Come and Hear™ to increase interfaith understanding http://www.come-and-hear.com This page has been scanned from The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) to ensure availability for future students of Come and Hear™
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA VOL.VII Jesus (continued) [page 170] |  |
Dilling Exhibit 277 Begins
|  | BIBLIOGRAPHY: Graetz, Gesch. 4th ed., iii. 281-414; F. Nork, Rabbinische Quellen Neu-Testamentlischer Stellen, Leipsic, 1839; August Wuensche, Neue Beitraege zur Erlaeuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Goettingen, 1872. —In Jewish Legend: The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the Life of Jesus (“Toledot Yeshu‘”) that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. In view of their general character they are called indiscriminately legends. Some of the statements, as that referring to magic, are found among pagan writers and Christian heretics; and as the Ebionites, or Judeo-Christians, who for a long time lived together with the Jews, are also classed as heretics, conclusions may he drawn from this as to the origin of these legends. It ought also to be added that many of the legends have a theological background. For polemical purposes, it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church. Magic may have been ascribed him over against the miracles recorded in the Gospels; and the degrading fate both on earth and hereafter of which the legends speak may be simply directed against the ideas of the assumption and the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish legends relating to Jesus appear less inimical in character when compared with the parallel passages which are found in pagan authors and Christian sources, more especially as such legends are fixed and frequently occurring themes of folk-lore: and imaginations must have been especially excited by the historical importance which the figure of Jesus came to have for the Jews. The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yeb. iv. 3. The mysterious phrase (“that man”) cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which B. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in “R.E. J.” i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature—[Hebr.] (= “that anonymous one,” the name of Jesus being avoided) and [Hebr.] (= “bastard”: for which in later times [Hebr.] was used). Such a family register may have been preserved at Jerusalem in the Judeo-Christian community. The Jews, who are represented as inimical to Jesus in the canonical Gospels also, took him to be legitimate and born in an entirely natural manner. A contrary statement as to their attitude is expressed for the first time in the “Acts of Pilate” (“Gospel of Nicodemus,” ed. Thilo, in “Codex Apoc. Novi Testamenti,” i. 526, Leipsic, 1832: comp. Origen, “Contra Celsum,“ i. 28).
Birth of Jesus.
Celsus makes the same statement in another passage, where he refers even to a written source, adding that the seducer was a soldier by the name of Panthera (l.c. i. 32). The name “Panthera” occurs here for the first time; two centuries later it occurs in Epiphanius (“Haeres,” lxxviii. 7), who ascribes the surname “Panther” to Jacob, an ancestor of Jesus; and John of Damascus (“De Orthod. Fide.” iv., §1.5) includes the names “Panther” and “Barpanther” in the genealogy of Mary. It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard Jesus as the “son of Pandera” [Hebr.], although it is noteworthy that he is called also “Ben Stada” [Hebr.] (Shab. 104b; Sanh. 67a). It appears from this passage that, aside from Pandera and Stada, the couple Pappus b. Judah and Miriam the hairdresser were taken to be the parents of Jesus. Pappus has nothing to do with the story of Jesus, and was only connected with it because his wife happened to be called “Miriam” (= “Mary”), and was known to be an adulteress. The one statement in which all these confused legends agree is that relating to the birth of Jesus. Although this is ascribed only to the Jews, even in Celsus, the Jews need not necessarily be regarded as its authors, for it is possible that it originated among heretics inimical to Jesus, as the Ophites and Cainites, of whom Origen says, “they uttered such hateful accusations against Jesus as Celsus himself did (“Contra Celsum,” iii. 13). It is probable, furthermore, that the accusation of illegitimacy was not originally considered so serious; it was ascribed to the most prominent personages, and is a standing motive in folk-lore (Krauss, “Leben Jesu,” p. 214). The incident of Jesus concerning the dispute with the Scribes was copied by the rabbinical sources (Kallah 18b [ed. Venice, 1528, fol. 41c]: comp. N. Coronel, “Comment. Quinque,” p. 3b, Vienna, 1864, and “Batte Midrashot,”ed. Wertheimer, iii. 23, Jerusalem, 1895). All the ‘Toledot” editions contain a similar story of a dispute which Jesus carried on with the Scribes, who, on the ground of that dispute, declared him to be a bastard. Analogous to this story are numerous tales of predictions by precocious boys. The sojourn of Jesus in Egypt is an essential part of the story of his youth. According to the Gospels he was in that
Sojourn in Egypt.
country in his early infancy, but Celsus says that he was in service there and learned magic; hence he was there in early manhood. This assumption may serve to throw more light on the obscure history of Jesus than the account found in the Gospels. The Talmud also says that Jesus was in Egypt in early manhood. R. Joshua b. Perahyah is said to have fled with his pupil Jesus to Alexandria in order to escape the persecutions of the Jewish king Yannai (103 - 76 BC); on their return Jesus made a remark on the not faultless beauty of their hostess, whereupon R. Joshua excommunicated him; and when Jesus approached him again and was not received he set up a brick for his god, and led all Israel into apostasy (Sanh. 107b; Sotah 47a; Yer. Hag. 77d). This account is supplemented by the statement, made on the assumption that Ben Stada is identical with Ben Pandera, that Ben Stada brought magic from Egypt (Shab. 104b). The story that Joshua b. Perahyah, a contemporary of Simeon b. Shetah, was the teacher of Jesus, is not clearly stated in the various “Toledot”; it is said |  |
Dilling Exhibit 278 Begins
|  | [page 171] merely that Jesus was named after this brother of his mother. The assumption that Joshua b. Perahyah was the uncle of Jesus is confirmed by Kirkisani, who wrote about 987 a history of Jewish sects (ed. Harkavy, § 1, St. Petersburg, 1894; comp. “J.Q.R.” vii. 687). The references to Yannai, Salome Alexandra, and Joshua b. Pcrahyah indicate that according to the Jewish legends the advent of Jesus took place just one century before the actual historical date; and some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Nahmanides and Salman Zebi, based on this fact their assertion that the “Yeshu“ mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge. According to Celsus (in Origen, “Contra Celsum,” i. 28) and to the Talmud (Shab. 104b), Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it; the latter work, in addition, states that he
Jesus as Magician.
cut the magic formulas into his skin. It does not mention, however, the nature of his magic performances (Tosef., Shab. xi. 4; Yer. Shab. 18d); but as it states that the disciples of Jesus healed the sick “in the name of Jesus Pandera” (Yer. Shab. 14d; Ab. Zarah 27b; Eccl. R. i. 8) it may be assumed that its author held the miracles of Jesus also to have been miraculous cures. Different in nature is the witchcraft attributed to Jesus in the “Toledot.” When Jesus was expelled from the circle of scholars, be is said to have returned secretly from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he inserted a parchment containing the “declared name of God” (“Shem ha-Meforash”), which was guarded in the Temple, into his skin, carried it away, and then, taking it out of his skin, he performed his miracles by its means. This magic formula then had to be recovered from him, and Judah the Gardener (a personage of the “Toledot” corresponding to Judas Iscariot) offered to do it; he and Jesus then engaged in an aerial battle (borrowed from the legend of SIMON MAGUS), in which Judah remained victor and Jesus fled. The accusation of magic is frequently brought against Jesus. Jerome mentions it, quoting the Jews: “Magum vocant et Judaei Dominum meum” (“Ep. 1v., ad Ascellam,” i. 196, ed. Vallarsi); Marcus, of the sect of the Valentinians, was, according to Jerome, a native of Egypt, and was accused of being, like Jesus, a magician (Hilgenfeld, “Ketzergesch.” p. 870, Leipsic, 1884). There were even Christian heretics who looked upon the founder of their religion as a magician (Fabricius, in “Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti,” iii. 896), and public opinion at Rome accused all Christians of magic (W.M. Ramsay, “The Church in the Roman Empire Before AD. 170,” pp. 286, 392, London, 1897). The Apostles were regarded in the same light (“Acta Petri et Andreae,” ed. Bonnet, § 8). Neither this accusation nor that concerning the birth of Jesus is found in the canonical Gospels, but it occurs in the apocryphal accounts; e.g.. “Gesta Pilati,” ii. 1: “Acta Pilati,” version B, ii. 8, iii. 1; ib. i. 1 (0n~/a/; comp. ydeç WTIV - “he is a magician”); ib. in ed. Tischendorf. 2d ed., p. 216, “maleficus est”: ib. p. 338 (“Zeit. für die Neutest. Wissenschaft,” 1901, iii. 94), with which comp. “veneficus” “poisoner” (“Evang. Infantiae Arab.” ed. Thilo, § 36). Somewhat different is the accusation that Jesus imposed upon the people and led them astray (comp. Bischoff, Ein Judisch Deutsches Leben Jesu,” p. 20, Leipsic, 1895: [Hebr.] often also [Hebr.] and in the Greek texts [Gr.], [Gr]; comp. [Gr.] = “he deceives the people,”; John vii. 12). As Balaam the magician and, according to the derivation of his name, “destroyer of the people”, was from both of these points of view a good prototype of Jesus, the latter was also called “Balaam.” Celsus (i. 62) says there were ten or eleven apostles. A passage of the Talmud (Sanh. 48a) ascribes five disciples to Jesus: “Matthai “ (Matthew),
The Disci- ples of Jesus.
“Nakai” (Luke), “Nezer” (Nazarene, a general designation for Christian in antiquity), “Boni” (probably the Nicodemus mentioned by John), and “Thoda” (Thaddaeus). The following are mentioned in the Toledot (Huldricus, p. 35): “Simeon” (Peter), “Matthia” (Matthew), “Elikum” (Luke), “Mordecai” (Mark), “Thoda” (Thaddaeus), and “Johannos” (John)—that is, the four evangelists plus Peter and Thaddaeus. Paul is mentioned in another connection, and (p. 48) Judas “the betrayer”: it is to be noted that the last-named does not occur at all in Talmudic legends. The Twelve Apostles are mentioned in other versions of the “Toledot” (ed. Wagenaeil, p. 19: ed. Bischoff, p. 21), while still other versions frequently mention a following of 300, 310, 320, 330 men. It is especially striking that all these disciples are described as eminently wise and learned, while according to Celsus (i. 63, ii. 46) the disciples of Jesus were common men, tollkeepers and seamen, an assumption that agrees to some extent with the canonical Gospels. In all the editions of the “Toledot” the doctrine of Jesus is summed up in the statements that he was the son of God, born of a virgin mother, a descendant of David and the promised Messiah; this he proved from passages of Scripture, in the rabbinic-Talmudic manner. In connection with these statements
The Doctrines of Jesus.
he is also represented as engaging in disputations with Jewish scholars. The only specifically Christian doctrine mentioned by the Talmud is (Shab. 116a, b) that the law of Moses has been annulled and the Gospels put in its place- the well-known Christian doctrine of the abrogation of the Law; the saying of Jesus, “I have not come to take away the law of Moses, but to add to it,” is also cited (ib). In the Toledot “ the doctrine of abrogation is put into the mouth of Peter, and the latter, secretly intending to separate the Christians from the community in the interest of the Jews, promulgates the following tenets: Jesus suffered the pain and punishment of death in order to redeem from hell those that believe in him (comp. I Cor. xv. 26, 55); believers shall not hurt the Jews (comp. Acts iii. 26); one who deserves to be accompanied one mile only shall be accompanied two miles; both cheeks shall be offered if one cheek has been struck (comp. Matt. v. 39-41); instead of the Sabbath, Sunday shall be kept holy; Easter shall be celebrated instead of the Passover, Pentecost instead of the Feast of Weeks, etc.; circumcision is abrogated, and the dietary laws annulled. All these doctrines |  |