discussion upon the words in the Mishnah which forbid all kinds of writing to be done on the Sabbath. Several kinds are specified, and among them the making of marks upon the flesh. The words at the beginning of the translation are the text, so to speak, of the Mishnah which is discussed in what follows. To illustrate the practice of marking or cutting the flesh, the compilers of the Gemara introduce a tradition (Baraitha, not included in the Mishnah, see above, p. 21) according to which R. Eliezer asked the question, ' Did not Ben Stada bring magical spells from Egypt in an incision upon his flesh ?' His argument was that as Ben Stada had done this, the practice might be allowable. The answer was that Ben Stada was a fool, and his case proved nothing. Upon the mention however of Ben Stada, a note is added to explain who that person was, and it is for the sake of this note that the passage is quoted. First I will somewhat expand the translation, which I have made as bald and literal as I could.1

Ben Stada, says the Gemara, is the same as Ben Pandira. Was he then the son of two fathers ? No. Stada was the name of the husband (of his mother), Pandira the name of her paramour. This is the opinion of my work relating to Jesus I have made constant use of his book, and can hardly claim to have done more than rearrange hia material and modify some of his conclusions. If it had not been my purpose to extend my own work over a wider field than that which he has so thoroughly explored, I should not have written at all.

1 In all the translations which I shall give, I shall make no attempt to write elegant English ; I wish to keep as closely as possible to a word for word rendering, so that the reader who does not understand the original text may have some idea of what it is like, and what it really says. A flowing translation often becomes a mere paraphrase, and sometimes seriously misrepresents the original.

of Rab Hisda,a Babylonian teacher of the third century (a.d. 217-309). But that cannot be true, says the Gemara, because the husband is known to have been called Pappus ben Jehudah. Stada must have been not the father but the mother. But how can that be, because the mother was called Miriam the dresser of women's hair ? Miriam was her proper name, concludes the Gemara, and Stada a nickname, as people say in Pumbeditha STtCith da, she has gone aside, from her husband.

The two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira evidently refer to the same person, and that that person is Jesus is shown clearly by the fact that we sometimes meet with the full name 'Jeshu ben Pandira '—thus T. Hull, ii. 23, " in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira" ; and also the fact that ' Jeshu' is sometimes found as a variant of' Ben Stada' in parallel passages—thusb. Sanh. 43a says, "On the eve of Pesah (Passover) they hung Jeshu," while in the same tractate, p. 67a, it is said, "Thus did they to Ben Stada in Lud, they hung him on the eve of Pesah. Ben Stada is Ben Pandira, etc." Then follows the same note of explanation as in the passage from Shabbath which we are studying. (See below, p. 79).

There can be no reasonable doubt that the ' Jeshu' who is variously called Ben Stada and Ben Pandira is the historical Jesus, the founder of Christianity. It is true that the name Jeshu'a, though not common, was the name of others beside Jesus of Nazareth; and even in the New Testament (Col. iv. 11) there is mention of one Jesus who is called Justus. It is also true that the Jewish com mentators on the Talmud try to prove that another Jesus is referred to, who is described in various passages as having been contemporary with R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, about a century b.c. These passages will be dealt with hereafter.1 But when it is said, as in the passage referred to above (T. tJull, ii. 28), and elsewhere, that certain persons professed to be able to heal the sick in the name of " Jeshu ben Pandira," it is impossible to doubt that the reference is to Jesus of Nazareth.

Various conjectures have been made in explanation of the epithets Ben Stada and Ben Pandira. In regard to the first, the explanation of the Gemara that Stada is a conti'action of S'tath da is certainly not the original one, for it is given as a common phrase in use in Pumbeditha, a Babylonian town where there was a famous Rabbinical College. But the epithet Ben Stada in reference to Jesus was well known in Palestine, and that too at a much earlier date than the time of R. Ilisda. This is shown by the remark of R. Eliezer, who lived at the end of the first century and on into the second. The derivation from S'tath da would be possible in Palestine no less than in Babylonia; but it does not seem to have been suggested in the former country, and can indeed hardly be considered as anything more than a mere guess at the meaning of a word whose original significance was no longer known.2 It is impossible to say whether Stada originally denoted the mother or the father of Jesus; we can only be sure that it implied some contempt or mockery. I attach no value to the sug-

a See below, p. 345, for a possible explanation of the name B. Stada.

gestion1 that Stada is made up of two Latin words, ' Sta, da,' and denotes a Roman soldier, one of the traditions being that the real father of Jesus was a soldier.

Of the term Ben Pandira also explanations have been suggested, which are far from being satisfactory. Pandira (also written Pandera, or Pantira, or Pantiri) may, as Strauss suggested (quoted by Hitzig in Hilgenfeld's Ztschft., as above), represent Trevdtp6<;, meaning son-in-law; but surely there is nothing distinctive in such an epithet to account for its being specially applied to Jesus. The name Pandira may also represent iravdyp (less probably vaudijpa, the final a being the Aramaic article, not the Greek feminine ending); but what reason there was for calling Jesus the son of the Panther is not clear to me.2 Again, Pandira may represent irapOtvos, and the obvious appropriateness of a name indicating the alleged birth of Jesus from a virgin might make us overlook the improbability that the form rrapOevos should be hebraized into the form Pandira, when th° Greek word could have been reproduced almost unchanged in a Hebrew form. It is not clear, moreover, why a Greek word should have been chosen as an epithet for

1 Hitzig in Hilgenfeld's " Ztschft.," 1805, p. 344 fol.

8 I know that the name nivByp it mentioned in this connexion by Christian writers. Origen (ap. Epiphanius, Hier. 78, cited by Wagenseil) says, Olrot jily yhp i Iwtr^'fi Hi\<pht nupayivtTai rov kaoitra. f/v Si vlbt rov laxi>0, iirix\r]y Si TldvSrip KaKmi^vou. kn<piripot oirot iwb rov HdvOripos MxKrtv yyvuvrai. Origen doubtless knew that the Jews called Jesus ' Ben Pandira'; but, as he does not explain how Jacob, the father of Joseph, came to be called TlivBrip, he does not throw any light on the meaning oi the term as applied to Jesus. And as there is no trace of any such name in the genealogy given in the Gospels, it is at least possible that the name Ben Pandira suggested ndyiyp, instead of being suggested by it.

Jesus. I cannot satisfy my self that any of the suggested explanations solve the problem; and being unable to propose any other, I leave the two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira as relics of ancient Jewish mockery against Jesus, the clue to whose meaning is now lost.

Pappos ben Jehudah, whom the Gemara alleges to have been the husband of the mother of Jesus, is the name of a man who lived a century after Jesus, and who is said to have been so suspicious of his wife that he locked her into the house whenever he went out (b. Gitt. 90a). He was contemporary with, and a friend of, R. Aqiba; and one of the two conflicting opinions concerning the epoch of Jesus places him also in the time of Aqiba. Probably this mistaken opinion, together with the tradition that Pappos ben Jehudah was jealous of his wife, account for the mixing up of his name with the story of the parentage of Jesus.

The name Miriam (of which Mary is the equivalent) is the only one which tradition correctly preserved. And the curious remark that she was a dresser of women's hair conceals another reminiscence of the Gospel story. For the words in the Talmud are ' Miriam m'gaddela nashaia.' The second word is plainly based upon the name ' Magdala'; and though, of course, Mary Magdalene was not the mother of Jesus, her name might easily be confused with that of the other Mary.

The passage in the Gemara which we are examining shows plainly enough that only a very dim and confused notion existed as to the parentage of Jesus in the time when the tradition was recorded. It rests, however, on some knowledge possessed at one time of the story related in the Gospels. That story undoubtedly lays itself open to the coarse interpretation put upon it by Jewish enemies of Jesus, viz., that he was born out of wedlock. The Talmud knows that his mother was called Miriam, and knows also that Miriam (Mary) of Magdala had some connexion with the story of his life. Beyond that it knows nothing, not even the meaning of the names by which it refers to Jesus. The passage in the Talmud under examination cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine.

Mary the Mother of Jesus

(2) b. Hag. 4b.—When Rab Joseph came to this verse (Exod. xxiii. 17), he wept, There is that is destroyed without justice (Prov. xiii. 23). He said, Is there any who has departed before his time ? None but this [told] of Rab Bibi bar Abaji. The Angel of Death was with him. The Angel said to his messenger, ' Go, bring me Miriam the dresser of women's hair.' He brought him Miriam the teacher of children. He [the Angel] said, ' I told thee Miriam the dresser of women's hair.' He said, ' If so, I will take this one back.' He said, ' Since thou hast brought this one, let her be among the number [of the dead].'

(2a) Tosaphoth.—" The Angel of Death was with him: he related what had already happened, for this about Miriam the dresser of women's hair took place in [the time of] the second temple, for she was the mother of a certain person, as it is said in Shabbath, p. 104."

Commentary.—This passage, like the preceding one, is centuries later than the time of Jesus. R. Bibi bar Abaji, as also R. Joseph, belonged to the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century, and both lived in Babylonia. R. Joseph was head of the college at Pumbeditha, in which office Abaji, the father of Bibi, succeeded him. As the story is told it involves a monstrous anachronism, which is noted by the authors of the Tosaphoth (mediaeval commentators on the Talmud). The compilers of the Gemara can scarcely have believed that Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, was still living in the time of R. Joseph and R. Bibi; for, as the preceding passage shows, she was thought to have been the mother of Jesus. So far as I know, this is the only reference to the Miriam in question which brings down her lifetime to so late a date; and, if we do not accept the explanation of the Tosaphoth, that the Angel of Death told R. Bibi what had happened long ago, we may suppose that what is described is a dream of the Rabbi's. Of the Miriam who, according to the story, was cut off by death before her time, nothing whatever is known. The passage merely shows that the name of Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, was known in the Babylonian schools at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century. The incident of the fate of the two Miriams is merely brought in to illustrate the text that some are cut off without justice. And this again forms part of a discussion on the duty of appearing three times in the year before the Lord. This passage adds nothing to our knowledge of the Rabbinical belief concerning the mother of Jesus; it is only given because it refers to her, my object being, as already explained, to present as complete a series as I can of Rabbinical passages bearing upon Jesus and Christianity.

There is, in j. Sag. 77d, a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of 'Eli, whom, on account of the name (if. Luke iii. 23), one might be tempted to connect with the story of Jesus; but there seems to be no suspicion on the part of the Talmud of any such connexion, and what is told about her does not seem to me to point in that direction.

Jesus Alleged to be a ' Mamzer '1

(3) M. Jeb iv. 18 [b. Gemara, Jeb. 49b, same words; j. Gemara does not mention the passage]. Rabbi Shim'on ben 'Azai said, * I have found a roll of pedigrees in Jerusalem, and therein is written A certain person spurius est ex adultera [natus~\; to confirm the words of Rabbi Jehoshua.'

Commentary.—This passage is from the Mishnah, and therefore (see Introduction) belongs to the older stratum of the Talmud. R. Shim'on ben 'Azai was the contemporary and friend of Aqiba, about the end of the first and beginning of the second century. They were both disciples of R. Jehoshua ben Ilananiah (b. Taan. 26a), of whom frequent mention will be made in these pages. R. Jehoshua, in his early life, had been a singer in the Temple (b. Erach. llb), and his teacher, R. Johanan ben Zaccai, was old

1 "ItDD, of epuriouR birth.

enough to have seen and remembered Jesus.1 The Rabbis mentioned here were amongst the leading men of their time, and on that account must have been much concerned with the questions arising out of the growth of Christianity. R. Jehoshua is expressly mentioned as having been one of the chief defenders of Israel against the Minim ; and, whatever may be the precise significance of that term, it will be shown subsequently that it includes Christians, though it may possibly include others also. R. Aqiba also is said to have been a particularly zealous opponent of the Christians. Indeed, according to one of the two conflicting opinions represented in the Talmud, Jesus was actually a contemporary of Aqiba, an anachronism which finds its best explanation in a pronounced hostility on the part of Aqiba towards the Christians. When, therefore, Shimon b. Azai reported that he had found a book of pedigrees, in which it was stated that ' a certain person' (peloni) was of spurious birth, it is certainly probable that the reference is to Jesus. Unless some well-known man were intended, there would be no point in referring to him; and unless there had been some strong reason for avoiding his name, the name would have been given in order to strengthen the argument founded upon the case. For it is said that Shim'on ben 'Azai made his statement 'in order to confirm the words of R. Jehoshua.' And R. Jehoshua had laid it down that a bastard is one who is condemned

1 It has been suggested that the John mentioned in Acts iv. 6 is the same as Joljanan ben Zaccai; but there is no evidence for this identification except the similarity of name. Since the Rabbi was a Pharisee, it is not on the face of it probable that he should be "of the kindred of the High Priest."

to a judicial death,1 i.e. one born of a union which was prohibited under penalty of such a death. Now Jesus undoubtedly had been condemned (though not on account of his birth) to a judicial death, as the Talmud recognises (see passages given subsequently, pp. 80, 83) and Shimon ben 'Azai brings the evidence of the book which he had discovered, to show that in the case of a notorious person the penalty of a judicial death had followed upon unlawful birth.

The alleged discovery of a book of pedigrees in Jerusalem may be historical; for the Jews were not prohibited from entering Jerusalem until the revolt of Bar Cocheba had been suppressed by Hadrian, a.d. 135, and ben 'Azai was dead before that time. What the book was cannot now be determined. The title, Book of Pedigrees, is quite general. It is worth noticing, however, that the present gospel of Matthew begins with the words, The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It is just possible that the book to which ben 'Azai referred was this Gospel, or rather an Aramaic forerunner of it, or again it may have been a roll containing one or other of the two pedigrees recorded in Matthew and Luke.

Covert Reference to Jesus

(4) b. Joma. 66d.—They asked R. Eliezer, < What of a certain person as regards the world to come' ? He said to them, ' Ye have only asked me concerning a certain person." 'What of the shepherd saving the sheep from the lion' ? He said to them, ' Ye have only asked

me concerning the sheep.' 'What of saving the shepherd from the lion' ? He said, ' Ye have only asked me concerning the shepherd.' • What of a Mamzer, as to inheriting' ? ' What of his performing the levirate duty' ? ' What of his founding his house' ? ' What of his founding his sepulchre' ? [They asked these questions] not because they differed on them, but because he never said anything which he had not heard from his teacher from of old. [See a somewhat similar series of questions, T. Jeb. iii. 8, 4.] Commentary.—This passage is full of obscurities. I record it here because of its reference to 'pelOni,* ' a certain person,' the same phrase which occurred in the preceding extract. R. Eliezer was a very well-known teacher at the end of the first century; and later on will be given a passage which describes how he was once arrested on a charge of heresy, presumably Christianity (see below, p. 187). The words translated are a Baraitha (see above, p. 21), i.e. they belong to a period contemporary with the Mishnah, though they are not included in it. Moreover the style of the language is that of the Mishnah, not that of the Gemara. Further, a set of questions addressed to the same R. Eliezer, and including some of those translated above, is found in the Tosephta (T. Jeb. iii. 8, 4). Among the questions given in Tosephta are those about' pel5ni,' and about the ' Mamzer.' It is evident that the authors neither of the Gemara nor of the Tosephta understood the full meaning of the questions. The explanation is that the questions were asked * not because there was any difference of opinion, but because R. Eliezer never said anything which he had not heard from his teacher.' The same explanation is given in reference to another set of questions addressed to Eliezer (b. Succ. 27b, 28a), and from the latter passage it appears to be Eliezer's own declaration concerning himself. But it has no bearing on the questions and answers translated above, unless it be this, that as Eliezer was known to have had some connexion with Christianity, his questioners tried to get at his own opinion concerning Jesus, and that he fenced with the questions, not caring to answer directly, and perhaps not being able to answer on the authority of his teacher. The particular point of each question I am unable to explain; but one can see an opportunity for allusion to Jesus in the questions as to the fate of' peloni' in the future life, as to the ' Mamzer' founding a house {i.e. a family), or a sepulchre, if it were known that Jesus was not married, and that he was buried in the grave of a stranger. I can throw no light upon the ' saving the sheep (or the shepherd) from the lion.' That this passage contains a covert reference to Jesus is the opinion of Levy, N.H.W., iv. 5V, s.v. and also of Edersheim, L. &. T. of J. M., ii. 193, who ventures a comparison with John x. 11. Is it likely that the contents of that Gospel, supposing it to have been in existence at the time, would be known to Eliezer or his questioners ?

The Ancestry of the Mother of Jesus

(5) b. Sanh. 10Ga.—R. Johanan said [concerning Balaam], ' In the beginning a prophet, in the end a deceiver.' Rab Papa said, ' This is that which they say, She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.'

Commentary.—It will be shown subsequently that Jesus is often referred to in the Talmud under the figure of Balaam, and the words just translated occur in the middle of a long passage about Balaam. No name is mentioned to indicate what woman is meant. But the context suggests that the mother of Jesus is intended; and the suggestion is borne out by the statement that the woman mated with a carpenter.1 The passage, as it stands, is of a late date; for R. Papa, who said the words, was head of the college at Sura from 354 to 374 a.d. Possibly it arose out of some imperfect acquaintance with the genealogies in the Gospels, these being regarded as giving the ancestry of Mary instead of that of Joseph. The mistake might naturally arise; for if Joseph were not the father of Jesus, and if Jesus were alleged to be the son of David, or of royal descent, as the Talmud itself (b. Sanh. 43a) is by some thought to admit,2 then evidently his royal ancestry must have been on his mother's side.

Alleged Confession by the Mother of Jesus

(6) b. Kallah. 51a.—Impudens: R. Eliezer dicit spurium esse, R. Jehoshua menstruas filium, R. Aqiba et spurium et menstruas filium. Sedebant quondam seniores apud portam,

1 The Munich MS. has in the margin *03 instead of '133, i.e. the singular, not the plural.

a This at least is one interpretation of the expression ITD^D^ 31~lp, gee below, p. 89.

praeterierunt duo pueri quorum unus caput operuit, alter revelavit. Dixit R. Eliezer, de illo qui caput revelaverat, ' Spurius est'; R. Jehoshua ' Menstruae filius'; R. Aqiba 'Spurius, et menstrua? filius.' Responderunt illi, 'Quomodo cor te inflat, ut verbis sociorum contradixeris !' Dixit eis ' Rem confirmabo.' Abiit ad matrem pueri, quam vidit in foro sedentem dum legumina vendebat. Dixit ei ' Filia mea, si mihi id de quo rogabo respondeas, in seculum futurum te ducam.' Respondit illi 'Jura mihi.' Juravit R. Aqiba ore, sed corde irritum fecit.' Dixit ei ' Filius hie tuus, qualis est ?' Respondit ' Quum thalamum introivi menstrua eram, et separavit a me conjux; paranymphus autem venit ad me, quapropter hie puer et spurius est et menstruae filius.' Responderunt (Rabbini) ' Magnus erat R. Aqiba, quum magistros suos refutaret.' Ilia hora dixerunt 'Benedictus Deus Israel, qui R. Aqibae secretum suum revelavit!'

Commentary.—I give the above passage with some hesitation, because I doubt whether it has anything to do with the legendary history of Jesus. There is nothing to point him out as the child in question, and J;he few details which the story contains do not agree with what we have gathered hitherto as the Rabbinical account of the parentage of Jesus. So far as I know, this passage stands by itself, without being mentioned or referred to in any other Talmudic tractate ; and the tractate Kallah, in which it is found, is of later origin than the main body of the Talmud.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment