If
Jesus Christ caused so much trouble in first century Israel, certainly the Jews
would have written of Him, right? So, what ancient Semitic writings are extant
that mention Jesus of Nazareth? Does the rabbinical literature corroborate
Biblical accounts and, if not, why? First, we need to understand the primary
source documents from that time period, which are contained in the Talmud.
What is the Talmud?
Briefly,
ancient Jews passed down large amounts of Biblical (Old Testament) commentary
and tradition from generation to generation. Rabbi Akiba, before his death in
A.D. 135, and Rabbi Meir, organized and revised the material. Around A.D. 200,
Rabbi Judah completed the project, which became known as the Mishnah (literally
“teaching” or “repetition”). This was known as the Tannaitic Period. Commentary
on the Mishnah was labeled the Gemaras[1] and was compiled from the
third through the sixth centuries, during the Ammoraic Period. Gemara is
derived from the Hebrew word meaning “to finish”.
During
the Ammoraic Period, two schools existed, one in Babylonia and another in
Palestine. From approximately A.D. 350-425, the Mishnah and Gemara were
combined in the first school at Jerusalem, called the Palestinian Talmud. The
second school, in Babylonia, also included the Mishnah and Gemara, but
continued to be compiled until around A.D. 500, so was a larger collection.
This became known as the Babylonian Talmud. The word Talmud literally means
“learning”.[2] Volumes could be written
on this subject, but that will suffice as a short introduction.
Jesus in the Talmud
A
highly significant quotation is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
Translated into English, it reads:
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was
hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and
cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and
enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him
come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in
his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”[3]
Yeshu
(sometimes, Yeshua) is derived from the Aramaic or Hebrew and translated into
English as Jesus. But, someone might question whether this refers to Jesus
Christ, because this person was “hanged”, not crucified, as the Bible states.
Actually, the New Testament twice refers to Jesus being hanged: Galatians 3:13 (Greek kremamenos) and Luke
23:39 (Greek kremasthenton). The term “hang” does not strictly refer to the
modern notion of hanging by a rope noose around the neck, but can include other
methods of attachment to a wooden pole, as evidenced by Paul and Luke’s usage
of the term.
Five points
From
this Talmudic passage, several significant points may be understood. Gary
Habermas, Ph.D., Michigan State University, History and Philosophy of Religion,
lists these as follows:
1. The fact of Jesus’ death by
crucifixion
2. The timing of the event, twice
mentioned as occurring on the eve of Passover
3. No witnesses came forward to defend
him, and he was killed
4. Jesus was judged by the Jews to be
guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy
5. It was publicly announced beforehand
that Jesus would be stoned. This was the standard method of execution by the
Jews, though not specifically mentioned in the Bible. However, Jesus was
threatened with this fate on other occasions (John 8:58-59, 10:31-33, 39)[4]
Significance
So,
what significance can we derive for a modern day understanding of the Bible
from this passage written from 1,500 to 2,000 years ago? Josh McDowell graduated
from Wheaton College and Magna Cum Laude from Talbot Theological Seminary. Concerning
this writing, he and Bill Wilson noted:
“This passage is significant because
of what it does not deny. First, it does not deny Jewish involvement in Jesus’
death. In fact, it does not even mention the Romans. Rather, it seeks to
demonstrate the Jewish authorities carried out the sentencing, but in a just
manner. The result is a clear affirmation of the historicity of Jesus and his
death. Second, this passage does not deny that Jesus performed miracles.
Rather, it tries to explain them away as being accomplished through sorcery or
magic. The same response to Jesus’ miracles is reported in Mark 3:22 and
Matthew 9:34; 12:24. Once again, there is a clear affirmation of the
historicity of Jesus, and this time of his miracles as well.”[5]
Comments
in this passage are just about what one would expect of a Jewish rabbinical
writer who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
On
the subject of a precise mention of the time period Jesus was sought by the
authorities, McDowell proposes the possibility that “The forty days may only be
an apologetic device designed to deny that the trial was a speedy one.”[6] The reference to 40 days
may be an indicator that the authorities were seeking an opportunity to dispose
of this troublemaker from Nazareth. In fact, the Bible mentions this in several
places, without providing an exact time frame (John 5:18 and John 11:53-57).
Authenticity
Paul
L. Maier, Ph.D., is Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan
University. His research includes a variety of methodologies involved in
manuscript and textual analysis, archaeology, and comparison of sacred and
secular sources from the first century A.D. Dr. Maier makes several points
regarding the authenticity of this reference:
“Four items in this
statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before
Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular
punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not
involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus
was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a
negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call
the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but
accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous
healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebub (Luke 11:18).”[7]
Conclusion
The
bottom line is this: The Talmudic
reference to Jesus is another in a long line of extra-Biblical documentary
records that corroborate information found in the Bible. Many valid reasons
exist for the authenticity of the Bible and this is one more piece of evidence
showing that the Biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth can be trusted.
For
those who wish to further research the historicity of Jesus Christ, the books
listed in the endnotes of this article by Gary Habermas, as well as Josh
McDowell and Bill Wilson, are highly recommended.
[Biblical
references are from the NASB version.]
[1]Gary
R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
(Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 202.
[2]Josh
McDowell and Bill Wilson, He Walked Among
Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus (Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 57-58.
[3]The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I
Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III Sanhedrin
43a, p. 281, cited in Habermas, The
Historical Jesus, p. 203.
[4]Habermas,
203.
[5]McDowell
and Wilson, 64-65.
[6]Ibid.,
65.
[7]Paul
L. Maier, Did Jesus Really Exist, North
American Mission Board, 2007, accessed 19 Jun 2009,
<
http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784399&ct=1740233>
No comments:
Post a Comment