Rex Banks
The Jewish Sources
1) The Talmud
It is one of life's sweet ironies that evidence for Christ's historicity has been preserved in the writings of those who were the implacable enemies of the early church. We have reference here to the Jewish religious leaders who were responsible for the written codification of the "tradition of the elders" which we read about in the New Testament and for the body of commentary which grew up around it. Under the heading Mishna we find the following in Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Mishna, also spelled Mishnah (Hebrew: Repeated Study), plural Mishnayot, the oldest authoritative postbiblical collection and codification of Jewish oral laws, systematically compiled by numerous scholars (called tannaim) over a period of about two centuries. The codification was given final form early in the 3rd century AD by Judah ha-Nasi. The Mishna supplements the written, or scriptural, laws found in the Pentateuch. It presents various interpretations of selective legal traditions that had been preserved orally since at least the time of Ezra (c.450 B.C.)
Intensive study of the Mishna by subsequent scholars (called amoraim) in Palestine and Babylonia resulted in two collections of interpretations and annotations of it called the Gemara, or Talmud. In the broader sense of the latter terms, the Mishna and Gemara together make up the Talmud."
Elsewhere under the heading "Judaism" we are told that the Talmud "remains the best single introduction to the complex of rabbinic values and practices as they evolved in Roman Palestine." In fact there are two Talmuds, the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Talmud of Babylon.
Now, given the nature of these writings, and the fact that Jesus' startling claims about Himself incensed the Jewish religious leaders, it would not be surprising to find some traditions about Him preserved in this body of material; and we do.
However we do need to be circumspect in our handling of this material for several reasons. Some of the alleged references to Jesus are quite late and therefore are of little value. Other alleged references are couched in language which make it difficult to determine if Jesus is really the subject. Too in the 17th century, because of persecutions:
"(T)he Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack." Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: "Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: 'We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth...' " (Josh McDowell, Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us)
Fortunately copies of the earlier texts have been preserved, but clearly because of such difficulties we need to be careful. In 1892 Roman Catholic priest I.B Pranaitis published his controversial The Talmud Unmasked and those who want to familiarise themselves with many of the various texts which allegedly refer to Christ can find a copy of this work at: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmud1.htm
My own impression is that most of the alleged references lack evidential value. However the
following quotations from the Talmud are among those which do appear to represent reliable
traditions about Jesus.
2) Sanhedrin 43a
"And it is tradition: On the eve of Pesach (Passover) they hung Yeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days, (saying), '[Yeshu the Nazarene] goes forth to be stoned, because he as practised magic and deceived and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favour, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of Pesach."
Ulla says, "Would it be supposed that [Yeshu the Nazarene], a revolutionary, had anything in his favour?" He was a deceiver, and the Merciful has said (Deut. 13:8) "You shall not spare, neither shall you conceal him." But it was different with [Yeshu the Nazarene], for he was near to the kingdom.
This passage does not appear in later editions. Reference to stoning is likely due to the fact that
the Jewish writers drew this inference from the fact that Jesus was hung. Elsewhere we are told
that "All who are stoned are hung, according to Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say None is hung
except the blasphemer and he who practices a false worship." Reference to the crier seeking out
defence witnesses is clearly an attempt to counter the depiction of Jesus' trial in the Gospel
accounts as an illegal process. The most important point however is that here we have a reference
to Christ's death "on the eve of Passover," and there is even a reference to the miracles of Jesus,
although they are interpreted as magical acts. Reference to the fact that Jesus was "near to the
kingdom" may be an acknowledgement of his Davidic descent.
3) Sanhedrin 43a
"Our Rabbis have taught, Jesus had five disciples--Matthai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah. They brought Matthai [before the judges]. He said, 'Must Matthai be killed? For it is written (Psalm 42:2) 'Mathai [i.e., "when"] shall [I] come and appear before God.' They said to him, 'Yes, Matthai must be killed, for it is written (Psalm 41:5), 'Mathai [i.e., "when"] shall [he] die and his name perish.' " "They brought Nekai. He said to them, 'Must Nekai be killed? For it is written (Exodus 23:7) 'The Naki [i.e. "innocent"] and the righteous you shall not slay.' They said to him, 'Yes, Nekai must be killed, for it is written (Psalm 10:8) 'In secret places does he slay Naki [i.e. "the innocent"].' "They brought Netzer. He said, 'Must Netzer be killed? For it is written (Isaiah 11:1), 'Netzer [i.e. "a branch"] shall spring up from his roots.' They said to him, 'Yes, Nezter must be killed. For it is written (Isaiah 14:19) 'You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable Netzer [i.e., "branch"].' They brought Buni. He said to them, 'Must Buni be killed? For it is written (Exodus 4:22), 'Bni [i.e. "my son"], my firstborn, Israel.' They said to him, 'Yes, Buni must be killed. For it is written (Exodus 4:23) 'Behold, I slay Bincha [i.e. "your son"], your first born.' They brought Thodah. He said to them, 'Must Thodah be killed? For it is written (Psalm 100:1) 'A Psalm for Thodah [i.e. "thanksgiving"].' They said to him, 'Yes, Thodah must be killed, for it is written (Psalm 1:23) 'Whoever sacrifices Thodah [i.e., "thanksgiving"] honors me.' "
McDowell and Wilson suggest:
"that the purpose for singling out only five of Jesus' disciples could be due to the fact that other rabbis in the Talmud such as Yohanan ben Zakkai and Akiba are also said to have five disciples."
Likely too the names of the disciples have been chosen simply in order to make a play upon their
names, and it is clear that this passage is not designed to represent the proceedings of any actual
tribunal. We cite the passage simply because the Jewish writers provide further evidence for
Jesus' historicity.
4) Yebamoth 4.13; 49a
Simeon ben Azzai has said: "I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written:
That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman." There is good reason to think that this is a
reference to Jesus. In the second century the Christian writer Tertullian, speaking to the Jews
about Jesus says "This is your carpenter's son, your harlot's son..." (De Spetaculis 100.30)
Also in the Talmud Jesus "is not always referred to by the same name, however, but is diversely called 'That Man', 'A Certain One', 'The Carpenter's Son', 'The One Who Was Hanged' etc." (Pranaitis)
In his Evidence that Demands a Verdict Josh Mc Dowell tells us:
"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
Some references to Jesus in the Talmud are a clearer than others, but there is no doubt that these
Jewish writings provide further valuable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, an
influential teacher who incensed the religious leaders of the time and who paid the price.
5) Josephus
The most important extra Biblical source of information about Jesus is the Jewish historian Josephus, a colourful character who provides us with information about other colourful characters of the first century, a number of whom are mentioned in the New Testament. Britannica has the following:
"Josephus, Flavius born A.D. 37/38, Jerusalem, died AD 100, Rome, original name Joseph Ben Matthias, Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66-70 and on earlier Jewish history. His major books are History of the Jewish War (75-79), The Antiquities of the Jews (93), and Against Apion.
Flavius Josephus was born of an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem. According to his own account, he was a precocious youth who by the age of 14 was consulted by high priests in matters of Jewish law. At age 16 he undertook a three-year sojourn in the wilderness with the hermit Bannus, a member of one of the ascetic Jewish sects that flourished in Judaea around the time of Christ."
Josephus also made trial of two other leading religious sects, namely the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and took a leading part in the revolt against Rome in A.D. 66. Despite his participation in the revolt, Vespasian spared his life when a prediction by Josephus that Vespasian would be Emperor came to pass.
Josephus attached himself to the Roman cause. He adopted the name Flavius (Vespasian's family name), accompanied his patron to Alexandria. Josephus later joined the Roman forces under the command of Vespasian's son and later successor, Titus at the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He attempted to act as mediator between the Romans and the rebels, but, hated by the Jews for his apostasy and distrusted by the Romans as a Jew, he was able to accomplish little. Following the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, Josephus took up residence in Rome, where he devoted the remainder of his life to literary pursuits under imperial patronage. (ibid)
There are three quotations from Josephus' Antiquities which are of interest to us here.
a) Antiquities 18, 5.2. Here Josephus tells of the defeat of Herod Antipas at the hands of Aretas, king of the Nabatean Arabs. He says:
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him."
(http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=Ant_18&chapter=5&s=)
Clearly some of the details in the Josephus account differ from those which are found in the
gospel account but this quotation is valuable because it provides extra Biblical confirmation that
"John, called the Baptist" (Christ's forerunner) lived at the time he is said to a lived, that he
practised the rite of baptism, that he influenced many Jews of the time, that he encouraged
righteous living, and that he was taken prisoner and executed by Herod - just as the Bible
records.
b) Antiquities 20, 9.1
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus.... But this younger Ananus who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,... thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"
(http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=Ant_20&chapter=9&s=)
Clearly our main interest here is in the reference to James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" since it shows that this first century Jewish historian acknowledged Christ to have been an historical personage. Interestingly in his reply to Celsus, (Part 1) Origin states that "the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus." He continues:
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless - being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. (Against Celsus 1:47)
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#P7633_1767606)
c) Antiquities 18, 3.3
The text as it has been handed down to us reads as follows, the italics having been added for the reason which will be explained later:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
(http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=Ant_18&chapter=3)
Now this passage has been much debated by friend and foe of the Bible, many of the latter maintaining that it is a clear interpolation. Briefly the main facts are these:
i) In light of Origen's statement (above) that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, it is difficult to see how he could have used the words in italics (e.g. He was the Christ).
ii) Other early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria would have found such a passage very useful in their debates with unbelieving Jews, but they make no reference to it.
iii) On the other hand, in his Ecclesiastical History, written in the early part of the fourth century, Eusebius says concerning Josephus "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words.." At which point he quotes the disputed text including the words in italics. (Ecclesiastical History 1, 11.7 ff) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm)
The bottom line is that some reject this passage in its entirety.
Britannica has:
"The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist."
Others accept the passage in its entirety, pointing out that it is contained in all existing copies of Josephus. Catholic Encyclopaedia has:
"(A)ll codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way."
Still others argue that the passage is genuine apart from the words in italics, which they regard as a Christian interpolation. In my view this last position is the most likely. Let's keep in mind however that even without this reference, the historicity of Jesus Christ can be established from extra biblical materials. In response to the question "What would we be able to conclude about Jesus from ancient non-Christian sources" Edwin M. Yamauchi has the following to say:
"We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite his shameful death, his followers who believed that he was still alive spread beyond Palestine so that they were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshipped him as God." (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ)
And this is not all the evidence by any means, as we will see in Part 3. Home|Contents