|
The Talmud refers to Jesus both under His own name and under pseudonyms
such as 'Balaam.' Given state failure to understand the benefits of free
speech, some of these references have been censored out of the Talmud,
it being impossible to publish them in 'Christian' Europe; they are now
found only in the footnotes. The Rabbis slandered Mary as an adulteress:
"And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. R. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? — His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? (megaddela neshayia): — As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).'" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 67a).
"It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' — satath da) her husband." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 104b)
"Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! — R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 106a).
Some readers fail to see Jesus in 'Ben Stada' (to be interpreted, 'son
of an adulteress'?) and 'Balaam.' The point of a pseudonym, after all,
is to maintain deniability. But some of these references are quite specific:
"A certain min [heretic] said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.'" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106b).
Who was the 'Balaam' who died at about thirty-three years old? Not the
Old Testament figure of that name. 'Balaam' does seem to be a cut-out for
Jesus of Nazareth. Bishop Spong understands, correctly, that these Talmudic
passages intend to refer to Jesus and His mother. But why would any Christian
take notice of such ill-intentioned slurs and calumnies?
Contemporary Episcopalians, evidently, can bring themselves to believe
neither the gospel report of Mary's innocence and good character, nor can
even muster the courage to believe the Talmud, which slanders her as an
immoral person. Bishop Spong bowdlerizes the Talmud's report, inventing
the fiction that Mary was raped, which is stated by neither Gospel nor
Talmud.
Since Bishop Spong is willing to revive the Talmud's slurs against Mary's
chastity, is he also open to the remainder of the
Talmud's treatment of Jesus? There is needless controversy nowadays about
whether there was a 'Jewish trial' of Jesus, given that the Talmud freely
concedes that there was. The accusation the Talmud makes against Jesus
is enticement, that Jesus violated the strictures of Deuteronomy 13:6,
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,
or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, who is to thee as thy soul, entice
thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods...", seeking
to introduce strange worship:
"And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.'" (Sandhedrin 107b).
When did Jesus ever do that? When He said:
"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." (John 5:23).
That's either true, as Christians believe, or enticement, as the Talmud
alleges. One of the weaknesses of the quest for the 'historical Jesus'
is that one cannot make the case for condemnation, under the Mosaic law,
of the pale, modest, and unremarkable figure intoning timeless truths that
these seekers imagined. So these 19th century authors, who were mostly
anti-semites anyway, were perfectly willing to accuse the Jews of condemning
Jesus for no good reason. When that began to look like a problem, they
simply denied that the Jewish authorities had ever reached any negative
verdict. But if the gospels testify truly, and the Talmud testifies also
reliably if in a hostile key, then the grounds for condemnation are self-evident.
However, given Bishop Spong's animus against Christianity, he only
believes the Talmud when it debunks the gospels, not when it upholds them.
On any objective basis, it is difficult to imagine why the Talmud
is to be believed without question in its slurs against Mary's
character, yet not to be believed at all in its affirmative
testimony of a 'Jewish trial.' Rather, we are expected to believe
the gospel account is a 'whitewash:' "How better could they seek
Roman favor than by whitewashing the Roman procurator, Pontius
Pilate, in their narrative of Jesus' final days, exonerating him of
any blame in the death of Jesus?" (John Shelby Spong, The Sins of
Scripture, p. 208):
|
