Bible Dictionaries
Christ in Jewish Literature

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Christ in Art

Next Entry
Christ in Modern Thought

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

CHRIST IN JEWISH LITERATURE.—In spite of the fact that Jewish literature covers the whole period from the time of Christ to the present day, and that the relations between Jews and Christians during that period have usually been far from friendly, the references to Christ in the writings of Jews are, comparatively speaking, few and unimportant. What there are do not add anything to our knowledge of the history of the life of Christ. Such interest as they possess is due to their significance as indications of the way in which Jews were wont to think and speak amongst themselves of the Founder of Christianity. And it is safe to assert that in general they did not often occupy their thoughts with Him. Whatever may have been the reason, they very seldom mentioned Him; and they seem to have neither received any direct impression, nor inherited any tradition of His spiritual greatness. The few allusions to Him contained in the Talmud and the contemporary literature are, for the most part, contemptuous references to one who deceived Israel, and who owed his birth to the unfaithfulness of his mother. But they are a mere drop in the ocean of the Talmud, and do not warrant the assertion of a general and bitter hatred on the part of the Rabbis towards Him. In the mediaeval literature the scattered hints of the Talmud were developed into the book called the Tôl’dôth Jçshû, which is a mere lampoon, and in some parts a very disgusting one. But there is good ground for saying that this book was not countenanced by the best representatives of the Jewish religion, and did not express their opinion. It is on a level with such misrepresentations of the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions as find favour with the ignorant and bigoted of the opposite party, but are repudiated by the responsible leaders on either side. Instances are to be found in which leaders of Jewish thought in the Middle Ages have made reference to Christ in the language of civil courtesy, or even of appreciation. It is true that such allusions are mostly contained in speeches addressed to Christians on the occasion of public debates, and were, perhaps, influenced by the thought of the danger incurred by plain speaking. But there is evidence to show that in writings intended only for Jews the writers could refer to Jesus without bitterness, and point out what they deemed to be His mistakes without blackening His character. In modern literature the chief Jewish historians write of Jesus as of a great historical personage; and though they, naturally, do not see in Him as much as Christians see, they honestly try to present historical truth and to avoid traditional prejudice. It is only in modern literature that there is to be found a serious and deliberate Jewish opinion about Jesus, a real contribution to the study of His life and character. The earlier references illustrate chiefly the effect of persecution and mutual hatred upon the Jewish mind.

In accordance with the brief sketch just given, it will be convenient to treat the subject chronologically under the three heads of (i.) the Talmudic Literature, (ii.) the Mediaeval Literature, (iii.) Modern Literature.

i. Christ in the Talmudic Literature.—The period included under this head extends from the time of Christ Himself to the closing of the Babylonian Talmud, i.e. about five centuries. The literature comprises several works besides the Talmud, and falls chronologically into two main groups. The first group is that whose chief representative is the Mishna, the code of the Traditional Law completed by R. Judah the Holy, about a.d. 220. To this group also belong the Tosefta, a collection of traditions partly coinciding with the Mishna, and the Midrashim known as Siphrç, Siphra, and Mechilta. The second group contains the Gemârâs, i.e. the commentaries on the Mishna made in the schools of Palestine and Babylonia respectively, and forming, together with the Mishna, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Gemaras contain many traditions not included in the Mishna but contemporaneous with it; such a tradition is called a Baraitha. To this same group belong the earlier parts of the Midrash Rabbah, Pesikta, and Tanhuma, though the date of compilation of these is much later. The Rabbis whose works form the first group are called Tannaim, those of the second Amoraim; and it is usual to distinguish the two periods before and after the closing of the Mishna, as the Tannaite and the Amoraite periods respectively.

The question has often been raised whether there is any mention at all, in the Talmud, of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Until recently, Jewish writers have usually answered this in the negative. They have pointed out that the person supposed to be Jesus is described as a contemporary either of R. Joshua b. Perahiah or of R. Akiba, thus either a century before or a century after the beginning of the Christian era. This is true, but it only shows the anachronism of the tradition. For the person so indicated is called variously Ben Stada, Ben Pandira, Jeshu, Jçshû ha-Nôtzri (i.e. the Nazarene), Jçshû b. Pandira; and what is said of this person makes it impossible to doubt that the reference is to the historical Jesus. The following passages decide the question.

Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 107b, ‘Jçshû ha-Nôtzri practised magic, and deceived and led astray Israel.’

Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 43a, ‘Jçshû (ha-Nôtzri) had five disciples.’

Tos. Hull. ii. 22, 23, ‘There came in Jacob, a man of Chephar Sechanja, to cure him in the name of Jçshû b. Pandira.’

Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 43a, ‘On the eve of Passover they hung Jçshû ha-Nôtzri.’

It is not likely that there should have been a second Jesus the Nazarene, otherwise wholly unknown, who ‘deceived and led astray Israel,’ who was executed for doing so, who had disciples, and in whose name those disciples sought to heal the sick. It is now generally admitted by Jewish writers that the reference is to the historical Jesus. At the same time it is possible that the name Ben Stada did not originally refer to Jesus, although in the later tradition the two are identified.

The present writer has suggested elsewhere (Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 345 n. [Note: note.] ) that Ben Stada denotes ‘that Egyptian’ who is mentioned in Acts 21:38; Josephus Ant. xx. viii. 6, BJ ii. xiii. 5. As to the meaning of the two names, Ben Stada and Ben Pandira, various explanations have been proposed; but none has, in either case, been generally accepted. The Talmud (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Shabb. 104b) explains Stada as equivalent to Stâth dâ, ‘such a one has been unfaithful,’ and refers it to the alleged illegitimate birth of Jesus. But this is certainly not the original meaning of the epithet. That Stada is made up of the Latin words ‘sta’ ‘da,’ and denotes a Roman soldier, is a mere guess, with nothing in its favour. Pandira has been explained as πενθερός, or πάνθηρ, or παρθένος; but beyond some likeness of sound there is nothing to recommend these suggested equivalents. The riddle is as yet unsolved.

The following summary contains all that the Talmudic literature has to say about Jesus. The passages referred to will be found in full and translated in the present writer’s work already mentioned.

Jesus, called ha-Nôtzri, B. Stada, or B. Pandira, was born out of wedlock (M. Jeb. iv. 13, cf. Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Shabb. 104b). His mother was called Miriam, and was a dresser of women’s hair (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Shab. ib. where ‘Miriam megaddelah nashaia’ is a play on ‘Miriam Magdalaah,’ i.e. Mary Magdalene). Her husband was Pappus b. Judah, and her paramour Pandira. She is said to have been the descendant of princes and rulers, and to have played the harlot with a carpenter (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 106a). Jesus had been in Egypt, and had brought magic thence. He was a magician, and deceived and led astray Israel. He sinned and caused the multitude to sin (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 107b). He mocked at the words of the wise, and was excommunicated (ib.). He was tainted with heresy (ib. 103a). [He] called himself God, also the Son of Man, and said that he would go up to heaven (Jerus. [Note: Jerusalem.] Taan. 65b; Jesus is not mentioned by name, but there is no doubt that He is meant). He made himself live by the name of God (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 106a, also anonymous). He was tried in Lydda (Lûd) as a deceiver and as a teacher of apostasy (Tos. Sanh. x. 11; Jerus. [Note: Jerusalem.] Sanh. 25c, d). Witnesses were concealed so as to hear his statements, and a lamp was lighted over him that his face might be seen (ib.). He was executed in Lydda, on the eve of Passover, which was also the eve of Sabbath; he was stoned, and hung, or crucified (ib. and Tos. Sanh. ix. 7). A herald proclaimed, during forty days, that he was to be stoned, and invited evidence in his favour; but none was given (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 43a). He (under the name of Balaam) was put to death by Pinhas the Robber (Pontius Pilatus), and at the time was thirty-three years old (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 106b). He was punished in Gehenna by means of boiling filth (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Gitt. 56b, 57a). He was ‘near to the kingdom’ (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Sanh. 43a). He had five disciples (ib.). Under the name of Balaam he was excluded from the world to come (M. Sanh. x. 2).

The several items of the foregoing tradition about Jesus are of various date. The Mishna does not contain the names Jeshu, B. Stada, or B. Pandira; so that it is not absolutely certain that Jesus is referred to in the Mishna at all. The Tosefta contains all three names, but not Jçshû ha-Nôtzri. Neither Siphrç, Siphra, nor Mechilta contains any allusion to Jesus. The main authorities, therefore, for such allusions in the Tannaite period, are Tosefta and the Baraithas embedded in the Gemaras. The Baraithas contain the statements that Jesus brought magic from Egypt, that he deceived and led astray Israel, that He was tried at Lydda and hung on the eve of Passover which was also the eve of Sabbath, that a herald proclaimed the approaching execution and invited evidence in his favour, and that he had five disciples. The statements contained in Tosefta have been noted above.

The tradition concerning Jesus appears to have started with R. Eliezer b. Horkenos; at least it cannot be traced earlier. R. Eliezer was the chief disciple of R. Johanan b. Zaccai, who died about a.d. 80, and was living in Jerusalem at the time when Jesus was crucified. R. Eliezer was an old man in a.d. 109, and died probably in a.d. 117. Both he and his brother-in-law R. Gamaliel (grandson of the Gamaliel of Acts) had dealings with Christians. The tradition passed from R. Eliezer to R. Akiba and from him to R. Meir, in each case from teacher to disciple. The tradition represented by R. Gamaliel passed to his grandson R. Judah the Holy, who gathered in also the tradition of R. Akiba and R. Meir. This completes the Tannaite period.

In the Amoraite period the tradition is twofold, Palestinian and Babylonian. The former contains very little that is new. R. Johanan was a disciple of R. Judah before mentioned, and his disciple R. Abahu uttered the famous dictum: ‘If a man say to thee “I am God,” he is a liar,’ etc. On the whole, the Palestinian Rabbis took very little interest in the tradition about Jesus.

The Babylonian tradition starts with Rab, who was a disciple of R. Judah; and though Rab himself did not add anything concerning Jesus, his disciple R. Hisda gave the explanation of the relation of Jesus to Stada and Pandira. It was he also who quoted the saying that ‘Jçshû ha-Nôtzri burned his food in public,’ i.e. was tainted with heresy. A contemporary of R. Hisda and, like him, a disciple of Rab, R. Judah. b. Ezekiel handed on the tradition to R. Joseph, who corrected the explanation of the name Stada, and mentions ‘Miriam Megaddelah,’ evidently supposing that Mary of Magdala was the mother of Jesus. R. Papa, disciple of Abaji, who received the tradition from R. Joseph, added the remark about ‘her who was descended from princes,’ etc. A few of the statements concerning Jesus in the Gemaras are anonymous, notably the story of His excommunication by His teacher R. Joshua b. Perahiah, and His punishment in Gehenna.

The Talmudic references to Jesus afford no ground for correcting the narrative of the Gospels. There is sufficient likeness between the general outlines of the Jewish and the Christian traditions to show that the same person is referred to; but it is very doubtful if the Jewish tradition rests upon a knowledge of the Gospels. It is hardly more than a careless memory, retained in unfriendly or indifferent minds. There is also no warrant for arguing, from the Talmudic allusions, that Jesus actually lived a hundred years before the time usually accepted as the date of His birth. An equally good case might be made out for placing Him a century after that date. Rabbinical chronology is to be used only with great caution; and the statement that Jesus was the disciple of R. Joshua b. Perahiah (who did live about 100 b.c.), is made in the Talmud without the support of any authority. Moreover, the story, as referring to Jesus, appears only in the Babylonian Gemara; the Palestinian version does not give the name of the disciple who was excommunicated. There is nothing to show how Jesus came to be associated, in the tradition, with the famous Rabbi of a century before His time.

It is from the Talmudic allusions to Jesus that the mediaeval caricature of Him was elaborated, which will be described in the following section. It is therefore important to note that the chief points in the Talmudic tradition which furnished the base for that caricature were His alleged illegitimate birth, and His character as a magician and a deceiver. The former is a coarse interpretation of the Christian assertion that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, while the latter is due to His reputation as a worker of miracles, and to the undoubted fact that He had created a serious dissension amongst the adherents of the Jewish religion.

Literature.—Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1904; Laible-Dalman, Jesus Christus im Talmud [English translation by Streane]; also, Mead, Did Jesus live 100 years b.c.?

ii. Christ in Mediaeval Jewish Literature.—There are to be distinguished a popular and a serious treatment of the subject by Jewish writers in the Middle Ages. On the one hand, there is the book called the Tôl’dôth Jçshû, which relates the story of Jesus as of a vulgar impostor; on the other hand, there are references to Jesus by Jews of repute which are dignified and respectful in tone, and show a real desire to be fair towards the Founder of that Christian religion whose adherents had inflicted such injuries on Jews.

(a) The Tôl’ dôth Jçshû.—In the printed editions this is a small book of some 24 pages, in which is told the story of the birth, public career, and death of Jesus, and the origin of the Christian Church. It makes no pretension to be a serious history, though it certainly does not deserve the torrent of abuse which its Christian editors have poured out upon it. It is merely a rather stupid and silly tale intended to tickle the ears of ignorant Jews, and to satisfy their contempt and hatred of the Christian religion by mockery of its Founder. To Christian readers it is, of course, highly offensive. But it should be remembered that the book was not written for Christians, and also that Christian treatment of Jews made such retaliation only natural.

What the origin of the book was is not certainly known. Traces of statements contained in it are found in the writings of Tertullian and Eusebius; but the first evidence of the existence of a distinct book of this character appears only in the 9th century. In the work de Judaicis superstitionibus, written about a.d. 830 by Agobard of Lyons, there is an extract from a written Life of Jesus, which has considerable likeness to the Tôl’dôth; and a similar writing, perhaps the same, is mentioned by Rabanus Maurus in 847. The Pugio Fidei of Raymundus Martinus (13th cent.) contains the whole of the Tôl’dôth as known to him. From this time onwards the Tôl’dôth has never wholly disappeared; but it was, naturally, never published by Jews, or even acknowledged by them. Christian writers who succeeded in finding a copy speak of it as being jealously secreted by Jews, and to be obtained only by bribery. Buxtorf in 1696 (Bibliotheca Rabbinica, p. 148) says: ‘We procured a copy from a friend who bought it from “verpo quodam” for some Hungarian gold pieces.’ The copies so obtained were written in Hebrew, but it would seem that the original language was German, or at all events the vernacular of the country where the book first appeared. The translation into Hebrew was presumably made in order to render the book accessible to all Jews.

In the case of a work which existed only in manuscript, it is inevitable that there should be considerable differences in different copies. S. Krauss, who is the chief authority on the subject, enumerates 22 complete Manuscripts and 6 fragments of the Tôl’dôth, which be arranges in five groups, according to their points of resemblance, it seems likely that these were not all derived from a single original, but rather that the story, founded on the scanty notices in the Talmud, was told and circulated orally, and in course of time written down by several hands in different countries. With the exception of the fragments, no existing MS of the Tôl’dôth appears to be older than the 16th century. There are five printed editions, the best known being those of Wagenseil (in Tela Ignea Satanœ, 1681) and Huldreich, 1705.

A short summary may suffice to indicate the contents of the book; and for this purpose the Wagenseil edition will be followed. Johanan, a pious youth in Jerusalem, is betrothed to Miriam, the daughter of a widow. Joseph Pandira, of the tribe of Judah, forms a plan to seduce Miriam, and effects his purpose on a Sabbath eve. Three months afterwards, Johanan, learning the condition of Miriam, consults R. Simeon b. Shetah, and accuses Joseph Pandira. Having, however, no proof, Johanan deserted Miriam and went to Babylonia. In course of time Miriam bears a son, who is Jesus. The boy is placed under the tuition of R. Elhanan, and by his conduct causes the Rabbis to suspect his birth. R. Simeon b. Shetah reveals the story, and Jesus is expelled from the community. He first went to Upper Galilee, and thence to Jerusalem, where he contrived to learn the secret of the Ineffable Name (of God). By the help of this he worked miracles, and proclaimed himself the Son of God, born of a virgin. The queen of Jerusalem, Helena, believed in him, by reason of the miracles. The leaders of the Jews, becoming alarmed, set up Judas, one of themselves, as an antagonist to Jesus. They allowed him to learn the Name, and arranged a trial of strength between him and Jesus. The latter was defeated, and condemned to death, but made his escape. Judas followed him, disguised as one of his disciples, and contrived to steal from him the Divine. Name, which Jesus kept written on parchment and hidden in an incision in his flesh. Jesus, in order to obtain possession of it again, went once more to Jerusalem. There Judas betrayed him to the rulers. He was captured, scourged, stoned, and hung—upon the stalk of a cabbage, because no tree would consent to bear him. After he was dead, Judas stole the corpse and flung it in the ditch of his garden. The disciples, not finding the body, said that Jesus had risen from the dead. The queen believed this, and the Jews were again alarmed. The corpse, however, was discovered, and dragged before the queen at the tail of a horse. The Christians were furious against the Jews. One of the latter, Simon Kepha, undertook to solve the problem by completely separating the Christians from the Jews. He learned the Name, worked miracles; and, having thus gained the confidence of the followers of Jesus, proclaimed to them, in his name, new laws of religion. They accepted his teaching. Thereupon he withdrew into a town, built especially for him, where he remained, sitting upon a stone, until his death. After his death another Christian teacher arose in Rome, who annulled the laws given by Simon Kepha, and gave new ones, instituting baptism instead of circumcision, and the Sunday in place of the Sabbath. The new teacher, however, in trying to perform a miracle, was killed by a stone falling upon his head. ‘So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord.’

The other editions follow, more or less closely, the line sketched out above, though in detail there is considerable variety. All of them describe the seduction of Miriam by Joseph Pandira, some with a disgusting relish of obscenity. The remainder of the story is variously embellished with wonderworking and low comedy, and that word-play in which Jewish wit delighted. There is not the faintest ray of genius, or the least sign of literary skill in any of the versions, or the slightest indication that He of whom the story was told was a great or a good man. If, as Krauss is bold to affirm, the Tôl’dôth was intended seriously as a history of Jesus, it says little for the intelligence of its author and its readers. It is rather the wretched device by which ignorant and persecuted Jews revenged themselves, and found a pitiful amusement in mocking the Christ of their persecutors. It remains, an unseemly relic of evil days, but still claiming a place in mediaeval literature; and if it bears witness against those who wrote it, it does so no less against those whose cruelty drove them to write it (see Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüd. Quellen, 1902, for an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject).

(b) Polemical references to Christ.—We pass to a pleasanter region of literature, one where mention is made of Jesus in terms which, if not such as Christians would use, are very different from those of the Tôl’dôth.

The references to Jesus in the mediaeval Jewish literature, apart from the Tôl’dôth, are not numerous. The reasons for this seem to be two: (1) that in controversy with Christians the Jews were not disposed to say more than they could help upon a subject where every word was likely to give offence and draw down persecution upon themselves; and (2) that the Jews were well aware of the difference between the Founder of Christianity and His followers. Their main quarrel was with the latter; and in their theological arguments they defended the unity of God, and denied the Trinity, upon Scripture grounds, with hardly any reference to the actual Jesus. To the Jews He was, of course, only a man. To the Christians He was God; and there was no common ground between them, or any occasion for debate as to His personal character and the events of His life. The controversy between Jews and Christians was fought in regard to principles, not persons, and was further embittered by mutual hatred. The Jews, if left to themselves, would never have mentioned Jesus at all, though armed at all points against Christians. Even in their own writings intended for Jewish readers, they say extremely little about Jesus, and in what they do say there is no attempt to estimate His character. For them He is simply ‘that man,’ or ‘he who is known.’

The foregoing may be taken to represent the general attitude of the mediaeval Rabbis towards Jesus; indeed, it is found in much later times. It may be described in the phrase ‘cold neutrality’; and it remained unaltered until the great Jewish historians of the last century made a serious study of Jesus as a figure in their national history. The attitude of Jews towards Christians began to change much earlier; but that does not come within the scope of this article.

The mediaeval Jewish references to Jesus may be illustrated from the report of a disputation, held at Paris on June 25, 1240, between R. Jehiel and a certain Nicolaus Donin (fragment published by Wagenseil in his Tela Ignea Satanœ, 1681). The Christian, who was a converted Jew, quoted the passages from the Talmud (described in § i. of this article) as evidence of Jewish blasphemy. The Jewish champion denied that these referred to the Jesus whom Christians worshipped:

‘In truth, we have not spoken thus against the God of the Gentiles (i.e. Christ), but only against another Jesus, who mocked at the words of the wise, and did not believe in their words, but only in the written Law, as thou dost. And thou mayst know that this is true; for behold, it is not written “Jesus the Nazarene,” but “Jesus Gereda.” Moreover, if it had been he (i.e. Jesus the Nazarene), he not only did this, but also deceived and led astray Israel, and made himself God, and denied the essence (of religion). But, clearly, it was another man, who did not deny the written Law, but only the oral, and is called a min (heretic)’ (p. 16 in Wagenseil). R. Jehiel also lays stress on the fact that the man of whom the Talmud speaks was a contemporary of R. Joshua b. Perahiah, while the Jesus of the Christians lived a century later (p. 21). He says that it is quite possible that both were called Jesus, ‘just as there are many boys in France called Louis, who are not on that account kings of France.’ Being solemnly adjured to declare his real thought on the matter, he says: ‘As I live, and hope to return home in safety, we have not thought of him (i.e. Christ) that he should be “condemned to filth” (according to the Talmudic assertion), nor have we said these things concerning him’ (p. 24).

A further illustration is found in the book entitled Juhasin, by R. Abraham Zacuth (b. 1504). This is a sort of dictionary of biography for the period of the Talmud, but containing also references to other periods. On p. 15 (ed. Filippowski, London, 1857) is the following notice of Jesus:

And the truth (is this) that the Nazarene was born in the fourth year of the reign of Jannai II., i.e. Alexander (Jannaeus); this is the year 263 from the building of the Temple, and the 51st year of the Hasmonaeans, and the year 3675 from the Creation (b.c. 85). Although the Nazarenes say that he was born in the time of Herod, the slave of the Hasmonaeans, in the year 3760 (from the Creation), and that he was hung 35 years before the destruction (of the Temple), being 32 years old, to our shame and to declare to us that at once, speedily, 40 years in advance, the Temple was destroyed for the guilt of what we did to him. But this is not so; for his birth was 89 years before the birth which they affirm. And the truth is that he was born in the year 3675, and in the year 299 (of the Temple) he was arrested (i.e. b.c. 49), and he was 36 years old in the third year of Aristobulus, the son of Jannai. And for this reason the sages of Israel, in the controversy which they have had with the Nazarenes, have written that in the Talmud there is no mention of the Nazarene whom they mean. Moreover, in the chronicles of the Nazarenes there is a dispute amongst them as to the year in which he was born.’ There is a further reference in the same book, p. 86, where the writer deals with the assertion that Jesus was the contemporary of R. Akiba, his mother having been the wife of Pappus b. Jehudah (see above, in § 1). The writer decides against this, and says: ‘According to the knowledge of the Nazarenes, the man who is known was in the time of R. Eliezer; and thus it appears in ch. i. of Aboda Ẓara that R. Eliezer talked with Jacob, a disciple of Jeshu the Nazarene.’ A few lines farther down he quotes from Rashi the words, ‘Ben Stada is the man who is known, the Nazarene’; but they are not found in the passage to which he refers, nor are they mentioned by Rabbinowicz.

It will be observed that the above passages deal only with the chronology of Jesus, and this is, with a few exceptions, the sole point on which the mediaeval Rabbis enlarge in their references to Him. The reason is, of course, their desire to ward off the charge made by the Christians, that the Talmud contains blasphemous allusions to Jesus. The following references, which all deal with chronology, may serve to illustrate this side of the subject:

R. Abraham b. David in the Sepher ha-Kabbalah, 1195 (Neubauer, Med. Jew. Chron. ii. 53), R. Jehudah ha-Levi (Cusari, ed. Buxtorf, p. 240). R. David Gans in zemah David, 1592 (edition of 1785, pt. ii. p. 12^b). The last comes nearer to the Christian date. He says: ‘Jesus the Nazarene was born in Bethlehem, a “parsah” and a half from Jerusalem, in the year 3761 from the Creation, i.e. the year 42 of Augustus Caesar. Abarbanel (Maj. Jeshua, p. 67^a, cited by Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenthum, i. 239) maintains strongly the Talmudic date, and ends thus: ‘And the wise men of that time bore witness concerning him his friends and companions’ [i.e. the friends of R. Joshua b. Perahiah whose disciple Jesus was said to have been], ‘and how shall we believe the substitution of [another for] him, from the month of men who did not know him, and were not there?… And we will not depart from the truth and tradition of our fathers, who did not tamper with the fact, and who related the facts as they took place without addition or omission; and all this shows that this [the Christian] theory is untrue.’

The fullest and most elaborate statements of the chronological argument, from the Jewish side, are those of R. Salman Zebi (cited in Eisenmenger, i. 231) and R. Abraham Perizzol (contained in the same work, pp. 250–253).

There are, however, one or two mediaeval Jewish works which deal with more than the chronological question. Wagenseil (in Tela Ignea Satanœ) published the Nizzahon (which he distinguishes as N. Vetus), composed by a writer in the 12th cent., as he supposes. Buxtorf, misled by the name, attributed the work to R. Lipman in the 15th cent., the author of another book bearing the same title, and also published by Wagenseil. The author of the older work was acquainted with the Gospels, and he ranged over the whole field of Jewish Christian controversy, refuting the Christians out of their own Scriptures. His arguments all tend to show that Jesus was not God; but it is worthy of note that he very seldom speaks disrespectfully of Jesus Himself. His quarrel is with the Christians, not with their Master.

Another work of a similar character is the Hizzuk Emunah (Munimen Fidei) of R. Isaac Troki, a Karaite, written about 1575 (printed by Wagenseil in the Tela Ignea Satanœ). The author shows an even wider acquaintance with the NT than the writer of the Nizzahon possessed; and he mentions the fact that he read the NT in the translation made by Budnaeus in 1572. He lays stress on the fact that Jesus stood much nearer to Judaism than His followers did; that He never claimed the title of God; that He said, ‘I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets’; that He enjoined the keeping of the Commandments on one who would obtain eternal life; that He gave many precepts which His followers disregarded. He does not hesitate to admit a saying of Jesus as true, though he immediately turns it against the Christians. All through the book his arguments are directed against what Christians asserted about Jesus, hardly at all against what Jesus said of Himself. And he may perhaps be claimed as a forerunner of the later Jewish historians who have really tried to be fair in writing of Jesus, who have at least abandoned the attitude of cold neutrality, and have scorned the wretched mockery of the Tôl’dôth.

It will have been observed that nothing has been said of the opinion of Maimonides about Jesus. In such of his works as the present writer has been able to consult he has found no allusion whatever. Dr. M. Friedländer, in his work on The Jewish Religion, p. 227, quotes from Maimonides, but without giving the exact reference, the following: ‘Also Jesus the Nazarene, who imagined he would be the Messiah, and was killed through the court of Law, is alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, “And the sons of the transgressors among thy people will rise in order to establish a vision, and will stumble.” Can there be a greater stumbling than this?’ This is interesting as being more than a mere chronological note.

On the whole, the attitude of the mediaeval Rabbis towards Jesus was one of indifference. Apart from the necessity of controversy or the exposition of their own tenets, they had little inclination or occasion to mention Him. In Him, as a man, they had no interest. Their tradition taught them that He was one who had ‘deceived and led astray Israel,’ and they would not be at the pains to show that, although not God, He was still a good man. Controversy with Christians turned mainly on the questions of His Deity and His Messiahship, and the Rabbis fought the battle with texts, while they left the personality alone. It is probable that the great majority of the mediaeval Rabbis were utterly ignorant of what Jesus had said and done; they were concerned to defend themselves against the charge of blasphemy based on the Talmud, and for that purpose worked out the chronological argument. But only one or two seem to have had the courage to read the NT; and in studying their works, the present writer is inclined to believe that these Jewish controversialists had not altogether failed to perceive that Jesus was a great man. This may be a mistaken impression; it is at least a charitable one. We shall find in the modern historians a welcome change from the mediaeval attitude towards Jesus; and to the consideration of those modern writers we must now proceed.

Literature.—‘Disputatio R. Jehielis,’ ‘Nizzahon Vetus,’ and ‘R. Isaaci Hizzuk Emunah’ in Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanœ; Liber Juhasin, ed. Filippowski, London, 1857; also, Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, and incidental references as given above, where they occur.

iii. Christ in modern Jewish Literature.—So far as the modern Jewish attitude towards Jesus differs from that of the mediaeval writers, it is to be found in the works of the great historical scholars of the last century, and in a few utterances by liberal Jews at the present day. A part from these, the influence of which, however, must tend to promote a truer view of Jesus amongst Jews, the mediaeval attitude towards Him still widely prevails. New editions of the Tôl’dôth are still published, and find readers among the uneducated, in Russian Poland. And, as regards the educated, there is still the same cautious reserve which so far as possible avoids mention of Jesus. The late Professor Theodores of Manchester, in a lecture on the Talmud, delivered in 1874, took elaborate pains to show that Jesus was not referred to at all in that work. And later still, Dr. M. Friedländer, in his book on The Jewish Religion, makes only the slightest reference to Jesus, and, so far as the present writer has observed, does not offer any opinion of his own upon the subject.

The first Jewish writer who fairly broke away from the traditional attitude towards Jesus was Grätz, in his Gesch. der Juden (vol. iii. 1856). He boldly declared (p. 224 n. [Note: note.] ) that in estimating Christianity the historian must take his stand on the historical, i.e. the critical, method. He made no apology for the shock which he must have given to the majority of Jews by his new departure. And he was not afraid to express high admiration for the character of Jesus as a man. He formed his views upon the subject mainly under the influence of Strauss and Baur, by whose help he was enabled to put aside as unhistorical most of the non-Jewish elements in the Gospel representations of Jesus, and to emphasize the strong affinity between His teaching and Judaism. Grätz claims that Jesus was, in the main, an Essene, as the Baptist also had been; that His whole purpose was that of a moral reformer, and that He had no intention of attacking Judaism, even the Pharisaic Judaism, as such, but only the depravity of those who professed it. The objections to this view are obvious; but the fact that Grätz presented a portrait of Jesus in which the Jewish lines were overdrawn and the rest nearly obliterated, does not lessen his merit as the first Jew who gave a real portrait of Jesus at all. Later Jewish writers have, on the whole, followed the lead of Grätz; some of the exaggerations of his work have been toned down, and more recognition has been given to the originality of Jesus; but the general outline of his work is still maintained, according to which Jesus was a high-minded and saintly Rabbi, whose fate it was to be maligned and persecuted, and whose enemies were His own professed followers quite as much as His Jewish contemporaries.

The work of Jost (Gesch. d. Judenthums u. s. Sekten, 1863) shows less of exaggeration than that of Grätz, and perhaps even more of personal veneration towards Jesus. Jost’s chief contribution is his indignation against the ‘judicial murder’ of Jesus. There was no regular trial, such as Jewish law required. There was only a high-handed act of violence on the part of the chief priests.

He says: ‘We hold it to be historical honesty, without regard to misinterpretation, to give to the fact its right name, in order to throw the responsibility upon those fanatics who did such a deed by their own power. It was not the Jews who crucified Jesus. Thousands of them revered in Jesus their teacher and friend.… It is time at last to judge without prejudice the authentic records of the Evangelists, who relate the course of events in simple words, albeit according to traditions of very unequal worth. Only the most blinded partisan can wish to justify the crucifixion of Jesus as it was effected, and to burden afresh the whole nation, or its law-abiding posterity, with the hateful deed of Caiaphas and his associates.’

J. H. Weiss (Gesch. d. jüd. Tradition, 1871, Hebrew) is interesting chiefly as showing how the radical influence of Grätz and Jost reacted upon the more conservative Jew. Weiss asserts the Essenism of Jesus (i. p. 232), and remarks that His deplorable fate was due not to His teaching, which was not new, but to the means which He took to promote it.

‘For he claimed to be a prophet, and drew away many in Israel to believe in his Divine work and his miracles. And he said, before the multitude and even before his judges, that he was the Son of God. These three claims were the reason for all that was done against him.’

Weiss, beyond question, here puts his finger on the real Jewish grievance against Jesus—‘He spake as one having authority, and not as their scribes.’ Grätz and Jost had made it impossible for a Jewish historian to revert to the mediaeval attitude towards Jesus; but one seems to hear, in Weiss, the echo of the ancient condemnation, ‘He was a magician, and deceived and led astray Israel.’

The Jewish Encyclopedia may be taken as the authorized exponent of Jewish opinion, and in its 7th volume it contains a careful and critical article upon ‘Jesus.’ It is the work of three writers, Jacobs, Kohler, and Krauss; and is written with a full knowledge of recent Christian as well as Jewish scholarship. It is admitted that, while the teaching and practice of Jesus were in many respects Jewish and even Essene, He yet departed widely in other respects from Essenism, particularly in His association with publicans and sinners. His attitude towards the Law, insisting on the spirit rather than on the Halachic development of it, is represented as not necessarily or essentially un-Jewish. He was, in fact, the representative of the Am-ha-aretz, the ‘people that knoweth not the Law’—a rather acute remark. Weiss was right in pointing to His assumption of power and authority as the reason ‘of much modern antipathy to Jesus, so far as it exists.’ He did not, at least publicly, claim to be the Messiah; and His trial and execution were quite irregular. But, after all, it is freely admitted that ‘a great historic movement, of the character and importance of Christianity, cannot have arisen without a great personality to call it into existence and give it shape and direction. Jesus of Nazareth had a mission from God; and he must have had the spiritual power and fitness to be chosen for it.’ That is finely said, and it is with one exception the fullest Jewish recognition of the greatness of Jesus that is known to us. That exception is contained in an article by C. G. Montefiore (JQR [Note: QR Jewish Quarterly Review.] , 1894, p. 381 ff.). He there speaks of Jesus as ‘the most important Jew who ever lived, one who exercised a greater influence upon mankind and civilization than any other person, whether within the Jewish race or without it.’ … ‘A Jew whose life and character have been regarded by almost all the best and wisest people who have heard or read of his actions and his words, as the greatest religious exemplar for every age.’ … ‘It may be asked, “Was Jesus an original teacher, and on what grounds does his originality depend?” Now there is no a priori reason why Jesus should not have been original. Jewish authors sometimes write as if there were an antecedent improbability in his having made any big religious or moral step in advance.’ … ‘A religious teacher might, I suppose, be called original who combined and collected together the best elements of religion existing in his time, emphasized those most important and fruitful, developed them, drew out their implications, and rejected or ignored other elements which either did not harmonize with the first, or which, though he and his contemporaries may have been unaware of it, belonged in reality to a lower level and an outgrown age. I am inclined to believe that herein to a great extent lay the originality of Jesus.’ Mr. Montefiore’s article shows how it is possible for a Jew to remain a whole-hearted Jew, while yet he feels a frank admiration and reverence towards Jesus. With his full recognition of the spiritual grandeur of Jesus, the fullest that would seem to be possible without crossing the frontier of Judaism, we will close this study of Christ in the Jewish literature. (See, further, the histories of Grätz, Jost, and Weiss; Jewish Encyc. vol. vii., and JQR [Note: QR Jewish Quarterly Review.] , 1894).

R. Travers Herford.