The Figure of Jesus in the Talmud, a New Paradigm

Dan JAFFÉ Bar-Ilan University

HISTORY OF A MARGINAL DISCIPLE: THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD, A NEW PARADIGM

ABSTRACT

This article discusses a Talmudic mention of Jesus in the Babylonian version of Sanhedrin 107b. The analysis concerns mainly the implicit polemical aspects per- meating the text. I will endeavor to describe the way in which the Talmudic authors regard Christianity at a late period. The argument of this article lies principally in two points: on one hand, Joshua ben Perahjah’s ambiguous attitude towards his disciple Jesus is an expression of the soul-searching of the Talmudic Sages in relation to the first Christians; on the other, this passage provides evidence of self- criticism inherent in the world of the Talmud.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article apporte un nouvel éclairage sur le passage talmudique de Sanhedrin 107b mentionnant Jésus de Nazareth. Ce texte, déjà très commenté, fait l’objet d’une relecture qui s’oriente sur les représentations du personnage de Jésus dans la conscience talmudique. L’approche des rédacteurs est ambivalente : d’une part, on rejette Jésus et le christianisme qu’il est censé incarner ; d’autre part, on émet d’im- plicites regrets sur ce rejet à une époque où il est trop tard pour changer le cours de l’histoire. L’analyse se fonde sur différentes perspectives, tels les motifs littéraires qui composent le texte, les représentations métaphoriques qu’on y décèle et enfin les polémiques voilées qui en découlent.

This article proposes an analysis of the famous Talmudic passage in San- hedrin 107b, which also figures with some variations in Sota 47a. Jesus is depicted in this passage in a most singular way — that is, as the wayward disciple of a Talmudic sage. Because of the great similarity between these two parallel versions, we will cite only the first of the two texts. The story is introduced by the following interesting prologue:

Revue des études juives, 177 (1-2), janvier-juin 2018, pp. 1-22. doi: 10.2143/REJ.177.1.3284865 2 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

Our Rabbis taught: Let the left hand repulse but the right hand always invite back: not as Elisha, who thrust Gehazi away with both hands and not like R. Joshua b. Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus the Nazarene (Yeshu ha-noṣri) with both hands.

Then follows a lengthy section on Gehazi before the Aramaic text turns to Jesus: What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus)1 fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resump- tion of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt: My sister. My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate. He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn (ushpiza), where great honour was shewn him. (He said): How beautiful is this akhsania!2 Thereupon (Jesus) observed:3 Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow). He rebuked him: Wretch, dost thou thus engage thyself. He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading: Receive me! But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the shema‘, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick (leveinta), and prostrated himself before it.4 He (R. Joshua) said to him: Repent. He replied: I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance. And a Master has said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.5

1. Jesus the Nazarene (Yeshu ha-noṣri) is the mention in the Munich 95 manuscript. The translation of the Talmudic texts are from us. 2. I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nezikin, London, 1935, vol. 3, p. 736 n. 1 notes: “The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.” 3. The Sota 47a version, according to Ms. Oxford Heb. d. 20 (2675), explicitly mentions Jesus: “Jesus the Nazarene says to him.” The Sota version of the story, in Vatican 110 and Munich 95, uses the anonymous formula: “He observed: Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow).” The Vilna edition has: “One of his disciples observed: Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow).” The Sanhedrin 107b version of our story in Munich 95 and Florence II. 1. 8-9 has: “He observed: Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow).” In the Ms. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1, it is: “Jesus observed: Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow).” The Vilna edition has: “He observed: Rabbi, her eyes are round (narrow).” 4. The parallel story in Sota 47a says: “and he worshiped it.” 5. The Vilna edition of Sota 47a uses the anonymous pronoun: “And the master said: he practiced magic.” Oxford 20 has: “And they said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic”; Vatican 110 has: “And the master said: because he practiced magic…”; in Munich 95, we find: “The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic…” As for the Sanhedrin 107b version of our story, we find in Herzog 1: “The master said: Jesus the Nazarene goes out to be stoned because of magic…”; Munich 95 has: “The master said: he practiced magic”; in Florence II. 1. 8-9, we have: “The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic…”; lastly in the Vilna edition, we have: “The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic…”. See the charts summarizing the variants in P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton/Oxford, 2007, p. 136-137, for which we are to a great extent indebted. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 3

This passage does not figure in the commonly used editions of the Tal- mud or in the Basel Talmud (1578-1581) as a result of Christian censorship. It appears, on the other hand, in certain ancient manuscripts.6 A radically different version of this passage figures in the Palestinian Talmud in Hagiga II, 2, 77d (Sanhedrin VI, 8-9, 23c partially). It reads as follows: The inhabitants of Jerusalem intended to appoint Judah ben Tabbai as president (of the Sanhedrin) in Jerusalem. He fled and went away to Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem wrote from Jerusalem the great to Alexandria the small: How long lives my betrothed with you, whilst I am sitting grieved on account of him? When he withdrew to go in a ship, he said: Has Debora, the landlady who has taken us in, been wanting in something? One of his disciples said: Rabbi, her eye was bright! He answered: You have done two things; firstly, you have rendered me suspected, and then you have looked upon her. What did I say? Beautiful in appearance? I did not say anything (like this) but (beautiful) in deeds. And he (the master) was angry with him and he (the disciple) went his way.

Even though this passage has been the subject of earlier studies, it is worth examining again for the wealth of new questions and directions to which it gives rise.7 I will focus mainly in this article on two issues: — On the identification of the enigmatic brick before which Jesus prostrates himself. Does it attest to a historical reality? If so, was it the object of worship by Jesus? — On the purpose of the redactors of this passage. What are they hiding? Why is Jesus being portrayed as a rebellious disciple? What lies behind his master’s strange attitude? Why is the fatal misunderstanding between master and disciple situated precisely in the arena of gestures (reciting the shema‘ and covering his eyes with his hand)? And why is his sin put in the particular context of female beauty to which he seems to suc- cumb? Lastly, why was there a need to react so radically and excommunicate him?8

6. Some modern editions have “one of his disciples” instead of “Jesus the Nazarene”. Cf. R. Rabbinovicz, Diqduqé Sopherim. Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babyloni- cum, Munich, 1867-1886, vol. 11, p. 339-340. 7. Cf. D. Jaffé, Le Talmud et les origines juives du christianisme. Jésus, Paul et les judéo- chrétiens dans la littérature talmudique, Paris, 2007, p. 137-151. 8. Note that J. Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung, Darm- stadt, 1978, p. 114-129, maintains that the name of Jesus was inserted into the passage in Sanhedrin 107b, because it does not figure in the Babylonian version of Sota 47a (see A. Liss, The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings Collected from Manuscripts, Fragments of the Genizah and Early Printed Editions, Jerusalem, 1979, p. 302-303 [in Hebrew]). This thesis has been rejected by many scholars, with whom I agree on this point. This is notably the case 4 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

General comments

This passage has been the subject of much philological, textual, and historical study. But key analytical approaches are still wanting, among them a decontextualized reading whose purpose would be less to understand the elements of the text in situ (for what they evoke in their context) than to question the intentions of its late redactors.9 The passage will be read and analyzed as literary evidence that sheds light on realities dating to much later than the lives of the persons mentioned. Let us clarify our methodological approach: the Babylonian versions name Jesus explicitly, which is not the case for the Palestinian versions. This does not mean that a discursive element mentioned only in the later Babylonian versions (the textual redaction of which can be dated to the 5th and 6th centuries) can not be older. The variants from one version to the other are what is most interesting as are their origins. The two Palestinian versions (one of which is very partial)10 and the two Babylonian versions allow us to analyze the development of Talmudic discourse and provide us with information on the transmissions of this discourse.11 Even those late versions from the Babylonian Talmud that do not mention Jesus attest to the existence of Rabbinic conceptions of Christianity in the 5th and 6th centuries.12 In addition, the narrative skeleton remains identical from one version to another.13

since D. Goldenberg, “Once More: Jesus in the Talmud,” Jewish Quarterly Review 73 (1982), p. 78-80, emphasizes the lack of foundation for Maier’s argument. 9. This approach shifts the central research focus from Jesus in the Talmud to Jesus as a figure of Christianity in the Talmud and from the 1st-2nd centuries to the 5th century, when the Babylonian Talmud is presumed to have been redacted. Similarly, it is not so much the events as such that hold our attention as the idea that the late redactors have of this passage. The reader will have understood: the analysis is not situated exclusively in the philologico- historical method that characterizes the search for a “historical kernel.” 10. See on this version the fragment of chapters V-VI of PT Sanhedrin edited and anno- tated by M. Assis, “Talmudic Fragments of Yerushalmi Sanhedrin V, 1, 22c — VI, 9, 23c,” Tarbiz 46 (1977), p. 29-90 [in Hebrew] and particularly p. 82-84. 11. Cf. D. Boyarin, “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992), p. 455-465. 12. Cf. D. Boyarin, Dying for God. Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford, 1999, p. 23-26 and J. Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, Cincinnati, 1951, p. 481-490, who argues that this passage must belong to the end of the Amoraic period. 13. See S. Gero, “The Stern Master and his Wayward Disciple: A ‘Jesus’ Story in the Talmud and in Christian Hagiography,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994), p. 287- 311, who shows that Christian hagiography has preserved stories similar to our Talmudic tale. The constituent elements of the narrative and the unfolding of these Christian stories are similar to the story of Joshua ben Perahjah and Jesus. It should be noted that we have only cited the most relevant bibliographical references. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 5

A first remark is in order: the redactors of this passage are not expressing themselves directly against Jesus but mention Jesus so as to represent Chris- tianity. In other words, through the figure of Jesus, they are railing more broadly against Christianity.14 Before tackling the complexity of the questions that this passage raises, a methodological comment is in order. To what extent were the Sages of the Talmud acquainted with primitive Christian writings?15 Even if we answer this question in the affirmative, we still would not know whether their knowledge was direct or indirect, whether they heard or read these texts, or merely heard about them. Can we suppose that the Talmudic Sages were not familiar with the Gospels, which had been canonized for centuries?16 There is an important historiographical movement these days to attribute historical veracity to many Talmudic texts, and regard them as evidencing implicit polemics against Christianity. Our study participates in this push.17 Thus, starting from the postulate that the redactors of the Talmud Gospels were familiar with the Gospels, it seems likely that the brick in our passage evokes a veiled polemic against Christianity. This polemic is articulated by adopting the image of Jesus as a paradigmatic model.

14. In a chapter on this Talmudic passage, T. Murcia rightly notes: “Yeshu is neither the historical Jesus or strictly speaking the Jesus of the Gospels. Further he is not the Jesus ‘of Faith.’ Yeshu is but the shadow of Jesus: a figure regarded as having once been part of rabbinism but by then perceived as totally foreign to Judaism and seen from the outside. Yeshu henceforth is only perceived as the representative and founder of Eastern Christianity and the instigator of its various practices. It is only to be expected therefore that in the Babylonian Talmud he behaves in accordance with this perception” (T. Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud et la littérature rabbinique ancienne, Turnhout, 2014, p. 394). 15. D. Jaffé, “Les Sages du Talmud et l’Évangile selon Matthieu. Dans quelle mesure l’Évangile selon Matthieu était-il connu des Tannaïm ?,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 226 (2009), p. 583-611. 16. Here we are making no distinction between Palestinian and Babylonian literature. The expression “Sages of the Talmud” refers to the Sages of Talmudic literature, regardless of their origin. 17. For a case in point see M. Albertal et S. Naeh, “The Source of the Redemption: Satire and Exegetical Response to the Minim,” in J. Levinson, J. Elbaum, G. Hasan-Rokem (eds.), Higayon l’Yona. New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah and Piyut. In Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, Jerusalem, 2006, p. 179-197 [in Hebrew]. In H. Zellentin, “Rabbinizing Jesus, Christianizing the Son of David. The Bavli’s Approach to the Secondary Messiah Traditions,” in R. Ulmer (ed.), Discussing Cultural Influences. Text, Context and Non-Text in Rabbinic Judaism, Lanham, 2004, p. 99, the author observes the following: “Chances are that in the centuries after Constantine, every single Jew in Palestine and at least the travelling population in the Sasanian Empire had heard about some sort of Christianity and had met people that harbored some kind of Christian ideas. Not only did the imperial status of this religion in the West close all loopholes, but also the well-documented zealous missionary activities of Christians everywhere can hardly have spared a single urban center.” 6 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

The stone as symbolizing Jesus and his works

A) The Synoptic Gospels

The stone is a frequent literary motif in primitive Christian writings. It figures notably in the parable in Mt 21 of the murdering vineyard tenants, where we find at the end of the story a passage cited from Ps 118, 22-23. Mt 21, 42 reads as follows: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (even ma’asu ha-bonim hayta le-rosh pina). God has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes.” Verse 43 continues: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” In the spirit of the parable of the murderous vineyard tenants, Jesus rails against the priests and Pharisees more directly. Then comes verse 44, which does not figure in common editions and is often considered a gloss on Lc 20, 18: “Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”18 Jesus seems to harbor ill-feelings toward his interlocutors who do not recognize him. He appears to express his anger through the metaphor of the stone that has capital importance, according to Ps 118, 22-23, and is regarded as a deadly object, according to verse 44. Matthew the Evangelist condemns the rejection of Jesus in citing Ps 118, 22-23 about the stone the builders (priests and Pharisees) rejected but this stone ultimately becomes the cornerstone, the most important stone, without which no construction is conceivable.19 To employ Christological terminology, the Son is rejected but Jesus is reintroduced. The stone symbolizes Jesus himself and it is this self- same stone, identified with Jesus, that is rejected.20 Interestingly the Aramaic Targum of Ps 118, 22 reads: talya sheviqu ardikhelaya hawa bene benaya de-yshay we-zaka’a le-itmana’a le-melekh

18. This verse is omitted in the Codex Bezae. The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament regards this verse as an addition. See also B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, New York, 1971, p. 58. Lastly K. R. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Tübingen, 1983, p. 66-68, considers this verse authentic. 19. See W. D. Davies et D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Edinburg, 1997, vol. 3, p. 184: “The Scriptural proof text from the Psalms — which amounts to another prediction of Jesus’ passion and resurrection — declares that the rejected one (the son = Jesus = the stone) is subsequently vindicated by God. The theme thus shifts from revenge to triumph.” 20. The literary motif of the stone as obstacle causing a fall is also found in Is 8, 14-15 and Dn 2, 34-35; 44-45. See D. A. Hagner, World Biblical Commentary. Matthew 14-28, Dallas, 1998, vol. 33b, p. 623. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 7 we-shultan, which literally translates as: “The stone/boy that the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse and he was worthy to be appointed king and ruler.” The word that particularly holds our attention here is talya, which is Aramaic for “young boy.” There is every reason to wonder whether the choice of this verse by the Evangelists was innocent, knowing that the context is one of rejecting and rehabilitating Jesus. Could we be dealing with a deliberate desire to highlight the interchangeable relationship between the Hebrew terms ben/son (boy) and even/stone? The Evangelists may well have chosen the Aramaic talya with its twofold meaning to show that the verse in the Psalms itself contains an allusion to the rejection of this neglected stone, personified by Jesus, and ultimately glorified.21 If this conjecture were the case, then there would be an implicit mention of Jesus and his activity here.22 Moreover, the literary context of the Aramaic Targum of Ps 118, 22 lends itself to such an interpretation, because it takes up the theme of David’s life, filled with obstacles from his childhood (first the initial rejection of him, then the acceptance of his kingship by the people and finally the sacrifice offered by Samuel the prophet in celebration of his accession to the throne).

21. Cf. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan/Baltimore/London, 2002, p. 504. He cites Talmudic references where the term talya appears and draws attention to the fact that the talya also means “lamb,” a point that is particularly compelling in the Evangelical context of the personification of Jesus as agnus dei. 22. The relationship between the two terms has been observed by numerous scholars. The citation from Ps 118, 22 may have originally been part of the parable of murderous tenants. This is notably the opinion of M. Black, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 18 (1971/1972), p. 11-14. See also: C. A. Evans, “On the Vineyard Parables of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12,” Biblische Zeitschrift 28 (1984), p. 82-86; A. Cornette, “Note sur la parabole des vignerons: Marc 12/ 5-12,” Foi et vie 84 (1985), p. 47; H. F. Bayer, Jesus’s Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Prov- enance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions, Tübingen, 1986, p. 105; S. Kim, “Jesus — The Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Identification of Jesus,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 135-138; M. Trimaille, “La parabole des vignerons meur- triers (Mc 12, 1-12),” in Les Paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congrès de l’association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible , Paris, 1989, p. 253; C. A. Kimball, “Jesus’s Exposition of Scripture in Luke (20: 9-19): An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 3 (1993), p. 89; C. A. Evans, “God’s Vineyard and its Caretakers,” in Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Leyde, 1995, p. 403-404. Those scholars who doubt the originality of the citation from Ps 118, 22 in the parable, concede nonetheless that it is an addition to the conclusion of this parable in its pre-Marcionite and pre-Greek transmission. See M. Young-Heon Lee, Jesus und die jüdische Autorität: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 11, 27-12, 12, Würzburg, 1986, p. 174; U. Mell, Die “anderen” Winzer: Eine exegetische Studie zur Vollmacht Jesu Christi nach Markus 11, 27-12, 34, Tübingen, 1995, p. 157-158, and especially note 537. 8 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

As Craig A. Evans rightly observes, this synopsis of the story of David with biographical elements specific to Jesus cannot be fortuitous. On the con- trary, it is part of a well-determined approach established out of whole cloth by the redactors of the Synoptics.23 In 1970, David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai published an article presenting the analysis of a fragment from a non-canonical song of David found in the Cairo Genizah. According to these scholars, the fragment dates back to the Second Temple period and is a copy with affinities to the Qumran.24 One of the songs from this fragment (A. 18) speaks of David in these terms: pina memu’asa asher ma’asu ha-bonim he‘alat le-rosh me-‘al kol ha-melakhim, meaning “a stone despised by the builders, you have raised above all the kings.” Flusser and Safrai do not see this verse as harboring a messianic intention. Notwithstanding the pertinence of their argument, one cannot help noting that the figure of David in this song transcends historical character- istics. He is presented not only as a prophet announcing the divine glory but also as an eternal king, greater than all others, a “light onto the nations” (Is 42, 6; 49, 6) or “a light like the light of the sun” greater than all the angels themselves (A. 23).25 Clearly the glorification of this figure is a long way from the historical figure of David. Moreover, he formulates an eschatological plea, “for you draw the end near” (A. 14) while the present and future are telescoped.26 I might note at this stage in the discussion that the verse from Ps 118, 22 is used in an eschatological context with reference to David. In a discussion of the Targumic background of Mark 12, 1-12 (the parable of the murderous vineyard tenants), Johannes C. De Moor begins by

23. C. A. Evans, World Biblical Commentary, Nashville, 2001, vol. 34b, p. 229: “The coherence of this theme with the paraphrase of Ps 118: 25-26, which is alluded to in the entrance narrative, also revealing interpretative elements from the Aramaic version, must not be overlooked. What we have is a remarkably consistent, but very subtle, exegetical thread running throughout Jesus’ entrance into and activity within the temple precincts. Is it really plausible to argue that this complicated Aramaic-based exegesis is the result of the Greek- speaking, LXX-reading church? Surely not. It is more plausible to view this as fragments of an agenda generated by Jesus, inspired by certain Scriptures, frequently interpreted in light of their understanding in the Aramaic-speaking synagogue, and passed on by his disciples.” For more on this question, see also G. J. Brooke, “4Q500 1 and the Use of the Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995), p. 294. 24. D. Flusser and S. Safrai, “An Apocryphal ‘Song of David’,” in B. Uffenheimer (ed.), Bible Studies. Y. M. Grintz In Memoriam, Tel-Aviv, 1982, p. 83-105 [in Hebrew] (= D. Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Qumran and Apocalypticism, [ed. S. Ruzer], Jerusalem, 2002, p. 220-239 [in Hebrew].) 25. This refers to Hb 1, 4. 26. Note that we find this type of glorification of the figure of David in the Aramaic Targum of 1 Sm 17, 22-23. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 9 observing the relationship between the Aramaic talya and the Hebrew even/ young boy, assuming that these metaphors refer to David designated as the “son of Jesse.” But as he himself notes, in 4Q 285 frag. 5 and in the Targum of Is 11, 1-10, “son of Jesse” is a reference not so much to a biological fili- ation as to the Davidic ancestry of the Messiah. Like, in the Targum of Za 4, 7, the stone, even, is also interpreted as a Messianic figure. Thus there is good reason to suppose that the Aramaic term talya for “stone,” as it appears in the Targum of Ps 118, 22, is laden with a strong Messianic connotation.27 In addition, we encounter the term talya again in the Aramaic Targum of verse 27 of Psalm 118, which reads, kefitu talya le-nikhsat haga, that literally translates as: “bind the lamb for a festal sacrifice.” These motifs evoke the notion of the solemnity during Pesah (Passover) and of the paschal sacrifice. Thus Psalm 118 can be read as being connected to this Biblical festival.28 Moreover, David is described as the victorious talya and Goliath as the “bear,” which is an anti-Messianic representation of the Targum of the Song of the Lamb.29 We are therefore warranted in considering that the play on words is not accidental. The Targum seems to deliberately refer to the binding/‘aqeda as a sacrifice of the Messiah.30 The death/sacrifice, present at the very heart of this Targum, seems to be a necessary step for redeeming mission of David and of David redivivus in ancient Jewish traditions. Such traditions may have been gradually obliterated in the Jewish world because of the conflict of interpretations with the Christian world. We have here then linguistic associations that are the fruit of implicit polemics. To summarize, the term talya, translating the idea of a young boy, becomes, through a semantic shift, associated with the notion of the Son,

27. See also Is 8, 14, 28, and Ps 118, 22 in their connection to 1 Pr 2, 6-8 and the Targum of Is 28, 16 where “stone” is replaced by “king”. Cf. J. C. de Moor, “The Targumic Back- ground of Mark 12, 1-12: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 29 (1998), p. 63-80 and particularly p. 78 note 73. 28. This observation has already been made by J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament, Leiden, 1978, vol. 2, p. 61. 29. Cf. E. Van Staalduine-Sulman, “The Aramaic Song of the Lamb,” in J. C. de Moor, W. G. E. Watson (ed.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993, p. 265-292. Van Staalduine-Sulman convincingly demonstrates that the Targumic rendering of this Psalm can be dated to the 1st century, perhaps earlier. 30. Concerning the ‘aqeda, see R. Le Déaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII, 42, Rome, 1963 and A. R. E. Agus, The Binding of Isaac and the Messiah: Law, Martyrdom and Deliverance in Early Rabbinic Relig- iosity, Albania, 1988. Lastly, we find the term talya associated to Isaac in the Targum Pseudo- Jonathan on Gn 22, 12. 10 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD which was deliberately chosen by the Evangelists to highlight important perspectives: 1) The initially rejected stone ultimately becomes the cornerstone, meaning the most important element. 2) It is personified by Jesus who is, like the stone, initially rejected (according to the parable of the murderous tenants) before being glorified in the end. 3) In its different literary contexts, Psalm 112, where the term talya appears according to the Targum, seems to have a messianic thrust relative to David and, by extension, to Jesus.

B) Other mentions

Verse 22 of Ps 118 is also cited in the Gospel of Thomas. Logion 66 reads as follows: Jesus said: Show me the stone which the builders reject; it is the cornerstone.

Unlike the other mentions in the Synoptics, this logion is independent and immediately follows the logion of the parable of the murderous tenants. This then is a parallel version picking up the already cited mentions. Another logion of this gospel, Logion 77, warrants a more lengthy examination. It does not pick up the citation from Ps 118, 22, but it evidences a very interesting tradition and sheds light on the dialectical relationship between Jesus and the stone: for Jesus is not directly associated with the stone or the stone does not personify him; rather something must be done to the stone in order to discover him: Jesus said: I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there.

What modalities of interpretation can be used to understand these texts? Can they be related to the brick before which Jesus prostrates himself in the Talmudic passage of Sanhedrin 107b?31

31. The analogy between the brick of the Talmud and the stone of Christian texts is found notably in the Aramaic translation by Onkelos of Ex 24, 10: “They saw the Glory of God and under the throne of His glory as the work of a transparent brick and as the face of heaven in its clearness,” translated as even tava (“precious stone”). According to the medieval exegete Abraham Ibn Ezra, this “transparent brick” is represented by the “sapphire stone” mentioned in Ez 1, 26. A similar analogy between the brick and the stone is found in PT Suka IV, 3, 54c where it’s a matter of the labor of the Hebrews in Egypt whose hardness is compared to a THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 11

First in all likelihood we have here a genuine Christian tradition of using the stone as a literary motif representing Jesus or related to him. The sym- bolism of the texts mobilized here are clear: — Jesus is rejected like the stone by the builders and is ultimately glorified as the cornerstone. There is a progression here from the most insignificant point to the most elevated point. — Jesus recommends picking up the stone to discover him, for he is hidden. A neutral, insignificant object — a stone — can serve to find him.

If we consider that this tradition relative to the stone was known to the Babylonian redactors of our passage, then it becomes possible to see a polemic allusion directed against Jesus. In this case, their intention would be to say: Jesus prostrates himself before himself or he prostrates himself before the object that permits his discovery. If we extrapolate the idea and replace it in the context of the Babylonian redaction, we could restate the above in the following terms: this marginal disciple misconstrues the words of his master; he is repudiated as a result and ends up prostrating himself before his own image.32 stone; the stone referring to the brick of Ex 24, 10. See also Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, p. 411-412 that adds new insights on the matter. 32. At this stage in the discussion, we could query how much the Babylonian sages knew about Christianity in general and the association between Jesus and the stone in particular. Our working hypothesis is to see the identification of Jesus with the stone as a commonplace with important rhetorical consequences. Scholars have shown that, in addition to the strong Christian presence in Babylonia at the time of the redaction of our narrative, significant struc- tural parallels exist between the Christian school of Nisibis and the rabbinic yeshivot located very close by. See in particular I. M. Gafni, “Nestorian Literature as a Source for the History of the Babylonian Yeshivot,” Tarbiz 51 (1981), p. 567-576 [in Hebrew]; A. M. Becker, “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism’ in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syri- ans,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 34 (2010), p. 91-113. From a more general perspective, some studies have underlined the points of convergence, and even literary analo- gies, between the Babylonian Talmud and the monachism of the Desert Fathers, notably M. Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Making of the Monk-Rabbi: the Background for the Creation of the Stories of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai in the Cave,” Zion 76 (2011), p. 279-304 [in Hebrew]; M. Bar-Asher Siegal, “Shared Worlds: Rabbinic and Monastic Literature,” Har- vard Theological Review 105 (2012), p. 423-456. From this standpoint, see T. Murcia, “Jésus adorateur d’une brique? B. Sanhedrin 107b: l’épisode talmudique du séjour de Yeshu en Égypte,” Revue des études juives 170 (2011), p. 369-398; Murcia, in Jésus dans le Talmud, p. 377-422, and especially p. 416-418, cites Rabbi Jehiel of Paris (13th century) who sees the brick as an allusion to staurolatry. Murcia adopts this explanation but also deems pertinent Daniel Boyarin’s hypothesis that this brick is a icon. We would have here a case therefore of staurolatry and/or iconoduly. We will not discuss this question here which we have taken up elsewhere: see D. Jaffé, “Jésus dans le Talmud: Le texte sur Josué ben Perahyah et son disciple Jésus réexaminé,” Pardès 35 (2003), p. 79-92 (= Jaffé, Le Talmud et les origines juives du christianisme, p. 137-151). 12 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

Why is there a need to proclaim this form of narcissism? The polemical intention of the Babylonian sages may very well have been to say that Jesus has a high image of himself and that he is convinced that he possesses a certain power. This representation of Jesus is in fact a representation of Christianity, one that is certainly maintained by the redactors of this text and, more broadly, by the Sages of the Talmud. We should keep in mind that our text was compiled at a late period, when Christianity and its presumed founder were objects of hostility for the Sages of the Talmud. The idea that Jesus prostrates himself before himself when he is rejected by his master is testimony to the monumental contempt of the Sages for such a frivolous act, and by extension to the religion that he represents and that claims to be superior to and supplant Judaism.33

Narrative analysis of the Talmudic passage

A) The eroticism at work in this passage

What is immediately noticeable upon reading this passage is its erotic tone. Simeon b. Shetach’s message to Joshua b. Perahjah at the moment when peace is reestablished is telling: “From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt: My sister, my husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.” Why choose such a metaphorical representation? It is clear that the sister is represented by the city of Alexandria; the husband is Joshua b. Perahjah and the speaker is Simeon b. Shetach. Why do the

33. This Talmudic method of deriding the representatives of Christianity is present in Talmudic literature. See in this regard the passage in the BT Shabat 116a-b: “Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was in their vicinity a certain philosopher who assumed the reputation that he would not accept bribes. They wished to ridi- cule him, so she [Imma Shalom] brought him a golden lamp, and went before him. She said: I desire that a share be allotted me in father’s estate. Said he to them: Divide. [Rabban Gam- liel] said to him: It is written for us: When there is a son, a daughter does not inherit. He said: From the day you were exiled from your land, the Law of Moses has been taken away [i.e. superseded] and an Evangelion given and in [that book] it is written: A son and a daughter inherit equally. The next day, he [Rabban Gamliel] brought him a Libyan donkey. He [the philosopher] said to them: Proceed to the end of the Evangelion, wherein it is written: I come not to detract from the Law of Moses [nor] to add to the Law of Moses, and in [the Law of Moses] is written: Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit. She said to him: Let your light shine forth like a lamp. Said Rabban Gamliel to him: A donkey has come and kicked over the lamp! [The emphasis is ours].” See our study in D. Jaffé, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique Ier-IIe siècle, Paris, 2005, p. 313-335. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 13 redactors have recourse to such an image and especially in these terms? What could the sister (ahoti) and the husband (ba‘ali) represent? The axiomatic idea usually set forward is that the redactors of the Talmud drew these metaphors from biblical literature. In this regard, certain passages from the Book of Hosea could serve as literary support. At the begin- ning of the book, Hosea is asked to unite with a whore and procreate because “the land itself has whored and rejected God.” It is then around a very particular form of union that the author opens this book, one that marks the text throughout. It is stated in Hos 2, 18: “On that day, says the Lord, you shall call me ishi (my husband, my spouse), and you shall no longer call me ba‘ali (my husband, my lord).” Without entering into the complexity involved in the exegesis of this verse, let us look at the difference between ish and ba‘al, both terms used for husband. In the Talmudic mind, ba‘al (the term used in the phrase “my husband dwelleth within thee”) is the person who practices sexual intercourse; it can in certain cases be a rapist. He is not necessarily the legitimate husband (ish).34 In Biblical usage ba‘al can convey the idea of sexual perversity or of an illicit act.35 Another interesting point in the expression “My sister, my husband dwelleth within thee” is the relationship between sister and wife as it appears in the Bible. In the early chapters of Genesis, Abraham asks his wife Sarai not to reveal the true nature of their union: “Here now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife,’ and kill me but keep you alive. Please say that you are my sister, so that it will go well with me for your sake, and so that I will stay alive because of you.” (Gn 12, 11-13).36 Isaac displayed a similar attitude when he asked Rebecca to pretend that she was his sister because he feared he would be killed (Gn 26, 7). This association is found in several verses of the Song of Songs, for example 4, 9: “My sister, my bride, you have carried my heart away, with just one glance, with one bead of your necklace.” These few examples illustrate the binary, interdependent relationship evoked by the biblical models.37 Considering the interrelationship between ba‘al and ish from which the idea of sexual perversion derives and the

34. Cf. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1972, p. 127. 35. I thank my colleague Dr Yossef Priel for reminding me of these references in the Book of Hosea. 36. See also Gn 29, 2-5. 37. See A. Tropper, Like Clay in the Hands of the Potter. Sage Stories in Rabbinic Litera- ture, Jerusalem, 2011, p. 89-110 [in Hebrew]. The author evidences the Biblical foundations on which our story rests. See also the recent analyses of J. L. Rubenstein, Stories of the Baby- lonian Talmud, Baltimore, 2010, p. 116-149 and 264-273. 14 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD interchangeability of the terms sister and wife, can we really suppose that the terms employed by Simeon b. Shetach, “My sister, my husband dwelleth within you” could possibly have no polemical intent? It seems highly unlikely given the strong erotic charge conveyed by the terms, even if this thrust is not acknowledged. It becomes evident, however, upon reading the second part of the text concerning the disciple Jesus who repudiates himself by admiring the appeal of the woman serving him. There is every reason to suppose that the juxtaposition of these two parts is far from accidental. If we summarize schematically, we would have the following development: 1) An exchange between Simeon b. Shetach and Joshua ben Perahjah around an ambivalent formulation with erotic aspects (“My sister, my husband dwelleth within thee”).38 2) The reaction of the disciple Jesus to the beauty of the hostess, which elicits the master’s wrath.

Consequently, it is warranted to conclude that the correspondence between Simeon b. Shetach and Joshua ben Perahjah is a deliberate allusion to what follows in the text and to the fateful reaction of the disciple Jesus. In other words, the late Babylonian redactors of this passage intentionally gave it this erotic charge. The reasons for this are easy to understand. Their aim was to strike out not so much against Jesus as against what he represents — namely, Christianity. Christianity is perceived through the aphorism: “My sister, my husband dwelleth within thee”; it is likened to the one whose relationship is illicit and tainted. He is seen as a rapist — an idea that culminates in the dual identification sister/wife. So the Talmudic redactor make us of a typol- ogy in the form of Jesus = Christianity = usurpation of Judaism; in other words, Christianity disposed Judaism, it violate it, and this rape is represented by the figure of Jesus (as representing Christianity). Judaism having been violated by Christianity, the latter’s most illustrious figure Jesus, can hardly help but be attracted to the beauty of a woman and thus violate the teachings of his master. In a way, it is figuratively a double violation: of his master by Jesus and of Judaism by Christianity. Even though the sister and wife in our text represent two distinct entities (sister/Alexandria; wife/Jerusalem), the Biblical verses cited above author- ize a comparison, if not an identification between them. By this we mean

38. We could also examine in greater length the expression “my husband dwelleth within thee”, a strongly connoted sexual image. As far as the relationship sister/wife in Biblical literature is concerned, it has been discussed by many authors, in a great many texts. I will limit myself here to citing the following reference: R. Reich, The Woman Whom Thou Gavest to Be with Me, Tel-Aviv, 2005, p. 23-39 [in Hebrew]. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 15 that the comparison allows us to establish a new hypothesis: Jesus (the bo‘el/violator/Christianity) dwells in you (sister/Alexandria = wife/Jerusa- lem) and I /Judaism am/is in desolation. Otherwise put, Judaism identified with the sister is abandoned because Christianity violated it. This is related to the historical interpretation that we are defending: Christianity perverted Judaism, which is the cause of the desolation of the latter. Jerusalem and Alexandria form the essence of Judaism, trampled by the act of violation perpetrated by the disciple Jesus represented by Christianity. The Babylonian sages seem to be saying that Jesus, and with him Chris- tianity, are usurpers, more interested in the beauty of a woman than in the nature of the inn. There are intimations here of the bone of contention between Jews and Christians in the first centuries. The passage seems to testify to this traumatism. The Christians are seen as perverted beings whose deep-seated nature finds expression in lust and in the desire to satisfy a sexual need.39 There is an almost bestial connotation in this passage, for which we find numerous more vehement parallels in the pagan world.40 Let us dwell for a moment on the three levels of analysis that underpin our reading: the mashal, the nimshal and the historical interpretation. Clearly the ba‘al (husband) is metaphorically represented by Joshua ben Parahjah, but because of the double meaning of the term ba‘al we can see it as the husband but also as the violator. The ba‘al is Joshua ben Perahjah but the violator (bo‘el) is Jesus, the very same Jesus who observes the beauty of the servant who’s serving them in the inn and who turned away and betrayed her master. We are arguing that the dialectic between ba‘al and bo‘el is used in the form of the mashal/nimshal. The mashal refers to Joshua ben Perahjah as ba‘al and the nimshal to Jesus as bo‘el. The redactors of this passage play on the double meaning of ba‘al in alluding to two distinct people: Joshua ben Perahjah and Jesus. To be sure, this is not made explicit in the passage but, in our opinion, the literary context of the passage suggests it. Thus, the historical interpretation that we are proposing is that Jesus,

39. Note that the beauty of the woman that is the source of the drama in this passage is not without recalling certain historical elements. Indeed, many literary or epigraphic attestations show that in the ancient world, the inn served as a house of ill repute where servers offered their bodies for money. See the analysis of C. Salles, Les bas-fonds de l’Antiquité, Paris, 2004, p. 279-282 in a subchapter entitled: “La serveuse est belle” (the server is beautiful). 40. During the first centuries of our era, Christians were accused of condemnable morals and sexual perversion by their adversaries. See in this regard B. L. Visotzky, “Overturning the Lamp,” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987), p. 72-80 (= B. L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World. Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures, Tübingen, 1995, p. 75-84) and X. Levieils, Contra Christianos. La critique sociale et religieuse du christianisme des origines au concile de Nicée (45-325), Berlin/New York, 2007, p. 300-310. 16 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD standing for Christianity, violates Joshua ben Perahjah, who stands for Juda- ism. In the minds of the redactors of this passage, the first Christians were Jews who betrayed their religious tradition by usurping it, which is metaphorically expressed by the idea of violation. In a thesis on Joshua ben Perahjah and Jesus of Nazareth, M. Geller questions the meaning of the “betrothed” metaphor in the version in the Palestin- ian Talmud. According to this author, the phrase “My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate” has a relationship to divorce laws. Simeon b. Shetach’s letter could be read in the context of a divorce situation between two spouses. The return of the fiancé is awaited with sorrow by his fiancée. And the return of Judah ben Tabbai is awaited with all the more longing insofar as the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem could not appoint another nasi (president).41 Note that this matrimonial relationship is perhaps evoked in connection with the enigmatic pair formed by Joshua ben Perahjah and Simeon b. Shetach. Indeed, the two figures were one of the “pairs” (zugot) of sages in the famous “chain of tradition” linked by later sages to the revelation on Sinai. This could account for the metaphorical likening to the betrothed, mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud.

B) The master’s tragic reaction

From a methodological standpoint, I will endeavor to read this passage in the spirit of its late redactors and thus I will examine as much their intentions as the message that they hoped to get across. After the “incomprehen- sion” to which Jesus is victim, his master Joshua ben Perahjah forcefully rejects him, sounding “four hundred trumpets” to excommunicate him. One is immediately stunned by the apparent disproportion between the “sin” of the disciple and the master’s reaction. The redactors emphasize the public character of the excommunication that contrasts radically with the private character of the “sin.” What is the reason for such an emphatic approach? One might assume that the intention was to publicly show how Jesus, and by extension Christianity, were to be proscribed — the only conceivable

41. M. J. Geller, Joshua b. Perahia and Jesus of Nazareth: Two Rabbinic Magicians, microfilmed Doctoral thesis, Ann Arbor, 1974, p. 84-85; 111. This assertion is not supported by any evidence and for this reason it is hard to subscribe to it. For a better grasp of the historical aspects of Simeon b. Shetach’s message to Joshua ben Perahjah/Judah ben Tabaï, see the study by P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small’: The Relation- ship between Palestine and Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, Tübingen, 1998, vol. 1, p. 129-140. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 17 attitude being rejection. Yet, one also has the impression that not everything has been said yet and that the next sequence in the text works to deconstruct the previously established model. Indeed, if the attitude of the sages is one of exclusion alone, what need is there to mention that Jesus comes back before his master many times? Otherwise put, if the sages who compiled this text wanted to convey the need for rejection, why did they depict Jesus trying again and again to return to the bosom of his master and, by extension, to Judaism. There is a certain wrenching feeling, something left unsaid, whose content can be sensed, that runs through the whole second part of this section. Jesus ardently desires to return to his master, but the latter pushes him away. There seems to be no hope for a reversal of the excommunication when suddenly the master desires to bring him regain him. In the dramatic rendering of the story: the master prays and covers his eyes, a gesture that the disciple interprets as a sign of rejection (and this turns out to be fatal), after which he prostrates himself before a brick.42 Two questions arise: 1) Why draw a portrait of Jesus pleading for the goodwill of his master who is depicted, for his part, as austere and intransigent? 2) When the reconciliation seems possible, even imminent, why describe such an absurd incident?

What are the profound intentions of the redactors of this passage? They seem to be evoking a twofold painful experience: that of Jesus manifesting his insistent desire to return to the house of study and that of his master observing his efforts and deciding in the end to “bring back” this wayward disciple. My argument consists in saying that this passage represents a rhetorical formulation aimed at expressing the Sages’ remorse with regard to “wayward” Christianity that nonetheless came from Judaism like the disciple Jesus and, like Jesus again, could have been brought back into Judaism. This story symbolizes the wrenching rift between the Sages of the Talmud and

42. The gestures of veiling or covering his eyes may mark the desire not to see what Jesus the disciple saw — in this case the hostess, the object of temptation, cause of the supreme violation and rejection. The master hides his eyes not to see what his disciple saw. Now what this disciple saw and the reason he was rejected was precisely the eyes of this women. We have here a story of a veiled and unveiled gaze, the cause of all the drama. Concerning the “round eyes” of the woman, see S. T. Turan, “A Neglected Rabbinic Parallel to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:22-23; Luke 11:34-36),” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008), p. 81-93, who incidentally proposes to read the term akhsania (inn/hostess) as a reference to Jerusalem. This association was already made by E. Bammel, “Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition,” New Testament Studies 13 (1967), p. 317-335 and especially p. 321-322. 18 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD the first Christians.43 The redactors seem to be saying that the repudiation of these first Christians (the Jewish Christians) could have been avoided. They even seem to be suggesting that responsibility for this repudiation, for this excommunication, lies directly with the Sages. Joshua ben Perahjah symbolizes the insular intransigent Judaism that emerged after the destruc- tion of the Temple in the year 70. To preserve itself, Judaism cut off and excluded all those it considered factionalist or secessionist. This post- Pharisaic Judaism of the assembly at Yavneh, from which the later Babylo- nian redactors descend directly, is the Judaism that voluntarily excluded Jewish Christians from the synagogue. My hypothesis here is that the passage manifests the self-criticism of the Sages of the Talmud with regard to their own course of action.44 The excommunication, which it suggests could have been avoided, was ultimately the result of a tragic misunderstanding. Jesus comes to his master while the master is praying and when the master wants to bring his disciple back into the fold, Jesus runs away. This detail also seems to contain a message. The master covers his eyes and gestures to his disciple with his hand. He is ask- ing him to wait until he has finished reciting the shema‘ so that he can talk to him. According to our reading, this gesture, meant to urge him to be patient, is seen as a lack of sympathy by the disciple in distress and in a state of anxious expectation. Maybe the sages are telling us that blind piety (blind in both senses of the term) led to the disciple choosing a wrong course of action. Figuratively, it may be a matter of saying that the Jewish world “waited too long” when a few moments would have sufficed to bring the Christian world back into the fold. My reading picks up on the lyrical and emotive overtones running through this passage. We have here a genuinely wrenching rift. The disciple went astray and led Israel astray because of the attitude of his master who did not want to interrupt his recitation of the shema‘. The disappointed disciple takes on the archetypal garments of what Judaism deems an abomination: namely, idolatry. My interpretation finds an echo in a surprising passage in Avot I, 11: “Avtalion said: Sages, be careful with your words lest you incur the penalty of exile and are called to a place where the waters of learning are impure and the disciples that come

43. As Murcia correctly observes in Jésus dans le Talmud, p. 421-422, the redactors sug- gest that repeated misunderstandings are the cause of conflicts between Judaism and Christian- ity. This is also what we mean in evoking the failed attempt by the Rabbis to bring back the early Christians, an attempt that ultimately proved fatal. 44. This is the approach that we would present, however, as shown by other authors, this text can also be analyzed by other perspectives (parody, irony, drama etc.), we have deliberately chosen not take into account. THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 19 after you drink of them and die; and the Heavenly Name is consequently profaned.” According to this new paradigm, the responsibility for the tragic turn of events is imputed allusively to the master, Joshua ben Perahjah.45 The master wants to win back his disciple. For in the spirit of the Talmud, a frivolous disciple, even a miscreant continues to be regarded as potentially worthy of returning to the bosom of Judaism. Thus, the waywardness of this disciple (like the first Christians) did not prevent the Babylonian redactors of this text from dramatically considering the schism and the irreversibility of the situation between Jews and Christians. My thesis seems to be substantiated by philological contributions from the available manuscripts. Versions of the Palestinian Talmud of Hagiga read, “and he ran away,” referring to the disciple. But one of the versions of Sanhedrin reads “and he died.” This only supports my reading of the narrative as highlighting the guilt of the master in what happens to the wayward disciple. In my opinion, the metaphorical illustrations of these passages are to be understood as an expression of self-criticism on the part of the Sages regard- ing their attitude to their brothers — their brothers being other Jews who accept Jesus of Nazareth as a messianic figure. These brothers are repudiated because they do not fit into the normalization process established by the Rabbis of the Talmud. The figures in this passage are typological repre- sentations: Joshua ben Perahjah stands for the Sages of the Talmud and Jesus for the early Christians (Jewish-Christians). This is further supported by the master’s posture in praying and covering his eyes. This gesture is by no means innocuous. What does it indicate to Jesus? A priori, it is to be interpreted as a request to wait (for a moment) until the end of the prayer. Could it be that it carries another signification? For example, could it indicate a hesitation toward the very object of the gesture? In other words, is the gesture of the hand related to the master’s prayer?

45. In his important studies, J. L. Rubenstein has shown the extent to which ulterior layers in the Babylonian Talmud, from where our story comes, project the social reality of the yeshiva of their times onto earlier periods. In this context, it would be a question of the influ- ence of the rigid hierarchy of the Babylonian yeshiva on the narratives that touch on the master/disciple relationship (See J. L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories. Narrative Art, Composi- tion, and Culture, Baltimore/London, 1999; J. L. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, Baltimore/London, 2003; Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 116-149 and 264-273). This approach supports the thesis of Schäfer in Jesus in the Talmud, p. 34-40, 155-158, who sees a critique of the intransigence of Joshua ben Perahjah in the attitude of the redactors of our story. Even though my focus here is on the relations between Rabbinism and Christianity, I find this reading of the passage as evidence of Rabbinic soul-searching with regard to the master/disciple relationship to be extremely relevant. 20 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD

From a semiotic perspective, the prayer could evoke a search for inspiration from the divine and would be vital for the one praying (Joshua ben Perahjah). The latter, who symbolizes the Sages of the Talmud would be looking then for inspiration to know what position to take toward his uncon- ventional disciple. This prayer would be the means of gaining approval from God to bring Jesus back and with him his disciples — that is, the early Christians. The schema would as follows: — Christians of Jewish origin (personified by Jesus) wish to return to the fold of Judaism. — After having repudiated them, the Sages of the Talmud (personified by Joshua ben Perahjah) accept to bring them back. — In a final hesitation, the divine is invoked to ensure the correctness of their position (prayer and gesture). — The Christians misconstrue this gesture — which could mean two things — and definitely leave the Jewish fold. The invocation of the divine is a proposition of semiotic reading that marks the hesitation of the Sages to win back Christians of Jewish origin. By the time of the writing of this Babylonian passage (5th-6th centuries), Christianity had been a separate religion and exercised political force. It is thereby understandable that this Jewish regret would be traced back to the source of the break, that is several centuries before the redaction of this story. This regret elicits an effort, in effect, in the 5th century, when Chris- tians are no longer a Jewish group among others but rather a persecuting religion. This complex reality between the left hand repulsing but the right hand always inviting back is expressed by the invocation of the divine. From the standpoint of the narrative, the conclusion is that the Sages of the Talmud are trying in the end to exonerate themselves of guilt in consequences of the tragic turn of events. They do their best to show that they are not responsible at bottom for the decision of these Christians to have left Judaism. From their own perspective, they did everything in their power to try to bring the wayward disciple back. This seems to be the gist of the text and its interpretation.

Conclusion: Intersecting perceptions

Interestingly, the disciple is named (Jesus) only in the Babylonian versions not in the Palestinian Talmud. The mention in the Babylonian version THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD 21 is certainly a late development of the story.46 The notoriously anachronistic aspect of the story cannot take away the trace of historicity that resides in it. The point is not to establish the veracity of a non-historical text par excel- lence, but rather to shift the terms of the issues involved. The fact that these texts cannot serve as an historical support for our knowledge of Jesus or the relations between Jews and Christians does not mean that it has no importance whatsoever.47 I might add that the Babylonian versions insist on depicting Jesus as a Rabbi, which is interesting in its own right.48 According to P. Schäfer, the Babylonian redactors are expressing what they think of Christianity through this story. When Jesus prostrates himself before a brick he is practicing a form of worship that appears in Babylonian contexts. So we would have here evidence of customs common in Babylo- nia. The redactor of this passage chooses to mention a form of worship common in his context.49 In addition, the accusation that the disciple practiced magic (“A Master has said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray”) can find inter alia a favorable echo in the Babylonian context, where such practices were widespread.50 I also agree wholeheartedly with Schäfer’s reading of this passage as an elaborate critique of the master, Joshua ben Perahjah, for pushing away his disciple Jesus the Nazarene with both hands.51 I might add that there is ambivalence running through the entire text and it is echoed throughout in the relationship between the two protagonists (master and disciple). When

46. See on this point the discussion by Tropper, Like Clay in the Hands of the Potter, p. 97-100. 47. See the discussion by Schäfer in Jesus in the Talmud, p. 37, who writes: “There can be no doubt, therefore, that Yehoshua b. Peraya, whatever historical reality stands behind this figure, has nothing to do with Jesus in the sense that the story preserves some historically reliable information about the founder of Christianity. But this is not what is at stake here. The fact that Jesus penetrated into the story at a later stage does not mean that the story does not contain any reliable information about the Bavli’s perception of Jesus.” (The emphasis is ours). I can only agree with the author, all the more so since the manuscripts attest to a ten- dency specific to the editorial process of the Babylonian Talmud to identify the anonymous disciple of the Palestinian versions as Jesus. This propensity is telling of the Babylonian Talmud’s perception and understanding of Jesus. 48. Cf. R. Kalmin, “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994), p. 155-169 and precisely p. 156 versus Maier, Jesus von Nazareth, who refuses all possibility of studying the perception of Jesus in Talmudic sources. 49. Cf. for example, BT ‘Avoda Zara 46a. 50. Of course, this is not unique to Babylonia; we find magical practices all along the Mediterranean rim (in Italy, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, etc.). See F. Graf, La magie dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Paris, 1994, p. 11-17. 51. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 38-39. 22 THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD the disciple desires to return to the master, the latter refuses to accept him; conversely, when the master moves to accept the disciple, a tragic misunderstanding intervenes and the disciple becomes an idolater. In the epilogue to this tragedy with Homeric overtones, in the end the master calls on the disciple to repent, while the latter, convinced of the illegitimacy of the approach, refuses. This is the sense in which the exchange between them can be understood: “‘Repent,’ said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, ‘I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance’.” As most scholars agree, the break between master and disciple and, more symbolically between Judaism and Christianity, is definitively consummated by then. The final attempts at reconciliation have not succeeded and the separation is presented as irreversible. The development between the Pales- tinian version and the Babylonian version evidences the deliberate desire of the Babylonian redactors to identify the frivolous disciple who is condemned by his master Judah ben Tabbai (Palestinian version) with Jesus, and casti- gated by his master Joshua ben Perahjah (Babylonian version). In the final analysis, let me again express my agreement with Peter Schäfer who quite rightly notes the following:52 Finally, the Bavli editor puts the blame on the teacher (Yehoshua b. Perahya), who is ultimately responsible for the student’s (Jesus’) idolatry. In other words, according to the latest editorial layer in the Bavli, it is a distinguished rabbi (no less a figure than one of the famous “pairs”), who is responsible for the origin of Christianity.

52. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 40.