mead, grs - did jesus live 100 bc

7/30/2019 Mead, GRS - Did Jesus Live 100 BC

1/251

Did Jesus Live

100 B.C.?

An Enquiry into the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth

Jeshu, and Some Curious Statements o! E"i"hanius#Bein$

a Contri%ution to the Study o! Christian &ri$ins

'. (. S. )ead

London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903.

1


2/251

Contents

1. Foreword. The !anonical "ate o# $esus3. %arliest %&ternal %'idence to the (ecei'ed "ate

). The *enesis o# the Tal+ud. The Tal+ud in -istory. /n the Tal+uds uter !ourt2. The %arliest %&ternal %'idence to the Tal+ud $esus Stories. The Tal+ud 100 4ears 5.!. Story o# $esus9. The Tal+ud 6ary Stories10. The Tal+ud 5en Stada $esus Stories11. The Tal+ud 5alaa+ $esus Stories1. The "isciples and Followers o# $esus in the Tal+ud13. The Toldoth $eschu1). 7 $ewish Li#e o# $esus

1. Traces o# %arly Toldoth For+s1. The 100 4ears 5.!. "ate in the Toldoth12. n the Trac8s o# the %arliest !hristians1. !oncerning the 5oo8 o# %l&ai19. The 100 4ears 5.!. "ate in %piphanius0. 7#terword
http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch1.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch2.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch3.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch4.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch5.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch6.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch7.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch8.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch9.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch10.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch11.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch12.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch13.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch14.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch15.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch16.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch17.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch18.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch19.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch20.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch1.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch2.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch3.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch4.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch5.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch6.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch7.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch8.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch9.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch10.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch11.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch12.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch13.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch14.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch15.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch16.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch17.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch18.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch19.htmlhttp://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch20.html


3/251

D*D JES+S L*E 100 B.C.?

*. -&(E&(D

-%; so+e #i'e and a hal# centuries be#ore the !hristian era the 5uddha arose in ancient7rya'arta to substitute actuality #or tradition, to brea8 down the barriers o# con'ention, andthrow open the ay o# (ighteousness to all, irrespecti'e o# race or birth, we are told that -e setaside the ancestral scriptures o# -is race and ti+es, and preached a *ospel o# sel#


4/251

brethren? #or all o# us, 5rah+ans and 5uddhists, -ebrews and !hristians, are o# li8e passions,and struggling in the bonds o# our sel#ecting the #aith which !hristendo+ holds to bethe sa'ing grace o# hu+anity. %'en as the 5rah+anists were the +eans o# sending #orth5uddhis+ into the world, and then, by building up round the+sel'es a stronger wall o#separation than e'er, cut the+sel'es o## #ro+ the new endea'our, so were the $ews the +eans o#launching !hristianity into the world, and then, by hedging the+sel'es round with ani+per+eable legal #ence, shut the+sel'es entirely #ro+ the new +o'e+ent. /n both cases theancient blood


5/251

+any centuries ha'e they regarded $esus as *od, and e'erything concerning -i+, as set apart inthe history o# the world, as uni@ue and +iraculous, that to #ind -i+ treated o# as a si+ple +an,and that too as one who +isled the children o# -is people, appears to the belie'er as the ran8est

blasphe+y. Least o# all can such a +ind reali=e e'en #aintly that the clai+s o# the !hurch onbehal# o# $esus ha'e e'er been thought, and are still thought, by the #ollowers o# the Torah to be

e@ually the e&tre+e o# blasphe+y, +ost sole+nly conde+ned by the #irst and #ore+ost o# theco++and+ents which the pious $ew +ust per#orce belie'e ca+e straight #ro+ *od -i+sel#.

7stonishing, there#ore, as it appears, though $ew and !hristian use the sa+e Scripture inco++on, with regard to their #unda+ental belie#s they stand o'er against each other in widestopposition? and the +an who sincerely lo'es his #ellows, who #eels his 8inship with +an as +an,irrespecti'e o# creed, caste, or race, stands aghast at the contradictions re'ealed by the warringele+ents in our co++on hu+an nature, and is dis+ayed at the in#inite opposition o# the powershe sees displayed in his brethren and #eels potential in hi+sel#.

5ut, than8 *od, to


6/251

hen, then, we ta8e pen in hand to re'iew part o# the history o# this great stri#e between!hristian and $ew in days gone by, we do so because we ha'e greater #aith in present


7/251

Such a wor8 is an underta8ing o# the +ost pro#ound interest and i+portance, and we loo8#orward to its publication with the li'eliest anticipation, as8ing oursel'es the @uestions: hatwill the $ew in this co+prehensi'e %ncyclopaedia ha'e to tell us o# !hristianityB -ow will hetreat the traditions o# his #athers concerning $esusB To


8/251

%'angelical record. ;e'ertheless he is con#ronted by the una'oidable #act that a great religionca+e to birth? and, i# he be not an out and out #i'eust 'alues, so+e things which cannot but appear e&tre+elyshoc8ing to con'entional religious +inds, and be able to understand how what was regarded bythe one side as a sa'ing truth, could be regarded by the other as a +ischie'ous error? how whatwas declared by the !hristians to be the highest honour, could be regarded by the $ew as a proo#o# dishonour? how what was belie'ed in by the #or+er as the historic #acts o# a uni@ue di'inere'elation, could be treated disparagingly, or with +oc8ery and e'en hu+our, by those who heldto the tradition o# what they belie'ed to ha'e been e@ually a uni@ue re'elation o# the "i'ine.

5ut it is not the doctrinal @uarrels which chie#ly interest us in studying these traditions o# $ewry.hat, in our opinion, is o# #ar greater interest is that the $ewish traditions, in spite o# so+e grosscontradictions, in the +ain assign a date to $esus which widely di##ers #ro+ that o# !hristiantradition. The +ain ob>ect o# this en@uiry is to state this proble+, to show that in +oderate

probability #or +any centuries this was the $ewish tradition as to the date o# $esus, not to attac8or de#end it. 6oreo'er, we ha'e ta8en up this sub>ect not only on general grounds o# interest, butalso #or a special reason.

For this proble+, though not as yet e'en heard o# by the general public, is, ne'ertheless, o# greatinterest to +any students o# Theosophy, and, there#ore, it see+s to press, not #or solutionA#or o#that there are no i++ediate hopesAbut #or a +ore satis#actory de#inition than has been as yet

accorded to it.


9/251

The proble+, then, we are about to atte+pt +ore clearly to de#ine is not a +etaphysical riddle,not a spiritual enig+a, not so+e +oral pu==le Hthough all o# these #actors +ay be +ade to inherein itJ, but a proble+ o# physical #act, well within the +iddle distance o# what is called the historic

period. /t is none the less on this account o# i++ense i+portance and interest generally, andespecially to thought#ul students o# origins, #or it raises no less a @uestion than that o# an error

in the date o# the li#e o# the Founder o# !hristianity? and that, too, not by the co+parati'elynarrow +argin o# so+e se'en or eight years Has +any ha'e already argued on the sole basis o#generally accepted traditional dataJ, but by no less a di##erence than the Hin such a connectionJenor+ous ti+e


10/251

the one hand without in'estigation, or on the other in despair o# arri'ing at any real bed


11/251

certain o# the $ewish $esus stories +ay ha'e been pre'iously 8nown to so+e o# +y colleagues,and that it +ight be reasonably supposed that this curious tradition had so #ascinated theiri+agination as to beco+e the deter+ining #actor in what +ight be called their sub>ecti'edra+atising #acultyAthere are two considerations which, in +y opinion, based on +y own8nowledge and e&perience, considerably wea8en the strength o# this sceptical and otherwise

apparently reasonable supposition.

First, the general consideration that +y #riends di##er widely #ro+ each other in te+pera+ent?they are +ostly o# di##erent nationalities, and all 'ary considerably in their ob>ecti'e 8nowledgeo# !hristian origins, and in their special 'iews o# e&ternal !hristianity. 6oreo'erAthough theyall sincerely endea'our to be i+partial on so i+portant a +atter, seeing that it touches the li#e o#a 6aster #or who+ they ha'e in a 'ery real sense the deepest re'erenceAwhile so+e o# the+ donot happen to be special #ollowers o# this particular Teacher, others, on the contrary, are speciallyattracted by this ay, and +ight, there#ore, be naturally e&pected to counteract in the interest o#recei'ed tradition any tendency to apparent e&tra'agance, which was not >usti#ied by repeatedsub>ecti'e e&periences o# such a nature as to outweigh their ob>ecti'e training and natural

preconceptions.

Second, the 'ery special consideration, that / ha'e had the opportunity on +any occasions o#testing the accuracy o# so+e o# +y colleagues with regard to state+ents either o# a si+ilar natureor o# a +ore personal character. 7nd lest +y e'idence on this point should be too hastily put outo# court by so+e i+patient reader, let +e brie#ly re#er to the nature o# such 'eri#ication.

5ut be#ore doing so, it would be as well to ha'e it understood that the +ethod o# in'estigation towhich / a+ re#erring does not bring into consideration any @uestion o# trance, either sel#udge, +y colleagues are to all outwardsee+ing in @uite their nor+al state. They go through no outward cere+onies, or internal ones #orthat +atter, nor e'en any outward preparation but that o# assu+ing a co+#ortable position?+oreo'er, they not only describe, as each nor+ally has the power o# description, what is passing

be#ore their inner 'ision in precisely the sa+e #ashion as one would describe so+e ob>ecti'escene, but they are #re@uently as surprised as their auditors that the scenes or e'ents they areatte+pting to e&plain are not at all as they e&pected to see the+, and re+ar8 on the+ as critically,and #re@uently as sceptically, as those who cannot see #or the+sel'es, but whose 8nowledge o#the sub>ect #ro+ ob>ecti'e study +ay be greater than theirs.

;ow, although it is true that in the +a>ority o# cases / ha'e not been able to chec8 their

state+ents, and doubt whether it will e'er be possible to do so owing to the lac8 o# ob>ecti'e+aterial, ne'ertheless, in a nu+ber o# instances, #ew when co+pared with the +ass o# state+ents+ade, but nu+erous enough in the+sel'es, / ha'e been able to do so. /t can, o# course, beargued, as has been done in so+ewhat si+ilar cases, that all o# this is +erely the bringing intosub>ecti'e ob>ecti'ity the i+aginati'e dra+atisation o# #acts which ha'e been nor+ally heard orread, or e'en +o+entarily glanced at, and which ha'e sun8 beneath the threshold o#consciousness, either o# that o# the seers the+sel'es or o# one or other o# their auditors, or e'enso+e per+utation or co+bination o# these. 5ut such an e&planation, see+s so+ewhat #eeble toone who, li8e +ysel#, has ta8en down laboriously dictated passages #ro+ 6SS., described, #orinstance, as written in archaic *ree8 uncialsA6SS., the contents o# which, as #ar as / a+ aware,are not 8nown to e&istApassages laboriously dictated letter by letter, by a #riend whose

8nowledge o# the language e&tended hardly beyond the alphabet. ccasionally gaps had to bele#t #or certain #or+s o# letters, with which not only +y colleague, but also +ysel#, were

11


12/251

pre'iously entirely unac@uainted? these gaps had to be #illed up a#terwards, when the +atter wastranscribed and bro8en up into words and sentences, which turned out to be in good construable*ree8, the original or copy o# which, / a+ as sure as / can be o# anything, neither +y colleaguenor +ysel# had e'er seen physically. 6oreo'er, / ha'e had dates and in#or+ation gi'en by these+ethods which / could only 'eri#y a#terwards by long and patient research, and which, / a+

con'inced, no one but a widely read scholar o# classical anti@uity could ha'e co+e across.

This brie#ly is the nature o# so+e o# the #acts o# +y personal e&perience in this connection, andwhile others who ha'e not had such e&perience +ay per+issibly put it aside, / a+ unable to doso? and not only a+ / unable to do so personally, but / #urther consider it +ore honest to +yreaders to ad+it the+ to +y pri'acy in this respect, in order that they +ay be in a better positionto esti+ate the strength or wea8ness o# +y preconceptions or pre>udices in the treat+ent o# thee&ceedingly interesting proble+ which we are about to consider.

/t will thus be seen at the outset that / a+ unable, a priori to re#use any 'alidity to these sousti#ied inaccepting the re+ainder on trust. # their good #aith / ha'e no @uestion, but o# the nature o# themoduso# their seeing / a+ in al+ost co+plete ignorance. That it is o# a +ore subtle nature thanordinary sight, or +e+ory, or e'en i+agination, / a+ 'ery well assured? but that there should beentrusted to an apparently #a'oured #ew, and that, too, co+parati'ely suddenly, a +eans o#inerrant 8nowledge which see+ingly reduces the results o# the unwearied toil o# the +ostlaborious scholars and historians to the +ost beggarly proportions, / a+ not prepared at presentto accept. /t would rather see+ +ore scienti#ic to suppose that, in e&act proportion to the startlingdegree o# accuracy that +ay at ti+es be attained by these subtle +ethods o# research, the errorsthat +ay arise can be e@ually appalling.

7nd, indeed, this is borne out not only by the perusal o# the little studied, but enor+ous,literature on such sub>ects, both o# anti@uity and o# the present day, but also by the repeateddeclarations o# those o# +y colleagues the+sel'es who ha'e endea'oured to #it the+sel'es #or atruly scienti#ic use o# such #aculties. They all declare that their great ai+ is to eli+inate as #ar as

possible the personal #actor? #or i#, so to say, the glass o# their +indudiceand prepossession, with e'ery lo'e and hate.

Such #actors, then, are not unthought o# by +y colleagues? rather are they +ost care#ullyconsidered. 5ut this being so, it is plain that it is 'ery di##icult to disco'er a sure criterion o#accuracy in such subtle research, e'en #or the practised seer, or seeress, who is willing to sub+ithi+sel# to the strictest discipline? while #or those o# us who ha'e not de'eloped these distinctinner senses, but who desire e'entually to arri'e at so+e certain criterion o# truth, and who#urther belie'e that this is a thing beyond all sensation, we +ust be content to de'elop our critical#aculties on the +aterial accessible to us, and do all we can with it be#ore we abandon the sub>ectto re'elation.

;or is this latter attitude o# +ind opposed to the best interests o# religion? #or, i# we are in any

way right in our belie#, we hold that the wor8+an is only e&pected to wor8 with his own tools.To use in an e&panded sense a phrase o# the *ita, there should be no con#usion o# castes? or

1


13/251

to e+ploy the language o# one o# the *ospel parables, a +an should lay out the talent entrustedto hi+ to the best ad'antage, and i# he do this, no +ore #or the +o+ent, we +ay belie'e, ise&pected o# hi+. e ha'e all, each in our own way, to labour #or the co++on good? but awor8+an whose trade is that o# ob>ecti'e historical research is rarely trusted with the tools o#seership as well, while the seer presu+ably is not e&pected to de'ote his li#e to historical

criticis+. "oubtless there +ay be so+e who are entrusted with two or +ore talents o# di##erentnatures, but so #ar we ha'e not as yet in our own ti+es co+e across the desirable blend o# aco+petent seer and a historical critic.

e +ust, then, each o# us in his own way, wor8 together #or righteousness? hoping that i# in thepresent we e+ploy our single talents rightly, and pro'e oursel'es pro#itable ser'ants, we +ay inthe #uture beco+e +asters o# two or e'en +ore cities, and thus Hto adapt the wording o# a#a+ous agraphonJ ha'ing pro'ed oursel'es trustworthy in the lesser, be accorded theopportunity o# showing oursel'es #aith#ul in the greater H+ysteriesJ.

-a'ing, then, pre#aced our en@uiry by these brie# re+ar8s on the nature o# the +ethods o#

research e+ployed by those whose state+ents ha'e lately brought this @uestion into pro+inencein certain circles, we proceed to enu+erate the 'arious deposits o# ob>ecti'e +aterial which ha'eto be sur'eyed and analysed, be#ore a +ind accusto+ed to historical study and the weighing o#e'idence can #eel in a position to esti+ate e'en appro&i+ately the co+parati'e 'alues o# the'arious traditions.

e ha'e, then, in the #irst place to consider the !hristian tradition that $esus was born in thereign o# -erod, and was put to death under Pontius Pilate, and #urther, to glance at the +aterial#ro+ Pagan sources clai+ed to substantiate this tradition? in the second to ac@uaint oursel'eswith the Tal+ud $eschu stories which purport to preser'e traditions o# the li#e and date o# $eschutotally at 'ariance on al+ost e'ery point with the !hristian account? #urther to in'estigate theToldoth $eschu or +ediae'al $ewish $esus legends? and lastly to consider so+e 'ery curious

passages in the writings o# the !hurch Father %piphanius o# Sala+is.

That there are +any better e@uipped and +ore co+petent than +ysel# to discuss these di##icultsub>ects, no one is +ore 8eenly aware than / a+. 5ut seeing that there are no boo8s on thesub>ect readily accessible to the general reader, / +ay be e&cused #or co+ing #orward, not withthe pretension o# disco'ering any #acts pre'iously un8nown to specialists, but with the 'ery+odest a+bition o# atte+pting so+e new co+binations o# so+e o# the best


14/251

**.# T/E CA&*CAL DATE &- JES+S

T-S% who are #a+iliar with the history o# the innu+erable contro'ersies which ha'e ragedround the @uestion o# !hristian origins, are aware that so+e o# the disputants, appalled by the+ass o# +ythic and +ystic ele+ents in the *ospel narrati'es, and dis+ayed at the contradictionsin. the apparently +ost si+ple data #urnished by the e'angelists, ha'e not only not hesitated tore>ect the whole account as de'oid o# the slightest historical 'alue, but ha'e e'en gone so #ar asto deny that $esus o# ;a=areth e'er e&isted3. 6ost o# these writers had presu+ably de'oted +uchlabour and thought to the sub>ect be#ore they reached a so startling conclusion? but / a+ inclinedto thin8 that their +inds were o# such a type that, e'en had they #ound less contradiction in the

purely ob>ecti'e data o# the *ospel docu+ents, they would probably ha'e still held the sa+eopinion. ;ot only was their historic sense so distressed by the 'ast ob>ecti'e ele+ent with whichit was con#ronted such that it could #ind relie# only in the +ost strenuous e##orts to reduce the

historic 'alidity o# the residue to =ero, but it #ound itsel# strongly con#ir+ed in this deter+inationby the #act that it could disco'er no scrap o# unassailable e&ternal e'idence, either in presu+edconte+porary literature, or e'en in the literature o# the ne&t two generations, whereby not +erelythe soberest incidents recounted by the *ospel writers, but e'en the 'ery e&istence o# $esus,could be substantiated.

Though this e&tre+e 'iew, that $esus o# ;a=areth ne'er e&isted, has perhaps to


15/251

great distinctness. !oncessions ha'e been +ade on all sides? there is a studied +oderation o#language and a courtesy in treating the 'iews o# opponents which re+o'e contro'ersy #ro+ thecoc8pit o# theological in'ecti'e into the serener air o# i+personal debate.

5ut how #ares it with the thought#ul lay+an who is not su##iciently s8illed in scholarly #ence to

appreciate the niceties o# the sword


16/251

the 100 years 5.!. date o# $esus, we shall #ind none. /ndeed, we cannot #ind e'en a re#erence tothe sub>ect. 6oreo'er, in the 'ery #ew encyclopaedias o# earlier date which +a8e re#erence to theTal+ud $eschu stories, we shall #ind that no !hristian scholar has e'en drea+ed o# entertainingthe possibility o# such a hypothesis. /n the older boo8s o# re#erence this uni'ersal abiding bytradition was to be e&pected, but in the +ost recent wor8s, where tradition is so o#ten set at

naught and the +ost out


17/251

within the years 5.!.


18/251

6c!ly+ont o# 7berdeen, the conser'ati'e writer o# the article The ;ew Testa+ent, in-astings "ictionary, #ran8ly states that these so


19/251

@uarters still is, identi#ied with it. /t is the later de'elop+ent o# a school, or, i# the e&pression ispre#erred, o# a circle, o# progressi'e belie'ers who na+ed the+sel'es a#ter Paul and placedthe+sel'es as it were under his aegis.N

here this circle +ust be loo8ed #or geographically cannot be said with any certainty. This

+uch, howe'er, is e'ident, that it was an en'iron+ent where no obstruction was in the #irstinstance encountered #ro+ the $ews or, perhaps still worse, #ro+ the disciples too closelyrese+bling the+? where +en as #riends o# gnosis, o# speculation and o# +ysticis+, probablyunder the in#luence o# *ree8 and, +ore especially, 7le&andrian philosophy, had learned to ceaseto regard the+sel'es as bound by tradition, and #elt the+sel'es #ree to e&tend their #light in e'erydirection. To a'ail oursel'es o# a so+ewhat later e&pression: it was a+ong the heretics. Theepistles #irst ca+e to be placed on the list a+ong the *nostics. The oldest witnesses to theire&istence, as 6eyer and other critics with a so+ewhat wonder#ul unani+ity ha'e been declaring#or +ore than hal# a century, are 5asilides, Malentinus, -eracleon. 6arcion is the #irst in who+,as we learn #ro+ Tertullian, traces are to be #ound o# an authoritati'e group o# epistles o# Paul.Tertullian still calls hi+ the apostle o# heretics and Haddressing 6arcionJ your apostle.

This latter 'iew is con#ir+atory o# our own contention with regard to the i+portant part playedby the *nostics in the de'elop+ent o# general !hristian doctrine, and we are pleased to noticethe phrase to a'ail oursel'es o# a so+ewhat later e&pression: it was a+ong the heretics.

5ut to return to our re#erence to Pilate in 1 Ti+othy. e see that there is no reason why weshould assign an early date to this Letter, and e'ery reason why we should hesitate to do so.6arcion Habout 1)0 7.".J says nothing about it? it was not in his Pauline canon. That is o# coursenegati'e e'idence, but o# positi'e we ha'e none. /t +ay 'ery well ha'e e&isted, indeed +ost

probably did e&ist, in 6arcions day, #or his collection had to satis#y a doctrinal and not a historictest. Man 6anen does not atte+pt to suggest dates #or any o# the indi'idual %pistles, though hesee+s to date his circle about 10? he, +oreo'er, assigns 130


20/251

The widelyecti'e data o# any 8ind. e cannot date the autograph o# the co++on docu+ent?we do not 8now whether it passed through any recensions be#ore it reached the hands o# thecanonical e'angelists? we do not 8now whether it was originally written in *ree8 or -ebrew or7ra+aic? we do not 8now whether the synoptists wor8ed on the copy o# an original, or on atranslation, or +ade their own translations? we do not 8now what other conte+porary docu+entswere in e&istence, though it is @uite certain, according to the state+ent o# the writer o# the third*ospel, that there were +any others.

0


21/251

;ow it is to be noticed that the writer o# the co++on docu+ent, as seen in the si+plest #or+preser'ed by 6ar8, puts all the bla+e o# $esus conde+nation on the chie# priests and says 'erylittle about Pilate. This is re+ar8able, #or we 8now the bitter hatred o# the $ews #or the (o+ans,and, what is still +ore to the point, we 8now #ro+ $osephus that the +e+ory o# Pilate especiallywas +ost bitterly detested by the $ews.

n the other hand, in those days o# political suspicion owing to the +any re'olutionary cabalsa+ong the $ews, it was e&ceedingly dangerous #or a $ewish writer, or #or those generallyidenti#ied with the $ews, as the !hristians still were, to spea8 against the /+perial rulers or theiro##icers, and it was the custo+ o# the writers o# the 'ery nu+erous politicoans reign H7.". 9


22/251

n the other hand, the na+e o# Pilate +ay ha'e been inserted in so+e inter+ediate redaction o#the co++on docu+ent be#ore it reached the hands o# the e'angelists? with the lapse o# ti+e,and the destruction o# records, and the de'elop+ent o# !hristianity outside Palestine a+ong the"ispersion, the di##iculty o# 'eri#ication would thus be greatly increased. /t +ight be e'en thatthe docu+ent originally si+ply stated that $esus was brought be#ore the *o'ernor, and the

na+e o# Pilate was subse@uently added in a desire #or greater precision, in the haggadic#ashion o# the ti+e.

hate'er +ay be the truth o# the +atter, the Pilate date has e'ery appearance o# being as strongan historical ele+ent as any other in the whole tradition. /t bears on its #ace the appearance o# a+ost candid state+ent, and the introduction o# the na+e, had there been no warrant #or it, arguessuch a lac8 o# what we to


23/251

Pliny was born 1 7."., his greatest literary acti'ity was in the reign o# Tra>an, but as to whetheror no he sur'i'ed his i+perial +aster Hd. 112J we ha'e no in#or+ation. Tacitus was o# the sa+eage as Pliny and sur'i'ed Tra>an, but the e&act date o# his death is un8nown. Suetonius was so+eten years younger, being born about 20an and to Tra>ans reply HLetters, &. 9,92J, we shall #ind +uch to interest us concerning the !hristians o# distant Pontus and 5ithyniawho ca+e up #or trial be#ore Pliny as Propraetor, but nothing in either Plinys report or in the

presu+ed rescript o# the %+peror that will gi'e us the s+allest clue to the date o# $esus. 5ut e'enhad we #ound in this correspondence direct or indirect con#ir+ation o# the traditional date, weshould still ha'e had to consider the argu+ents o# those who ha'e contended either that both

pieces are #orgeries or that interpolations ha'e been +ade in the original te&t. /#, howe'er, weha'e a genuine letter o# Pliny be#ore us, and / a+ inclined to thin8 it largely genuine, it is with'ery great probability to be assigned to the year 11 7.".2? but as the @uestion o# the date andgenuineness o# this correspondence does not i++ediately concern us H#or in it we can #ind

nothing to help our present in'estigationJ, we pass to the state+ents o# Suetonius.

There are two short sentences in Suetonius QLi'es o# the Twel'e !aesars Q H#ro+ $ulius !eesarto "o+itian Ai.e., to 9 7.".J, both o# which appear to re#er to the !hristians. /n his Li#e o#!laudius He+p. )1

$esus the *oodAChrestos, not Christos. This was the legend o'er the door o# a 6arcionite!hurch, and the 6arcionites were 7nti


24/251

the di##erence, and so we +ay 'ery well in this passage ta8e !hrestus #or !hristus.

5ut e'en so we are con#ronted with the di##iculty that according to the recei'ed tradition the!hristian !hrist was ne'er at (o+e, and did not sur'i'e to the reign o# !laudius.

6oreo'er, i# it be argued that Suetonius does not e+ploy the phrase Qimpulsore ChrestoQliterally, but intended it to carry a +etaphorical +eaning, e'en so we ha'e to re+e+ber that!hristos does not necessarily re#er to $esus. Christos is si+ply the *ree8 #or the -ebrew

Messiah, the Qanointed, and at this period there were +any clai+ing to be this anointed. There#erence +ay then be si+ply to a 6essianic riot o# so+e sort a+ong the $ews10.

hen, then, we co+e across the ter+ Q!hristianiQ in pagan writers re#erring to disturbances o#the #irst century, we are not to assu+e o##hand that those thus designated +ust necessarily ha'e

been #ollowers o# $esus o# ;a=areth? they +ay on the contrary ha'e been si+ply $ewish6essianists, and +ost probably o# the Dealot type. 7nd this +ay be argued to be the case whenSuetonius, in the second o# his #a+ous sentences, in his Li#e o# ;ero He+p. )ect. Least o# all can wedispose o# the di##iculty by assu+ing that the two sentences in Suetonius are interpolations by a!hristian hand, #or it is al+ost i+possible to belie'e that any !hristian could ha'e used such

phraseology.

e, there#ore, #inally turn to the #a+ous passage in Tacitus H7nn., &'. ))J, where we #ind itclearly stated that the !hristians were so called #ro+ a certain !hristus who in the reign o#Tiberius was put to death under Pontius Pilate. This state+ent occurs in a brie# but graphicaccount o# the horrible cruelties which these !hristiani are said to ha'e su##ered under ;ero. /twas in connection with the *reat Fire at (o+e in ) 7.". Tacitus will ha'e it that it wasco++only belie'ed at the ti+e that the con#lagration had been started by the e&press orders o#the %+peror hi+sel#. To di'ert the public +ind and re+o'e this i+putation, ;ero had singled outthe !hristiani to play the part o# scapegoat, seeing that they were held in general detestation #ortheir e'il practices. They were accused, put to the torture, conde+ned and done to death with

re#ine+ents o# cruelty.Fro+ the ti+e o# *ibbon, howe'er, it has been strongly @uestioned whether at that date!hristians were nu+erous enough at (o+e to ha'e been so singled out, and it has beenaccordingly +aintained that the #ury o# the populace had been 'ented si+ply on the $ews ingeneral, seeing that the #ire had bro8en out in their @uarter? in short, that Tacitus is in error andhas trans#erred the popular detestation o# the !hristians in his own day to the ti+es o# ;ero.

/n this connection we ha'e to recall the short sentence in Suetonius which apparently re#ers tothe sa+e e'ent when we read Tacitus, but which see+s to ha'e nothing to do with it when weread Suetonius. e can #urther speculate as to whether Suetonius +ay ha'e deri'ed his

10 See Schiller H-.J, Q*eschichte des rR+ischen aiserreichs unter der 5egierung des ;eroQH5erlin? 12J, p. )3).

)


25/251

in#or+ation #ro+ Tacitus, or Tacitus +ay ha'e e+bellished the state+ent o# Suetonius 11. 5utsurely i# Suetonius had had the passage o# Tacitus be#ore hi+, and had belie'ed in his greatconte+porarys 'iew o# the +atter, he would ha'e +ade +ore use o# his graphic detailsB /t see+s#ar +ore probable that Suetonius is reproducing the dry bones o# so+e brie# o##icial record, whileTacitus, in wor8ing out a character s8etch o# ;ero #ro+ insu##icient data, and with a strong

pre>udice against hi+. has collected together unrelated e'ents, and painted the+ in with thegaudiest colours o# a 'i'id i+agination e&cited by so+e tragic stories he had heard concerningthe !hristians o# a later ti+e and o# his own day1.

5ut it is not so +uch the persecution o# !hristianity under ;ero that concerns us, as the e&plicitstate+ent that the !hristiani who+ Tacitus has in +ind, were the #ollowers o# that !hristus whowas put to death under Pontius Pilate in the reign o# Tiberius. /# this state+ent is #ro+ the pen o#Tacitus, and i# it was based on in#or+ation deri'ed #ro+ (o+an records, there is nothing +ore to

be said. The positi'e answer to our @uestion has been #ound, and the accepted date o# $esusstands #ir+.

The #a+ous sentence runs as #ollows: QAuctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante perprocuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat.

Let us #irst o# all assu+e its genuineness, that is that we ha'e be#ore us a sentence written byTacitus hi+sel#. %'en so, it is 'ery di##icult to persuade onesel# that the state+ent is deri'ed #ro+so+e o##icial (o+an record. n the contrary it has all the appearance o# being part o# a !hristian#or+ula. Surely in an o##icial record we should not ha'e the na+e o# Pilate introduced with no#urther @uali#ication than si+ply that o# Procurator. Procurator o# whatB Q/n the reign o# Tiberiusunder Pilate the *o'ernor would +ean so+ething de#inite to a !hristian, #or he would 8nowthat the whole story o# !hristus had to do with $udaea, but to a (o+an the phrase would con'eynothing o# a 'ery precise nature. Later on in the Tacitean narrati'e it is true we are told the!hristian sect arose in $udaea, but on the other hand we +ust re+e+ber that it is >ust this suddenQPilate the *o'ernor which +eets us in our in'estigation o# the synoptic tradition, as weshowed in our last chapter. /t +ight then Hi# the sentence is genuineJ be o# interest to deter+inethe date o# writing o# this part o# the Q7nnals, but this is i+possible to do with any e&actitude. /tsee+s, howe'er, probable that it was written subse@uently to 112 7."., a date when the Pilate#or+ula was indubitably #ir+ly established a+ong !hristian circles.

/t is also to be noticed that Tacitus see+s to 8now nothing o# the na+e o# $esus? and it ise&ceedingly i+probable that in any o##icial record the proper na+e o# the person would beo+itted, and a na+e used which o##icials #a+iliar with Palestinian a##airs +ust ha'e 8nown to be

a general title which was at that ti+e being clai+ed by +any. 6oreo'er, $esus was not,according to the canonical tradition, accused o# being a clai+ant to 6essiahship, a +atter whichdid not concern the (o+an +agistrates, but with the political o##ence o# clai+ing to be ing o#

11Sch+iedel Hart. Q!hristian, ;a+e o#, Q%nc. 5ib.J gi'es the date o# the passage in Tacitus as11udg+ent a+ong co+petent historical scholars. See

especially Tar'er H$. !.J, Tiberius the TyrantN HLondon? 190J? Tar'er gi'es a totally di##erentesti+ate o# Tiberius #ro+ the caricature o# Tacitus, to who+ the good #a+e o# an anti


26/251

the $ews. /t is then #ar +ore probable that Tacitus deri'ed his in#or+ation #ro+ hearsay, andi+agined that !hristus was the actual and only na+e o# the #ounder o# the !hristian sect.

5ut all these considerations depend upon the assu+ption that we ha'e a genuine sentence o#Tacitus be#ore us. ;ow it has been o#ten pointed out that QTiberio imperitante is entirely

opposed to all Tacitean usage. /t cannot be paralleled elsewhere in his 'ocabulary, and +oreo'eris contrary to regular use. The early %+perors were still regarded solely as heads o# the (epublic,and as such were called Principes? we should, there#ore, e&pect QPrincipe Tiberio, or so+e suchco+bination. Philological argu+ents, howe'er, as a rule, are seldo+ 'ery con'incing? but it isnot 'ery easy to dispose o# the present one o##hand. The sentence +oreo'er, has a strongappearance o# being inserted in the rest o# the narrati'e. 6any, there#ore, consider it aninterpolation, and so+e e'en are o# opinion that the whole o# the chapter is a #abrication. 7s-ochart says: QThis chapter contains al+ost as +any ine&plicable di##iculties as it does words.13

5ut this laborious scholar represents the e&tre+e le#t wing o# Tacitean criticis+, and 'aluable asis his wor8 in bringing out the di##iculties which ha'e to be sur+ounted be#ore we can be

positi'e that the whole chapter under discussionAH+uch +ore then the sentence which speciallyinterests usJAis not, as he contends1), an interpolation, his authority is so+ewhat wea8ened byhis subse@uent lengthy researches1, in which he courageously re'i'ed the whole @uestion o# theauthenticity o# the #a+ous 6S., purporting to contain the last si& boo8s o# the 7nnals and the#irst #i'e o# the Q-istoriesQ o# Tacitus, which was #irst brought to light about 1)9 by Poggio5racciolini and ;iccoliAthe sole 6S. #ro+ which all copies ha'e since been +ade. -ochart+aintains that in the 'ery learned hu+anist Poggio hi+sel# we ha'e a Pseudo


27/251

an eyeUdische 7lterthU+erQHoln? 19, 3rd ed.J, p. 0, n.? and 5. ;ieses critical te&t, QFla'ii $osephi pera H5erlin?190J, i'. pp. 11,1. The +ost recent French translation, edited by T. (einach, Q%u'resco+plVtes de Fla'ius $osVphe QHParis? 1900J, has so #ar gi'en us only #i'e boo8s o# the

[email protected], !ontra !elsu+, i, )2.

2


28/251

#rag+ents o# the passage1, and e'en one stalwart apologist who +aintains its co+pletegenuineness19.

5ut i# there be anything certain in the whole #ield o# criticis+, it is that this passage was ne'erwritten by $osephus. 7nd this being so, the re#erence Hin Q7nti@@., &&. i&. 1J to a certain

$acobus, Qthe brother o# $esus called !hrist, constitutes the only re#erence to $esus in the'olu+inous writings o# $osephus which rigen could disco'er? but un#ortunately the state+ento# rigen casts gra'e doubts upon the words Qbrother o# $esus called !hrist, #or he twice 0

declares that $osephus describes the #all o# $erusale+ and the destruction o# the Te+ple as adi'ine retribution #or the +urder o# this $a+esAa +ost highly i+probable opinion to #ather upon$osephus, and no trace o# which is to be #ound either in the passage in which the phrase we areconsidering now stands, or in the rest o# $osephus wor8s. /t is there#ore e&ceedingly probablethat this epithet was ta8en #ro+ rigen and incorporated into the te&t o# $osephus by laterscribes. These being the only re#erences that can be adduced in the 'olu+inous writings o# the$ewish historian, it #ollows that $osephus 8nows nothing o# Qthe !hrist, though he 8nows +ucho# 'arious Q!hrists.

Though the argu+ent #ro+ silence +ust in all cases be recei'ed with the greatest caution, itcannot #ail deeply to i+press us in the case o# $oseph ben 6attatiah? #or it is al+ost hu+anlyi+possible that, i# the details o# the !hristian tradition and the a##airs o# the !hristian world had

been historically in the ti+e o# $osephus >ust what they are stated to ha'e been in our canonicaldocu+ents, the historian o# that special age and country could ha'e 8ept silence concerningthe+. /# these things were >ust as they are said to ha'e been, there is no con'incing reason thatwe can assign #or the silence o# a +an who, li8e $osephus, was in a +ost ad+irable position to8now about the+.

$osephus had been trained in an %sseneust the +an to tell us o# those early !hristian co++unities which were#or+ed on +odels closely rese+bling those o# the Pious and the Poor and the ;a8ed. -e goes to(o+e >ust when Paul is also said to ha'e been there, and no doubt was there, and >ust about theti+e when, i# we are to belie'e Tacitus, the !hristiani were singled out #or public persecution andcruel +artyrdo+ by /+perial tyranny? and yet he 8nows nothing o# all this. ith regard to the+inistry and death o# $esus it +ight be said that all this had happened be#ore $osephus was born,though surely it +ight be e&pected that his #ather would ha'e told hi+ o# such stirring, nayo'erwhel+ing, e'ents? still it is strange that with regard to the grueso+e tragedy at (o+e heapparently 8nows not e'en so +uch as o# a co++unity o# !hristians.

as, then, the story in those days other than we ha'e it nowB ere the origins o# !hristianity, aswe ha'e elsewhere suggested, hidden a+ong the pledged +e+bers o# the +ystic co++unitiesand ascetic orders, and only i+per#ectly 8nown a+ong their outer circles, which were alsolargely held to secrecyB as it all o# older date than we are accusto+ed to regard itB ho shallsay with utter con#idenceB The silence o# $osephus per+its us to speculate, but gi'es us noanswer to our @uestionings. /t +ay be e'en that so+e ite+s o# what the $ewish writer tells us o#other leaders o# sects and clai+ants to 6essiahship +ay ha'e been con#lated and trans#or+edlater on by our *ospel writers or their i++ediate predecessors, and so used to #ill out the story o#

18See 6Uller H*. 7.J, Q!hristus bei $osephus Fla'ius QH/nnsbruc8? 19, nd ed.J? and (einachHT.J, (e'. tud. $ui'es, &&&'. 1


29/251

a li#e #or which they had but little historic data. 5ut this is a delicate and obscure sub>ect o#research which re@uires new treat+ent.1

e thus see that, as #ar as our present en@uiry is concerned, we can obtain no positi'e help #ro+any Pagan or $ewish writer o# the #irst century, or #or that +atter o# the #irst @uarter o# the

second. /t re+ains to en@uire whether #ro+ the #rag+ents o# e&tra/# the general learned opinion on this literature, or at any rate on all o# it which in any way +a8es+ention o# the -erod or Pilate dates, holds good, na+ely, that it is later than our *ospels, thenwe ha'e nothing to help us.

5ut the recent brilliant study o# !onradyon the 5oo8 Q5oo8 o# $a+es, co++only called theQProte'angeliu+ Hthe na+e gi'en to it by Postel, who #irst brought it to light in the si&teenthcenturyJ, the original o# which is already ad+itted by so+e to reach bac8 as #ar as the +iddle o#the second century, opens up a @uestion which, i# answered in the a##ir+ati'e, Qwould +ean a

co+plete re'olution o# our 'iews on the canon and o# the origins o# !hristianity. 3 !onradybelie'es that he has de+onstrated that in so+e o# their details o# the history o# the in#ancy our#irst and third e'angelists borrow #ro+ a co++on source, and that this source is no other thanour e&tant Prote'angeliu+. -e would ha'e it that this Q5oo8 o# $a+es is o# %gyptian origin.The author was not a $ewish !hristian, but +ost probably an %gyptian and an 7le&andrian. /t isto be hoped that !onrady +ay #ollow up his e&cursion into this #ield o# in'estigation by otherresearches o# a si+ilar nature? and since he has raised the presu+ption that we ha'e in theQProte'angeliu+Q one o# the Q+any *ospel writings re#erred to in the introduction o# the third*ospel, we +ay glance through the literature,)other than that o# the distinct Pilate apocrypha,#or a re#erence to Pilate.

This we shall #ind only in the so


30/251

Finally in this connection we +ay ha'e to pay +ore attention to the so


31/251

*.#T/E 'EES*S &- T/E TAL)+D

/T is perhaps not too +uch to say that the Tal+ud has been the chie# +eans whereby the $ews

ha'e preser'ed the+sel'es as a nation e'er since the ti+e o# the #inal destruction o# their Te+ple,and the e&tinction o# the last shred o# their political independence, until the present day. TheTal+ud is the chie# e+bodi+ent o# that +ysterious power which has 8ept ali'e the peculiar spirito# $ewry, and ne'er per+itted /srael to #orget that it was a people apart.

/t is the Tal+ud which beyond all else has established the nor+ o# li#e #or the $ew? #or it is therepository o# that +ultitude o# rules o# conduct and laws o# custo+ H-alachothJ, which the(abbis, with a bewildering ingenuity Hwhich though intensely serious is #re@uently a strangely

per'erse casuisticJ, deduced #ro+ the LawA that Torah, which the $ews, in e'ery #ibre o# theirbeing, belie'ed had been gi'en by *od -i+sel#, who had chosen their #athers #ro+ out thenations and #or e'er bound the+ to -i+sel# by a special pact and co'enant.

5ut o'er and beyond this the Tal+ud is a 'ast storehouse o# the strangest +i&ture o# wise sawsand witty sayings, o# legend and #ol8


32/251

in the closing years o# -adrians reign H13


33/251

*oshen, the $ews had a te+ple wherein they worshipped 4ahweh #or +ore than two hundredyears Hcirca 5.!. 10QHLondon? 192J, pp. )0), )0.

3The traditional date o# %=ras Qpro+ulgation Qo# the Law is ))), but as late as 392 has been

argued #or.33For the latest re+ar8s on the de'elop+ent o# Scribis+ see 5ousset, op. cit., pp. 139. Q"ieTheologen.

33


34/251

Prophets, and -agiographa Hor -oly ritingsJ3), as upon in#allible re'elation #ro+ "eity-i+sel#, e&tending to e'ery word and letter.

/n brie#, the (abbis would ha'e it that the canon o# the ld !o'enant re'elation ceased with%=ra, whereas +odern scienti#ic research has shown that in the highest probability it only began

with that #a+ous scribe. For the (abbis o# Palestine and 5abylonia,3

then, there was no propheta#ter 6alachi? prophecy and direct inspiration had ceased with %=ra? #ro+ that ti+e they wouldad+it no addition to the Law, they ac8nowledged the authority o# no subse@uent prophet and o#no subse@uent scripture. /t was #or the+ a @uestion only o# the correct tradition o# interpretation,and logical de'elop+ent o# what had been once #or all in#allibly laid down. They were to'indicate the authority o# the school+en and legalists against the clai+s o# subse@uent prophecyand apocalyptic o# all 8inds, and to do so they could #ind authority #or their authority solely inthe Qral Law.

7n e&ceedingly interesting gli+pse behind the scenes o# scripture industry, be#ore it wasstereotyped by the enact+ents o# Tal+udic (abbinis+, is a##orded by a study o# QThe 5oo8 o#

$ubilees, which was included in the 7le&andrian canon. This interesting e&pansion o# *enesiswas written about 13


35/251

The (abbis would ha'e it #inally that this ral Law had always e&isted side by side with theritten Law e'er since the days o# 6oses onwards. /n the #irst chapter o# the 6ishna tractate7both, or Pir8e 7both, containing the Sayings o# the Fathers, we are gi'en what purportsto be an unbro8en succession o# indi'iduals, #ro+ 6oses to the destruction o# $erusale+, whoare said to ha'e been the depositories o# this ral Law. The succession runs as #ollows : 6oses?

$oshua? the %lders? the Prophets? the 6en o# the *reat 7sse+bly H#ro+ %=ras ti+e to about 005.!.J? the #a+ous QFi'e Pairs, as they were called, the last o# which were -illel Habout 20 5.!.to 10 7.".J and Sha++ai? and #inally, *a+aliel and his son Si+on.

Such is the account gi'en in the 6ishna o# the heredity o# its tradition, and it is not surprisingthat i# scienti#ic research not only @uestions, but actually re'erses, the >udg+ent o# the 6ishnaic(abbis with regard to the de'elop+ent o# the ritten Law, #or it practically begins where theywould ha'e it cease, that +odern scholars should hesitate to accept their account o# the ral Lawwithout @uestion.

%'en the +ost inattenti'e reader +ust be struc8 with the 'ague and #rag+entary nature o# the

line o# descent. %'idently little was 8nown o# the past? e'en the history o# the great literaryacti'ity #ro+ the #ourth to the second century 5.!., which had practically gi'en the+ theirritten Torah in the #or+ in which it lay be#ore the+, was utterly #orgotten. The 6en o# the*reat 7sse+bly, who are +ade so +uch o# in the Tal+ud as the i++ediate depositories o# theral Law #ro+ the Prophets, are na+eless. The (abbis e'idently 8new nothing o# a historicalnature concerning the+? nay, o# the succeeding period they can only produce the na+es o#teachers to who+ tradition ascribed certain sayings, but o# whose li#e and labours we can glean

but the scantiest in#or+ation, while o# their literary acti'ity we hear not a word.

7ccordingly, the 'ery e&istence o# the Q6en o# the *reat 7sse+bly has been @uestioned by+odern research, and it has been con>ectured with great probability, that the historical ger+ o#the traditional idea is to be traced to the general asse+bly o# the people who were called togetherto accept that Law which had been rewritten by %=ra a#ter the (eturn H;eh. 'iii.usti#ied in assu+ing that the authority gi'en #or theral Tradition was, #or the +ost part, o# a si+ilarly unhistoric nature. ;o doubt the heredity o#the +ethods e+ployed by the Tanai+ could be traced with 'ery great probability as #ar bac8 asthe earliest o# the QFi'e Pairs, so+ewhere approaching the beginning o# the second century5.!.? but the stri8ing #act that the greatest industry could only disco'er the na+es o# two

37SehUrer H%.J, Q7 -istory o# the $ewish People in the Ti+e o# !hrist H%ng. trans., London?193J, "i'. ii., 'ol. i. p. 3.

3

See einstein H;. $.J, QDur *enesis der 7gada H*ottingen? 1901J, Q"ie 6ini+, pp. 91


36/251

teachers #or each generation, see+s to indicate either that no others were 8nown, or that +anyna+es and tendencies had had to be eli+inated in see8ing the paternity o# that special tendencywhich the Tanai+ erected into the test o# orthodo& $ewry. 7s to the ral Law beingconte+poraneous with 6oses, we +ust place this #ond belie# in the sa+e category with the still+ore startling clai+ o# later abalis+, that its Tradition was #irst deli'ered by *od -i+sel# to

7da+ in Paradise.

7gain, the #act that the appeal #or authority was to an oral and not to a written source, is at #irstsight strange when we re+e+ber that there were thousands o# boo8s in e&istence, so+e o# the+clai+ing the authority e'en o# an %noch or an 7da+. Thus the writer o# Q/M. %sdras, which ine'ery probability was co+posed under "o+itian H


37/251

/ndeed later ti+es would ha'e it that not only was the 6ishna ne'er written down e'en when ithad reached its #inal #or+ about 00 7."., but that the whole 'olu+inous contents o# the Tal+ud!o+pletion, or *e+ara, were ne'er co++itted to writing until the ti+e o# the Saborai+ )0H00oined the "o+inicans, and in 102 published his #irstattac8 in a #ierce tract, Q"er $udenspiegel, an onslaught which was intended to cul+inate in one#atal blow to $udais+, na+ely the con#iscation o# all Tal+udic writings. 7nd indeed P#e##er8ornat #irst succeeded beyond all e&pectation, #or the i++ediate result o# his agitation was to inducethe %+peror 6a&i+ilian to re'i'e the ti+e


43/251

+aster o# its 'olu+inous contents. The Tal+ud had at last #ound an i+partial +ind a+ong its>udges? nay, it had #ound a courageous de#ender, #or in ctober 110, (euchlin issued his #a+ousanswer to P#e##er8orns onslaught, and boldly declared hi+sel# in #a'our o# the boo8.

-ereupon ensued a #ierce battle, in which the +assed hosts o# o##icial theology and obscurantis+

were +arshalled against the courageous cha+pion o# enlightened toleration and ele+entary>ustice. %urope was #looded with pa+phlets, and #aculty 'ied with #aculty in angry conde+nationo# (euchlin. ithout e&ception, e'ery uni'ersity was against hi+. /ndeed the #aculty o# 6ain=,a+ong other egregious notions, put #orward the ludicrous proposition, that as the -ebrew 5ibledid not agree with the Mulgate H$ero+es Latin translationJ, the -ebrew +ust +ani#estly ha'e

been #alsi#ied in +any places by the +ale'olence o# the $ews, and, in particular, the wording o#the original re#erences to $esus in the ld Testa+ent had been deliberately altered.

-ad (euchlin stood absolutely alone he would ha'e been o'erwhel+ed by the #irst onrush o# hiscountless #oes? but to their lasting credit there rallied to his banner a chosen band o# enlightenedand courageous #riends, the -u+anists, who, though they were clubbed Tal+utphili, declared

the+sel'es to be the Qnights o# the -oly *host, and the Q-osts o# Pallas 7thene, #ighting #orthe credit o# !hristianity and not #or the Tal+ud as Tal+ud.

7t #irst the Pope, Leo X., #a'oured (euchlin, but the outcry was so #ierce that he #inallywea8ened, and in 11 sought a way out o# the hurly


44/251

92

to study the Tal+ud, and bursting #orth with #ury at the head o# his +inions, sei=ed e'ery copy he

could #ind in (o+e and co++itted it to the #la+es.

/n /taly also Si&tus o# Sienna, a con'erted $ew, supported by Pope Paul /M., incited the +ob toburn e'ery copy o# the Tal+ud upon which they could lay hands. /n !re+ona, Mittorio %liano,also a con'ert, testi#ied against the Tal+ud, and 10,000 to 1,000 -ebrew boo8s were burned in19. -is brother Solotiron (o+ano also procured the burning o# +any thousands o# -ebrewrolls. /n the sa+e year e'ery -ebrew boo8 in the city o# Prague was con#iscated.

5ut, #ortunately, this was the e&piring #lic8er o# the li#e o# the "estroyer in that #or+, and in the#uture we hear o# no +ore burnings. The Tal+ud was herea#ter co++itted to the tender +ercieso# an ignorant censorship, and therewith o# a deliberate sel#


45/251

that this worthy (o+an +ay be #ound unto this day swearing by the !apitol o# Persia or by the$upiter o# 7ra+ and 5abel. 5ut where'er the word *entile occurred, the !ensor was sei=ed withthe

E1 See Popper, op. cit., chh. 'iii.ect, because o# the #re@uent use o# the words Qour LordN throughoutthis #a+ous de#ence. hat, then, was +y surprise to #ind that an old #riend o# "eutschs deniedabsolutely that he was a con'ert, and asserted that the editor o# the QOuarterly, +uch to"eutschs annoyance, had deliberately changed Q$esusN into Qour Lord throughout the article.The Q$ewish !hronicle H;o'. 1, 190J also pointed out that / was +ista8en in describing"eutsch as a con'ert to

100

!hristianity. hereupon / wrote to the !hie# (abbi, "r. -er+ann 7dler, who courteously replied

as #ollows: Q/ was 'ery inti+ate with the late /++anuel "eutsch, and can state unhesitatinglythat he was deeply annoyed that in the #irst edition o# the Ouarterly (e'iew $esus was spo8eno# as our Lord. This was changed in the subse@uent se'en or eight editions o# that nu+ber o# theOuarterly. /t so appears, howe'er, in the republication o# the article in the Literary (e+ains o#the late /++anuel "eutsch H6urray? 12)J.

The sel#


46/251

ignorant Tal+ud censor are o# pro#ound interest. /t would al+ost see+ as though, by a curiousturning o# the 8ar+ic wheel, the 'ery +ethods used deliberately by the $ews the+sel'es in the#ar


47/251

his boo8 told hi+ with one 'oice that he would be put away by the $ews. So+e tried to dissuadehi+ by re+inding hi+ o# the #ate o# Pro#essor !hiarini, who died suddenly when he deter+inedon underta8ing a translation o# the Tal+ud? others spo8e o# the +on8 "idacus o# Milna, a $ewishcon'ert, who was 8illed, and o# others who were persecuted in

E1 This see+s a contradiction in ter+s, but so it stands on "ec8erts title


48/251

Tal+ud and its history, and that it is high ti+e #or +e to tell the+ plainly what this chaos o#$ewish tradition has to say about $esus, and so ha'e done with the +atter. 5ut when / re+e+ber+y own erroneous i+pressions +any years ago on #irst co+ing across state+ents Hshorn o# theirconte&t and en'iron+entJ which con#idently a##ir+ed that the Tal+ud declared categorically that$esus had li'ed a century earlier than the date assigned to hi+ by the e'angelists, and that instead

o# his being cruci#ied in $erusale+ he was stoned at Lud, / #eel that it is absolutely necessary #irsto# all to gi'e the unlearned reader so+e rough notion o# the genesis and history o# our sources o#in#or+ation, and that instead o# ha'ing to plead e&cuse #or the space / ha'e de'oted to

preli+inaries, / ha'e rather to apologise #or the bre'ity and roughness o# the #oregoing twochapters and to append so+e additional introductory indications be#ore the general reader can be#urnished with the +ost ele+entary e@uip+ent #or approaching the consideration o# the passagesthe+sel'es with any pro#it.

/ndeed the whole sub>ect bristles with such disheartening di##iculties on all sides that / ha'ebeen

10

#re@uently te+pted to abandon the tas8, and ha'e only been sustained by the thought that +y solereason #or ta8ing pen in hand was si+ply to point out so+e o# the +ore salient di##iculties, and toe&clude #ro+ the outset any e&pectations o# a +ore a+bitious per#or+ance. 7nd not only are thedi##iculties connected with @uestions o# history and o# #act disheartening, but the whole sub>ectis, as we ha'e seen, in'ol'ed in an at+osphere o# such a pain#ul nature that one would gladlyescape #ro+ it and lea'e the dead to bury their dead. 5ut the past is e'er present with the eternalsoul, the dead co+e e'er bac8 to li#e, and there is no rest till we can #orgi'e one another, notwhen we ha'e te+porarily #orgotten but while we still re+e+ber.

e write not to #an into #resh #la+e the s+ouldering #ires o# ancient hate, but with #ar #airerhopes. The ti+es ha'e changed, and older souls ha'e co+e to birth than those who raged sowildly in the %arly and the 6iddle 7ges, and there are wiser +inds to


49/251

no +ore be throned abo'e uni'ersals, nor will the te+poral thoughts o# +en ran8 higher than thee'er


50/251

E#ootnote continued on page 10a distinguished French (abbi, when has gi'en the world the only co+plete translation o# thePalestinian Tal+ud which e&ists, and not o# a Philistine.

10

/t is also to be re+e+bered that #or the later $ews the 5abylonian collection gradually beca+eThe Tal+ud, while the Palestinian #ell into disuse. /n our own days the latter is ne'er taught, butalways the #or+er. The $ews o# 5abylonia, +oreo'er, had +ore peace and leisure #or thisstrengthening o# the de#ences o# the Torah than their Palestinian conte+poraries, who wereharried by the e'erust as the Torah proper was called The Fi'e or The Fi'e Fi#ths.These orders are again sub


51/251

/t is not then surprising to #ind that as yet we ha'e no co+plete translation o# the Tal+ud. eha'e no

E1 -ershon HP. /.J, 7 Tal+udic 6iscellany HLondon? 10J, /ntrod. Hby . (. 5rownJ, p. &'i.

E /t is a +ista8e to call the 6ishna te&t and the *e+ara co++entary, as is so o#ten done,#or though in printed #or+ the 6ishna stands out in bolder type, surrounded by the *e+ara, thelatter is not a co++entary but a co+pletion or appendi& o# additional +atter.

E3 %'en o# the canonical Tal+ud alone, #or there is a large nu+ber o# e&tra


52/251

#ound in (ussia, *alicia, -ungary, and 5ohe+ia, and e'en so the wor8 o# the younger generationpresents us with a picture o# co+plete degeneracy and decline. /t is true that in recent years therehas been so+e s+all acti'ity in Tal+ud study, partly in the interest o# $ewish +issions on theside o# !hristian theologians, partly in the interest either o# 7nti


53/251

Throughout the ages there ha'e been added to the te&t +arginal notes, e&planatory words,whole phrases and sentences in'ented in +alice or ignorance by its ene+ies or by its #riends. . . .e ha'e, there#ore, care#ully punctuated the -ebrew te&t with +odern punctuation +ar8s, andha'e re


54/251

E) Le Tal+ud de 5abylone, Te&te co+plet. . . acco+pagnK des principau& !o++entaires etsynthKti@ue+ent traduit par $ean de Parly HrlKans? 1900J.

11)

begun the tas8, and either abandoned it or died be#ore its acco+plish+ent? others ha'ee+asculated the original out o# all recognition? all ha'e #ailed.

e are thus without any really reliable translation o# the Tal+ud as a whole, and the tas8 weha'e underta8en in this present essay would ha'e been utterly i+possible o# acco+plish+ent but#or the #ortunate circu+stance, that the te&t o# the 'ery passages we specially desire to study has

been recently critically edited and #airly translated? but o# this later on. /t is only necessary to add

here that 5ischo##s learned +onograph gi'es a critical bibliography o# all e&isting translations,and that Strac8s classical %inleitung, as 5ischo## calls it Hp. 10J, to which we ha'e alreadyre#erred on se'eral occasions, in its third edition H1900J, gi'es a #ull bibliography up to date o#the general literature o# the sub>ect. Strac8s /ntroduction, it is true, gi'es us only an anato+icalstudy o# the Tal+ud, the articulation o# its bare bones alone, but it is, ne'ertheless, a +onu+ento# patient industry and research.

So +uch, then, #or a 'ery brie# indication o# the literature o# the sub>ect and the nature o# theinitial di##iculties which con#ront a student o# the Tal+ud? but these initial di##iculties are asnothing to the internal di##iculties which perple& the historical in'estigator. For the +ost part theonly indications o# ti+e in the Tal+ud are that certain things are stated to ha'e been done or said

by such and such a (abbi, and not un#re@uently we #ind that the (abbi in @uestion could notpossibly ha'e said or done the things attributed to hi+.

;or will the traditional dates o# the co+pletion o#

11

the 6ishna and the 'arious redactions o# the two *e+aras help us to any general certainty, sothat we can say con#idently that as such and such a thing is not #ound in the 6ishna it +ustthere#ore be later than 00 7."., or again that as such and such a thing is #ound only in the5abylonian *e+ara, it e'idently +ust be a late in'ention, #or the #irst Tal+ud schools in5abylon were #ounded only about 00 7.".1 There +ust ha'e been wide o'erlappings, and parto# the -aggadic +aterial o# the Palestinian *e+ara +ust ha'e been in e&istence long prior to theco+pletion o# the 6ishna, which concerned itsel# +ore especially with -alacha, while the5abylonian schools deri'ed their tradition in the #irst place i++ediately #ro+ the Palestinian.

/n any case since the Tal+ud itsel# shows such great conte+pt #or history, or rather let us saysince it see+s to be utterly de#icient in the historical sense, it is incu+bent upon us #irst o# all to

)


55/251

establish #ro+ outside sources the earliest date we can #or the e&istence o# hostile $ewish storiesconcerning $esus? otherwise it +ight be argued that the Tal+ud stories were al+ost entirelyin'ented by later 5abylonian (abbis, and had no currency in Palestine where the historical#acts were 8nown.

E1 The $ews in 5abylonia, no doubt, shared in the changes and +o'e+ents that %=ra and hissuccessors, who ca+e #ro+ 5abylonia, introduced into Palestine. 5ut #or the #our centuriesco'ering the period #ro+ %=ra to -illel there are no details? and the history o# the succeeding twocenturies, #ro+ -illel to $udah /., #urnishes only a #ew scanty ite+s on the state o# learninga+ong the 5abylonian $ews. See 5achers art., 7cade+ies in 5abylonia, in $ewish%ncyclopaedia. !an it possibly be that up to the third century 7.". the traditions o# the5abylonian $ews did not support the contentions o# the Palestinian (abbisB

11

M//


56/251

;ow in spite o# the brilliant critical ability o# 'an 6anen and his school, / a+ still inclined toregard the +a>ority o# the Pauline letters as largely genuine, and there#ore as being our earliesthistorical witnesses to !hristianity. Fro+ these we learn that already upwards o# a generation

be#ore the #all o# $erusale+, which i++ensely intensi#ied the propaganda o# +ore liberal and

spiritual 'iews throughout the nation, there was bitter persecution on the part o# the $ewishauthorities against heresy, and that a+ong the 'icti+s o# this persecution were the #ollowers o#$esus. e do not ha'e to deduce this #ro+ enig+atical sentences or

11

con#used traditions, but on the contrary we ha'e be#ore us what purports to be not only thetesti+ony o# an eye


57/251

testi+ony o# the Letter to the *alatians as that o# a genuine declaration by Paul hi+sel#, we +ustpush bac8 the beginnings o# the struggle another hal# century or so.E1

E1 /n this connection it would be interesting to deter+ine the e&act date o# Pauls con'ersion, but

this is i+possible to do with any precision. The 'arious authorities gi'e it as anywhere between


58/251

the general !hristian body. This particular dog+a, howe'er, +ust ha'e been a co+parati'ely latede'elop+ent in the e'olution o# popular !hristianity, #or the co++on docu+ent 8nowsnothing o# it, the writers o# the second and #ourth *ospels tacitly re>ect it, while so+e o# theearliest readings o# our *ospels distinctly assert that $oseph was the natural #ather o# $esus.E1For the mam!erele+ent in the Tal+ud stories, there#ore, we ha'e, in +y opinion, no need to go

bac8 #urther than the #irst @uarter o# the second century or so as the earliest terminus a "uo.

For +ost o# the other +ain ele+ents, howe'er, we ha'e no +eans o# #i&ing a date li+it by thecriticis+ o# canonical docu+ents? all we can say is that as early as 30 7.". e'en, circu+stanceswere such as to lead us to e&pect the circulation o# stories o# a hostile nature.

Fro+ the persecution in the ti+e o# Paul till the $ustin redaction o# the 7cts a #ull centuryelapses, #ro+ which we ha'e preser'ed no witnesses that will help us concerning anything butthe mam!erele+ent. 7nd e'en when, #ollowing i++ediately on the period o# the 7cts redaction,

we co+e to the testi+ony o# $ustin 6artyr,E in the +iddle o# the second century,

E1 For the latest study o# this sub>ect see F. !. !onybeares article, Three %arly "octrinal6odi#ications o# the Te&t o# the *ospels, in The -ibbert $ournal HLondon? 190J, /. i. 9ection that the one who+ the !hristians callthe6essiah was si+ply a +an born o# hu+an parents, and that his wonder


59/251

considered as #oes and ene+ies by the $ews because o# their interpretation o# -ebrew prophecyAa point,

E1 /n. connection with the origin o# which $ustin co++its a ludicrous blunder, when he +a8es

-erod a conte+porary o# Ptole+y, the #ounder o# the 7le&andrian LibraryAan anachronis+ o#0 yearsC

13

we +ay re+ar8, in which +odern scienti#ic criticis+ practically sy+pathises with the (abbis.;ay, so bitter were the $ews against the+, that whene'er they had had the power they had notonly punished the !hristians but also put the+ to deathAa charge he repeats in se'eral passages?E1 declaring that in his own day the $ews were only deterred #ro+ doing so by the (o+an

authorities.E For instance, in the recent re'olt 7gainst the (o+ans led by 5ar ochba H13


60/251

i+portant details gi'en us which, according to the #ancy and taste o# the reader, can either be setdown as e+bellish+ents begotten o# odium theologicum, or be ta8en as throwing historic lighton the state o# a##airs and te+per o# the ti+es which originated the Tal+ud $esus stories.

Thus in ch. c&'ii, spea8ing o# $esus as the Son o# *od, and addressing the $ew Tryphon, $ustinadds, whose na+e the high priests and teachers o# your people ha'e caused to be pro#aned andblasphe+ed throughout the earth. /# this accusation was true in $ustins ti+e, it can only re#er tothe spreading #ar and wide o# ini+ical stories about $esus? at that ti+e stories o# this 8ind werespread e'erywhere throughout the (o+an e+pire, and the source o# the+ was attributed by the!hristians to the $ewish priestly aristocracy and especially to the (abbinical doctors, in otherwords the 6ishnaic Tal+udists o# those days and earlier.

6oreo'er $ustin twice Hcc. &'ii. and c'iii.J categorically asserts that a#ter the resurrection the$ews sent out a specially elected body o# +en, so+e sort o#

E1 5ut see Strac8s %inleitung in den Tal+ud H3rd ed.J, p. 0.

1

o##icial co++ission apparently, throughout the world, to proclai+ that a godless and lawlesssect had arisen #ro+ one $esus, a *alilean i+postor, whose #ollowers asserted that he had risen#ro+ the dead, whereas the #act o# the +atter was that he had been put to death by cruci#i&ionand that subse@uently his body had been stolen #ro+ the gra'e by his disciples Hc. c'iii.J.

The genesis o# this e&tensi'e co++ission +ay with great probability be ascribed to thei+aginati'e rhetoric o# $ustin playing on the ger+ pro'ided by the #loating tradition, that Paulwas #urnished with letters o# repression against the heretics when he set #orth #or "a+ascus, asstated by the co+piler o# the 7cts. 7 co++ission to dispro'e the dog+a o# the physicalresurrection would not ha'e been necessary until that dog+a had gained a #ir+ root in popular

belie#, and this we hold was a late de'elop+ent Hthe 'ulgar historicising o# a +ystic #actJ thoughso+ewhat earlier than the dog+a o# the i++aculate conception? but e'en so it would appear to

be a so+ewhat absurd proceeding to send out a co++ission to deal with this point only.

There +ay be, howe'er, so+e greater substratu+ o# truth in $ustins repeated assertions Hcc. &'i.,&c'i. and c&&&iii.J that it was the custo+ o# the $ews publicly to curse those who belie'ed in the!hrist in their synagogues? and to this he adds that not only were the $ews #orbidden by their(abbis to ha'e any dealings o# any 8ind with !hristians Hc. c&ii.J, but that they were distinctlytaught by the Pharisee (abbis and the leaders o# their synagogues to re'ile and +a8e #un o# $esusa#ter prayer Hc. c&&&'ii.J.

1

0


61/251

/n #act $ustin will ha'e it that all the preconcei'ed e'il opinion which the general publiccherished against the !hristians was originated by the $ews Hc. &'ii.J, who+ he accuses o#deliberately stating that $esus hi+sel# had taught all those i+pious, unspea8able and detestablecri+es with which the !hristians were charged Hc. c'iii.J A an accusation which in no case can

be substantiated by the Tal+ud passages, and which we +ay presu+ably set down to $ustinsrhetoric.

5ut whether or not $ustin can be belie'ed in all his details, and no +atter how we +ay so#tendown his state+ents, there still re+ains strong enough e'idence to show that in his day the

bitterest hostility e&isted between $ews and !hristians, or at any rate between o##icial $udais+and that type o# !hristianity #or which $ustin stood. Since $ustin attributes all the scandalousstories about !hristians,E1 and all the sco##ing at the

E1 /n connection with which it is o# +ourn#ul interest to note that rigen H!. !els., 'i. 2Jsays that when !hristianis+ #irst began to be taught, the $ews spread about reports that the

!hristians, presu+ably in their secret rites, sacri#iced a child and ate its #lesh, and that their+eetings were scenes o# indiscri+inate i++orality? that e'en in his own day Hc. 0 7.".J suchcharges were still belie'ed against the+, and they were shunned by so+e on this account. Thecurious 'itality o# this slander is re+ar8able, #or not only did the general !hristians o# those dayscharge the heretics o# the !hristian na+e, to whose asse+blies they could not gain access, with

precisely the sa+e cri+e o# cere+onial +urder, but e'en up to our own days in 7ntiury o# so+e #i'ehundred +ore, with se'eral cases o# rape too horrible #or detailed description, by the #anatical!hristian populace o# ishine##, in 5essarabia, who were roused

E#ootnote continued on page 12

to #ury by the report o# a supposed ritual +urder by the $ews o# "ubossari, and this in spite o#the publication o# absolute testi+ony to the #alsity o# the charge.

12

+ost cherished belie#s o# $ustin and the popular !hristianity o# his day, to the (abbis, it ise'ident that what the $ews said was the 'ery antipodes o# what $ustin belie'ed, and that, as +ay

be seen #ro+ the retort o# the stealing o# the body, the greatest +iracles and dog+as o# popular!hristianity were +et on the side o# the (abbis by the si+plest retorts o# 'ulgar reason.

The e'idence o# $ustin, there#ore, ta8en as a whole, lea'es us with a 'ery strong i+pression, nay,#or all but irreconcilables, produces an absolute con'iction, that in his ti+e, ta8ing our dates at a+ini+u+, stories si+ilar to, and e'en +ore hostile than, the Tal+ud stories were in widest

circulation? while $ustin hi+sel# will ha'e it that they were in circulation #ro+ the 'erybeginning o# things !hristian. So #ar, howe'er, we ha'e co+e across nothing but generalities? we

1


62/251

ha'e #ailed to #ind anything o# a de#inite nature which we can identi#y with so+e distinct detailo# the Tal+ud stories.

To do this we +ust +ount so+e @uarter o# a century, and turn to the #rag+ents o# !elsus

preser'ed to us in the pole+ic o# rigen, who wrote his re#utation o# !elsuss attac8 on the!hristians so+ewhere towards the +iddle o# the third century. rigen in his pre#ace HW )J tells usthat !elsus hi+sel# was long since dead, and later on he adds +ore precisely Hi. J that !elsusli'ed about -adrians ti+e He+p. 112


63/251

/n this passage #ro+ !elsus we ha'e precisely the +ain outline o# the Tal+ud $esus stories, andthere#ore an e&act e&ternal proo# that in his day at any rate Hwhene'er that was, whether 10


64/251

%lsewhere !elsus, in spea8ing o# the betrayal o# $esus, does not ascribe it to $udas, but to +anydisections o# their opponents? his accusation is thatso+e o# the+, as it were in a drun8en state producing sel#ectionsAin brie#, that thelatest #or+s o# it were the product o# a literary e'olution in which +ystic e&periences played a

pro+inent part.

)


65/251

e thus see that the testi+ony o# !elsus, an entirely outside witness, not only strongly endorsesthe general testi+ony o# $ustin, but also adds con'incing details which conclusi'ely pro'e thatthe $ewish $esus stories o# his day were precisely o# the sa+e nature as those we #ind in theTal+ud, and though we cannot con>ecture with any certainty what +ay ha'e been the precise

date o# any particular story, we are >usti#ied in re>ecting the contention o# those who declare thatthe Tal+ud stories are all o# a 'ery late date, say the #ourth century or so, and in clai+ing thatthere is nothing to pre'ent +ost o# the+ going bac8 to the +iddle o# the second century, e'en onthe +ost conser'ati'e esti+ate, while so+e o# the+ +ay go bac8 #ar earlier.

7d'ancing another generation we co+e to the testi+ony o# Tertullian, which is e&ceedinglyi+portant not only with regard to the Tal+ud $esus stories, but also in respect o# a #ar +oreobscure line o# tradition preser'ed in the +ediae'al Toldoth $eschu, or Story o# $esus, as weshall see in the second part o# our en@uiry. riting so+ewhere about 192Udischer Schri#steller der 'ier ersten $ahrhunderte Uber $esus und die ersten


66/251

!hristen: %ine Duschri#t an die gebildeten "eutschen =ur weiteren rientirung in der Frage Uberdie *ottheit $esu HLeip=ig? 1)J, a continuation o# his Theologische 5rie#e an die *ebildetender deutschen ;ation H3 'ols., Leip=ig? 13J.

13)

+ust ha'e been entirely the in'ention o# late 5abylonian (abbis, and that 6ishnaic ti+es wereutterly ignorant o# the+, as being too close to the supposed actual #acts, which unthin8ingapologists #urther presu+e +ust ha'e been 8nown to all the $ews o# Palestine. e now pass to aconsideration o# the stories the+sel'es.

13

M///AT-% T7L6G" 100 4%7(S 5.!. ST(4 F $%SGS.

/n 191 "r. *usta# -. "al+an, o# Leip=ig, printed a critical te&t o# all the censured passages inthe Tal+ud, 6idrashi+, Dohar and Liturgy o# the Synagogue which are said to re#er to $esus, andto this -. Laible appended an introductory essay,E1 in which +ost o# the passages weretranslated.

/n 193 7. 6. Streane published an %nglish 'ersion o# this essay, #or which "al+an translatedthe re+aining passages, and to which "al+an, Laible, and Streane contributed additional notes,the %nglish edition thus superseding the *er+an.E Fro+ lac8 o# any other wor8 in which a'ersion o# all the passages +ay be #ound, the non


67/251

correctly 4eschu, which Streane has replaced by the #a+iliar $esus, because / hold with raussEl that $eschu is a genuine $ewish na+e, and not a nic8na+e in'ented in despite by the $ewsHas charged against the+ by !hristian writersJ to escape writing the #or+ $eshua H$oshua,$ehoshua EJ, which !hristians +aintain was the proper -ebrew na+e o# $esus, thus showing#orth by the 'ery na+e that he was the Sa'iour ? least o# all that the na+e $eschu was originally

begotten o# a cruel letter play based on the initials o# the words o# i+precation #++ach che+e(e=i8ro H 6ay his na+e and +e+ory be blotted outCJ, as persistently charged against the $ews

by their +ediae'al !hristian opponents, and #inally Hunder stress o# hate and ignoranceJ acceptedand adopted by $ews the+sel'es in so+e o# the later #or+s o# the Toldoth $eschu.E3 $eschu, /hold, was si+ply the original -ebrew or 7ra+aic #or+ o# the na+e, as +ay be seen #ro+ the*ree8 transliteration HJ, or the 7rabic /sa.

E1 rauss HS.J, "as Leben $esu nach >Udischen Ouellen H5erlin? 190J, pp. 0ust, as$oshua was reading EB reciting the She+a,E3 $eschu ca+e to hi+, hoping that he would ta8ehi+ bac8. $oshua +ade a sign to

E1 Sanhedrin, 102b, and, in al+ost identical words, Sota, )2a.

E The words o+itted by Streane are, as %lisha who repelled *eha=i nor.

2


68/251

E3 The words: -ear, /srael, etc., "eut. 'i. ) ##.

13

hi+ with his hand. Then $eschu thought that he had altogether repulsed hi+, and went away, andset up a bric8bat and worshipped it. $oshua said to hi+: 5e con'ertedC $eschu saith : Thus ha'e/ been taught by thee: Fro+ hi+ that sinneth and +a8eth the people to sin, is ta8en away the

possibility o# repentance. 7nd the Teacher Ei.e., he who is e'erywhere +entioned by this title inthe Tal+ud has said: $eschu had practised sorcery and had corrupted and +isled /srael.E1

This #a+ous passage, i# ta8en by itsel#, would o# course #ully con#ir+ the hypothesis o# the 100years 5.!. date o# $esus. The argu+ents #or and against the authenticity o# its state+ents

e+brace, there#ore, practically the whole substance o# our in'estigation. Let us #irst o# allconsider the #ace 'alue o# these state+ents.

$annai or $annaeus H$ohnJ, who also bore the *ree8 na+e 7le&ander, was one o# the #a+ous6accabaean line o# 8ings, the son o# $ohn -yrcanus /., and reigned o'er the $ews 10)or part o# his reign was engaged in a bitter #eud with the Pharisaean party, who+ hehad depri'ed o# all their pri'ileges. This Pharisaean party was practically the national religious

E1 This #or+al charge is also #ound in Sanhedrin, )3a.

E See SchUrer H%.J, 7 -istory o# the $ewish People in the Ti+e o# $esus !hrist H%ng. Trans.?%dinburgh, 192J, "i'. i., 'ol. i. pp. 9


69/251

and children o# the wretched Pharisees ha'ing been pre'iously butchered be#ore their eyes. Thisatrocious act is said to ha'e struc8 such terror into the hearts o# the un#ortunate (abbis o# theti+e, that no less than 000 o# the+ #led, and during $annais li#e


70/251

1)1

o# that ti+e were gi#ted with prophetical clair'oyance to descry the subse@uent e'il days on

which the (abbis #ell ti+e and again.

/ ha'e been thus long in dwelling on the i+portance o# Salo+e #ro+ a (abbinical point o# 'iew#or reasons which will appear +ore #ully later on? #or the present it is to be re+ar8ed that, i# thereis any historical basis at all #or the passage under consideration, $oshua ben Perachiah

presu+ably #led to 7le&andria in 2 5.!., and was probably recalled by Si+eon ben Shetach in2 5.!. -e +ust then ha'e been a 'ery old +an, #or he is said to ha'e begun to teach as early as1) 5.!.,E1 an assertion, howe'er, which / ha'e been unable to 'eri#y. /n any case $oshua benPerachiah and ;ithai o# 7rbela were the second o# the #a+ous Fi'e Pairs o# the*urupara+para chain Hto use a 5rah+anical technical ter+J o# Tal+udic tradition, while

Si+eon ben Shetach and $udah ben Tabbai #or+ the third Pair.

7ccording to this tradition o# the #athers, then, $eschu was regarded as ha'ing been originallythe pupil o# one o# the two +ost learned (abbis E o# the ti+e,

E1 5aring


71/251

where $ewish tradition placed $esus. For it he was a learned +an, as indeed is in'ariablyad+itted in +any other stories? whether or not he got his wisdo+ #ro+ the greatest $ewishteacher o# the ti+es or not, is another @uestion.

/t is #urther to be re+ar8ed that there is a stri8ing si+ilarity between the state o# internal $ewisha##airs in $annais ti+e and the nu+erous hangings and burnings o# Pharisees in the days o#-erod H32


72/251

onesN or children. 7 +ost interesting tradition o# this designation is still preser'ed in the littleusti#ied his #ore#athers o#later generations #or their belie# in the bastardy o# $eschu as a historic #act authenticated by therecords? while i# he be an out


79/251

1

The 6ishna School at Lud HLyddaJ is said to ha'e been #ounded by %. %lie=er ben -yrcanus, the

teacher o# %. 78iba,E1 and it was doubtless the great reputation o# 78iba as the +ost i+placable#oe o# !hristianity which, in course o# ti+e, connected the na+e o# 6ary with stories o# 78ibawhich originally were per#ectly innocent o# any re#erence to the +other o# $esus. Thus, in laterti+es, we #ind tradition bringing 78iba and 6iria+ together in personal con'ersation, we #ind itstill later gi'ing her one o# 78ibas conte+poraries as a husband, and #inally we +eet with acurious legend in which 6iria+ is +ade the conte+porary o# a (abbi o# the #ourth centuryC

5ut to consider these #antastic de'elop+ents o# Tal+udic tradition in greater detail. The#ollowing is the #a+ous acade+ical discussion on the re#ine+ents o# bastardy, which in course o#ti+e supplied the 5en Pandera legend with so+e o# its +ost stri8ing details, as we still #ind the+

in 'arious #or+s o# the Toldoth $eschu.

7 sha+eless person is, according to %. %lie=er, a bastard? according to %. $oshua, a son o# awo+an in her separation? according to %. 78iba, a bastard and son o# a wo+an in her separation.nce there sat elders at the gate when two boys passed by? one had his head co'ered, the other

bare. # hi+ who had his head unco'ered, %. %lie=er said, 7 bastardC

E1 5ut when we are told that the #a+ous $ewish proselyte, Oueen -elena o# 7diabene, passed#ourteen years in Palestine H)


80/251

Da88ai, who died about 20 7.".? 78iba was put to death in 13 7.". The setting o# the story,there#ore, places us so+ewhere about the end o# the #irst century.

e +ay pass o'er the strange ascription o# an act

E1 That is, the bridegroo+s best +an.

E allah,N 1b.

1

o# heartless per>ury to 78iba as the +eans whereby he e&torted the con#ession #ro+ the boys+other, and the #ar +ore curious addition at the end o# the passage which blesses the *od o#/srael #or re'ealing -is secret a#ter the use o# such @uestionable +eans, with the re+ar8 that itwould be interesting to 8now whether Tal+ud apologetics pre#er to abandon the reputation o# theTal+ud or o# its great authority 78iba in this instance, #or here there is no third choice.

hat is +ost stri8ing in the story is that neither the na+e o# the boy nor that o# his +other isgi'en. Laible El supposes that the story originally contained the na+es o# $eschu and 6iria+,

but that the co+piler o# the *e+ara struc8 the+ out, both because the +other is described as apulse


81/251

retort to the 'irgin


82/251

#actories, and #inally we #ind e'en so great a co++entator as (ashi Hb. 110 7.".J endorsingwith all con#idence this hopeless anachronis+, when he says: Paphos ben $ehudah was thehusband o# 6iria+, the wo+ens hairdresser. hene'er he went out o# the house into the street,he loc8ed the door upon her, that no one +ight be able to spea8 to her. 7nd that is a course which

beca+e hi+ not? #or on this account there arose en+ity between the+, and she in wantonnessbro8e her #aith with her husband.

5ut e'en eight or nine centuries be#ore (ashis ti+e the 5abylonian (abbis had #ound the 5enStada Lud de'elop+ents a highly incon'enient o'ergrowth o# the earlier 5en Perachiah date, aswe shall see later on, and it is strange to #ind (ashi so ignorant o# what they hid to say on thesub>ect.

Startling, howe'er, as is the anachronis+ which we ha'e been discussing, it is but a +ild surprise

co+pared with the colossal absurdity o# the #ollowing legend, i# we interpret it in the traditional#ashion.

hen (ab $oseph ca+e to this 'erse HPro'. &iii. 3J, 5ut there is that is destroyed without>udg+ent, he wept. -e said: /s there really so+eone who is going HawayJ, when it is not histi+eB !ertainly H#orJ so has it happened with (ab 5ibi bar 7bbai? the angel o# death was #oundwith hi+. The #or+er said to his attendant, *o, bring +e 6iria+ the wo+ens hairdresser. -ewent and brought hi+ 6iria+ the childrens teacher. The angel o# death said to hi+, / said6iria+ the wo+ens hair


83/251

/t +ust be re+ar8ed, howe'er, that this e&planation

mead, grs - did jesus live 100 bc

Documents