come to speak of a piece of good fortune 
 as happening to this woman ? 
 
 Inasmuch as R. Bibi lived in the 4th century of the Christian 
 era, he can neither have seen ^lary nor been her contemporary. 
 
 ' He flourished in the 4th century. 
 
 " More fully, Joseph bar Chia, born at Sbili in Babylonia, a.d. 2.50. He 
 was head of the Academy at Pumbeditha, and in Lis later years, though blind, 
 composed a Targum on the Hagiosrapha. [A. W. S.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND OKIGIN OF JESUS. 29 
 
 Nevertheless he was able to say that he desired Mary's death and 
 the extinction of lier name and memory. When in his time, as 
 it appears, u. much beloved Jewess, Miriam the children's teacher 
 by name, died and her death was mourned as premature, both 
 generally and in particular by R. Bibi, then he may have ex- 
 claimed ; Why had she to die so early while the accursed Miriam 
 lives on? This lament for the dead on R. Bibi's part was dis- 
 .seminated, but in such a way, that in the representation of it the 
 Mary to whom he wished (eternal) death, was thought of as 
 living in his time, and his observation, that the excellent Mary 
 must needs die, while the infamous Mary still lived on, was 
 understood as though the messenger of death had made a mistake ; 
 so that finally R. Bibi's wish for death for the latter was con- 
 strued as though it had taken place in personal intercourse with 
 the Angel of death. 
 
 We have already remarked at an early stage, and shall have 
 occasion to do so again, that the Talmud, in relation to Jesus, has 
 no conception of chronology, and indeed, the later the origin of 
 notices about Jesus, the more reckless are they in their chrono- 
 logical lapses. The post-talmudic Targum Sheni on the Book of 
 Esther actually reckons Jesus among the ancestors of Haman, 
 an anachronism, which Levy in his Dictionary of the Targums 
 (i. p. 330) in vain seeks to justify. In the face of such an 
 unfathomable error what signifies the erroneous representation 
 that R. Bibi lived in the time of Mary 1 The Talmudic commen- 
 tary Tosaphoth on Glmgigah 4b remarks' : "The Angel of death 
 was with R. Bibi, and related to him the history of Miriam the 
 women's hairdresser, which took place in the time of the second 
 Temple. This Miriam was the mother of that so and so [i.e. 
 Jesus], as is to be read in Slwhbath l04b." But the wording of 
 the Talmud says quit« distinctly that Mary lived in the very 
 time of R. Bibi, on which account the Angel of death spoke with 
 him not of one who had existed earlier, but of one actually living. 
 Further this Angel, we may note, at that very time in the 
 
 ' See (German) p. 6*, iv. (b). 
 
30 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 presence of R. Bibi commissions his messenger, to bring her, i.e. 
 to deliver her to death. The Tosaphoth notes on Sloahhath 104 b' 
 seek needlessly to remove the anachronism by the assumption 
 that there were two women's hairdressers, named Mary. At any 
 rate we may adduce one further passage from the Jerusalem 
 Talmud, which shews us a Mary, daughter of Eli, in hell. The 
 Talmud itself makes it clear that this Mary is not the mother of 
 Jesus: otherwise it would have substituted a different trans- 
 gression on her part from that of an irreligious practice of fasting. 
 In the Jerusalem Cliagigah 77 d^ a devout person relates that 
 he saw in a dream various punishments in hell. " He saw also 
 Miriam, the daughter of Eli Betzalim, suspended, as R. Lazar 
 ben Jose says, by the paps of her breasts. R. Jose ben Chanina" 
 says : The hinge of hell's gate was fastened in her ear. He said 
 to them [Uhe angels of punishment], Why is this done to her? 
 The answer was. Because she fasted and published the fact. 
 Others said. Because she fasted one day, and counted two days 
 (of feasting) as a set off. He asked them. How long shall she 
 be so? They answered him, Until Shim 'on ben Shetach comes ; 
 then we shall take it out of her ear and put it into his ear.'' 
 
 Two DECLARATIONS WITH REGAED TO THE ILLEGITIMATE 
 
 BIRTH OF Jesus. 
 
 A. The pretended record. 
 
 It is well known to us not only from the Old Testament but 
 also from the New, what significance attached to the family 
 pedigree among the Jews. Of special importance were the 
 priestly pedigrees and the genealogies of the royal house. The 
 former were for the most part brought back with them from the 
 Babylonish exile, and carefully preserved and continued ; of the 
 
 ' See p. 7*, IV. (o). 
 
 2 Seep. 18*, xxu. 
 
 ' A contemporary of Akiba. 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 81 
 
 latter the Book of Ruth, the Chronicles, and the Gospels give 
 samples. King Hei-od I. is said to have destroyed all official 
 pedigrees extant in his time, a statement of Eusebius' which 
 Winer- perhaps wrongly doubts. Hamburger^ not without pro- 
 bability attributes to this measure of Herod the aim of thereby 
 blotting out the recollection of his own humble origin and break- 
 ing down the ancestral pride of the Jews. And this is evidently 
 the intention of the Talmud, when* it puts into the mouth 
 of the Amorsean R. Rami, son of R. Joden, in the name of 
 Rab, the following declaration: "Since the book of genealogies 
 was hidden, the power of the learned has been crippled and the 
 light of their eyes (knowledge) darkened." But on the other hand 
 it is certain that individual men of learning transmitted to their 
 scholars what they had preserved in their memories from those 
 perished lists, so that there were family genealogies which did 
 not meet the fate of the public ones. Accordingly there is thus 
 mentioned from the time after the destruction of Jerusalem a 
 'book of genealogies' [J'hamoth 49b), which, it is highly probable, 
 contained a collection of all the extant remains of genealogies 
 which were surviving in either a written or oral form. That 
 this collection (cp. as early a passage as Gen. iv. 17, 20 ff.) was 
 interwoven with more or less closely connected notices, is proved 
 by the fragments preserved, of which at present only the follow- 
 ing one concerns us. 
 
 It is said, namely in the Mishnah, J'hamoth 49 a° (Mishnah 
 IV. 13; cp. 49b) "Simeon ben Azzai" has said: I found in 
 Jerusalem a book of genealogies ; therein was written : That 
 so and so is a bastard son of a married woman." 
 
 1 EccUs. Hist. i. 7 (quoting Africanus). See Bright's Eus. E. H. Oxford, 
 1872, p. 21. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ^ Bill. Eealworterbuch, ii. p. 516. 
 
 ■! Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel u. Thalmud, n. p. 294. 
 
 * P'sachim, C2 b. 
 
 5 See p. 7*, VI. 
 
 " A contemporary of Akiba, and skilled in the Law, though not, strictly 
 speaking, a Rabbi, as not having been ordained. [A. W. S.] 
 
32 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Frederick Louis Jahn was in tlie liabit of never speaking of 
 the first Napoleon, as long as he was in power, by his name, but 
 of designating him by a significant "he." The reason for such a 
 periphrasis was aversion to that person, joined with a certain 
 dread of painting the devil upon the wall. Still stronger is the 
 hatred of the Jewish people towards Jesus. Eisenmenger in the 
 second chapter of the first part of his Entdecktes Judenthum has 
 adduced twenty-eight periphrastic titles of Jesus from Jewish 
 writings. One of these designations is otlio fia'ish " that man," 
 " so and so." Most of these however have their origin in post- 
 talmudic times, in which, as a consequence of the oppression on 
 the part of the Christians, the hatred towards Jesus, which since 
 the Crucifixion and rejection of the Son of God has lain deep in 
 the soul of the Jews, was kindled to the fullest extent. The 
 Talmudic period knows nothing of severity on the part of the 
 Christians; accordingly this motive failed to evoke any excessive 
 measure of hostility towards Jesus. Still in the time of Akiba or 
 Bar Kokh'ba there was a strong feeling against Jesus. We may 
 therefore expect from it specially strong expressions of Jewish 
 hostility. The origin of the nickname Ben Stada is to be referred 
 to this time (see above, p. 15). Simeon ben Azzai was a pupil 
 and colleague of Akiba. Several Talmudic passages bear witness 
 to his combative attitude towards the Minim (Judseo-Christians) ', 
 cp. Hamburger, u. p. 1120. 
 
 By the " so and so " here mentioned can only be meant Jesus, 
 for there was no one else for whom the Jews had so characteris- 
 tically kept the predicate mamzer, bastard, no one to whom they 
 had more willingly ascribed it. 
 
 Accordingly to every Jew, and in particular to the pupils of 
 Akiba, this doctrine of the bastardy of Jesus was simply a funda- 
 mental truth even as the " Conceived of the Holy Ghost, Born 
 of the Virgin Mary " is to every Christian, even if lie has never 
 
 1 This word does not however appear to be always confined to Christian 
 proselytes from Judaism. See 'Aboda Zara in Ewald's (German) trans- 
 lation, p. 190, with liis note on p. 121, coUeotinf,' passages from Rashi and 
 others. See also Kohut's Aruch, s.v. [A. W. S.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JESUS. 33 
 
 had a Bible in his hand (and we know that there are a fair 
 number of sucli). But just as Luther was beyond measure 
 delighted when he received into his hands the sacred records, 
 which confirmed for him that which he already knew, and related 
 much more beside, so a foe of Jesus like Ben Azzai must have 
 been highly charmed when he found in Jerusalem, then lying in 
 rums, a Jewish document, no matter of what degree of credibility, 
 in which was written "Jesus the Nazarene [Ben Azzai substi- 
 tuted so and so] a bastard son of a married woman." This Jind 
 was valuable enough for Ben Azzai to communicate it to his 
 pupils, who for their part were not slack in giving the discovery 
 a wider circulation '. 
 
 B. T/ie pretended evidence of Mary lierself. 
 
 There can be only one authentic human testimony as to the 
 birth of Jesus, viz. the testimony of the mother of Jesus herself. 
 From the mouth of Mary springs directly or indirectly the in- 
 formation which we read in the commencement of the Gospel 
 of St Luke. From the mouth of none other than this parent, 
 according to the Talmud, R. Akiba pretends to have drawn the 
 secret of the illegitimate birth of Jesus. Kallah 18 b^ "A 
 shameless person is according to R. Eliezer^ a bastard, according 
 to R. Joshua^ a son of a woman in her separation, according to 
 R. Akiba, a bastard and son of a woman in her separation. 
 Once there sat elders at the gate wlien two boys passed by ; 
 
 ' In the Mishnah Jebamoth, it. 13, the subject is the definition of the 
 notion of "bastard," towards which that treatise contributed a striking 
 illustration. Whether Jesus was therein referred to may be questioned. 
 [G. D.] 
 
 ^ See (German) p. 7*, vii. 
 
 ' The name when thus used absolutely stands for Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, 
 teacher of Akiba, and founder of the Academy at Lud. [A. W. S.] 
 
 * His full name was Joshua ben Chauania. He was a disciple of Jochanan 
 ben Zakkai, who died about a.d. 70, and vice-president in the presidency of 
 Gamaliel (a.d. 80 — 115). See story of him in Chagigah 5 b. [A. W. S.] 
 
 s. 3 
 
34 JESUS CHRIST TN THE TALMUD. 
 
 one had his head covered, the other bare". Of him wlio had 
 his head uncovered, U. Eliezer said, 'A bastard!' R. Joshua 
 said, ' A son of a woman in her separation,' R. Akiba said, ' A 
 bastard and son of a woman in her separation.' They said to 
 R. Akiba, 'How has thine heart impelled thee to the audacity 
 of contradicting the words of thy colleagues ? ' He said to them, 
 'I am about to prove it.' Thereupon he went to the boy's 
 mother, and found her sitting in the market and selling pulse. 
 He said to her, 'My daughter, if thou tellest me the thing 
 which I ask thee, I will bring thee to eternal life.' She said 
 to him, ' Swear it to me ! ' Thereupon R. Akiba took the oath 
 with his lips, while he cancelled it in his heart. Then said he 
 to her, ' Of what sort is this thy son ? ' She said to him, ' When 
 I betook myself to the bridal chamber, I was in my separation, 
 and my husband stayed away from me. But my paranymph 
 came to me, and by him I have this son.' So the boy was dis- 
 covered to be both a bastard and the son of a woman in her 
 separation. Thereupon said they, ' Great is R. Akiba, in that 
 he has put to shame his teachers.' In the same hour they said, 
 ' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath revealed His 
 secret to R. Akiba ben Joseph.'" 
 
 Neither the name of the son nor that of the mother is here 
 mentioned. But both from the Sepher ToVdoth Jeshu (Book of 
 the History of Jesus) published by J. Chr. Wagenseil {Tela ignea 
 Satanae, Altdorf, 1681, vol. ii.) and from that of J. J. Huldreich 
 (Leyden, 1705) it plainly follows that the Jews had in mind 
 Jesus and His mother. And moreover Lichtenstein in his 
 Hebrew treatise SepJier ToVdoth JeshvM remarks, " I have heard 
 in my youth from Rabbis of consideration, that in the treatise 
 Kallah there is an allusion to that man (Jesus)." Chr. Schottgen' 
 thinks that the names were erased either by the Jews through 
 
 ' " To go bareheaded was considered not only unwholesome, but so m- 
 decorous, that an uncovered head is a figurative expression for coarseness, 
 shamelessness, and impudence." Franz Delitzsch, Ein Tag in Capernaum 
 (A Day in Capernaum), p. 150. [H. L. S.] 
 
 ^ Horac Hehraicat ct Talnwdicae, it. p. G9fl. 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND OUIGIN OF JESUS. 35 
 
 fear, or by the Pope's censors. But the censors must have 
 found the passage in the form in which it now reads ; for 
 the men who were so liberal in erasures that they cancelled 
 the whole treatise Aboda JSara', would certainly have erased 
 in KaUaJi not only the names, but the whole account, if they 
 had there come upon the names Jesus and Mary''. And that 
 the names were removed by the Jews through fear appears to us 
 improbable for this reason that we can find no motive for their 
 mutilating this passage only, while they allowed other mentions 
 of Jesus and Mary to stand. 
 
 We believe accordingly that the account stood in the Talmud 
 fi'om the very beginning without the name of the mother or of 
 the boy, and so our question runs thus : Are the Jews right, and 
 do they hit the meaning of the Talmud, when they refer the 
 passage to Jesus ? We answer : They are right, but nevertheless 
 they do not hit the meaning of the Talmud. For the Talmud, 
 as introducing no name and not even once hinting at it, clearly 
 knows none. The thought of Jesus was kept out of the author's 
 view by the mention of the mother's position. Mary passes, as 
 we know, in the Talmud for a women's hairdresser, but here 
 she appears as a dealer in pulse. The very position here as- 
 signed to the mother will have been the cause of the names 
 being soon lost or struck out as erroneous by the author ; on the 
 other hand it appears to point to an early origin of our narrative. 
 Of the "soldier" Pandera (see above, p. 19 if.) the individual 
 narrator still, as it appears, knew nothing ; accordingly the little 
 story is probably to be dated prior to the year A.D. 178. 
 
 The proof then, that our narrative treats of Jesus, must arise 
 from its contents. Only we must not allow ourselves to be 
 biassed by the introductory sentence, through which the narra- 
 tive not only has become inconsistent, but also has received a 
 
 1 See Strack, EinUitung in den Thalmud, p. 52. 
 
 2 Also in the text of the treatise Kallah published by N. Coronel in ac- 
 cordance with a much fuller recension no names are mentioned. See Com- 
 mentarios quinque doctrinam talnmdicam illustrantes...edidit N. C, Vienna, 
 1864, p. 3 b. 
 
 3—2 
 
36 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 wholly different turn, from what it originally possessed — the 
 sentence, namely, tiiat the three Rabbis had asserted of any 
 shameless person that he was of ignominious origin, but were 
 not at one as regards the degree of ignominy. Lichtenstein 
 rightly says : " TLovr many bastards then are there at the present 
 moment Ln Israel, who go with uncovered head I " The Talmudic 
 writer has taken vip the traditional account, as though the 
 three Rabbis had given judgment in the manner specified as to 
 every shameless person. 
 
 And the narrative appears to have a wholly different point. 
 If we consider it without the introduction we have mentioned, the 
 following took place. When a boy with head uncovered passed 
 by the Rabbis, R. Eliezer exclaimed, " A bastard ! " By this he 
 did not mean to say, " From his shamelessness I recognise him to 
 be a bastard," but "His bad extraction brings these bad manners 
 with it." Plainly he knew the boy and considered him already be- 
 fore this occurrence to be a bastard. The other Rabbi, who likewise 
 knew the boy, gave still sharper expression to his displeasure at 
 his shamelessness ; for " son of a woman in her separation" is to be 
 judged in accordance with Lev. xx. 18, where the punishment of 
 death is appointed for intercourse with such. Also R. Joshua did 
 not mean that the boy through his shamelessness had betrayed 
 himself as the son of such a woman, but that any one who was 
 of such ignominious birth, could not fail to behave himself thus 
 shamelessly. R. Akiba objects to his colleagues : "Ye still judge 
 this lad too favourably : he is a bastard and son of a woman in 
 her separation as well." It appears then singular that both the 
 colleagues of R. Akiba took his objection ill; the more strano^e 
 since afterwards they praise him, because his opinion is the true 
 one. The aim of the Talmudic writer in this version of the story 
 was simple, viz. that R. Akiba through the reproving observation 
 of his colleagues, might obtain an opportunity to enter upon the 
 weighty proof by means of facts, that he alone was right, i.e. that 
 the boy was of the most disgraceful origin possible. When the 
 proof had turned out so absolutely clear a one, his colleagues 
 rejoice and praise God for having disclosed His secret to R. Akiba. 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND OUIGIN OF JKSUS. 37 
 
 If the boy's sliamelessness only formed the outward occasion for 
 the Rabbis' conversation with regard to his disgraceful birth, 
 this last, as already indicated, must have been long an object of 
 offence to them. Nay, that they discussed the matter so very 
 eagerly shews that the boy must have had an unusual importance 
 for them ; he must have been peculiarly hated by them, more 
 hated than other boys who behaved themselves shamelessly and 
 passed for illegitimate children, such as no doubt there have 
 always been here and there in Israel. Moreover the joy of lx)th 
 the other Rabbis over the victory of R. Akiba is striking. We 
 have a right to ask after the special causes of sucli special hatretl. 
 What are these causes 1 I answer : Tell me the name of the boy, 
 and the causes are plain as daylight. But since the Talmud 
 mentions no name, we must enquire further, Who can the boy 
 have been 1 JS"o one's baseness of origin is so eagerly emphasized 
 and discussed in the Talmud as that of Jesus. On no one does 
 the Talmud seek with such zeal and so much skill in many ways 
 to stamp the character of bastard as on Jesus, who is to it tlie 
 bastard jjar excellence. Proof of this may be found in the passages 
 of the Talmud referring to Jesus which ha^e been already dis- 
 cussed. Accordingly those persons, whether Jews or Christians, 
 are perfectly right, who explained the above quoted passage of 
 the Talmud as relating to Jesus. 
 
 But — some one might ask — how is it possible to understand 
 Jesus by the boy, when R. Akiba, to whose time the story is 
 represented as belonging, lived about a century after Him, and 
 thus can never have seen Jesus, and least of all as a boy ? We 
 have here again (cp. pp. 19, 22, 29) to deal with an anachronism, 
 not with an accidental and wholly unfounded one, but with one 
 that is very peculiar, which straightway furnishes us with a 
 further proof that the boy must be none other than Jesus. We 
 lay our finger on the name Akiba, and at the same time ciiU to 
 mind the following facts. 
 
 In a passage of the Talmud {Sanhedrin 67 a') to be quoted in 
 the third division of our treatise, it is said that Jesus was crucified 
 1 Seep. 5*, I. (b). 
 
38 JESUS CHKIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 at Lud (Lydda), an assertion, which naturally is read with the 
 utmost astonishment, if not by the Jews who swear by the 
 Talmud, at least by Christians, and which, as it seems, has been 
 up to this time unintelligible. It appears scarcely credible that 
 the very place of Jesus' Crucifixion, this most memorable event 
 in His whole story, has been forgotten by the Jews. And yet so 
 it is : Jesus according to the Talmud was crucified not in Jeru- 
 salem but in Lud. How is this to be explained? Naturally we 
 must not think of a confusion through error, of a lapse of memory. 
 No : the removal of the Crucifixion of Jesus to Lud, this place 
 which nowhere occurs in the New Testament accounts of the story 
 of Jesus', betrays utter lack of acquaintance with the history. And 
 yet this assertion of the Talmud must have a foundation. We 
 believe that we can find this foundation only in the following 
 assumption; Lud became for the Jews a centre for accounts of 
 Jesus, i.e. nowhere was there more related about Jesus than at 
 Lud, so that later generations received the impression that these 
 occurrences, the accounts of which were derived thence, took place 
 in Lud itself. The circumstance that R. Akiba was a teacher 
 at Lud supports the view that Lud is really to be looked upon as 
 the source of several accounts of Jesus ; for as to R. Akiba we 
 know what great celebrity he possessed as a Rabbi, as well as 
 also what passionate hatred of Jesus dwelt within this admirer of 
 Bar Kokh'ba. That the effect of R. Akiba's controversial attitude 
 towards Christianity was no light one for his adherents may be 
 conjectured a jn-iori. But a stronger effect cannot be conceived 
 than that Akiba on account of his vehement attacks upon Jesus 
 was taken in later times for a contemporary, who had lived with 
 Him in one and the same town. For to say that Jesus was 
 crucified in Lud means nothing else than that He was crucified in 
 Akiba's city in the time of the man who according to the Jews' 
 view was one of those most accurately acquainted with the history 
 of Jesus. In Lud also the narrative contained in Kallah 18 b, 
 must have its origin. 
 
 ' Although meutioned in Acts ix. 32, 35, 38. [A. W. S.] 
 
DESIGNATIONS AND ORIGIN OF JKSUS. 39 
 
 To conclude, it only now remains to take a survey of the rise 
 of this Jesus-legend. It owes its origin doubtless to the natural 
 eagerness of the Jews to know and therefore also to tell details 
 upon the subject, to them most important and interesting, of the 
 illegitimate birth of Jesus. The pith of the story in its oldest 
 form may have been built up of the following elements: (1) The 
 doctrine, perhaps already in existence before Akiba, tliat Jesus 
 was son of a courtesan. (2) The proposition, that He had been 
 shameless in His youth. Akiba in his disputes with the Christians 
 had certainly learned much of the story of Jesus, as well as that 
 which is related (Luke ii. 46, 47) as to the boy Jesus when twelve 
 years old in the temple, "And all who heard him, were astonished 
 at his understanding and his answers." When compared with 
 the part taken by Jesus later against the lawyers, which ap- 
 peared to him as pure shamelessness', R. Akiba found already 
 in this story of His childhood the first traces of that shameless 
 behaviour. (3) This also may without hesitation be assumed to 
 be an old ingredient of the Talmudic narrative, that Akiba, who 
 summed up and concentrated his attacks upon the person of 
 Jesus in the reproach of a shameful origin, actually in presence 
 of the lawyers connected with this origin the boy's shame- 
 lessness. These three constituent elements of the narrative, 
 thus preached by Akiba, were propagated by word of mouth, 
 and it is not to be wondered at that, after Akiba had once been 
 taken for a contemporary of Jesus, he and his colleagues were 
 understood to have been among tlie Rabbis, towards whom the boy 
 Jesus was said to have behaved shamelessly. How that story, 
 which we now read in the treatise Kallah, was gradually con- 
 structed upon these foundations by means of additions and 
 further developments, eludes investigation. It is not impossible 
 that matter was to some extent furnished to the Jews from the 
 Christian side in apocryphal narratives, which the former found 
 serviceable in support of alterations in the story in accordance 
 with their view. 
 
 ' Cp. Gittin 57 a (see p. 17*, xxi. (a). [G. D.] 
 
40 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 II. THE WORKS OF JESUS. 
 
 A. Jesus and His Teae/ier. " How knoweth this man letters, 
 having never learned?" exclaimed the Jews (John vii. 15), full 
 of amazement at His teaching. -And in Matt. xiii. 54 it says: 
 "He taught in their synagogues', insomuch that they were 
 astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom ? " So 
 Mark vi. 2: "[They] were astonished, saying. Whence hath this 
 man these things? and. What is the wisdom that is given to 
 this man?... Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?... and 
 they were offended in him." 
 
 In contrast with these New Testament notices, according to 
 which Jesus, without having enjoyed the tuition of a distinguished 
 Rabbi, was full of the highest wisdom and knowledge of the 
 Scriptures, the Talmud^ makes Jesus to stand in the relation of 
 disciple to R. Joshua ben P'rachyah. Nay, what is more, this 
 statement of the Talmud is also inconsistent with the Talmud 
 itself. For according to this (cp. A both of E. Natlvan, 5 a) no 
 child of a courtesan was allowed to come to Jerusalem and visit 
 the schools and study, an ordinance which fully agrees with 
 Deut. xxiii. i: "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of 
 the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of liis enter 
 into the assembly of the Lord^." But we have already seen 
 sufficiently in the first part of our work how unquestionable the 
 Talmud considers it, that Jesus was begotten out of wedlock. 
 Thereupon there arises the question : Did the Rabbis, who relate 
 the history of Jesus' discipleship, know nothing of the inconsistent 
 belief on the part of the Jews as to His origin? JBefore we 
 proceed to answer this question, we must furnish the statement 
 of the Talmud itself. 
 
 ' So Luther's translation. See Brit, aud For. Bible Soc.'s ed., Kolu, 
 1851 ; but the original has iv ry <rwayoiyj avruv. [A. W. S.] 
 
 " Sanlicdrln 107 b ; Sola 47 a. 
 
 ' This passage was always referred only to cases of unfaithfulness in 
 marriage. [G. D.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 41 
 
 Sanltedrin 107 b': The Rabbis have taught: The left should 
 always be repelled, and the right on the other hand drawn 
 nearer. But one should not do it... as R. Joshua ben P'rachyali, 
 who thrust forth Jesus with both hands. What was the matter 
 with regard to R. Joshua ben P'rachyah 1 When king Jannai " 
 directed the destruction of the Rabbis, R. Joshua ben P'rachyah 
 and Jesus went to Alexandria. When security returned. Rabbi 
 Simeon ben Shetach^ sent him a letter to this effect: "From 
 me, Jerusalem the holy city, to thee, Alexandria in Egypt, 
 my sister. My spouse tarries in thee, and I dwell desolate." 
 Thereupon Joshua arose and came; and a certain inn was in his 
 way, in which they treated him with great respect. Then spake 
 Joshua: "How fair is this inn (Akhsanga)!" Jesus saith to 
 him : " But, Rabbi, she (Akhsanga = a hostess) has little narrow 
 eyes." Joshua replied: "Thou godless fellow, dost thou occupy 
 thyself with such things 1 " directed that 400 horns should be 
 brought, and put Him under strict excommunication. Jesus 
 oftentimes came and said to him, "Take me back." Joshua 
 did not trouble himself about Him. One day, just as Joshua 
 was reading the sh'ma' (the words: "Hear, O Israel," Deut. 
 vL 4 etc.), Jesus came to him, hoping that he would take 
 Him back. Joshua made a sign to Him with his hand. Then 
 Jesus thought that he had altogether repulsed Him, and went 
 away, set up a brickbat, and worshipped it. Joshua said to Him : 
 " Be converted ! " Jesus saith : " Thus have I been taught by thee : 
 from him that sinneth and that maketh the people to sin, is 
 taken away the possibility of repentance." And the Teacher 
 [i.e. he, who is everywhere mentioned by this title in the 
 Talmud] has said: "Jesus had practised sorcery and had cor- 
 rupted and misled Israel." Here Sank. 43 a* is referred to 
 (where the words of " the Teacher " are found). 
 
 1 For the most part in the same words as Sota 47a. See p. 8*, viii., ix. 
 - For him see p. 42. 
 
 3 For his approximate date see p. 48. He received some Greek culture 
 through a sojourn iu Alexandria. [A. W. S.] 
 ' See p. 15*, XV. 
 
42 JKSUS CHllIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 The Jerusalem Talmud, which' relates the same story, has in 
 place of Joshua ben Frachyah the name of his contemporary 
 Jehudah ben Tabbai. This makes no essential difference. The 
 identification of the two by Hamburger (ir. 1053, footnote) is 
 ingenious. Of much more weight is another difference in the 
 narrative of the two Talmuds ; that is to say, the Babylonian 
 Talnmd gives the name of the disciple, the Jerusalem on the 
 contrary does not mention his name, — plainly, because it does 
 not know him. The question now is; did the Babylonian Gemara 
 possess a less defective tradition than the Jerusalem, or has it, 
 without possessing a more complete form of this, first introduced 
 the name Jesus on the ground of probability ? 
 
 The answer to this question we obtain from the correct expla- 
 nation of the striking anachronism which the account in the text 
 of the Babylonian Talmud contains. According to this, Jesus 
 would have lived some hundred years before the actual Jesus, for 
 king Jannai lived B.C. 104 — 78, and about the year B.C. 87 there 
 took place the crucifixion of the 800 Pharisees after the capture 
 of the stronghold Bethome^, which was the occasion of the flight 
 into Syria and Egypt on the part of the Pharisees generally 
 in the country, and among them of Joshua ben P'rachyah and 
 Jehudah ben Tabbai. Inasmuch then as the narrative bears 
 upon its face the stamp of a genuine account, which has been 
 disseminated indeed in a disfigured, and for that very reason in 
 many respects obscure, shape, it is unquestionable, that the name 
 Jesus is here spurious, and, even if it were found in all the 
 sources of our information, would have to be struck out. But, 
 as the case stands, the Jerusalem Talmud, as already mentioned, 
 has not got tliis name, and this \'ery circumstance, especially in 
 view of the character" of this Talmud, supports our decision, 
 
 ' Chaqigali, II. 2, and Sanhedriii, vi. 8. 
 
 '■' See Sehiiiei's Hist, of the JctcisJi People, Eng. Tvausl., Div. I. vol. 
 I. 303; and for history of Jannai ( = Alexander Jaunacus, son of John 
 Hyrcanus I.), ibid. 295—307. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ' "In Palestine there was developed a greater inclination to maintain and 
 disseminate the old tradition than to develop it further. ... In the Jerusalem 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 43 
 
 tliat tlie name. Jesus was originally wanting, and the anachronism 
 first arose, through this later interpolation. I grant that this 
 interpolation is old, found even before the Geniara, or, if we 
 wish to express ourselves very cautiously, the Gemara already has 
 referred to what is here related about Jesus. This follows from 
 the fact that the Geniara attaches to the narrative the following 
 
 o 
 
 addition : " The same authority, which reports this story, says 
 elsewhere [namely in the passage, Sanhed. 43 a', to be adduced 
 in the third part of our work]: 'Jesus had practised sorcery, and 
 had corrupted and misled Israel. ' " In this charge, which taxes 
 Jesus with weighty offences the Gemara perceives a confirmatory 
 parallel to that which is here related of the disciple of Joshua 
 ben P'rachyah. The assertion that Jesus was the sinful disciple 
 is, as already remarked, undoubtedly false ; yet we find, on close 
 consideration of the story, several features which might lead to 
 the assumption of identity. As such we reckon, 1st, the flight 
 from a blood-thirsty king into Egypt. It was an account spread 
 by the Christians themselves that Jesus once fled to Egypt from 
 a king who had a design on His life. Op. Matt. ii. 13 — 15. This 
 account was fitted to make a sharp impression on the Jewish 
 memoi-y, since it plainly contains the key to the assertion that 
 Jesus was in a position to work Egyptian sorceries. 2nd]y, His 
 behaviour towards the Eabbi. The lack of respect towards 
 Joshua was certainly a contrast to the demeanour of Jesus in 
 the Gospels towards the Rabbinic authorities'; but we know from 
 Kallali 18 b, that Jesus passed for a shameless person, and in 
 Gittin 57 &^ (see later) we read that on account of His shame- 
 lessness towards the doctors of the Law He went into hell. In 
 our account, moreover, 3rdly, His shamelessness has an impure 
 region for its sphere of action, and according to the Talmud from 
 
 Talmud we have before us in contradistinction to the Babylonian the simpler, 
 because primary, form of the tradition." F. Weber, System der aluyimgo- 
 galcii palcist. Tlieolugie, p. xxvii f. 
 
 1 See p. 15*, XV. 
 
 ^ See however such passages as Matt, xxiii. 15 — 36. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ■i See p. 17*, XXI. (a). 
 
44 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 His very birth onwards He was most intimately connected with 
 such. Also Jesus' intercourse with the holy women, as well as 
 also with women who were "sinners" (see John viii. 11) was doubt- 
 less remarked by His enemies, and later apparently came to be so 
 interpreted, as though He had had pleasure in casting glances at 
 the other sex' 4thly, that according to our passage Jesus was 
 excommunicated (and in how marvellous a way!) could be no 
 startling news to his Jewish opponents, just as e.g. the foes of 
 Luther, had it been possible that any one should oome from hell 
 with the announcement, Luther is sitting in hell, would not in 
 truth be surprised but would say: Of that we are already aware 
 The same applies, 5thly, to the statement that the disciple could 
 no more repent, but had incurred eternal damnation (cp. Gittin 
 57 a). Lastly, the circumstance that the excommunicated person 
 was the disciple of a Rabbi did not, at least at all times, exclude 
 the reference to Jesus. When we regard the great lack of Tal- 
 mudic accounts of Jesus (for they would not concern themselves 
 with the Gospel ones) it is quite conceivable that thev realised 
 the need of such and sought to satisfy it, and proceeded to refer 
 to Jesus this account, which tliey found appropriate for Him. 
 At the same time one feature in it certainly was overlooked, 
 which spoke against the identity of the disciple with Jesus. 
 That is to say, according to SliAxhbath 104 b^, Jesus had brought 
 the art of sorcery with Him out of Egypt. Thus lone before 
 the arrival at the inn He had mentally apostatized. How then 
 could the excommunication on account of a much slighter offence 
 in comparison with his sin of sorcery, so trouble Him that He 
 daily entreated the Rabbi to take Him back ? Jesus the sorcerer 
 would never have done this. 
 
 The mistake in the chronology, in conjunction with the fact, 
 that Jesus could be taken for the disciple of a Rabbi, . perhaps 
 allows of an answer to the question, when was the anonymous 
 story altered to a story about Jesus 1 Probably this took place 
 
 • For the strong views expressed by the TaUnud on this matter, see Jer. 
 Kallah 58 c ; Bab. B'rachoth 61 a. 
 2 See p. 5*, I. (a). 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 45 
 
 before Jesus and R. Akiba came to be considered conteu\po- 
 raries (cp. p. 19 above); in any case no Jewish doctor of the 
 Law ciin have confused the time of Joshua ben P'rachyah 
 and that of R. Akiba. It will have been a time, in which 
 different views as to the person of Jesus were promiscuously 
 circulated, and in which, beside such as saw in Jesus nothing else 
 than a bastard, there were also those by whom He was quite 
 confidently reckoned as impious, but nevertheless also as a learned 
 person, a, time, in which the Jews had still intercourse with the 
 Christians and carried on religious discussions with them. In 
 these discussions the Christians appealed to the authority of 
 Jesus, and this made a twofold impression upon the Jews. " He 
 is a fool," said the one party {Shahhath 104 b), just as in the 
 Gospels the Jews said of Him, "He hath a devil and is mad'." 
 Others on the contrary bestowed applause upon this or that 
 saying of Jesus, a fact which is botli probable in itself, and 
 distinctly follows from the instance brought by R. Eliezer (towards 
 the close of the 1st century a. D.), of whom it is related {Aboda 
 Zara 16 b; see below, p. 60)° that he approved a saying of Jesus. 
 (Later indeed he reproached himself bitterly for this agreement.) 
 To this very day Jesus is described by the Jews as zaken mamre 
 [a wrong-headed learned man], and the view is a prevalent one 
 tiiat He had doctors of the law (Hillel is now generally named) 
 as teachers. This is also the view of the person who introduced 
 the name of Jesus, and of the Gemara which refers to Sanliedrin 
 43 a. R. Eliezer has denounced Jesus as a sorcerer and therefore 
 what is said in Sank. 107 b in like manner relates to Jesus. It 
 is R. Eliezer, in whose mouth the Talmud puts the assertion 
 that Jesus had been in Egypt, and had brought thence sorceries 
 (Sliahhaih 104b; cp. p. 46). Might we venture to conclude that 
 he has directly or indirectly been the occasion that by the scholar 
 of Joshua ben P'rachyah Jesus was understood 1 
 
 B. Tlve sorcerer Jesus. A subject of great weight for Chris- 
 tian Apologetics will now occupy us, the treatment of Jesus' 
 miracles on the part of the Jews of early time. Far from 
 1 John X. 20. - See p. 13*, xiii. (a). 
 
46 JESUS CHRIST rN THE TALMUD. 
 
 denying them, the Talmud on the conti-iiry i-eiidily admits them, 
 referring them however to Satanic arts. How then can the old 
 and the new rationalists fail to he (lun)bfoundered, if it is objected 
 to them : — See tlien, the most bitter enemies of Jesu.s have from 
 the very counnencement (cp. Matt. ix. 34) in no wise denied the 
 reality of His miracles, but were from time to time convinced by 
 them, and have transmitted this their conviction by means of 
 tradition t " We have seen with our own eyes these miraculous 
 deeds" ; so the voice of the Jews is borne to us from the Talmud. 
 Moreover he who is inclined to bestow no credence upon this 
 testimony of the enemies of Jesus, he who believes that the 
 sharply observant gaze of these foes may have been mistaken, is 
 beyond the reach of argument. The determination not to be- 
 lieve, has tin-own such men's minds into fetters, Slmbbath 104 b'. 
 "There is a tradition; Eabbi Eliezer said to the wise men, Has 
 not the son of Stada brought magic spells from Egypt in an in- 
 cision on his body [his skin]? They answered him, He was a fool, 
 and we do not take proofs from fools." 
 
 The hatred towards Jesus, revealing itself here in the de- 
 signation Ben Stada, shews that the discussion is to be placed 
 in the latter part of Rabbi Eliezer's life (see pp. 45, 60). 
 
 To make this clear the Tosephta, Hhahbath, xi. (xil.)° towards 
 the end (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 126) must be adduced. There it 
 is said ; " He who upon the Sabbath cuts letters upon his body, 
 is according to the view of R. Eliezer guilty, according to the 
 view of the wise not guilty. R. Eliezer said to the wise ; Ben 
 Stada surely learned sorcery by such writing [' brought from 
 Egypt,' Jerusalem S/uMath, xii. fol. 13d]. They replied to 
 him : Should we in any wise on account of one fool destroy all 
 reasonable men?" 
 
 R. Eliezer thus supports his assertion that no one should cut 
 marks on his body or tattoo himself upon the Sabbath, by the 
 fact that Jesus had so done ; the example of this impious one 
 must not be imitated, and especially not upon the Sabbath. The 
 
 ' See p. 5*, I. (a). ' See p. 10*, ix. (b). 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 4<1 
 
 wise men however objected to him that Jesus was a Shoteh', and 
 to a person of that kind one does not refer ^ 
 
 The assertion that Jesus was a sorcerer, forms the comple- 
 ment of another judgment of the Pharisees as to Jesus' miracles, 
 which is preserved to us in Matt. ix. 34 : " But the Pharisees 
 said, By tlie prince of the devils casteth he out devils.'' This 
 judgment was pronounced on a special occasion, namely a jjrojTos 
 of the casting out of devils. How the Pharisees commonly looked 
 upon and discussed the miracles of Jesus, we may well venture 
 to conclude from the sentence of the Talmud now under our 
 notice, "Jesus wrought his miracles by means of sorcery, which 
 he had brought with him from Egypt." Also the addition 
 "brought with him from Egypt'' we may without hesitation 
 look upon as original. For, having regard to the temper of 
 mind of the Pharisees, which made it impossible for them with 
 calm attention to examine Jesus' words and deeds, we may 
 assume it to be absolutely certain, that even at the time of His 
 public ministry they had not once sought credible information at 
 a really well-informed source with regard to the history of His 
 earlier life; but the incomplete and not always trustworthy com- 
 munication.s, which they from time to time obtained, according 
 to their view indicated a connexion between Jesus' sojourn in 
 Egypt and the art of sorcery attributed to Him. Only the 
 further addition that the conveyance of the sorcery was effected 
 by means of " an incision which he had made in his flesh,'' is to 
 be ascribed to a later time, when men dwelt in thought upon the 
 original conception and added to it. 
 
 With reference to the miracles of Jesus the Pharisees and 
 doctors of the Law would certainly, had it been possible, either 
 
 1 Fool. 
 
 ^ In Shahbath 104 b, the question is whether tattooing is writing and so 
 forbidden on the Sabbath. E. Eliezer decides that it is a writing, and appeals 
 to the fact that Ben Stada had employed tattooing for writing purposes. 
 This however the majority decides to be something so extraordinary and 
 foolish that one has no right on that account to include tattooing under the 
 notion of writing. [G. D.] 
 
48 JESUS CHIUST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 have availed themselves of a simple denial or have denounced 
 them as lies and frauds. But in tlie face of the fact tiiat the 
 miracles took place in the presence of the multitude, that those 
 who were healed by Christ, for e.xample, the raised Lazarus, 
 went about througli every quarter as living witnesses of the 
 miraculous power of Jesus ; in the face of the fact that His 
 miracles, much more than His teaching, procured for Him from 
 time to time that unprecedented amount of support, whicli 
 threatened the status of the collective priesthood; in the face 
 moreover of tlie bewildering impression, which even the Pharisees 
 could not resist at the sight of His miracles, it was utterly 
 impossible to ignore these miracles, or to tell the people that all 
 was cheating. But their hatred found another expression, which 
 was fitted to destroy the divine lustre that spread itself around 
 the Worker of the miracles. Jesus, tliey said, is a sorcerer, who 
 has brought his sorceries from Egypt. 
 
 The addition " from Egypt " gives expression to the thought 
 that Jesus was possessed of a sorcery beyond the common. Of 
 Egypt, that land of magic arts, in which they understood how to 
 imitate the miracles of Moses, it is said in Kiddushin 49 b : 
 "Ten measures of sorcery came down into the world. Egypt 
 received nine measures, and all the rest of the world one." We 
 must lay hold of the distinction which is made in this passage be- 
 tween Egyptian (Le. intensified), and non-Egyptian (i.e. ordinary) 
 sorcery, in order to grasp the reason that the Talmud makes 
 Jesus to have learned this magical art in Egypt, while outside 
 Egypt magic was nevertheless not altogether strange. We have 
 only to compare Sanlhedrin 45 b, where it is related that 
 Simeon ben Shetach (member of the Sanhedrin from 79 to 
 70 B.C.') condemned eighty sorceresses to death ; and also the 
 Mishnah of Sota, ix. 13, " unchastity and sorcery have ruined 
 all"; moreover the lament of Simeon ben Jochai, a teacher 
 of the 2nd century'', in Eruhin 6-tb: "The daughters of 
 
 ' But his date cannot be precisely determined. Herzfeld (Gesch. ii. 140) 
 gives it as B.C. 90. [A. W. S.] 
 
 = He was a pupil of Akiba. [A. W. S.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 49 
 
 Israel are degenerate through sorcery;" lastly, Acts xix. 19, 
 "And not a few of them that practised curious [magical] arts 
 brought their books [books of magic] together and burned them 
 in the sight of all." Nay, the Talmud actually maintains that 
 no one could be a member of the Sanhedrin, who was not 
 acquainted with magic; for so it is said in Sanhedrin, 17a, and 
 Menachoth, 65 a, " None others are brought into the Sanhedrin 
 save those wise and acquainted with magic" (namely, as Rashi 
 explains, in order that they might be in a position to expose the 
 sorcerers, who by their sorcery perverted and misled the people). 
 Thus the assertion that Jesus had learned his magic arts (not 
 from native magicians, but) in Egypt, marks him as an arch- 
 magician. And thus we have once again a forcible confirmation 
 from a, hostile mouth of the extraordinary miraculous powers of 
 Jesus. 
 
 At the base of the Talmudic conception, that Egypt was the 
 home of specially powerful magic, there is the idea that it was 
 somehow impossible to fetch the Egyptian magic out of that 
 country, and so to spread it through the rest of the world. In 
 illustration of this we shall venture to treat the explanation of 
 Rashi as connected with an early belief, that "the Egyptian 
 magicians searched every one who quitted the land of Egypt, 
 whether he was taking any books of magic with him, in order 
 that the magical art [namely, the Egyptian] might not come 
 into other countries.'' If then Jesus nevertheless succeeded in 
 bringing Egyptian magic out of Egypt, He could only have 
 effected it by means of a stratagem. In what did this consist ? 
 In "an incision in his flesh," i.e. he inserted in His flesh 
 Egyptian magic formulae. 
 
 Of what kind however the magical works of Jesus were, the 
 Talmud nowhere informs us. But .since we read in other pas- 
 sao-es of the Talmud that the disciples of Jesus performed 
 miracles of healing in the name of Jesus ben Pandera, we may 
 venture to assume that those Jews, who proposed to themselves 
 the question about the character of the magical works of Jesus, 
 understood thereby just such works of healing as the disciples 
 s. 4 
 
50 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 had been able to learn simply from their Master. But this does 
 not exclude the possibility that they had also in mind other 
 magical works of every kind ; for the Master has more power 
 than the disciple. 
 
 C. Jesus' teaching. Two questions have here to be dis- 
 cussed. (1) What is handed down to us in the Talmud as to 
 Jesus' teaching in detail? (2) What charge does the Talmud 
 bring against Jesus' teaching? The character of the expressions 
 used makes it appear expedient to answer the second question 
 first. 
 
 The judgment concerning Jesus' teaching has found a three- 
 fold expression in the Talmud. In Shahbath, 104 b, Jesus, as we 
 saw (p. 45), is called a fool. This designation is given to Jesus 
 partly on account of the teaching which He delivered concerning 
 Himself, that He was the Son of God, or God Himself. This 
 appears from the Jerusalem Ta'anith, 65 b', where in reference 
 to Numb, xxiii. 19 it is said : "R. Abbahu^ has said : If a man 
 says to thee ' I am God,' he lies ; ' I am Son of Man,' he shall 
 rue it ; ' I ascend to heaven,' this holds good of him, ' He has 
 said it and will not effect it.' " This passage alludes to Jesus too 
 clearly to need a word of proof. If any say that He is God 
 and at the same time designate Himself as Son of Man — and 
 this no man save Jesus has ever done — he lies, as R. Abbahu 
 taught; or, to express it more strongly, he is a fool. For the 
 promised proof of the Ascension He is simply unable to bring. 
 
 The import of the testimony of Jesus to Himself here spoken 
 of is mentioned also in the following passage from P'sikta llab- 
 bathi (ed.Triedmann, 1880), fol. 100 b f." "R. Ghia bar Abba* 
 said : ' If the son of the whore saith to thee, There be two 
 
 1 Seep. 10*, X (a). 
 
 2 Of Cffisarea; a 3rd century teacher. [A. W. S.] 
 
 3 See p. 11*, X (o). 
 
 " More fully, Chia Eabbah, son of Abba Sela. He flourished about 
 A.D. 216, and was pupil of Rabbi (=Jehudah ben Simon III.), to whom is 
 ascribed the original compilation of the Mishnah. [A. W. S.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 51 
 
 Gods, answer him, I am He of the sea, I am He of Sinai.' 
 (That is to say, at the Red Sea God appeared to Israel as a 
 youthful warrior, upon Sinai as an old man, as beseems a law- 
 giver ; but both are one). R. Chia bar Abba said : ' If the son 
 of the whore say to thee. There be two Gods, answer him, It 
 is here (Deut. v. 4) written not Gods but the Lord hath spoken 
 with you face to face. ' " 
 
 That God has a son, and that for this reason there are two 
 Gods, passes here for the teaching of the whore's son, wherein 
 the reference is clear. From the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment the Jew is bidden to draw the counter-proof, which indeed 
 naturally is not adduced as opposed to the testimony actually 
 borne by Jesus Himself, but only to that of His adherents, who 
 rest their faith upon Him. Since what R. Chia considers to be 
 a counter-proof is utterly frivolous, it is clear that it is silly, nay, 
 ridiculous, to set forth to the world things so illogical and 
 preposterous. 
 
 That Jesus was an idolater ; this is the Talmud's second 
 charge against Jesus' teaching. 
 
 Accordingly in the Tractate, which makes the most frequent 
 mention of Jesus, Sanhedrin, 103 a', we read the following: 
 " 'Neither shall any plague come nigh thy tent' (Ps. xci. 10), i.e. 
 thou shalt have no son or disciple who bums his food publicly, 
 as Jesus the Nazarene;" with which we may compare B'raclwth, 
 17 b; " ' In our streets [let there be no breaking]' (Ps. cxliv. 14), 
 i.e. that we may have no son or disciple, who burns his food 
 publicly, as Jesus the Nazarene." 
 
 With reference to the explanation of the figurative expression 
 " to burn his food publicly " no absolute consensus prevails. 
 Jacob Levy, the learned editor of the Neuliebr. Worterhuch, gives 
 two explanations, which contradict one another. He says (ii. 272, 
 s.v. Jeshu) " a figurative expression for apostasy^' on the con- 
 trary (iv. 246, s.v. Kadach) "figurative for to lead a had life, to act 
 contrary to one's teaching.'' The latter explanation is palpably 
 
 1 See p. 11*, XI (a). 
 
 4—2 
 
o2 JESUS CHllIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 false; for never has a Jew said of Jesus, that He taught rightly, 
 but that His life was contrary to His teaching. But the simple 
 fact that He had introduced a new doctrine, which was not the 
 doctrine of the Pharisees, was that which from the commencement 
 and onwards was made a reproach against Him. Levy's first 
 explanation may be considered as holding good so far as that it 
 excusably generalises the special signification. So too Lightfoot 
 and Buxtorf. The former' remarks on Luke xxiii. 3 : "To destroy 
 one's food publicly, means with the Talmudists to destroy true 
 doctrine through heresy, the true worship of God through idola- 
 try." And Buxtorf says {Lex. Ecibb. s.v. Kadach), "The figure 
 of speech signifies : to turn aside from the right way, to de- 
 generate, to destroy doctrine, to fall away into heresy and 
 idolatry, and publicly to disseminate and advocate such." The 
 dictionary Aruch' explains more simply in connexion with 
 B'raelioth, 17b, "[Jesus,] who set up idols in the streets and 
 public places.'' Here however the idea of burning is not dealt 
 with. Therefore we say, public burning of food is a con- 
 temptuous expression for the public offering of sacrifice to idols. 
 That the Christians in their assemblies offered sacrifices to idols, 
 was as firmly the opinion of the Jews of old time, as it is that 
 of many at the present day. Naturally therefore it was con- 
 cluded that Jesus must have commenced it. 
 
 Idolatry is the highest degree of falling away from God. 
 The Talmudic view of Jesus as having fallen away from God 
 and of His apostate teaching has acquired a more general 
 expression in a form which became stereotyped. We mean the 
 saying in SanJiedrin, 43a and 107b: "Jesus practised sorcery, 
 and corrupted and seduced Israel." In what direction did He 
 corrupt and seduce them 1 In that of falling away from the true 
 God and His law to false doctrine and idolatry. And indeed 
 He did it with great success; for His adherents consisted not of 
 a few, but of many, since it is said; " He misled Israel." 
 
 ' Horae Hebraicae ct Talmudicae, in loo. 
 
 » See Kohut's Aruch, Vienna, 1891, s.v. mp (durchlochern). [A. W. S.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 53 
 
 Finally, that Jesus was a seducer of the people is further 
 expressed by the title Balaam, under which in several passages 
 we are to understand Jesus. Balaam (i. e. devourer of the 
 people', destroyer of the people), besides that he pronounced, 
 unwillingly indeed, and compelled by the hand of the Lord, the 
 loftiest divine blessings upon the people of Israel, has inherited 
 a name through his attempt to lead Israel astray to take part in 
 impure idolatry. He has therefore received in the Targuras^ the 
 permanent nickname raslishia, and passes accoixUngly for the 
 type of those impious persons, whose aim is, spiritually or physi- 
 cally to destroy Israel as a people. Also in a physical sense, we 
 say, the typical Balaam performs his part as a destroyer of 
 the people ; for so says the Targumist on 1 Chron. i. 43 : 
 " Balaam, the son of Beor, the offender, that is, Laban the 
 Syrian^, who joined himself with the sons of Esau and wished 
 to destroy Jacob and his children." But above all it is the 
 spiritual destruction of Israel, which is expressed by the symbolic 
 Balaam, and as such a spiritual destroyer of Israel, Jesus came to 
 receive the name Balaam. He made a split in the synagogue, 
 which continues to this hour, and according to the Jewish con- 
 ception is the greatest destroyer of the people, wlio has ever 
 risen up in the midst of Israel ; to which we may add further 
 the comparison with Balaam as a magician. For according to 
 the Talmudic conception (Sanhedriii, 105 a) Balaam was also a 
 magician of the most loathsome kind, whose doom in hell, ac- 
 cording to Gitiin, 57 a', is in accordance with his deserts. Jesus 
 is the Balaam par excellence, the figure who is the historical 
 fulfilment of the typical Balaam of the Old Covenant. 
 
 But it is now necessary to shew in detail that there are 
 really in the Talmud passages in which Balaam denotes Jesus. 
 We commence with Mishnah of Sanltedrin, x. 2''; "Three kings 
 
 ■ Dyyba. 
 
 ' And iu Pirke Avotli, v. HI. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ■* Syria = Aram. See Numb, xxiii. 7. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ■" See p. 17*, XXI (a). 
 
 5 See p. 12*, xn (a). 
 
54 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 and four private persons have no portion in the world to 
 come. Three kings, namely Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. 
 R. Jehudah says : ' Manasseh lias a portion therein, for it is said 
 (2 Chron. xxxiii. 13), And he prayed unto him; and he was 
 intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him 
 again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.' It was objected to him, 
 He brought him again into his kingdom, but He did not bring 
 him again into the life of the future world. Four private persons, 
 namely Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi." This passage 
 belongs to the celebrated section, named after its opening word 
 Clhdek\ which, having first remarked that all Israel has a share in 
 the future life, specifies the exceptions. Under the head of 
 these exceptions stand those now adduced. First, three kings. 
 The cardinal sin common to all three, and so the common cause 
 of their exclusion from the world to come, consists in this, that 
 they made the children of Israel to sin by leading them astray 
 into terrible idolatry, into a total declension from the God of 
 Israel. The immediate annexing of the four private persons 
 arouses the conjecture, before one reads their names, that in 
 their case also the matter has to do with the like sin. And in- 
 deed we expect at the head of all the name of Jesus, as the one 
 who surpassed the three kings in the way of seduction, whom 
 no one whatever approaches in this sin. We expect Jesus to be 
 mentioned as the first among the four private persons, who 
 forfeit the world to come ; for we are told in Gittin, 57 a, (see 
 the third main division of our work) that He has in a very 
 special manner to endure the pains of hell. But our expectation 
 is, at least apparently, frustrated ; we do not find the name of 
 Jesus. If we were disposed to say, that some reason or other, 
 now no longer discoverable, presented itself for passing over 
 Jesus, not only would this be an improbable way out of the 
 difficulty (for in other respects Jesus is not a person, who is to 
 be passed over in silence; and in particular, the passage from 
 Gittin convincingly refutes this way of escape), but we are 
 straightway prepared for Jesus by the commencement of the 
 
 ' Part, share. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 55 
 
 chapter in Cfielek, which quite unmistakably designates the 
 Christians, as such persons as have no part in the world to 
 come. The words are these : " R. Akiba says ; He also has no 
 part in the world to corae, who reads foreign books, and who 
 whispers over a wound and says: 'I -svill lay upon thee no sick- 
 ness, which I have laid upon Egypt, for I am the Lord, thy 
 physician.'" Among the foreign, i.e. not accepted, books are, 
 according to the Gemara upon this passage (fol. 100 b), specially 
 to be understood Siphre Minin, the books of the Judaeo-Chris- 
 tians', and the words " who whispers over a wound" refer to the 
 miraculous cures of the Christians. How amazed we are there- 
 fore, at the very place where we expect to find a mention of 
 Jesus, to find the name of the non-Israelite Balaam, while yet 
 the chapter is dealing solely with Israel, since all non-Jews 
 according to the view of many Rabbis are as such excluded from 
 a portion in the world to come^. It cannot be pleaded that in 
 this chapter there are also non-Jews mentioned besides, namely, 
 the men of pre-Mosaic times. For those after all do not 
 stand outside the Jewish line, but are reckoned as ancestors 
 of Israel. No; inasmuch as the Edomite Doeg must at least 
 in a certain sense be numbered among the Israelites, Balaam 
 is in fact the sole non-Jew, who is introduced among the 
 Israelites failing to attain to the world to come, and that too in 
 the first place ! Thus then the following conclusion necessarily 
 presents itself. Since Jesus is not mentioned, and yet cannot be 
 absent; since the Balaam of history, as being a non-Israelite, 
 cannot be intended, so by Balaam we are to understand the 
 symbolic Israelitish Balaam ; since in connexion with the three 
 kings who seduce to idolatry and declension, there can be in- 
 tended only such a Balaam, as incurred the guilt of a like sin 
 with those, and since in this sense Jesus was to the fullest 
 extent Balaam ; therefore Balaam here is none other than Jesus, 
 who misled and seduced Israel and matle it to sin. This con- 
 
 ' But see note on p. 32. 
 
 2 Cp. Weber, System der altsymgogaleii paliist. Theolopie, p. 372. 
 
.56 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 elusion is confirmed by the three following names, Doeg, Ahi- 
 thophel, and Gehazi. If the three kings and the first of the 
 private persons, namely Balaam-Jesus, were all in like manner 
 seducers of Israel in the direction of idolatry and declension, 
 and for this and no other cause are declared to lack a share 
 in the life to come, we should accordingly expect that the case 
 would be in no respect different with the three sinners who now 
 follow. But we are astonished to find that not only is this not 
 the case, but that simply Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi, and just 
 these three, are named, as if in Tsraelitish history among those 
 who did not lead Israel away to declension, but sinned otherwise, 
 there could not be found more, and more grievous, offenders. 
 Also the converse question presents itself; If among the four 
 private pereons there are found three, who have committed 
 another sin than that of seduction, how is it to be explained that 
 this was not also the rule followed in the case of the kings t 
 Tlius It is abundantly clear that in this proposition relating to 
 the sole persons not having a part in the world to come, it is 
 entirely the sin of the seduction of Israel to idolati-y and 
 declension which has furnished the standard. Therefore we may 
 not add the three names Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi, just as 
 they there stand, to the list of those sole persons, but, they 
 must, even as Balaam, be fictitious names of such as, like him 
 and the three kings, seduced Israel to idolatry and declension. 
 That no Old Testament characters are meant by them, is clear ; for 
 these are never designated in the Talmud under fictitious names ; 
 and in fact there are found in the Old Testament only those 
 three kings and Balaam besides as persons with regard to whom 
 the strong consciousness is cherished, that they sinned in a terrible 
 way by their seduction. On the other hand, we are referred to 
 New Testament characters as well by the fact tiiat Balaam, i. e. 
 Jesus, heads the list of the four who are not kings, as also by the 
 hesitation, which accords with the nature of the case, to designate 
 them by their right names, a reluctance which was specially 
 strong, while the war against Jesus was hotly carried on, e.g. in 
 the time of Akiba, in which for Jesus was substituted Ben 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 57 
 
 Stada, or Ben Pandera or P'lonV, or, as we may now add, 
 BiL'am fia-raslta ('Balaam the wicked'). Now eminent Christians 
 have believed that it is most obvious, along with Gust. Riisch", 
 
 Jo ' 
 
 to think of the three Apostles, Peter, James, and John, of whom 
 St Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 9) that they are 
 reputed to be pillars of the church. Moreover, the credit, 
 although iu a very perverse way, of having given the first 
 impulse towards understanding Ahithophel as a Christian person- 
 age, is due to an Israelite, viz. J. E. Lowy". 
 
 It might surprise us that in the passage, Sank. 106 b (end)*, 
 Gehazi, the third of those said above to be excluded from a share 
 in the future world, is absent (see below). But in reality this 
 absence furnishes evidence for the weighty chara<;ter of our 
 assumption that under Gehazi is to be understood one of the 
 chief apostles. For the Geraara, Sanliedrin, 107 b, says of him : 
 " Elisha went to Damascus — for what did he go 1 R. Jochanan 
 has said, that he went for the conversion of Gehazi. But he 
 was not converted. Elisha said to him : Be converted ! He 
 answered him : Is it thus that I am converted by thee ? 
 From him that sinneth and maketh the people to sin the possi- 
 bility of repeutance is taken away.'' There is certainly none of 
 our readers who is not at once struck by the words, with which 
 Gehazi here expresses his inability to repent. For precisely the 
 same words were spoken above (p. 41) by Jesus to His teacher 
 Joshua ben P'rachya. This circumstance of itself shews that 
 here the historical Gehazi changes to the part of the symbolical, 
 and on the other hand the severance of our Gehazi from the two 
 others, Doeg and Ahithophel, utterly surprising, as far as the 
 history is concerned, now has a clear light thrown upon it. For 
 it is a matter of history, and may quite easily have come to the 
 ears of the Jews, that Doeg (Peter) and Ahithophel (James) 
 
 1 = Somebody. See Levy, Neuhebr. Worterhuch, iv. 54. 
 
 ^ Theol. Studieu u. Kritiken, 1878, pp. 516—521. 
 
 ^ Kritisch-talmudischcs Lexikon, i. Vienna, 1883, Art. Ahitlwpliel. 
 
 » See p. 12*, xti (d). 
 
58 JESUS CHUIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 were prematurely' deprived by violence of their lives. In the 
 same way it is a matter of history that Gehazi (John) was not 
 executed, but lived on, namely, according to the Jewish view, in 
 his obstinacy and inability to be converted. 
 
 After we have thus obtained from the Mishnah of Sam- 
 li^drin, x. the evidence for the name Balajim being used as a 
 designation of Jesus, it is not difficult for us in the following 
 Balaam-passage also to recognise a Jesus-passage, which on its 
 part again serves to throw light on Sanhedrin, x. 2. In Aboth, 
 V. 19°, the disciples of "Balaam the wicked" are named in oppo- 
 sition to the disciples of our father Abraham, and the following 
 distinction is offered between the two; "The disciples of our 
 father Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the world to come, 
 as it is written (Prov. Wii. 21), 'That I may cause those that love 
 me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries :' 
 the disciples of Balaam the impious inherit Gehenna, and go 
 down into the pit of destruction, as it is written (Ps. Iv. 24): 
 ' But thou, O God, shalt bring them down into the pit of 
 destruction : bloodthu-sty and deceitful men shall not live out 
 half their days.'" This passage deals, as we see, with the 
 division of the Jews into two halves, and with the absolute 
 opposition of the two halves, parting into heaven and hell. 
 Abraham's disciples, or, as the Jews^ proudly call themselves, 
 Abraham's children, are the pious, who after death come into 
 Abraham's bosom*, i. e. take up their abode in the genial presence 
 of their blessed progenitor, who dwells in Paradise. Balaam's 
 disciples on the other hand are the impious, who go to hell into 
 endless pain. Who is Balaam in this passage? That the historical 
 Balaam is thought of, is unlikely, even if we were only consider- 
 ing this passage in itself. Or might we venture to take Jesus for 
 
 ' This adverb applies in strictness to the latter only, St Peter's death 
 occurring not earlier than a.d. 66 — 68. See Smith's Diet, of Bible, Art. 
 Peter. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ^ See p. 12*, XII (b). 
 
 * Cp. John viii. 
 
 * Luke xvi. 22. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 59 
 
 one of the disciples of Balaam, and say that He is included among 
 these? This would mean, to moderate the burning hatred felt 
 against Jesus so as to place him on a level with all other repro- 
 bates. If we take cognizance further of the fact that in iS'a?i- 
 hedrin, x. 2, Balaam (i. e. Jesus), when taken strictly, is specified 
 as the only one of the four private persons who go bereft of the 
 future life (for the three others represent only His disciples), it 
 becomes quite clear that in the same way in chap. v. of the 
 Treatise Aboth, Balaam, the father and master of those who go 
 astray, is none other than Jesus. We may bear in mind also 
 the Old Testament passage referring to the deceitful men who 
 do not live out half their days. And this introduces us to 
 another Balaam-passage. 
 
 In Sanhedrin, 106 b ', we read " A Jewish Christian (Min^) 
 said to R. Chanina: Hast thou by any chance ascertained, 
 what age Balaam was 1 He answered : There is nothing written 
 concerning it. But since it is said, ' Bloodthirsty and deceitful 
 men shall not live out half their days,' he was either 33 or 34 
 years old. The Jewish Christian answered. Thou hast spoken 
 well ; for I have myself seen a chronicle of Balaam, in which it 
 is said : 'J'hirty-three years old was Balaam the lame man, when 
 the robber Phinehas slew him." Further we take another 
 passage from Sanliedrin, 106 b, (end)" " R. Jochanan said: 
 Doeg and Ahithophel lived not half their days. Such too is 
 the tenor of a Boraitha: Bloodthirsty and deceitful men shall 
 not live out half their days. All the years of Doeg were not 
 more than thirty-four, and of Ahithophel not more than thirty- 
 three." Further if we admit that the short lifetime of Balaam, 
 Doeg, and Ahithophel was invented to the end that they might 
 be represented as reprobates, still the almost absolute identity of 
 the figures strikes us. This points on the one side to that combi- 
 nation, in which the names stand side by side in the Mishnah of 
 San/iedrin, x., and now on the other side the number thirty-three . 
 (thirty-four) confirms the view that there, as here, under Balaam 
 
 1 See p. 12*, XII (c). ' But see note on p. 32. 
 
 ■> See p. 12", XII (d). 
 
60 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 is to be understood Jesus. For it is well-known with regard to 
 Jesus that He lived thirty-three to thirty-four years (cp. Luke 
 iii. 23), an abbreviation of the duration of life, which, we may 
 easily perceive, must have excited the Jews to a comment of the 
 above-mentioned kind. After His model then Doeg and Ahi- 
 thophel have had allotted to them a like duration of life, especially 
 since it was known of them that they ', like Jesus, did not in fact 
 fill up the measure of their days, but like Him were forcibly 
 removed from life before their time. The way in which this 
 forcible removal is related is now the other feature of the story, 
 which points to Jesus. A "chronicle of Balaam,'' which the 
 Christian knew and which R. Chanina had not read, was simply 
 the New Testament. That Phinehas cannot have been the son 
 of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, mentioned in Numb. xxv. 2 ff., 
 who at Moses' command led an army against the Midianites, 
 and slew their kings together with Balaam with the sword, is 
 clear from the epithet Lista'a', "the robber." In reality the 
 Christian said something of this kind to R. Chanina : Jesus was 
 thirty-three years of age, when Pontius Pilate slew him. Pontius 
 Pilate — this man, as the Targum Sheni on the Book of Esther 
 shews, has never been forgotten by the Jews. Had he then, he 
 who even apart from this dealt out only evil against the Jews', 
 he, who belonged to the hated Roman race, — had he almost 
 rescued from the Jews their prey, Jesus ! Is it not natural that 
 the Jewish passion for caricature, especially where fictitious 
 names (Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, Gehazi) had been already 
 employed, should have set itself to work upon this name also? 
 Lista'a cannot with Rashi be explained General [Sar tzaba), 
 but is a mutilated form of P'lista'a'. Since Jesus was indicated 
 
 1 I have been unable to find any tradition outside the Tahuud witli regard 
 to the death of Doeg. [A. W. S.] He is mentioned (commonly together with 
 Ahithophel) in the following passages, Sank. 69 b, 93 b, 105. Bcr. 17 b (beg.), 
 Chag. 15 b, Jeb. 77 a (beg.), Sota 21 a, Zeb. 54 b. [H. L. S.] 
 
 •^ =X7;irTijs. ■' Cp. Jost, Geschichte <les JitdeiUhums, i. 'S'i'6. 
 
 ■" Levy, Neuhebr. WiJrterb. ii. 503 ; cp. also Perles, Ziir nibbudscheii Spiach- 
 mid Sayenkunde, 1873, p. 16. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 61 
 
 by " Balaam " (see Numb. xxxi. 6 — 8), it was natural to call him 
 who caused the punishment of death to be carried out upon 
 Him, Phinehas, and indeed the more so, as this name had to 
 some extent a similar sound to Pontius. Lastly, as regards the 
 epithet, "the lame man," by which Balaam in our passage is 
 designated. Levy (l. 236) says thus, that according to Jewisli 
 tradition ' Jesus became lame, inasmuch as he had been forcibly 
 deprived of a charm, in consequence of which he had fallen 
 down from a height.' But this tradition was probably first 
 devised in connexion with the epithet " the lame man," which it 
 was invented to explain. The occasion for the term of contempt 
 " the lame man " we find in the history of the sufferings of 
 Jesus, whether it be in His breaking down under the load of the 
 Cross (" He who helped the palsied to walk has become lame, 
 and cannot raise himself to his feet!"), or whether it be in the 
 piercing of His feet when they were nailed to the Cross. 
 
 Lastly, we adduce further a Balaam-passage which, in a very 
 special way, renders it manifest, how much the historical Balaam 
 was viewed with a side reference to the symbolic Balaam, Jesus. 
 In Sanliedrin, 106 a", it is said with reference to Numb. xxiv. 23^, 
 which gives a remark of Balaam : Resh Lakish has said ; " Woe 
 to him who recalls himself to life by the name of God." This 
 sense, or rather perversion, of the words of Balaam points to 
 Jesus too obviously for a proof to be needed. For of whom 
 would it ever have been said, that he had recalled himself to 
 life ? Rashi explains, " Balaam, who recalled himself to life by 
 the name of God, made himself thereby to be God." Rashi, of 
 course, did not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, but he means 
 that it would be a piece of madness, if a man should make him- 
 self out to be God, and support this by the doctrine proclaimed 
 by his adherents, that he had raised himself from the dead by 
 means of the name of God. In Midrash Tanchuma, Parasha 
 Mattoth^, it is related that Balaam along with the kings of Midian 
 
 • See p. 13*, XII (e). 
 
 2 "Alas, who shall live when God doeth this?" [A. W. S.] 
 
 ' Ed. Mantua, 15G3, fol. 91c ; not in the part published by Buber. 
 
62 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 flew through the air, but was precipitated to the ground by the 
 name of God on the forehead-plate of the high priest. There 
 may be an allusion to this in Sanhedrin, 106 a. In that case it is 
 to be rendered : " Woe to him who seeks to preserve his life by 
 the name of God, applied with magical arts.'' With this Balaam- 
 passage, with which the Palestinian Taanith 65 (see above, p. 50) 
 is to be compared, we close our proof that Jesus is called Balaam, 
 a name which combines the imputations brought against Jesus in 
 the Talmud, Sanliedrin, 43 a, namely sorcery and the seduction of 
 Israel to idolatry and declension. 
 
 After we have thus learned to know the judgment of the 
 Talmud as to Jesus' teaching, which amounted to this, that He 
 was charged with folly, idolatry, and seduction of the people, we 
 turn now to the two sentences which are handed down in the 
 Talmud expressly as sayings of Jesus. 
 
 Aboda zara, 16b, 17a': The Rabbis have handed down the 
 following: When R. Eliezer" was about to be imprisoned on 
 account of heresy [^ilinuth, a leaning towards the forbidden 
 Christian religion], he was brought to the [Roman] court of 
 justice to be tried. The judge said to him : Does a man of mature 
 years like thee busy himself with such nullities ? Ehezer replied ; 
 The Judge is just towards me. The judge thought that Eliezer 
 was speaking of him ; but he thought upon his Father in heaven. 
 Then spake the judge: Since I believe thee', thou art acquitted*. 
 Now when Eliezer came home, his disciples presented themselves 
 to console him, but he admitted no consolation. Then R. Akiba 
 
 1 See p. I3», XIII (a). 
 
 2 Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, the famous pupil of Jochanan ben Zakkai, and 
 teacher of Akiba. He founded a school at Lod ( =Lydda, cp. 1 Chr. viii. 12 ; 
 Acta ix. 32), later called Diospolis, near Joppa. Lod was also a very important 
 Jewish tribunal. See p. -213, and for interesting details see Neubauer, Glog. 
 du Talmud, pp. 76 ff. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ' Rather, Since I am held by thee to be just. [G. D.] 
 
 " Or, more fully, I swear to thee that thou etc. However, the sense of 
 the expression rendered " I swear to thee " is disputed. Perhaps DIDn is the 
 Greek det/ia, fear, and refers to his god (for the expression cp. Gen. xxxi, 42, 
 53), or his tutelary deity. [A. W. S.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 63 
 
 said to him : Permit me to tell thee something of what thou liast 
 taught me. He answered : Say on. Then said R. Akiba : Per- 
 chance thou hast once given ear to a heresy, which pleased thee ; 
 on account of which thou wast now about to be imprisoned for 
 heresy. Eliezer replied : Akiba, thou remindest me. I was once 
 walking in the upper street of Sepphoris ' ; there I met with one 
 of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene, by name Jacob of K'phar 
 S'khanya ' who said to me : It is found iti your law (Deut. xxiii. 
 19^) "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore. ..into the house 
 of... thy God." May a retiring place for the high-priest be made 
 out of such gifts'! I knew not what to answer him to this. 
 Then he said to me : Thus Jesus of Nazareth taught me : " Of 
 the hire of an harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire 
 of an harlot shall they return" (Mic. i. 7). From oiFal it has 
 come ; to the place of offal shall it go. This explanation pleased 
 me, and on this account have I b.een impeached for heresy, because 
 I transgressed the Scripture : " Remove thy way far from her " 
 (Prov. V. 8), from her, i.e. from heresy. 
 
 At the first reading it may be doubted whether a saying of 
 Jesus can be really presented here, for we are accustomed to see 
 Jesus come forward in word or deed only in these significant 
 occasions, which the Evangelists have selected and recorded out 
 of the immeasurably rich treasure of His sayings and acts. But 
 Jesus surely often had occasion also to answer unimportant 
 questions of His disciples or of the Pharisees. Accordingly we 
 have not to ask, whether a saying of Jesus furnished us in the 
 Talmud or elsewhere is equally important with those laid up in the 
 sacred records, but whether it is unworthy of Jesus or not. And 
 from this point of view there is nothing to be said against the 
 alleged originality of our saying. 
 
 Further, it were to be desired that the Talmud had informed 
 us, by whom Jesus had been asked the question, whether by a 
 
 1 A city in the middle of lower Galilee. See Neubauer, pp. 191—195. 
 [A. W. S.] 
 
 2 Sikhnin. See Neubauer, pp. 234—5. [A. W. S.] 
 
 3 A.V. and E.V. 18. [A. W. S.] 
 
64 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 disciple or a Pharisee ; likewise, whether the question was put to 
 Jesus on the occasion of a particular incident, or, as often occurs in 
 the Talmud, with reference to a fictitious case. The words " Thus 
 Jesus taught me " appear indeed to suggest that the questioner 
 was no other than the aforesaid Jacob of K'phar S'khanya. But 
 in the first place it is in no way necessary to press this expression ; 
 for what Jesus taught was said to each of those present; nay, 
 even absent persons, and even those who lived later, might intro- 
 duce an expression of Jesus, which they had appropriated to them- 
 selves, with the words "Thus Jesus teaches me." Then as regards 
 the story before us, it is almost impossible that Jacob of K'phar 
 S'khanya had himself asked Jesus and received the answer from 
 Him ; for between the death of R. Eliezer, with whom Jacob 
 here speaks, and the death of Jesus there lie quite eighty years. 
 It may be that the Talmud, which (see above, pp. 22, 37) wrongly 
 places Jesus in the time of Eliezer and Akiba, has the notion, 
 that Jacob had heard the expression direct from the mouth of 
 Jesus. But this conception is not correct ; Jacob had not re- 
 ceived the expression otherwise than through tradition. — Then 
 as concerns the other point, whether the question was put to 
 Jesus with reference to an occasion furnished by actual circum- 
 stances, or whether it dealt with a purely imaginary case, no 
 definite answer can be given. The former seems to us the more 
 likely ; it was not till the Talniudic period, in which Temple, 
 sacrifices, and the rest were no longer in existence, that they 
 began to discuss fictitious cases. 
 
 The question therefore was, whether the price of a courtesan, 
 which was placed at the disposal of the high-priest for the fitting 
 up of a retiring place to the chamber, where the high-priest had 
 to pass the last week before the Day of Atonement (see Mishnah 
 of JoTua i. 1), might be appropriated thereto, or whether the 
 precept of Deut. xxiii. 18 is here to be regarded; in other words, 
 whether that retiring place, which confessedly belonged to the 
 Temple-buildings, is holy : a question, which seems to us almost 
 ridiculously trivial, but was by no means such for the Jews of 
 that day. Therefore Jesus also does not simply repel the ques- 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 65 
 
 tioner with words of rebuke, but gives him a complete answer, 
 " How can the retiring place, although belonging to the Temple , 
 be holy? It is an unclean place. Thus the precept, Deut. 
 xxiii. 18, does not stand in the way. The application of hire 
 derived from an impure source to the erection of the retiring 
 place is not only permitted, but altogether suitable. It comes 
 from uncleanness. Let it then go to the place of uncleanness, in 
 accordance with the words of the prophet Micah (i. 7)." 
 
 Jesus' manner of grasping the principle of a question, and 
 answering it more completely than the questioner intended, shews 
 itself also in this saying. It would indeed have obviously satis- 
 fied the questioner, if he had been referred by Jesus to Deut. xxiii. 
 12 — 14, from which passage it appears clearly enough that a 
 retiring place has nothing to do with holiness, but brings upon 
 itself the reverse character. But Jesus, presupposing, it would 
 appear, this passage as known, gives the questioner this further 
 instruction, namely, that such hire is adapted in a singularly 
 suitable way for the fitting up of a retiring place : From oftal to 
 offal. And this teaching He supports by an Old Testament 
 prophecy, whose figurative expression He employs in the literal 
 sense : From the hire of a courtesan the money is obtained ; it 
 shall go back to the hire of a courtesan, i.e. it shall be subjected 
 to the fate, which is appropriate for such polluted money. At 
 the bottom of this prophecy there lies the principle of divine 
 retribution, and this principle in its turn rests upon the divine 
 maxim, that things which belong to each other shall come 
 together, just as on the other hand it is a divine maxim, 
 that things which do not belong to one another should remain 
 severed from one another, and not be mingled together (cp. 
 especially Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 5); for God is a God of 
 order. 
 
 Jacob of K'phar S'khanya was manifestly seeking to bring R. 
 Eliezer nearer to Christianity, and opened the conversation at a 
 point where, as he was persuaded, he must elicit a concession from 
 the Rabbi. Accordingly he laid himself out in the first place to 
 prove to R. Eliezer that Jesus was eminently learned in the Law. 
 S. 5 
 
66 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 And— he succeeded : Eliezer was not only himself pleased ' with 
 the decision of Jesus, but actually extended it further. When 
 Eliezer after the expiration of a long time was arraigned for 
 heresy and could discover no cause for it, R. Akiba reminded hnn 
 of that day on which he had spoken with Jacob of K'phar 
 S'khanya, and had accepted the saying of Jesus imparted by him. 
 Hence it is seen that that was the sole occasion that R. Eliezer 
 had drawn a little nearer to the teaching of Jesus. And what 
 issues had this one occasion had for him ! It had called forth a 
 storm which had prevented him from occupying himself further 
 with Jesus' teaching, so that the little seed scattered by Jacob 
 was blighted in the germ. 
 
 To undei-stand the excitement, which Eliezer's approval of a 
 saying of Jesus evoked, it is by no means necessary to examine 
 wherein exactly the heresy of the saying lay. That it originated 
 from Jesus was ground enough to condemn it as heretical. What 
 good thing can come from Jesus? — such was the purport of an 
 Akiba's \-iews — even that which is good, only appears so, and has 
 a corrupting influence, because behind it there lies an apostate 
 mind. Jewish fanaticism asked not then, and asks not even at 
 the present day : Is what is said true or false ? but : Who has 
 said it ? and sentence is pronounced accordingly. 
 
 The other saying of Jesus handed down by the Talmud we 
 find in Sh<ibhath 116 a and b' : Imma Shalom, the wife of R. 
 Eliezer and sister of Rabban' Gamaliel [II] had a philosopher as 
 a neighbour, who had the reputation of taking no bribe. They 
 wished to render him ridiculous. Imma accordingly brought 
 him a golden candlestick, presented herself before him, and said : 
 'I should like to have a share in the property of my family'*. 
 
 1 Cp. Lute XX. 39. 
 
 2 See p. 14*, XIV. 
 
 ^ On the somewhat difficult question, to whom the title Babban belonged, 
 I may be permitted to refer to A Translation of the Treatise Gliagigah, etc., 
 Cambridge, 1891, pp. 160, 151, with the authorities there mentioned. [A. W. S.] 
 
 * Literally, " house of women." She means, the property belonging to 
 her own side of the house, as a daughter of Simeon ben Gamaliel I., as 
 opposed to that which was in the possession of her husband's family. [G. D.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 67 
 
 The philosopher answered her: 'Then have thy share!' But 
 Gamaliel said to him : ' We have the law : Where there is a son, 
 the daughter shall inherit naught.' The philosopher said : ' Since 
 the day, when ye were driven out of your country, the Law of 
 Moses is repealed and there is given the Gospel, in which it is 
 said: Son and daughter shall inherit together.' On the next 
 day Gamaliel brought the philosopher a Libyan ass. Then the 
 philosopher said to them: 'I have looked at the end of the 
 Gospel ; for it says : I, the Gospel, am not come to do away with 
 the Law of Moses, but to add to the Law of Moses am I come. It 
 is written in the Law of Moses: Where there is a son, the 
 daughter shall not inherit.' Then Imma said to him : ' Neverthe- 
 less may thy light shine like the candlestick.' But Rabban 
 Gamaliel said : ' The ass is come and has overturned the candle- 
 stick.' 
 
 What object these two, Imma and her brother Gamaliel, had, 
 when they addressed themselves to render the " philosopher " 
 ridiculous (by whom we are to understa,nd, according to Rashi, 
 a Jewish Christian, according to Levy ', a Christian judge) is not 
 told us. But if we observe how much importance they attached 
 to it, inasmuch as they expended no small sum, and if we 
 remember that R. Eliezer, the husband of Imma, and brother- 
 in-law of Gamaliel, was held to be favourably disposed to 
 Christians, we shall scarcely go wrong in assuming that this 
 action on the part of the two was not in the main to turn the 
 Christian into ridicule for its own sake, but in order to rend 
 from him the mask of Christian virtue, and undoubtedly too 
 with a regard to Eliezer. Accordingly Imma sent to the " philo- 
 sopher " who lived in her neighbourhood a golden candlestick, to 
 influence him in her favour, and then presented herself with her 
 brother before him. The philosopher on account of the golden 
 candlestick decides forthwith in accordance with Imma's desires. 
 To Gamaliel's protest he objects : " From the time that the Jewish 
 nation has been without a country, the Law of Moses is repealed, 
 and replaced by the Gospel, which says that son and daughter 
 
 ' Neuhehr. Worterb. i. 46 b. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 inherit alike." On the following day Imma and Gamaliel pre- 
 sented themselves once more before the Christian, after Gamaliel 
 had previously sent him a Libyan ass. Now the Christian, 
 altered in his views by the moi-e valuable present, decides as 
 follows : " I have looked at the end of the Gospel, where it says : 
 I am not come to do away with the Law of Moses, but to add to 
 the Law of Moses am I come. Accordingly the Gospel adheres 
 to that which the Law of Moses says : Where there is a son, the 
 daughter does not inherit." Thereupon Imma says, alluding to 
 her candlestick : " May thy light however shine like the candle- 
 stick ! " But Gamaliel exclaims : " I have prevailed. My ass has 
 overturned thy candlestick." And thus the Christian was proved 
 in the most provoking manner to be accessible to bribery. 
 
 The first sentence adduced by the "philosopher" is found 
 nowhere in the New Testament. It was certainly never spoken 
 by Jesus, Who Himself maintained the commandments of Moses, 
 and only relieved them of Eabbinic accretions and distortions. 
 "The new,'' says Delitzsch^, "was not to bring itself into accept- 
 ance by a sudden and forcible breaking away from the old, but 
 by gradually working itself clear from it. And since we may 
 not assume that the Lord during His sojourn here below sub- 
 jected Himself to the Mosaic Law only in appearance, or only so 
 far as it was a calculated means by which He should attain to an 
 end lying beyond it, so we cannot avoid the conclusion that when 
 He used that expression ' I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil- ', 
 in His consciousness this spiritual fulfilment of the Law did not 
 yet admit of doing away with the observance of the ceremonial 
 Law. It was not till He died that He died to the Law as 
 restricted to the nation, and it was not till He rose again from 
 the dead that He was manifest as the End of 'the Law." Al- 
 though Jesus thus under no circumstances uttered the saying 
 " Son and daughter inherit together," yet this saying had from 
 apostolic times an acceptance with Christians, and it might very 
 
 ' Saat auf Hoffnung, 1888, p. 9. 
 " Matt. V. 17, 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 69 
 
 well be quoted as a saying of the Gospel, if under the word 
 Gospel there were understood in the wider sense the religion of 
 the New Covenant, which has stripped off everything Jewish in 
 the national sense, and has made love the standard of all action. 
 There is a Gospel saying — so it might be put — that the daughter 
 should also be given a share in the patrimony. But that under 
 the word Gospel, to which this saying belonged, the "philoso- 
 pher'' desired should be understood, not the religion of the New 
 Testament generally, but a book, which bore the title " Gospel," 
 indisputably follows from his statement the next day that he had 
 looked at the end of the Gospel (namely, of that, from which he 
 had taken the first quoted saying), and there had found a saying 
 of another import. And since this latter saying " I am not come 
 etc." is plainly a saying taken from Christ's Sermon on the Mount 
 (Matt. V. 17), the "philosopher" unquestionably wished the 
 former too to be regarded as a saying of Jesus. He who was 
 dazzled by Imma's golden candlestick was able the more easily to 
 make the two Jews believe the utterance of Jesus, albeit histori- 
 cally false and in itself impossible, inasmuch as they to all appear- 
 ance did not themselves possess the Gospel and also had no desire 
 to read it. There is no need of a serious investigation, how the 
 " philosopher " came to assert that he had read the second saying 
 at the end of the Gospel. Since he lied in regard to the first 
 saying, so it was also a lie that he had read the other saying in a 
 later passage, or indeed at the end of the Gospel. It is quite a 
 question, whether he possessed a text of the Gospels. For let us 
 proceed to compare the wording in the Talnmd with that in the 
 Gospel. We have absolutely no cause for believing that the 
 Talmud does not transmit the sentence exactly as the " philoso- 
 pher " quoted it. Since then the variation from the wording in 
 the Gospel cannot be referred to an intentional alteration, we 
 must assume that the "philosopher" simply did not know the 
 sentence in any other form. He had not borrowed it from a text 
 of the Gospels, but had drawn it from his defective memory. 
 And so in this perverted form the sentence has passed over into 
 the Talmud, whereupon the latter, after its fashion, has not been 
 
70 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 able to deny itself the slight alteration of adding to the " I " (i. e. 
 Jesus) the word in apposition, namely, ' Avon-Gillayon, which 
 word, a parody on Evcmgelium, means " sin-register or writing 
 (cp. p. 13); so that now under the "I" the Gospel is to be 
 understood in opposition to the Law. 
 
 How far then^this we have still to ask at the close — do the 
 two sentences adduced by the " philosopher " supply to the Jew of 
 the Talmud an explanation of the general charge of folly and 
 seduction ? The one sentence — never spoken by Jesus — asserts 
 that He had set aside a commandment of Moses ; the other that 
 He had taken nothing from the Law, but rather had added to 
 it. Both sentences severally support the charge that Jesus was 
 an apostate and a seducer to the renouncing of God, and indeed, 
 so far as He uttered both conjointly, a deceiver. If they joined 
 with this the idea, that Jesus in the consciousness of His being the 
 Son of God, on account of which He was taken for a fool, pro- 
 nounced the sentence that He was come to add to the Law of 
 Moses, in this sentence was found the confirmation of His folly. 
 
 At the close of this discussion we merely reiterate the fact, 
 which is indeed eagerly combated by the Jews, that numerous 
 sentences, which in the Talmud are placed specifically in the 
 mouth of Jewish authorities, might with greater correctness be 
 ascribed to Jesus or to the Apostles. The proof of this lies 
 beyond the limits of our task, which aims at collecting and illus- 
 trating the evident testimony of the Talmud with regard to 
 Jesus '. 
 
 ' It may be permitted however to adduce two judgments of prominent 
 Christian scholars which bear upon this subject. 1. Franz Delitzsch in his 
 work, Was D. August Woliling beschworen hat und beschworen will (Leipzig, 
 1883), p. 11, remarks: "I believe that I can shew by convincing historical 
 proofs, that the preaching of Jesus and of primitive Christianity in its 
 original Jewish form has been a power, through the working of which 
 a stream of brightness as it were has diffused itself through Talmudio 
 literature. No doubt this shews itself more in the structure of the liturgy 
 and in the more unfettered course of thought in the Haggada than in the 
 legal teaching of Halacha, dependent as this was on certain traditional 
 principles and rules of interpretation." 2. Heiurich Thiersch in his book, 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 71 
 
 D. Jesus' disciples. In one passage of the Talmud the 
 disciples {Talmidini) of Jesus are expressly spoken of. What 
 is found related of these disciples indeed, namely, their cruci- 
 fixion, as well as the circumstance that this narrative is immedi- 
 ately connected with the account of the Crucifixion of Jesus, are 
 a suflScient security that the name of disciple was not meant in 
 the remotest degree to redound to those persons' honour. They 
 were disciples, but disciples of whom 1 Of a man, whose end was 
 crucifixion. They were disciples, and partook of what honour? 
 That of crucifixion, like their Master. What a disgrace under such 
 circumstances to be designated by the name "disciple." The story 
 then of the rabble of disciples — such is the notion of the Talmud 
 — is worded as follows, Sankedrin 43 a '. There is a tradition : 
 Jesus had five disciples : Mathai (Matthew), Nakkai, Netzer, 
 
 Ueber den christlicheii Staat (Basel, 1875), p. 236 f., makes the following 
 remark : " In reference to swearing Christ also found degeneration and 
 abuses among the Jews. Asseverations by oath were usual in ordinary life, 
 as is indicated in Matt. v. 33 — 87, and Jam. v. 12. Untruthfulness in 
 speech was widespread ; and it could not be said of many, as the Lord said 
 of Nathanael : ' Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile ! ' ( Joh. i. 47) . 
 At the same time the -Jewish people still had a reverence and awe for the name 
 of God. Thus there arose the custom, to weave into their daily speech 
 forms of oath, in which the name of God was avoided. They asseverated 
 this or that by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by their own head, and 
 they were not particular about truth. This evil practice was followed by 
 a still worse theory, which was to serve as an excuse for the former : ' Who- 
 soever sweareth by the temple, it is nothing, but he that sweareth by the 
 gold of the temple, he is a debtor. Whosoever sweareth by the altar, it is 
 nothing, but he that sweareth by the sacrifice that is upon it, he is a debtor.' 
 Against such distinctions the Lord contended (Matt, xxiii. 16—23); and 
 from His words in Matt. ». 33 — 37 we conclude that there were doctors of 
 the Law who considered, that if only the name of God were not expressly 
 mentioned, it did not matter much about the truth of the assertion. It 
 was considered enough, to keep the oath taken to God. We mention it to 
 the honour of the Jews, that these excuses for lying are not found in the 
 Talmud. The testimony of Christ against all this has not been in vain." 
 
 • See p. 15*, XV. ; but for translation of the earlier part of the passage, 
 see below, p. 86. 
 
72 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Bunni, TocUih, Mathai was brought before the judgment seat. 
 He said to the judges : "Is Mathai to be put to death? Yet 
 it is written ; ' Matliai [ = when] shall I come and appear before 
 God?'" (Ps. xlii. 3'). They answered him : "Nay, but Mathai 
 is to be executed : for it is said : ' Mathai [when] shall [he] die 
 and his name perish 1 ' " (Ps. xli. 6 '). Nakkai was brought. He 
 said to them : " Is Nakkai to be put to death ? Yet it is written : 
 'The Eaki [the innocent] and righteous slay thou not'" (Ex. 
 xxiii. 7). They replied to him : " Nay, but Nakkai is to be put 
 to death : for it is written : ' In covert places doth he put to 
 death the Naki ' " (Ps. x. 8). Netzer was brought. He said to 
 them : "Is Netzer to be put to death ? Yet it is written : ' A 
 Netzer [branch] shall spring up out of his roots ' " (Is. xi. 1). They 
 answered him : " Netzer is to be put to death ; for it is said : ' Thou 
 art cast forth from thy sepulchre, like an abominable Netzer ' " 
 (Is. xiv. 19). Bunni was brought. He said : " Is Buuni to be put 
 to death 1 Yet it is written : ' Israel is B"m [my son], my first- 
 born ' " (Ex. iv. 22). They answered him : " Nay but Bunni is 
 to be put to death ; for it is written : ' Behold, I will slay Binkha 
 [thy son], thy first-born ' " (Ex. iv. 23). Todah was brought. He 
 said to them : " Is Todah to be put to death ? Yet it is written : 
 'A Psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]'" (Ps. c. 1, heading). They 
 answered him : "Nay but Todah is to be put to death : for it is 
 written : 'Whoso offereth Todah honoureth me ' " (Ps. 1. 23). 
 
 The whole narrative bears the stamp of impossibility on its 
 face. Or could any one be found actually to believe that men 
 sentenced to death had sought to save themselves by adducing to 
 the judge as objections Old Testament passages, from which in 
 accordance with a Rabbinic interpretation of the text they 
 should be dismissed with their lives? If they were once de- 
 clared deserving of death, the death penalty could only be averted 
 by a so-called Zakhuth [justifying plea], but never in any case 
 by a punning quotation. In the same way it is impossible to 
 
 ' So Heb. but ver. 2 in A. V. and R. V. [A. W. S.] 
 - So Heb. but ver. 5 in A. V. and E. V. [A. W. S.] 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 73 
 
 suppose, that the judges should have troubled themselves by 
 means of a like interpretation of a text to furnish a proof that 
 the Old Testament had already announced by anticipation the 
 death of those condemned persons. As though at any time a 
 judge, in presence moreover of a hated and despised defendant, 
 would have allowed himself a conversation and argument of 
 the kind. And independently of all this, the Talmud requires 
 of its readers, to picture to themselves the five, as possessed one 
 and all with the same notion, that they should simply rid them- 
 selves in this preposterous fashion from the death penalty, and as 
 having either studied their plea beforehand or having hit on it 
 impromptu when face to face with the judge. 
 
 But, although this narrative in the form here presented is 
 absurd, yet it is not devoid of an historical background. Only 
 we must not allow the number five, which, as it appears to us, is 
 nothing but a corruption of the number twelve, to mislead us 
 into imagining the disciples to be apostles, or in general into 
 clinging scrupulously to the apostolic age. Otherwise we should 
 pass from one difficulty into another. 
 
 The number five, we say, is an alteration from the number 
 twelve, no longer recognised, it is true, by the later Talmudists, 
 who have received the story by tradition, but altogether inten- 
 tional on the part of its author. For to venture on the assump- 
 tion that the number five was set down by him quite arbitrarily, 
 merely for the general purpose of giving some number, is not 
 practicable for this reason, that we can in fact discover no interest 
 which could induce him to hit arbitrarily upon a definite number, 
 which moreover had no value except merely that it was a number. 
 No, the author must plainly have had a peculiar interest in 
 the number five. But then it is not enough to say that his 
 motive was to indicate by this number the pitiably small quantity 
 of disciples possessed by Jesus. The author knew that Jesus had 
 many adherents ; therefore, if the number of the apostles had 
 been unknown to him, he would unquestionably have set down a 
 larger number, certainly not merely five. Accordingly in the 
 employment of the number five, contemptible through its small- 
 
74 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 ness, there must lie a scoff at the sacred number twelve, that of 
 the Apostles ". 
 
 The death by martyrdom of these disciples, related in the 
 Talmud, and in fact in connexion with the execution of Jesus in 
 Lud, opens out to us a fairly clear view of the time in which, and 
 of the circumstances under which, that execution is to be thought 
 of as carried out. If we remember that the Talmud takes no 
 notice of the extremely full Church history belonging to the 
 Talmudic age, that for it this history is absolutely non-existent, 
 we are not disposed, when investigating the time and the imme- 
 diate circumstances of our story, to pass beyond the limits of the 
 Talmud itself, but we shall be obliged, especially on account of the 
 great animation of the narrative, to take up our position in the age 
 of R. Akiba, of which we have already several times made mention. 
 In that age the hatred of Judaism towards Christianity burned 
 brightly, a hatred, of which, as is already known to our readers, 
 forcible traces have been preserved uneffaced. An execution of 
 Christians is here notified to us. What execution then, what 
 slaying of Christians could more easily be preserved in the 
 memory than those which took place under Bar Koch'ba? (cp. 
 the passage from Justin's Apology on p. 15 above). For let us 
 realise the efifect which the attacks of Akiba, the famous Rabbi of 
 Lud, had upon the views as to the person of Jesus : the subse- 
 quent age took Jesus for his contemporary, who was executed 
 in Lud ! In addition there is the circumstance that our narra- 
 tive is connected with that of the execution of Jesus in Lud, i.e., 
 in the town of Akiba, a thing which of itself is quite sufficient to 
 place the execution of the five disciples of Jesus in the closest 
 relation with Akiba. Another indication too points to the time 
 of Akiba ; the ciTcumstance, that it is a Jewish tribunal, by which 
 
 1 The number five might perhaps also have its origin in the five woimds 
 of Jesus. That these wounds, held sacred by the Christians (cp. the hymn : 
 " Wir bitten dich, wahr Menseh n. Gott, durch dein heilig 5 Wunden rot") 
 were claimed by the Jews as a mark for ridicule, is highly probable. And 
 that their scorn, influenced by an unbridled imagination, made out of the 
 wounds disciples, is not so very farfetched or over-difficult a conception. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 75 
 
 the disciples are condemned. For although we must note the 
 ■alleged citation of proof-texts on either side as unhistorical, thus 
 much in any case is shewn by the narrative, that it was no 
 heathen court of justice, but a Jewish one. This fits in with 
 the period of Bar Koch'ba, the last period of Jewish independence. 
 After these introductory remarks as to time and circum- 
 stances we proceed to judge the narrative with regard to its 
 historical character. It is not really conceivable that without a 
 special inducement the deviser of the proceedings in court took 
 up the idea of carrying out his mocking play upon the names. 
 We find this inducement in the word Matliai. In the words of 
 Mathai, whom we take to be an actual Christian of the time of 
 Akiba, in the words " When [Mathai] shall I come and appear 
 before God?" we have the longing prayer of the afilicted one, 
 to be delivered from his torment. This lament was scornfully 
 answered by another sajdng from the Psalms : " Mathai, his 
 namie shall perish." This jeer met with such great applause, 
 that the desire was felt to abuse the names of some more Chris- 
 tians in the same way ; and since it was remembered that Matthew 
 was the name of one of the Twelve, the imaginary history was 
 prefaced by the assertion that they were disciples of Jesus, which 
 may have at once determined their number, namely five in oppo- 
 sition to twelve. If then the deviser of the story scornfully 
 changed the familiar number twelve to that of five, without 
 experiencing opposition, it excites no surprise that he also made 
 use of names, which have nothing to do \vith the names of the 
 twelve. If we have regard to the fictitious character, which in 
 more than one respect so plainly belongs to the narrative, it is by no 
 means necessary to take the names generally as historical. What 
 the author of the fiction aimed at in fact was not truth but simply 
 mockery. But of course the ridicule was the more pointed, if 
 through the names a parody was introduced upon what was 
 actually Christian or otherwise contemptible in the eyes of the 
 Jews. It is obvious that similarity of sound was enough for the 
 parodies (comp. p. 72 above). — As regards Bunni, some earlier 
 scholars have put forth the view which others have rejected. 
 
76 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 that under this name is to be understood the Nicodeuius of 
 St John's Gospel '. "We can find no better explanation. In 
 the treatise Taanith 20 a there is accordingly a certain JSTicode- 
 mus (Nakdimon) ben Goryon mentioned, at whose prayer God 
 sent first rain, and then sunshine. At the close of the narrative 
 it is said : " It has been taught us, that his name was properly 
 Bunni : he was only called Nicodemus for this reason, because on 
 his account the sun shone out brightly (nak'dah chamnuih)." If 
 the Jews knew anything of Nicodemus the disciple of Jesus (and 
 how should they not, since it certainly made a great sensation 
 that a leader of the Pharisees had become a disciple of Christ, and 
 afterwards also frequently confessed himself to be such !) he was 
 then given the name Bunni, in order to distinguish him from tlie 
 Nicodemus of the Talmud, whose name through the abovemen- 
 tioned incident had become to a certain extent that of a saint. 
 As he on account of the miracle had lost his name Bunni, so the 
 Nicodemus of the New Testament, that he might not be confounded 
 with the other Nicodemus, received the name, which the latter 
 had had originally.- — -The name Netzer is unquestionably formed 
 from Notzri = Nazarene^ — Nakkai admits of several conjectures. 
 By it Nicodemus may be meant again ; but it reminds us also of 
 Nicolaus or Nicanor (Acts vi. 5) ; or lastly there is contained in 
 it an allusion to the Nicolaitans (Apoc. ii. 6, 15), a word which is 
 equivalent to Balaamites. But Balaam is to the Talmudists the 
 type of Jesus, who in several places is expressly called by this 
 name' (pp. 53 ff.). — Lastly, the name Todah reminds us either of 
 the Apostle Thaddseus or of the Theudas of Acts v. 36. 
 
 ' See Thilo, Codex Apocnjphus Novi Testamenti, Leipzig, 1832, p. 550, 
 Bern. 
 
 2 nSJ p is tlie representative of Edom in Ber. R. 76, beside Alexauder 
 (plpD) for Greece, Cyrus (Dnp) for Persia, and (perhaps) (jordianus 
 (Onmp) for Eome. Jalk. Schim. to Daniel, § 1064, ed. of Salonica, 1521, 
 has the readings 11V3 p, jnpID, DITp, Dnnp. Bar Ne.ser was perhaps 
 a name of the Arabian usurper Odenath (about a.d. 260). See Griitz, 
 Geschichte der Juden, iv. 489. Die tidmudischen Texte. [G. D.] 
 
 ' Cp. as to the Nicolaitans, Hengstenborg, Tlie History of Balaam and 
 his Prophecies, Berlin, 1842, p. 22. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 77 
 
 To what an extent the conception of the number five attached 
 itself solely and entirely to this narrative, while utterly non- 
 existent outside it, and consequently quite unhistorical, we are 
 furnished with further proof by the information which the 
 Talmud gives us as to a sixth disciple, namely Jacob of K'phar 
 S'khanya, whose acquaintance we have already (p. 63) made. 
 That this Jacob was not an immediate disciple of Jesus we have 
 already seen (p. 64) : he cannot have passed for such until tlie 
 time when Jesus was taken for a contemporaiy of Akiba. Ham- 
 burger's remark', "Jacob gave himself out as a disciple of Jesus" 
 is uncommonly naif. For according to his notion the Jews ac- 
 cepted from Jacob the statement that lie was a disciple of Jesus, 
 while they nevertheless knew still more certainly than our- 
 selves that he was no such thing, seeing that they were not 
 unaware that Jacob had never set eyes on Christ any more than 
 themselves. 
 
 The questions how Jacob reached the honour of being called 
 a disciple of Jesus and in general why he was kept in memory, 
 are in fact the same. It was his thaumaturgic power, which led 
 him to be placed in immediate relation with Jesus, the master of 
 sorcery, and which in his time caused so great a sensation as 
 never afterwards to be forgotten. The Talmud in several pas- 
 sages informs us of this power of working miracles. 
 
 In the Palestinian Talmud, SliabhatJi xiv. fol. 1 4 d at the 
 bottom, we read : " It happened that R. Eleazar ben Dama^ was 
 bitten by a serpent. Then came Jacob of K'phar Sama, to heal 
 hiin in the name of Jesus Pandera. [In the Palestinian Ahoda 
 Zara fol. 40 d at the bottom^, where the same narrative is found, 
 the words are Jesus ben Pandera.] But R. Ishmael suffered him 
 not. Eleazar said to him : I will bring thee a proof, that he has 
 a right to heal me. But he had no more time to utter the proof : 
 for he died. R. Ishmael said to him : Blessed art thou, ben 
 
 ' ReaUEncycl. filr Bibel und Thalmud, ii. Art. Eliezer. 
 2 Perhaps a nephew of the Ishmael who was an associate of Akiba. 
 [A. W. S.] 
 
 ' See p. IG*, xvii (a). 
 
7.8.' JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Dama, that tliou wentest in peace from this world, and didst not 
 break througli the fence of the wise, because it is written (Eccles. 
 X. 8): 'And whoso breaketh tln-ougli a fence, a serpent shall bite 
 hiui,' not, a serpent 1ms bitten him, but (it means that) a serpent 
 should not bite him in the time to come." 
 
 In the Bab. Talmud, Ahoda Zara, 27 b, this histoiy is worded 
 thus : " It happened that ben Dama, son of B. Ishmael's sister, 
 was bitten by a serpent. Then came Jacob of K'phar S'khanya 
 to heal him. But E. Ishmael suffered him not. Ben Dama 
 said : R. Ishmael, my brother, allow me to be healed b}' him, and 
 I will bring thee a verse from the Torah, shewing that it is 
 allowed. But he had not time to complete what he was saying : 
 for his spirit departed from him and he died. Then R. Ishmael 
 exclaimed over him : Happy art thou, ben Dama, that thy body 
 is pure and that thy spirit has passed away in purity and that 
 thou hast not transgressed the words of thy companions." 
 
 We find here the abovementioned Jacob engaged in the same 
 work as before on the occasion of his meeting with R. Eliezer, 
 namely, in the effort to win the Jews for Christ. And while on 
 that occasion he made his attempt in the region of exposition, so 
 here by the demonstration of his power over nature. But both 
 times his aim was wrecked upon the fanaticism of the Jews. For 
 however quiet the wording " he suffered him not," we have little 
 right to think of a quiet scene, if we picture to ourselves the 
 hatred and wrath, bordering on frenzy, which has from time to 
 time seized the Jews on the approach of Christianity'. The 
 horror which R. Ishmael had even of a miraculous cure, if it was 
 effected in the name of Jesus, is betrayed by his stern resolve that 
 his nephew should die rather than permit himself to be cured 
 through the name of Jesus, as well as by his words spoken in 
 truth from the depth of his heart ; " Happy art thou, ben Dama, 
 that thou hast passed away in purity." Ben Dama would have 
 seemed to him defiled for ever, if he had been cured through the 
 name of Jesus, and certainly, if, induced by the cui-e, he had 
 bestowed on this Jesus his heart. 
 
 ' See Appendix II. 
 
WORKS OF JESUS. 79 
 
 Our history so confirms the power of the disciples, witnessed 
 by the New Testament, to heal in the name of Jesus, that we 
 must say : Here is a convincing proof of the truth of the miracles 
 of Jesus and His disciples as recorded in the New Testament. 
 Truly the name of Jesus is not an empty word, but a heavenly 
 power, whose existence His enemies themselves cannot wholly get 
 rid of by denial. 
 
 III. JESUS' END. 
 
 A. Jesds' condemnation. — In SanJiedrin 67 a' we read in 
 the Mishnah : " In the case of all the transgressors indicated in 
 the Torah as deserving of death no witnesses are placed in con- 
 cealment except in case of the sin of leading astray to idolatry. 
 If the enticer has made his enticing speech to two, these are wit- 
 nesses against him, and lead him from the court of justice, and he' 
 is stoned. But if he have used the expression not before two, 
 but before one, Jie shall say to him : ' I have friends, who have a 
 liking for that.' But if he is cunning, and wishes to say nothing 
 before the others, witnesses are placed in concealment behind the 
 wall, and he says himself to the seducer : ' Now tell me once 
 again, what thou wast saying to me, for we are alone.' If he now 
 repeats it, the other says to him : ' How should we forsake 
 our heavenly Father, and go and worship wood and stone ? ' If 
 then the enticer is converted, well and good ; but if he replies : 
 ' This is our duty; it is for our good,' then those who are standing 
 behind the wall bring him before the court of justice, and he is 
 stoned. — The Gemara both in the Babylonian and in the Pales- 
 tinian Talmud (Sanhedrin VIL foL 25 d, upper part") adds the 
 following (we quote in accordance with the last-named source) : 
 ' The enticer is the idiot etc. — Lo, is he a wise man 1 No ; as an 
 
 ' See p. 5*, i (b), of which however the first part ot the above is a some- 
 what free rendering. See it as given more literally in the " Translations." 
 [A. W. S.] 
 
 2 See p. 17", xviii (b). 
 
80 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 enticer, he is not a wise man ; as lie is enticed, he is not a wise 
 man. How do tiiey treat him so as to come upon him by sur- 
 prise 1 Thus ; for the enticer two witnesses are placed in conceal- 
 ment in the innermost part of the house ; but he is made himself 
 to remain in the exterior part of the house, wherein a lamp is 
 lighted over him, in order that the ^vitnesses may see him and 
 distinguish his voice. Thus, for instance, they managed with the 
 Son of Sot'da at Lud. Against him two disciples of learned men 
 were placed in concealment and he was brought before the court 
 of justice, and stoned." In the Babylonian Talmud the wording 
 of the closing sentence is : " He was hung on the Sabbath of the 
 Passover festival." — Again, a third passage in the Talmud (the 
 Palestinian Jebaniotk, xvi. 15d in the lower part) speaks of the 
 same thing in almost verbal agreement with the foregoing, on 
 which account it is unnecessary to furnish the translation. 
 
 These three passages then, considered by themselves, bear the 
 impress of being historical ; however strange one must find the 
 law upon internal grounds. And Renan in his Life of Jesus 
 (chap. 24) believes that he is bound to supplement by these Tal- 
 mudic notices the New Testament account of the Trial of Jesus. 
 But if the Talmud has romanced anywhere, it has done so here. 
 Our task is to ascei-tain the points in the proceedings against 
 Jesus, which formed the grain of seed for this Talmudic exuber- 
 ance of growth. 
 
 But the first business is to set forth the absolute impossibility 
 of the proceeding so distinctly pictured by the Talmud. Accord- 
 ing to the Jewish law, as it is well known, no one could be tried 
 and condemned without witnesses. In the case of seduction to 
 idolatry, the Mishnah accordingly says, and the Gemara repeats it, 
 that the court obtains for itself the testimony of witnesses in the 
 abovementioned crafty manner. This presupposes that the 
 seducer has never uttered his seducing words, publicly, not even 
 once before two persons, but privately only to one individual, as 
 well as that this one, far from being accessible to the seduction, 
 has rather been determined forthwith to hand over the seducer 
 to death on account of his expression. Such a case is possible in 
 
JESUS END. 81 
 
 itself. But neither according to the New Testament, nor (to 
 which we here attach more weight) according to the universal 
 conception of the Talmud, does this tally with the case of Jesus. 
 According to the Talmud, He had seduced and led astray many 
 of Israel, and this together with His sorcery formed the ground 
 of His being condemned to death. Cp. Sanhedrin 43 a (see 
 p. 85). If the actions and words of any man were public, such 
 certainly according to the testimony of the Talmud were those of 
 Jesus. That He had only wished to seduce one, and that this 
 one would not be seduced, but handed Him over in a crafty way 
 to the court of justice, is directly opposed to what we read in 
 the New Testament, and in the Talmud as well. And now 
 the Talmud does not merely assert this in the passages under 
 discussion, but it also adduces the legal provision relating to it, 
 in accordance with which Jesus was thus treated, and for the 
 application of that provision it brings forward no other example 
 but this unhistorical and impossible one. 
 
 Though the untying of this knot appears at the first view 
 difficult, yet it is simple, if it can be demonstrated, (1) that the 
 reverse of the Talmud's apparent assertion is the case ; in other 
 words, that the Law, which is here said to have been brought into 
 use against Jesus, owes its origin to nothing earlier than the 
 narrative which deals with Jesus, and (2) that that narrative, 
 from which the Law took it? rise, while far from opposing the 
 universal tradition, yet certainly at the same time not confirming 
 it, and therefore defenceless in the presence of Rabbinic caprices, 
 was much more simply framed, and first received its air of 
 romance through the Law. 
 
 The emphasis is unmistakable, with which at the end of the 
 Law the example of Jesus is adduced, especially in the Palestinian 
 Talmud. For there the introductory particle " for so", or " that 
 is to say, so" (shekken) points to this that there is no more per- 
 tinent example of the application of the Law, at all events that 
 there are special grounds for adducing just that example as a 
 voucher. Further, the agreement of both Talmuds is extremely 
 significant. All this indisputably shews, that between Law and 
 
 s. 6 
 
82 JESUS CHRIST IN THR TALMUD. 
 
 example there prevails something closer than a merely adven- 
 titious bond ; that in the tradition which was transmitted until 
 the Talmud was fixed by writing, from time to time the two were 
 connected with each other in such a way that the Law was never 
 thought or spoken of without this historical voucher belonging to 
 it. Consequently the originator of the Law will already have the 
 example subjoined. But then the example had a larger share in 
 this combination with the Law than merely this, that it was an 
 example ; it can be shewn to have been actually the source of 
 the Law. That Jesus's condemnation and execution, in which 
 the Jewish people had taken their share with the most excessive 
 zeal, had not sunk into oblivion, is obvious. And in the same 
 way we may assume, that the tradition referring to it was at 
 some time tested by its relation to the Law. Now this tradition 
 contained more than one particular, which was unique of its 
 kind, or which must have appeared quite incredible. Since how- 
 ever it was held to be established that the proceetlings against 
 Jesus were legal, so it came to this, that the Law was inferred 
 from the traditional history. That the matter .«tands thus is 
 declared by the circumstance, that this history, as it is now to 
 be understood from the Law, is opposed not merely in a point of 
 detail, but in the main gist, to the otherwise universal tradition. 
 Our task is in the next place to distinguish the old historical 
 outlines of the tradition, on which the Law was built up. — Of 
 such outlines we believe that we can distinguish three. 1. Jesus 
 was betrayed. The fact of the betrayal could not have easily 
 sunk into oblivion, since the foes of Jesus must have used rather 
 prolonged endeavours to bring Him into their power without 
 causing excitement and disturbance. The details indeed had 
 already sunk into oblivion ; therefore it was made out that the 
 betrayal takes place, because the disciple (Judas) was unwillin<r 
 to allow himself to be seduced by Jesus (who foi-sooth passes for 
 the seducer). 2. The remembrance of the fact that Jesus was 
 betrayed in the night appears to have maintained itself in the 
 lamp which betokens the night-time. 3. Tlie duality of the 
 witnesses ; cp. Matt. xxvi. 20 and Deut. xvii. 6, 
 
JESas' END. 83 
 
 It is not difficult to combine these three particulars (Jesus 
 shone upon by the night lamp, the traitor simulating friendship, 
 the two witnesses who come forward) in such a way as to retain 
 the tradition, which we recognise in the Palestinian Talmud. 
 From the Mishnah it is much more difficult to recognise this 
 tradition, since, as we have already seen, in shaping the law it 
 dealt freely with the tradition. It has in the first place devised 
 the case of not merely one, as in the traditional example, but 
 two or more having been seduced by the seducer, and it has 
 then held the witnesses lurking in concealment to be super- 
 fluous. But if the seducer only sought to seduce one, the treat- 
 ment presented to us in the Jesus-tradition passes as a guiding 
 case. Only the juristic subtlety characteristic of the Rabbis 
 again dissected this case in such a way that it was at once set 
 down as possible that the one seduced person might procure 
 himself witnesses. Not until the seducer had avoided this trap, 
 did there come to be applied the procedure which the Jesus- 
 tradition contains. The Rabbinic colouring is here unmis- 
 takable ; but not without reason are the words " to worship 
 wood and stone " chosen. The seducing to idolatry has thereby 
 preserved an expression which is strikingly in harmony witli 
 Jesus' worship of a stone appearing in the story of Jesus and 
 Joshua ben P'rachya (see p. 41), so that we can scarcely avoid 
 taking this feature in the Law we are reviewing as borrowed 
 from the story of Jesus just named. If this assumption be 
 correct, we might venture to conclude, that the Mishnic Law did 
 not come into existence before the time of Eliezer or Akiba. 
 
 After the overthrow of Jerusalem the town of Lud, on 
 account of the scholars who worked in it, acquired, especially at 
 the beginning of the second century A.D., great importance', so 
 that it was even called the second Jerusalem (Hamburger, Real- 
 Encyclopadie, i. 722). In this town, according to the passage 
 we are considering, Jesus was executed. "We have already 
 shewn (p. 38) how this statement was occasioned through the 
 name of Akiba, inasmuch as the attacks upon the person of 
 1 See note, p. 62. [A. W. S.] 
 
 G— 2 
 
84 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Jesus by the scholar working in Lud imprinted themselves upon 
 the memory to such an extent that the notion arose tiiat Akiba 
 and Jesus were contemporaries. In the face of this confusion of 
 periods so distinct we cannot be surprised, that our passage also 
 speaks of a Sanhedrin at Lud, whereas on the contrary a San- 
 hedrin has never had its seat there. After the overthrow of 
 Jerusalem there was no longer any Sanhedrin at all. Soon 
 indeed the Jewish people created for itself a new centre in the 
 so-called Beth Din (literally, court-house) of Jabne'. But this 
 was something essentially different from the old Sanhedrin ; it 
 lacked political privileges, and above all its legal decisions re- 
 garding religion had only a theoretic significance. And although 
 it soon attained again to great power by exercising over the 
 Jewish people an active jurisdiction, partly conceded, partly 
 usurped, nevertheless Rabbinic Judaism has always had a dis- 
 tinct consciousness of the fact that the old Sanhedrin had 
 ceased to exist ; cp. Mishnah of Sola, ix. 1 1 : which tells us that 
 from the time that the Sanhedrin became extinct, all singing 
 ceased at festive entertainments" That in our passage (as also 
 elsewhere occasionally) a Sanhedrin at Lud is mentioned, con- 
 stitutes the less difficulty, as it was a very old tradition, that 
 the execution of Jesus was carried out by the supreme council, 
 which was only in name untrue, but in fact was quite correct. 
 
 Even though we were to bear in mind the Oriental imagina- 
 tion, still so hasty and bold, yet it is in any case impossible, that 
 as early as immediately after the death of Akiba the notion grew 
 up that Jesus had lived in Lud alongside of Akiba and his 
 colleagues and had stood before a Sanhedrin in that city ; but, 
 as the shrinking of the tradition also proves, a considerable time 
 must have elapsed thereafter. We may not indeed extend too 
 much the time between the death of Akiba and the rise of the 
 notion that Jesus had lived in Lud, etc., since the Mishnah, to 
 which the law here discussed belongs, received its final shape as 
 early as the year 220 A.D.^at the hands of R. Jehudah the Prince. 
 
 1 See Neubauer GSog. du Th. pp. 73 £f. 
 
 ' Schiiror, llUtnni of the Jewish People, Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 173, note. 
 
 •• Or somewhat earlier [A. W. S.]. 
 
JESUS* END. 83 
 
 B. Jesus' exkcution. — While the execution of Jesus was 
 only briefly and incidentally mentioned in Sanhedrin 67 a, the 
 extract, which we now desire to consider, speaks expressly of 
 this execution and the preparations for it. 
 
 Sanliedrin 43 a' runs thus : " But there is a tradition ; On 
 the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus was hung. But the 
 herald went forth before him for the space of forty days, while 
 he cried : ' Jesus goeth forth to be executed, because he has 
 practised sorcery and seduced Israel and estranged them from 
 God. Let any one who can bring forward any justifying plea 
 for him, come and give information concerning it.' But no 
 justifying plea was found for him, and so he was hung on the 
 Sabbath of the Passover festival. UUa has said : ' But dost 
 thou think that he belongs to those for whom a justifying plea is 
 sought? He was a very seducer, and the AUmerciful has said 
 (Deut. xiii. 8): 'Thou shalt not spare him, nor conceal him.' 
 However in Jesus' case it was somewhat different, for his place 
 was near those in power." 
 
 This narrative in its purport fits in precisely with Sanliedrin 
 67 a. We are already aware how little the Talmudic reports 
 about Jesus cohere or even harmonize. So much the more does 
 it strike us, that Sanliedrin 43 a quite plainly forms the con- 
 tinuation of Sanliedrin 67 a, and the assumption forces itself 
 upon us that originally the two pieces were one. But if this be 
 the case, then the omission of the word " Lud " in the extract 
 now to be discussed is to be explained by its being quite unne- 
 cessary, after it had been expressed shortly before, and the 
 omission of this word is not a token that our extract belongs to 
 a somewhat older time than the former, namely, to a time in 
 which the notion that Jesus and Akiba had lived in Lud as con- 
 temporaries, did not yet exist. 
 
 That the two extracts, originally cohering, underwent a 
 
 severance on the occasion of the Rabbinical discussion, was 
 
 natural. We saw that the tradition contained in the former 
 
 extract was viewed with the aim of obtaining u, clear juristic 
 
 1 See p. 15*, XV. 
 
86 JESUS CHltlST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 knowledge of the proceedings iigainst Jesus on their legal side. 
 The law, which was deduced from the case, is laid down in the 
 Mishnah. In that part of the tradition which is contained in 
 Sanliedrin 43 a we have a difficulty of another kind to deal with. 
 The procedure which was observed with respect to a condemned 
 person was the following. While the criminal was conducted to 
 the place of execution, there stood at the door of the court an 
 usher, whose duty was to give a signal by the waving of a flag, 
 if through any fresh pieces of evidence a reconsideration of the 
 case were called for and the condemned person should have to 
 be brought back. Another messenger of the court was posted 
 on horseback further on the road, in order to pass on quickly the 
 signal which might be given with the flag, and to fetch the con- 
 demned person back. A herald moved in advance of the con- 
 demned and cried : "So and so in accordance with the testimony 
 of such and such witnesses, on account of such and such a crime, 
 at such and such a place, at such and such a time, has been con- 
 demned to death ; whoso has anything to adduce in his defence, 
 let him come and say it." In case that a new ground of defence 
 was adduced, the condemned was brought back to the court, 
 that they might test its validity and, if need be, alter the sen- 
 tence. But if no disclosure of fresh eWdence followed upon the 
 way to the place of execution the sentence was carried into eflfect 
 (Hamburger, ii. p. 1152). — Our extract then informs us, in con- 
 trast to these provisions, that between the sentence and execution 
 of Jesus forty days were permitted to elapse. UUa, a Palestinian 
 scholar of the beginning of the 4th century, who, after first 
 emigrating to Babylonia, repeatedly returned to Palestine to visit 
 his old home, from the employment of the old Boraitha as 
 evidence for the usual course of justice in early time, took occa- 
 sion to put to the unconscious Babylonians the question : 
 Is Jesus then to be considered as having belonged to those for 
 whom a justifying plea was actually sought, on account of which 
 He might have been delivered from the death-penalty. He who 
 had desei-ved death ten times over? " Of course," answered Ulla 
 himself, "this was not the question ; but, inasmuch as Jesus was 
 
JESUs' END. 87 
 
 related to tlie authorities, not only had tlie accustomed law to be 
 observed, but by way of exception the period of respite had to be 
 extended to forty days, that the Romans might not afterwards 
 be able to declare the capital sentence to be unjust and annoy 
 the Jews." — How then did UUa come to assert that Jesus was 
 related to the (Roman) authorities 1 It can scarcely be taken 
 as the product of simple imagination. A grain of historical truth 
 must lie at the bottom of it. What is this? Now we are of 
 opinion that the reluctance of Pontius Pilate to allow Jesus to be 
 executed was a particular in the history of the Passion, which, 
 for the Jews, could not so quickly sink into oblivion. While the 
 doctors of the Law panted for the blood of Jesus, the Roman 
 governor, overcome by His sublimity and purity, could only with 
 difficulty bring himself to confirm the capital sentence. The 
 saying, that Jesus was related to the Roman authorities, forms a 
 precipitate from the recollection of this line of conduct. — How 
 right we are in seeing Pontius Pilate behind the Roman govern- 
 ment, is proved by the fact that to the latest time this name has 
 remained in the memory of the Jews, and indeed in connexion 
 with the person of Jesus' : the Targum Sheni on the Book of 
 Esther (iii. 1) names Pilate also with Jesus among the ancestors 
 of Haman (cp. also p. 60). 
 
 On the other hand the forty days rest upon no kind of tradi- 
 tion in the history of Jesus. For where in the history of the 
 Passion is there to be found a sentence of significance with the 
 number forty ? It may be that we are to call to mind the forty 
 days' fast before Easter, observed perhaps at quite an early period, 
 at least here and there, in the Christian Church, and later 
 universally. The Christians — so the Jews may have thought — 
 fast forty days in remembrance of the Passion of Christ, which 
 thus continued for forty days^ 
 
 ' The Jews also of Mahommed's time boasted of having put Jesus to 
 death. Sura, iv. 156. 
 
 2 If anything at all of fact lies at the bottom of the number forty in 
 Sanliedrin 43 a, it might perhaps rather be permitted to think of tbe 
 Saviour's forty days' fast of Matt. iv. 2. According to Synagogue theology 
 
88 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Yet a few words on the clause "and they hanged him on the 
 Sabbath of the Passover festival." The date, as we see, lias 
 impressed itself sharply on the memory of the Jews ; it wa:? also 
 in itself a noteworthy date, this date of the execution of a 
 memorable man. Accordingly we shall not venture to doubt that 
 the manner of execution also was fully noted. The expression 
 indeed "they hanged him," seems doubtless on a superficial obser- 
 vation surprising. But for the Jews of the time of Jesus, who 
 in contrast to the Rabbinism of to-day did not cast the responsi- 
 bility for the death of Jesus upon the Romans, but, as was 
 equitable, claimed this deed for themselves, it was natural to 
 make use of the word talah (i^'n), to luing, familiar to them on 
 account of Deut. xxi. 22, 23. Even the Apostle Paul, referring 
 to this passage of the Law, has written (Gal. iii. 1 3) " Christ 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse 
 for us ; for it is written. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a 
 tree.'' Further for the elucidation of the whole matter we may 
 here adduce the following from G. Dalman's learned and profound 
 study " Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte " (Berlin, 
 1889, H. Reuther), p. 46 f. : " Josephus says {Ant. iv. S. 6): 'Let 
 him that has blasphemed God be stoned and hung up for a whole 
 day, and be buried in dishonour and darkness.' Stoning, hanging, 
 and a dishonoured burial are thus the legal punishment of the 
 blasphemer. The hanging is here only intended as the ignomi- 
 nious exposure of the corpse of the person executed. The stoning 
 of the blasphemer is gathered too from Lev. xxiv. 16, and thereby 
 proof is furnished that this passage was authoritatively taken not 
 of the mere utterance of the Divine Name, but of its use in 
 blasphemy. It was on the ground of this piece of the Law that 
 Jesus was condemned to death as a blasphemer, according to Matt. 
 
 fasting belongs to the methods of atonement. Cp. Weber, System, p. 305. 
 The forty days' fast of Jesus may have given occasion to the view that the 
 execution of the capital sentence was postponed for forty days. It mi<'ht 
 also be possible to think of the forty days between the Resurrection and 
 the Ascension. [H. L. S.] 
 
JESUS' END. 89 
 
 xxvi. 65, 66; and Mark xiv. 63, 64; cp. John xix. 7'". When 
 Joel, in his " Blicke in die Religions-geschichte zu Anfang des 
 zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts " ii. (1883), pp. 48 ff., desires to 
 prove that the Jews can have had nothing to do with the Cruci- 
 fixion of Jesus, he means of course that Jesus had not spoken an 
 actual blasphemy. But, as N. BriilF rightly remarks, according 
 to Rabbinic law, everyone, " who stretches out his hand against 
 one ' ikkar, one fundamental article in the Law,' was to be looked 
 upon as a blasphemer and to be punished." See Sijihre^ on Deut. 
 xxi. 22. On this principle Jesus' prophetic utterance before the 
 court of justice (Mark xiv. 62) in which He adjudged to Himself 
 a share in the Divine honour, might be designated as blasphemy 
 and be made the ground of His condemnation. If the people, 
 advised by the members of the tribunal (Matt, xxvii. 22 ; Mark 
 XV. 13, 14^; John xix. 6) desired of Pilate crucifixion (hanging) 
 as the mode of death, this, we may feel sure, had not for its 
 reason that in Deut. (xxi. 22, 23) for every executed person a 
 supplementary hanging is enjoined, but because, as in fact ap- 
 pears from that passage of Josephus, hanging already at that 
 time belonged to the special punishment of the blasphemer. 
 Since stoning did not figure in Roman criminal law, hanging at 
 least, which in the view of the Romans was applicable as the 
 punishment of the insurgent, had to be carried out in the case of 
 Jesus. The tz'libeh or tz'lib jatlieh, with which doubtless the cru- 
 cifixion of Jesus was demanded of Pilate, contains the word cog- 
 nate to that in Onk.'s Targum of Deut. xxi. 22, 23, for the hang- 
 ing of the blasphemer of God. The cause of the application of 
 hanging to the blasphemer is to be sought in the words of Deut. 
 xxi. 23, " For he that is hanged is a curse of God." The LXX. 
 indeed rendered, " Everyone who hangeth on a tree is accursed 
 by God." The Rabbis however understood kil'lath Hohim of the 
 cursing of God, which is to be punished with hanging. 
 
 1 Add Luke xxii. 70, 71. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ^ Jahrbucher fiir jiid. Gesch. u. Lit. vii. p. 96. 
 
 ■i A Babbinio commentary on Numb, and Deut. [A. W. S.] 
 
 ^ Add Luke xxiii. 21, 23. [A. W. S.] 
 
90 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 As an addendum to this we mention a passage out of the 
 Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther vii. 9'. After having re- 
 lated that Haman appealed to Mordecai for mercy tearfully, but 
 in vain, it says : " And when Haman saw that his words were 
 not heard, he began a lamentation and weeping for himself in 
 the midst of the garden of the palace.'' And then there is 
 added: "He answered and spake thus: Hear me, ye trees and 
 all ye plants, which I liave planted since the days of the creation. 
 The son of Hammedatha is about to ascend to the lecture-room of 
 Ben Pandera." And then one tree after another excuses itself 
 for not allowing Haman to be hung upon it, till at last the 
 cedar proposes that Haman be hung upon the gallows appointed 
 •by him for Mordecai and already set up. Consequently by 
 ' ascending to the lecture-room of Ben Pandera ' is to be under- 
 stood in general being hung on the tree of ignominy. For 
 plainly that is the matter in hand. Jesus is to the Jews simply 
 the " hanged " (talid, now commonly pronounced (Me), and 
 accordingly the gallows is reckoned as the equipment peculiarly 
 adapted to Him. But so far as Jesus was the Founder of a new 
 doctrine, it was an obvious jeer, to call the gallows the " lecture- 
 room of Ben Pandera." This jeer acquires a specially venomous 
 flavour through its being God, in Whose mouth the words are 
 placed, the Holy God, Whose Son Jesus had declared Himself to 
 be, and as Whose Son He was held in honour by the Christians. 
 Certainly the surface look of the arrangement of the sentence."* 
 creates the appearance' of Haman's being the speaker; but the 
 connexion marks this conception as impossible. For how is it to 
 be supposed that Haman, in his anxiety about his life, asks of 
 the trees in order permission to be hanged on them ? How is it 
 possible that Haman should speak of trees and plants which he 
 had planted since the creation? We may add that during the 
 conversation one of the trees, the date palm, addresses God 
 
 1 See p. 17* XX. 
 
 •^ Paulus Cassel, for example, has allowed himself to be deceived by this 
 appearance. See Das Buck Esther, i. (Berlin, 1878), p. 296, aud Aus Literatur 
 unci Gescklchtc (Leipzig aud Berlin, 1885), App. p. 66. [H. L. S.] 
 
Jesus' end. 91 
 
 direct. Perhaps the negligence in expression first arose through 
 an error having crept into the text. The rare form akso/ndria 
 (KmjDDN) is certainly not, with Levy', to be corrected to Alex- 
 andria, but must be explained by l^cSpa", if we are not actually 
 to adopt that reading. 
 
 C. Tlie rending of the veil. On tliis subject we will listen to 
 von Hofman's words': "As the heavens again became clear, 
 after the sufferings of Jesus were ended ; as the veil, which had 
 interposed between the heavens and the earth, was rent at His 
 departure; so also the veil of the temple was rent, which sepa- 
 rated the Holy of Holies from the Holy place; and truly this 
 was not accomplished without eye-witnesses. For Jesus died at 
 the hour at which the priest in the sanctuary was occupied in 
 presenting the incense-offering, and in lighting the sacred lamps. 
 In the Gemara'' is the tradition that once, forty years before the 
 destruction of the temple, its folding gates burst open of them- 
 selves. This appears to be a weaker version of the incident 
 related by the evangelists. For the date forty years before the 
 destruction of the temple coincides witli the year of Rome 783, 
 in which year according to our reckoning the death of the Lord 
 took place. It is however conceivable that the Jews, instead of 
 a rending of the veil, which cut off the Holy of Holies, preferred 
 to speak of an opening of the temple gates. For they must have 
 understood full well, that the first was an adverse sentence 
 passed upon the permanence of their worship, as a thing which 
 rested altogether upon the severance between the Holy place and 
 the Holy of Holies.'' 
 
 1 Worterl). ilher den Targumim, L 31. 
 
 ^ So rightly explained, e.g. by Lebrecht in Hammazkir, ix. (1869), p. 146; 
 P. Cassel, Aics Lit. u. Gesch., App. p. 66. — The Greek word, Exedru, a Mil, 
 occurs already in the Mishnah (Olmloth, xi. 2). [H. L. S.] 
 
 ' Die bibl. Geschichte Neuen Testaments, Nordlichen, 1883, p. 259. 
 
 ^ joma, 39 b, n"?!!? ^"Wi H^T t6 n^an jmin Diip nw CM-IS rn 
 
 The Pal. Talmud, Jovia, vi. 43 o fin., gives the words of Jochauan as 
 follows: IJ^naO nm no^ (cur terres nos .'). [H. L. S.] 
 
92 JESUS CIUUST IN THK TALMUD. 
 
 Tliis way of taking the Geniara passage seems to me to be 
 less probable than the following explanation : 
 
 It is ii, fact that the doors of the temple burst open on the 
 occasioia of the Death of Jesus, and that, innnediately after or 
 contemporaneously with the rending of the veil. With the fact 
 that the Holy of Holies was at an end, the Holy place also 
 existed no more. And as the former was indicated by a sign, so 
 no less was the latter; only that the Evangelists, as always, so 
 also here, recorded only the most essential (the rending of the 
 veil). Hofman has rightly seen, why the Gemara has been com- 
 pletely silent as to the most essential, while on the other liand it 
 has recorded that which was less essential, and which moreover 
 was seen by the laity. We have thus here presented to us a 
 very probable completion of the Gospel account, for which we 
 must thank the Talmud. 
 
 D. Jesus in the unseen world. Gittin 57 a': "Onkelos 
 bar Kalonikos, nephew of Titus, desired to secede to Judaism. 
 He conjured up the spirit of Titus and asked him : Who is 
 esteemed in that world ? He answered : The Israelites. Onkelos 
 asked further : Ought one to join himself to them ? He answered: 
 Their precepts are too many; thou canst not keep them; go 
 rather hence and make war upon tliem in this world; so shalt 
 thou become a head; for it is said (Lam. L 5): 'Their adver- 
 saries are become the head,' i.e. Every one, that vexeth the 
 Israelites, becomes a head. Onkelos asked the spirit: Where- 
 with art thou judged ? He answered : With that, which I have 
 appointed for myself : each day my ashes are collected and I am 
 judged ; then I am burnt and the ashes scattered over the seven 
 seas. — Thereupon Onkelos went and conjured up the spirit of 
 Balaam. He asked him : Who is esteemed in that world ? The 
 spirit answered : The Israelites. Onkelos asked further : Ouo-ht 
 one to join himself to them ? The spirit said : Seek not their 
 peace and their good alway. Onkelos asked : Wliercwith art 
 thou judged ? The spirit answered : With boiling pollution-. — 
 Thereupon Onkelos went and conjured up the spirit of Jesus. 
 1 See p. 17*, xxi. (a). - Samenerguss. 
 
JESUs' END. 93 
 
 He asked Him : Who is esteemed in that world 1 Tlie spirit 
 answered : The Israelites. Onkelos asked further : Ought one 
 to join himself to them 1 Tlie spirit said : Seek their good and 
 not tlieir ill. He who toucheth them, toucheth the apple of His 
 eye. Onkelos asked : Wherewith art thou judged? The spirit 
 said: With boiling filth'. For the Teaclier" has said: He who 
 scornetli the words of the wise, is judged with boiling filth. — See 
 what a distinction there is l>etween the apostates of Israel and 
 the heathen prophets ! " 
 
 The unhistorical character of this narrative follows from its 
 contents. Not that we are to be considered as belonging to 
 those, to whom a conjuring up of the dead appears impossible, or 
 as finding it ridiculous that a heathen, wlio, after he had studied 
 the docti'ines of the Jews, has determined to become a proselyte, 
 still desires first to question the dead concerning his step. The 
 reality of the one is sufficiently witnessed by the Scriptures, and 
 the possibility of the other must be granted in the case of a man, 
 who even with every inclination to Judaism is nevertheless still 
 a heathen and has not yet thrown off the works of heathenism. 
 Also it is thoroughly natural that Onkelos should summon the 
 spirits of such as passed with him for enemies of Judaism, and 
 that lie exercises a well-considered choice, in that he calls up 
 from Hades first two heathen, of whom the one (Titus) had 
 earned a lasting evil memory through the overthrow of Jeru- 
 salem, and the other (Balaam) through his attempt to destroy 
 Israel by means of impure idolatry' ; then an Israelite (Jesus), 
 who as an opponent of the Jewish teachers had not His like. 
 
 But by a string of other features the whole narrative is 
 shewn to be a product of Jewnsh national poetry. If the Spirit 
 of lies had once begun by means of his lying spirits to extol the 
 lot of the Israelites in the other world to him who contemplated 
 seceding to Judaism, he would surely have been obliged con- 
 
 1 Kot. 
 
 2 Daamar viar. The same formula of citation occurs, p. 41. 
 
 3 From this crime of Balaam the punishment also here imposed on him 
 is explained. 
 
94 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 sistently to recommend to Onkelos that secession. Tliis however 
 does not take place, but tlie two heathen advise making war 
 upon Israel, while only the Israelite Jesus advises friendship 
 with Israel. This is a thoroughly Jewish idea. For the Jew is 
 too proud to recognise foreign testimony : he knows no more 
 weighty authority than the Jew. Onkelos did not venture on 
 the advice of a heathen to secede to Judaism, but only on the 
 advice of a Jew, whose judgment in this case weighed the 
 heavier, as He (naturally, according to the view of the Jews) 
 had been in no way a friend of Judaism, and now found Himself 
 undergoing the severest punishment, the full justice of which He 
 acknowledges. — Also the distinction of the punishments of the 
 unseen world allows us clearly to recognise the origin of the 
 history on the soil of Jewish poetry. One national feature has 
 here dislodged the other. Jewish opinion in the abstract would 
 have been, that the Israelite would have to undergo a much 
 slighter penalty than the two heathen. Instead of this, the 
 penal tortures of Jesus exceed those of the two non-Israelites. 
 For yet stronger than the consciousness of having in Jesus a 
 fellow-countryman was ever and anon the hatred towards Him, 
 of which it must be said that it has become the most national 
 feature of Judaism since the rejection of Christ, as then it has 
 also found in our narrative the grossest conceivable expression. 
 
 Since the narrative, as we saw, is fictitious, we assume, on 
 account of the importance which the person of Jesus has in it, 
 that the leading thought of the fiction culminates in fact in that 
 pei-son : the extolled secession of the illustrious Onkelos to 
 Judaism has to be commended by Jesus in such a manner, that 
 He has not only out of the deepest punishment put forth His 
 exhortation, but also has depicted and recognised as justified 
 this His punishment which yet has absolutely no reference to 
 Onkelos's design. 
 
 The punishment of "boiling filth" is perhaps a thing first 
 in^-ented with regard to Jesus, and an expression of hate towards 
 the most hated of all hated men ; for in the exceptional position 
 which Jesus assumes in every respect, it is easily to be supposed 
 
JESUS END. 95 
 
 that Judaism, which was very ingenious in new conceptions with 
 regard to the state of things in the unseen world ', in tlie case of 
 Jesus did not content itself with a penalty already assigned to 
 others. In fact we find the "boiling filth" elsewliere only in 
 one place, namely Erubin, 21 b, where with reference to the 
 Divine character of the words of the doctors of the Law it is 
 said in the name of Rab Acha bar Ulla ; "from this [from Eccles. 
 xii. 12] it follows, that he who jeers at the words of the doctors 
 of the Law, is punished by boiling filth." If in this passage the 
 words " like Jesus of Nazareth " have not been struck out by the 
 Censure- or otherwise fallen away from the text, they may never- 
 theless be added in thought. That by " boiling filth " we are 
 not to understand a division in hell, is clearly deduced from the 
 parallelism : it is said of Balaam, that he was punished with 
 boiling pollution. Conditions are meant, methods of punish- 
 ment. It was not till post-Talmudic times, that evidently through 
 the desire to develop and colour all the monstrous statements of 
 the Talmud about Jesus (cp. the Tol'doth Jeshu), the " boiling 
 filth " was made into a division of hell, and the following teaching 
 put forth : The " boiling filth " is the lowest abode in hell, into 
 which there sinks every foulness of the souls, which sojourn in 
 the upper portions. It is also as a secret chamber, and every 
 superfluity, in which there is no spark of holiness, falls thereinto. 
 For this reason it is called " boiling filth,'' according to the 
 mysterious words of Is. xxviiL 8 : " There is so much vomit and 
 filthiness, that there is no place clean," as it is said in Is. xxx. 
 52 : "Thou shalt call it filth^" ( Emeh liavimelech 135 c, chap. 19. 
 See Eisenmenger, Entdechtes Judenthum, ii. 335 ff".). 
 
 ' So e. g. according to Bdba Bathra, 74 a, the hell for the Korahites is each 
 month fashioned anew, and they boil therein like meat in the pot. 
 
 ^ The Talmudio Commentary Tosaphoth on Erubin [see p. 18*, xxi. (6)], 
 which was not subjected to the Censure, refer to Gittin, 57. But the 
 connexion with Eccles. xii. 12 seems to indicate that this penalty was not 
 invented for Jesus. [H. L. S.] 
 
 * According to this (erroneous) interpretation, NV=nNV of Deut. xxviii. 
 14, Ezek. iv. 12. [A. W. S.] 
 
96 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 Such gross ideas are wont to arise at a time of great excite- 
 ment. Hamburger' remarks: "Tlie phantastic ideas as to the 
 punishments of liell arose in the times of the terrible persecutions 
 directed against Israel, where the Jews had to find comfort and 
 relief in dealing with the furtlier world, the abode of righteous- 
 ness." So Wiinsche": " In order to strengthen the confidence in 
 a Divine retribution, the Rabbis laid on the colours strongly." — 
 Onkelos belongs to the age of Akiba. From the political features 
 of this time we may also comprehend the charge against Jesus 
 which our passage contains : He had mocked at the words of the 
 learned in Holy Writ : a charge (according to Jewish conception) 
 very well founded, which was with much eagerness made promi- 
 nent, inasmuch as the persecution of the Jews on the part of the 
 Romans at the time of Akiba, had specially to do with the 
 doctors of the Law, who formed the living pillars of Judaism. 
 The old hatred against Jesus, which had so severely shaken all 
 respect for Rabbinic reputation, blazed out with new violence, 
 when the Romans likewise although in quite a different manner 
 made war upon the authorities of Judaism. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We are at the end of our investigation and elucidation of the 
 passages in the Talmud which refer to Jesus, and now place 
 before ourselves by way of summary its result. 
 
 Two points are continually presented to us in a striking way: 
 1st. The extraordinary paucity and scantiness of those accounts, 
 2nd. Their fabulous character. 
 
 Unattacked by Christianity, rather seeing their highest ideal 
 in the actual persecution of that faith (cp. the Acts of the ApostUs), 
 thrown back upon their own oral tradition, which not only, 
 like all oral tradition, was in danger of being dulled and 
 distorted, and at last of completely disappearing from the 
 memory, but also was strongly influenced by hatred towards Jesus, 
 
 ' Real-Encychpadie, i. 529. 
 
 ' A. Wunache, Jahrbiieher fllr iirntcst. Thmloaie, 1880, p. oil. 
 
CONCLUSION. 97 
 
 the Jews only retained some main features of His history 
 in their memory, namely : of His ministry only the general 
 account, that He was a seducer of the people and a sorcerer and 
 a fool, who had given Himself out to he God ; somewhat more of 
 His Trial and Execution, since in the latter the Jewish people 
 had taken part with such vast excitement. Accordingly later, 
 especially in and since the time of R. Akiba, from this shrinking 
 down of the history to a few points, there came to be a prevalent 
 need for more stories of Jesus. Hence the origin of the impulse 
 to develop and season with ridicule what they still possessed. 
 Not troubling themselves about chronology, they found in an old 
 anonymous narrative a story about Jesus (see pp. 41 ff. ); from 
 isolated fragments there was formed independently a uniform 
 picture (cp. Jesus' condemnation and execution, pp. 79 ff.); at 
 last they surrendered themselves to pure fiction, to give vent to 
 their scorn (cp. the five disciples, pp. 71 ff.). Expressions of scorn, 
 words of ridicule, piquant, and therefore received with applause, 
 served as the basis of new fables (cp. the names Pandera and 
 Stada, pp. 7 ff., as well as the story in Kallah 18 b, pp. 33 ff.). 
 How great had been the shrinkage as regards the recollections 
 of Jesus, and how powerfully then the reconstruction of His 
 history wrought upon the feelings of the Jewish people, is seen 
 from the singular fact, that Akiba, the man who took the most 
 active part in this fresh ill-treatment of Jesus, was plainly held 
 in the most vivid recollection as regards his relation to Him and 
 to Christianity, so much so that Jesus was actually taken for his 
 contemporary. 
 
 Upon this time of rank growth of stories concerning Jesus 
 there followed later again a time in which almost no intercourse 
 with Christians took place. In it the stories of Jesus were more 
 and more left on one side, and so of the many productions of the 
 time, which we propose to call the Akiba-time, only that very 
 small amount has been kept in mind, which is put before us in 
 the Talmud. But that the hatred towards Jesus merely slum- 
 bered, and only waited a touch, in order to break forth again, 
 is seen from the Mary-legend, pp. 27 ff. 
 
 S. 7 
 
98 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 From the history of the origin of the Talmudic stories about 
 Jesus may be understood not only the lack of resemblance in 
 these stories to the actual history of Jesus, but also the impossi- 
 bility of obtaining a uniform picture from them. Moreover this 
 has never yet been attempted by a Jew, but these "precious 
 stones " have ever been considered and cherished only in their 
 individual capacities. That they are not precious stones, but 
 rubbish only, our investigation has sufficiently proved. 
 
 The perception of the slender value of the Talmudic notices of 
 Jesus, necessarily directs the Jew to whom Jesns is surely an 
 extraordinarily important Personage, to the reading of the New 
 Testament. — But what we Christians have gained from the fore- 
 going investigation is a weapon for the right hand and for the 
 left. For each thoughtful Jew we have shewn the unfitness of 
 the Talmud to be reckoned as a real source for the history of 
 Jesus ; while we point the non-Jew, if he be an unbeliever, to the 
 testimony of the Talmud that Jesus wrought " Egyptian," i.e. 
 unwonted, miracles (pp. 45 ff.), as well as to its repeated reference 
 to the miracles wrought by the disciples through His name 
 (pp. 77ff.). 
 
 Lastly, we may be thankful that the papal attempt to destroy 
 the Talmudic passages concerning Jesus was doomed to fail. 
 
APPENDIX I. (See p. 2.) 
 
 Since everyone has not the writings of Justin at hand, we venture 
 to oflfer some important extracts from them bearing on this subject. 
 We quote in accordance with the edition of J. C. Th. Otto, Jena, 1843 : — 
 " The Jews regard us as foes and opponents, and kill, and torture us, if 
 they have the power. In the lately- ended Jewish war Bar Kokh'ba, the 
 instigator of the Jewish revolt, caused Christians alone to be dragged 
 to terrible tortures, whenever they would not deny and revile Jesus 
 Christ^." "The Jews hate us, because we say that Christ is already 
 come, and because we point out that He, as had been prophesied, 
 was crucified by them 2." — "Therefore we pray both for you Jews 
 and for all other men who hate us, that you place yourselves in 
 company with us, and against those, whom His works, and the 
 miracles now still wrought through the invoking of His Kame, and 
 His teaching, as well as the prophecies concerning Him as wholly 
 undefiled and blameless, all unite to admonish that they should vomit 
 forth no revilings against Jesus Christ, but believe on Him^" " The high- 
 priests of your nation and your teachers have caused that the name of 
 Jesus should be profaned and reviled through the whole world ^." — "Ye 
 have killed the Just and His prophets before Him. And now ye despise 
 those, who hope in Him and in God, the King over all and Creator of 
 all things, who has sent Jesus ; ye despise and dishonour them, as much 
 as in you lies, in that in your synagogues ye curse those who believe in 
 Christ. Ye only lack the power, on account of those who hold the 
 reins of government, to treat us with violence. But as often as ye 
 have had this power, ye have also done this"." " In your synagogues ye 
 
 1 Apology, x. chap. 31. - Ibid. chap. 36. 
 
 ' Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 35. * Ibid. chap. 117. 
 
 '• Ibid. chap. 16. 
 
 7—2 
 
100 JESUS CHRIST IN THE TALMUD. 
 
 curse all who have become Chi'istians, and the same is done by the other 
 nations, who give a practical turn to the curse, in that when any one 
 merely acknowledges himself a Christian, they put him to death'.' 
 " Nay, ye have added thereto, that Christ taught those impious, unlaw- 
 ful, horrible actions, which ye disseminate as charges above all against 
 those who acknowledge Christ as Teacher and as the Son of God 2." — 
 " Yet revile not the Sou of God, and hearken not to the Pharisees as 
 teachers, that after prayer ye should ill-ti-eat the King of Israel with 
 scoffs, as they have been taught you by the rulers of the synagogue'." 
 — " As far as depends on you and the rest of mankind, each Christian 
 is driven not only from his possession, but completely out of the world : 
 ye permit no Christian to live'." — " Your hand is stretched out for ill- 
 doing. For instead of experiencing repentance for having put Christ 
 to death, ye hate us who through Him believe on God and the Father 
 of all things, and ye put us to death as often as ye have the power, and 
 ye continually curse Christ and His adherents, whereas we all pray for 
 you as in general for all men" (after the wording of Matt. v. 44 ; Luke 
 vi. 27 f.)°, — "Your teachers exhort you to permit yourselves no conver- 
 sation whatever with us*." — "There does not press upon other nations 
 so heavy an offence against us and Christ as upon you, who are the 
 originators of the preconceived evil opinion, which the nations cherish 
 concerning Christ and us, His disciples. For since ye have attached 
 Him the only blameless and righteous One to the Cross, ye have not 
 only made no amends for your atrocious action, but at that time ye 
 sent forth chosen men from Jerusalem, to proclaim throughout the 
 world, that there is a new sect, namely, the Christians, arisen, which 
 reverence no God, and to spread abroad what all who know us not 
 maintain concerning us. It was your most earnest endeavour that 
 bitter, dark, unjust charges should be put into circulation throughout 
 the whole world against that sole spotless and righteous Light, which 
 was sent from (Jod to men 5^." — "The Jews make war against the 
 Christians as against a foreign nation, and the Greeks {i.e. the Gentiles) 
 persecute them ; but their enemies can allege no ground of hostility ^" 
 
 ' Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 96. " Ibid. chap. 108. 
 
 2 Ibid. chap. 137. ■> Ibid. chap. 110. 
 
 « Ibid. chap. 133. '■ Ibid. chap. 112. 
 
 ' ^'"■''- cliap. 17. s j^etter to DiognetJis, chap. 5. 
 
APPENDIX II. (See p. 78.) 
 
 A RARE exception may be supplied by the following case, which is 
 furnished us from the life of John Kasp. Schade, that pious Berlin 
 pastor, often mentioned in the history of pietism along with Spener 
 and Francke : — " What the power of God effected through him was also 
 acknowledged by the Jews. About two years before his death (1698) a 
 Jewish father accompanied by the Jewish schoolmaster came to him, 
 and begged of him earnestly that he would pray over his son, who was 
 possessed with an evil spirit, inasmuch as all Rabbinic prayei-s and 
 ceremonies had availed nought. Schade declai-ed himself willing to 
 comply with this request, adding however as a condition, that he could 
 not pray over the child otherwise than in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 Consent was given. Schade went to the Jew's residence, and by his 
 prayer procured an improvement from that moment in the boy and 
 deliverance from the complaint. From this time forward Schade was 
 held in great consideration and respect by the Jews in Berlin; 
 many of them visited him with frequency and held him to he a prophet. 
 And when the Christian populace, out of rage against this preacher 
 of repentance, desired on the day of his funeral to force open his grave, 
 the Christians were put to shame by the Jews, inasmuch as the latter 
 spoke with indignation of such an outrage to the grave of a pious man."' 
 (See "Christoterpe" by A. Knapp, 1863, pp. 151 f.; comp. also I. de le 
 Roi, Die evang. ChrutenJieit und die Juden, vol. i. p. 215.) 
 
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction (1 — 9). 
 
 I. Titles of Jesus and His origin (7 — 39). 
 
 A. Names of Jesus and of His parents — See S/mbbath 104 b= 
 
 San/iedrin 67 a (9—25), viz. Ben Stada (7 ffi) ; Mary tlie 
 woman's hair-dresser (16 fF.) ; Paphos ben Jehudah (18 ff.) ; 
 Ben Pandera (19 ff.). 
 
 B. Character of the mother of Jesus : Gittin 90 a (25 — 27). 
 
 C. A Mary-legend : Chagigah 4 b (27—30). 
 
 D. Two statements as to Jesus' being born out of wedlock (30 — 
 
 39), viz. Xbamoth 49 (31—33), Kallah 18 b (33flf.). 
 
 II. Jesus' Works (40—79). 
 
 A. Jesus and His teachers : — Sank. 107 h = Sota 47 a (39 — 45). 
 
 B. Jesus the sorcerer : Shabbath 104 b (45 — 50). 
 
 C. Jesus' teaching (48—70). Judgment of the Talmud as to 
 
 Jesus' teaching (48 — 62). Balaam = Jesus (53 — 62), Sayings 
 of Jesus in the Talmud (62—70) : Aboda zara, 16 f. (62 ff.), 
 Shabbath, 116 (66 ff.). 
 
 D. Jesus' disciples (71—79) ; Mathai, Nakkai, Netzer, Bunni, 
 
 Todah (71 ff.) ; Jacob of K'phar Sekhanya (77 f.). 
 
 III. Jesus' End (79—96). 
 
 A. Jesus' condemnation : Saji/i. 67 a (79 — 84). 
 
 B. Jesus' execution. Sank. 43 a (79 ff.), Tai'gum Sheui on Esther 
 vii. 9 (90 f.). 
 
 C. The rending of the veil. Jojna 39 b (91 f.). 
 
 D. Jesus in the unseen world : Gittin 57 a (92 ff.). 
 Conclusion (96—98). 
 
 Appendices (99—101). 
 
I. GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Abbahu, 50 
 
 Aboda zara, 13, 32 
 
 Acha bar Ulla, 95 
 
 Ahab, 54 
 
 Ahithopel, 54 ff. 
 
 Akiba, 6, 14 f., 19, 25, 32 ft., 38 f., 
 
 45, 55 f., 62 ff., 74, 83 ft., 96 f. 
 J.ksandria (Alexandria), 91 
 Aksanga (inn, hostess), 41 
 Alexander, 76 
 
 Alexander JannsBus, see Jaunai. 
 Amoraim, 9 
 Angel of death, 27 fE. 
 Awen-gillajon, 13 
 ' Awon-gillajon, 13, 70 
 
 Baba Bathra, 95 
 
 Bacchus, 24 
 
 Balaam, 14, 53 ff., 60 f., 92 f. 
 
 Bar Koch'ba, 6, 13 ff., 32, 74 f., 99 
 
 Bar Kozeba, 13 
 
 Bar Neser, 76 
 
 Een-Azzai, see Simeon Ben A. 
 
 Ben-Dama, 78 
 
 Ben-Sot'da, 15, 80 
 
 Ben-Stada (Stara), see Stada. 
 
 Beth-din, 84 
 
 Beth-galja, 13 
 
 Beth-karja, 13 
 
 Beth-lehem, massacre of Innocents 
 
 at, 14 
 Bethome, crucifixion of Jews at, 42 
 Bibi bar Abbai, 28 ff. 
 
 Bilga, priestly course of, 20 
 
 Boy with uncovered head, story of, 
 
 34 ff. 
 Brickbat, worship of, 41 
 Briill, Jahrbucher u. «. w., 89 
 Bnnni, 72 ff. 
 
 Caricatore-names, 12 
 
 Cassel's Aus Litteratur u. s. w., 12 f., 
 18, 90. 
 
 Celsus, 19, 22, 25 
 
 Censure, Jewish collections of pas- 
 sages excised by the, 1. See also 
 Talmud. 
 
 Chagigah, 33, 42 
 
 Chanina, 59 f. 
 
 Glielkath STcIuikek, 7 
 
 Chia, see Joseph bar C. 
 
 Chia bar Abba (=C. Eabbah), 50 f. 
 
 Coronel's Commentarios etc., 35 
 
 Cyrus, 76 
 
 Dalman's Der Gottesname a. s. w., 
 
 88 
 de le Boi, Die Evang. Ghristenheit 
 
 u. <s. w., 101 
 Delitzsch, Ein Tag u. ». ic, 34 
 Diospolis, see Lud. 
 Disciples, the five, 71 ff. 
 Doeg, 54 ff. 
 
 Egypt (Jesus in), 41 ff.; character of 
 E. for magic, 48 f. 
 
104 
 
 I. GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Eli Betzalim, 30 
 
 Eliazar ben Dama, 77 f. 
 
 Eliazar ben Kalir, 20 
 
 Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, 33 ff., 45 f., 
 
 (trial of) 62 ff., 83 
 Elisha, 57 
 Bntdecktes Judenthmn (Eisenmen- 
 
 ger), 32, 95 
 Bpiphanius, 22 f. 
 
 Evangelium, 13, 70. See also Gospel. 
 Exedra, 91 
 
 Five disciples, Jesus had, 71 ff. 
 Flag waved to postpone execution, 86 
 Fly in a cup, figure of, 26 
 
 Gamaliel H., 66 ff. 
 
 Gates of temple burst open, 91 
 
 Gehazi, 54 ff. 
 
 Genealogies, book of, 31 
 
 Gittin, 95 
 
 Gordianus, 76 
 
 Gospel, 67 ff. See also Evangelium. 
 
 Gratz's Geschichte u. s. w., 76 
 
 Hadrian, 23 
 
 Haman, 29, 87, 90 
 
 Hamburger's Real-Encycl. u. ». w., 
 
 31, 42, 83, 86, 96 
 Hammedatha, 90 
 Hanging, punishment of, 88 ff. 
 Hengstenberg, Hist, of Balaam, 76 
 Herald preceding condemned, 85 f. 
 Herod the Great, 13, 31 
 
 Idolatry, seducers to, 79 ff. 
 'ikkar, 89 
 
 Imma Shalom, 66 ff. 
 Ishmael (B.), 77 f. 
 
 Jabne (Jaffa, Joppa), 84 
 
 Jacob of K'phar Sama, 77 
 
 Jacob of K'phar S'khanya, 63 ff., 77 f. 
 
 Jahn, F. L., 32 
 
 Jallc. Schim., 76 
 
 James (St), 57 
 
 Jannai, 41 f. 
 
 J'chezkel, 13 
 
 Jehudah ben Tabbai, 42 
 
 Jehudah the Prince, 54, 84 
 
 Jeroboam, 54 
 
 Jesus, condemnation of, 79 ff. 
 
 Jesus, execution of, 85 ff. 
 
 Jesus, the forty days after the resur- 
 rection of, 8S 
 
 Jesus, forty da3-s' fast of, 88 
 
 Jesus in the unseen world, 92 
 
 Jesus, Jewish explanations of name, 
 7 
 
 Jewish aversion to Christians, excep- 
 tion to, 101 
 
 Jochanau ben Zakkai, 83, 57, 59, 62 
 
 Joden, 31 
 
 Joel, Blicke u. s. ic, 89 
 
 John (St), 57 
 
 John of Damascus, 22 
 
 Jose ben Chanina, 30 
 
 Joseph, 18 f. 
 
 Joseph bar Chia, 28 
 
 Joshua ben Chanauia, 33 ff. 
 
 Joshua ben P'rachyah, 40 ff., 57, 83 
 
 Justin, 14, quotations from, 99 f. 
 
 Kiddushin, 12 f. 
 
 KiVlath 'lohini, 89 
 
 King's Antique Gems etc., 24 
 
 Knapp's Christoterpe, 101 
 
 Kohut's Aruch, 32, 52 
 
 Laban the Syrian, 53 
 Lame man, epithet for Jesus, 61 
 Lazar ben Jose, 30 
 Lebrecht's Haminankir, 91 
 Libyan ass, 67 f. 
 
 Lichtenstein's Sephcr ToVdoth 
 Jeshiui, 34 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 105 
 
 Lightfoot, Horae Heb. et Talm., 52 
 Lista'a (Xijariis), 60 
 Lud (Lod, Lydda), 33, (scene of Cru- 
 eiaxion) 38, 62, 74, 80, 83 ff. 
 
 Madden's Coins, etc., 13, 24 
 
 M'gadd'la n'sajja, 16 
 
 Magi, 14 
 
 Maimer, 32 
 
 Manasseh, 54 
 
 Mary (Miriam), 8 fe., 20, 26 ff., 33 ff. 
 
 Mary Magdalene, 16 f. 
 
 Mathai (Matthew), 71 ff. 
 
 Meir, 26 
 
 Midrash Eabba, 13 
 
 Minim {Min, Minuth), 32, 55, 59, 62 
 
 Mordecai, 90 
 
 Nakkai, 71 ff. 
 
 Napoleon I., 32 
 
 Nathan, Aboth of E., 40 
 
 Netzer, 71 fi. 
 
 Neubauer's GSographie du Talmud, 9, 
 
 62 f., 84 
 Nicanor, 76 
 
 Nicephorus Callistus's Hist. EccL, 11 
 Nicknames, see Caricature-names. 
 Nioodemus, 76 
 Nicolaus (Nicolaitans), 76 
 
 Odenath, 76 
 
 Olialoth, 91 
 
 Onkelos bar Kalonicus, 92 ff. 
 
 Origen, 19 
 
 Otto's Justin, 99 f. 
 
 Pandera{Pantera,Pantere,Panthera), 
 son of, 7 ff., 19 ff., 35, 57, 77, 90 
 
 Panther, symbol of sensuality, 23 f. 
 
 Paphos (Pappus) ben Jehudah, 8 ff., 
 26 f. 
 
 irapdivo!, 24 
 
 Pesach, 13 
 
 Peter (St), 57 
 
 Philosopher= Christian, 66 ff. 
 
 Phinehas, 59 f. 
 
 Pirie Avoth, 53 
 
 P'listda, see Listda 
 
 P'loni, 57 
 
 Pontius Pilate, 87 
 
 Pumbeditha (Golah), 8, 15, 22, 28 
 
 Rab, 9, 31 
 
 Bab Chisda, 8 f. 
 
 Rabban (title), 66 
 
 Eabbi (= Jehudah ben Simon III.), 
 
 50 
 Rami ben Joden, 31 
 Rashi, 26 f. 
 Renan, 80 
 
 Resurrection, reference to the, 61 
 Bijsch, TlieoL Studien u. s. w., 57 
 
 Sanhedrin acquainted with magic, 
 49 
 
 Sanhednn (Pal.), 15, 42 
 
 Schade, anecdote of, 101 
 
 SchSttgen's Horae Heb. et Talm., 34 
 
 Schiirer's History, etc., 42, 84 
 
 Seplier ToVdoth Jeshu, 34 
 
 Sepphoris, 63 
 
 Shameless person, definition of, 33 
 
 Shim'on ben Shetach, 30, 41, 48 
 
 Shoteh (fool), 47, 50 
 
 Sh'wiskel. See J'chezkel 
 
 Sikhnin, see Jacob of K. S'khanya 
 
 Simeon ben Azzai, 31 fi. 
 
 Simeon ben Jochai, 48 
 
 Simeon ben Gamaliel I., 66 
 
 Siphre, 89 
 
 Soldier, significance of epithet Ro- 
 man, 22 
 
 Sora, 8 f. 
 
 Sorcery ascribed to Jesus, 41 ff., 52, 
 62 
 
 Sotera {adrr-fip), 15 
 
106 
 
 1. GENERAL INUEX. 
 
 Stada (Satda), sou of, 7 If., 25, 46, 37. 
 
 See also Ben Sot'da. 
 S'tath da, 8 ff. 
 
 Strack's Einleitung v.s.w., 1, 3 
 Strauss, 27 
 Sukka, 20 
 
 Ta'nith, 13, 15 
 
 Talmud, uuexpurgated edition of, 2 ; 
 
 Jesus rarely mentioned in, 5 
 Tahii {tole), 90 
 Tanchunia (Midrash), 61 
 Targum of Onkelos, 13 
 
 Pseudo-Jonathan, 13 
 Sheni on Esther, 8, 29, 
 60, 87, 90 
 Tattooing, 46 f. 
 Thaddaeus, 76 
 Theudas, 76 
 Thilo's Codex Apoc. etc., 76 
 
 Thodah, 72 B. 
 Titus, 92 f. 
 ToVdoth Jesu, 7, 95 
 Tz'lib yatheh, 89 
 T^libeh, 89 
 
 Ulla, 85 ff. 
 
 Veil, rending of, 91 
 Von Hofman's Die bibl. GeschiclUe 
 U.S.W., 91 
 
 Weber's System u.s.w., 43, 55, 88 
 Wolf (epithet for a non-Jew), 20 
 Wunsehe's Jahrbuclier u.s.w., 96 
 
 Zaken mamre (name for Christ), 1 
 Zakhuth, 72 
 
 Zunz's Litteraturgeschichte u. s.tc, 
 20 
 
11. INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Gen. xxxi. 42, 53 62 
 
 Ex. IT. 22, 23 72 
 
 „ xxiii. 7 72 
 
 Lev. xix. 19 65 
 
 „ XX. 18 36 
 
 „ xxiv. 16 88 
 
 Numb. V. 19 11 
 
 „ xxiii. 19 50 
 
 „ xxiv. 17 13 
 
 „ 23 61 
 
 „ XXV. 2ff 60 
 
 „ xxxi. 6 — 8 61 
 
 Deut. V. 4 51 
 
 „ vi. 4ff 41 
 
 „ xiii. 8 85 
 
 „ xvii. 6 82 
 
 „ xxi. 22, 23 88 f. 
 
 ,, xxii. 5 65 
 
 ,, xxiii. 2 40 
 
 ,, 19 63fE. 
 
 „ xxviii. 14 95 
 
 IChr. 1.43 53 
 
 „ viii. 12 62 
 
 Esth. vii. 9 8,90 
 
 Ps. i. 8 72 
 
 „ xli. 6 72 
 
 „ xlii. 3 72 
 
 „ 1.23 72 
 
 Iv. 24 58 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ps. xci. 10 51 
 
 „ c. 1 72 
 
 „ cxliv. 14 51 
 
 Prov. v. 8 63 
 
 „ viii. 21 58 
 
 Ecoles. X. 8 78 
 
 „ xii. 12 95 
 
 Is. xi. 1 72 
 
 „ xiv. 19 72 
 
 „ xxviii. 8 95 
 
 ,, XXX. 52 95 
 
 Lam. i. 5 i. 92 
 
 Ezek. iv. 12 95 
 
 Dan. vii. 6 23 
 
 Mic. i. 7 63,65 
 
 Matt. i. 19 20 
 
 „ ii. 13— 15 43 
 
 „ iv. 2 87 
 
 „ V. 17 68 f. 
 
 „ „ 33—37 71 
 
 „ ix. 34 46 f. 
 
 ,, xiii. 54 40 
 
 „ xxiii. 16— 23 71 
 
 ,, xxvi. 20 82 
 
 „ 65,66 89 
 
 „ xxvii. 22 89 
 
 Mark vi. 2 40 
 
 „ xiv. 62—64 89 
 
 „ XV. 13, 14 89 
 
108 II. INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 PAQE PAGE 
 
 Luke ii. 46, 47 39 John xix. 6, 7 89 
 
 „ iii. 23 60 Actsiv.36 18 
 
 ,, xvi. 22 58 ,, V. 31) 76 
 
 „ xxii. 70, 71 89 „ vi. 5 76 
 
 XX iii. 3 52 „ ix. 32, 35, 38 38 
 
 ., 21,23 89 ,, xix. 19 49 
 
 Joliii i. 47 71 Gal. ii. 9 57 
 
 „ vi. 42 11 „ iii. 13 88 
 
 „ vii. 15 40 Jam. V. 12 71 
 
 viii. 11 44 Apoc. ii. 6, 15 76 
 
 „ X. 20 45 „ xiii. 2 28 
 
 CAMBEIDOE : PMNTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE DNIVERSITY PKESS. 
 
THE MISHNA AS ILLUSTRATING THE GOSPELS. By 
 
 W. H. Bennett, It. A., Fry Hebrew Scholar of St Jolin s College, Cambridge. 8vo. 4jr. 6^/. 
 
 THE YALKUT OF ZECHARIAH. Translated, with Notes and 
 
 Appendices, bj' Edward G. Kino, D.D., Hebrew Lecturer at Sidney Sussex College. 8vo. 6s, 
 
 HEBREW WORDS AND SYNONYMS. Part I. The names of 
 
 God. 8vo. 3j. 6d. 
 
 THE " ASAPH " PSALMS IN THEIR CONNEXION WITH THE 
 
 EARLY RELIGION OP BABYLONIA. The Hulscan Lectures for the year 1889, 
 dehvered before the University of Cambridge by Edward G. King, D.D., Sidney Sussex 
 College. 8vo. 2i. 6d. 
 
 AKKADEAN GENESIS; OR, THE INFLUENCE OF EARLY 
 
 BABYLONIAN RELIGION ON THE LANGUAGE AND TIIOaGHT OP GENESIS. 
 8vo. 3j. 
 
 PASTOR PASTORUM, OR THE SCHOOLING OF THE 
 
 APOSTLES. By the Rev. H. Latham, M.A., Master of Trmity Hall. Tkird Thousanii. 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. tiff. 
 
 THE PERSECUTION OF DIOCLETIAN. An Historical Essay. 
 
 By Arthur Jajies Mason, Fellow of Trinity Collie, Cambridge. 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
 
 THE TREE OF LIFE; OR, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF LIFE ETERNAL IN THE SCRIPTURES OP THE OLD COVENANT. 
 By John Sharfe, D.O., Rector of Elmley Lovett, late Fellow of Christ's College. Deiny 
 8vo. Ss. 
 
 NOTES AND DISSERTATIONS UPON THE PROPHECY OF 
 
 HOSEA. By J. Shakpe, D.D. 10». 6d. 
 
 PSALM ex. Three Lectures, with Notes. By J. Sharpe, D.D. 
 
 Crown 8vo. is. 6d. 
 
 TESTAMENTA XII PATRIARCHARUM ; AD FIDEM CODICIS 
 
 CANTABRIGIE.VSIS EDITA: ACCEDUNT LECTIONES COD. OXONIENSIS. The 
 Testaments of the XII Patriarchs : an attempt to estimate their Historic and Dogmatic 
 Worth. By B. SiSKBH, D.D. Small 8vo. Is. 6d. 
 
 TESTAMENTA XII PATRIARCHARUM. Appendix containing a 
 
 collation of the Roman and Fatmos MSS., and Bibliographical Notes. By R. Sinker, D.D. 
 Small 8vo. 5;. 
 
 THE PSALM OF HABAKKUK : a Revised Translation, with 
 
 Exegetical and Critical Notes on the Hebrew and Greek Texts. By R. Sinker, D.D. Zx. G<i. 
 
 JEWISH CHRISTIANS AND JUDAISM. A study in the History 
 
 of the First Two Centuries. By W. R. Sorlet, Fellow uf Trinitj' College, Cambridge ; Sliaw 
 Fellow of the University of Edmburgh. Demy 8vo. 4*. 6c/. 
 
 ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY 
 
 SPIRIT, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE 
 FOURTH CENTURY. By H. B. Swetb, D.D., Gonville and Caius College, Regius 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge^ 8vo. 3*. 
 
 ON THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PROCESSION 
 
 OP THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DEATH OF 
 CHARLEMAGNE. By H. B. SwETE, D.D. 8vo. Is. id. 
 
 THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. With Illustra- 
 tions from the Talmud. By C. Tatioe, D.D., Master of St John's College. Re-issued with 
 an Appendix containing the Greek Text, and an Essay on the Theology of the teaching of the 
 Twelve Apostles. Demy 8vo. 6*. 
 
 AN ESSAY ON THE THEOLOGY OF THE DIDACHE, WITH 
 
 THE GREEK TEXT, FORMING AN APPENDIX TO TWO LECTURES ON THE 
 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. By 0. Tatioii, D.D., Master of St John's 
 College, Cambridge. Is. 6d. 
 
 Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL and CO. 
 London: GEORGE BELL and SONS.