The Talmud: Jesus is Burning in Dung!

In this post I will be quoting from Peter Schäfer’s book Jesus in the Talmud, published by Princeton University Press in 2007.

Here is what is written about him on Princeton University’s website:

But before I cite from Schäfer himself, I first quote the particular reference from the Talmud, which Schäfer expounds upon.

57a

With the foregoing in view, I now turn to the book.All emphasis will be mine.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was indeed resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion, as he had predicted, and appeared to his disciples. The synoptic Gospels do not relate what happened to him after his resurrection (in Luke he blesses the disciples and simply disappears),¹ and only the appendix in Mark adds that he was “taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mk. 16:19). The introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, however, knows more details: There, Jesus presents himself alive after his Passion during forty days(!)² and, at his last appearance, promises them the power of the Holy Spirit to spread the new faith over the whole earth:

In a reverse movement of the “Son of Man” in Daniel, who comes down with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13), the resurrected Jesus ascends to heaven on a cloud, and the angels explain to the amazed disciples that he will later return from where he has gone, that is from heaven. Hence it is safe to assume that he will stay in heaven until his last and final appearance on earth.

It is again reserved to the Babylonian Talmud to tell a counternarrative to the New Testament’s message, in fact the exact opposite of what the New Testament proclaims, namely a most graphic and bizarre story about Jesus’ descent to and punishment in hell. The context is a large aggadic complex about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the first Jewish War and of Bethar, the last stronghold of the rebels, during the second Jewish War (the so-called Bar Kokhba revolt). The purpose of the story is to figure out why Jerusalem and Bethar were destroyed. Bethar is not our concern here, but with regard to Jerusalem, the argument goes as follows.⁵

A certain Bar Qamtza was offended at a banquet and, holding the rabbis partly responsible for this offense, denounces them to the authorities in Rome. He tells the Roman emperor that they are preparing a rebellion and offers, as a proof for this accusation, that they will refuse to offer the customary sacrifice for the emperor in the Temple.6 When the emperor sends his animal for the sacrifice, Bar Qamtza renders it halakhically unfit (adducing a tiny bodily blemish) to be offered at the Temple. The rabbis are nevertheless inclined to sacrifice the unfit animal, in order not to offend the Roman government, but one of their colleagues convinces them that such a poor compromise wouldn’t be acceptable. Hence, the Talmud concludes, because of this uncompromising halakhic rigidity the Temple was destroyed.

At first, and historically quite anachronistically, the Romans send the Emperor Nero against the Jews, but Nero, when he realizes that God wants to use him as his tool to punish his people, flees and becomes a proselyte (from whom, grotesquely enough, R. Meir is descendent). Then the Romans dispatch Vespasian, who, when he learns that he is elected emperor, sends Titus in his stead (historically quite correct). Titus defiles the Temple by entering the Holy of Holies (which is the privilege of the high priest only) and fornicating there with a whore on a Torah scroll. The burning of the Temple is not explicitly mentioned; only that Titus robs the utensils of the Temple for his triumph in Rome.⁷ However, as a punishment for the arrogant and wicked emperor, God sends a gnat, which enters his brain through his nostril and feeds upon his brain for seven years.⁸ When the poor emperor finally dies and they open his skull they find that the gnat had grown into something like a sparrow or even a young dove with a beak of brass and talons of iron. Before he dies, Titus decrees: “Burn me and scatter my ashes over the seven seas so that the God of the Jews will not find me and bring me to trial.”⁹ After this, the Bavli narrator proceeds with the story of a certain Onqelos the son of Qaloniqos who considers converting to Judaism, presumably following the example of Emperor Nero:¹⁰

The story opens with Onqelos, who is well known as the alleged translator of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic (and sometimes confused with Akylas/ Aquila, the translator of the Bible into Greek). The Bavli makes him the son of Titus’ sister, pondering whether he should convert to Judaism, presumably because Titus himself did not convert (unlike his “predecessor” Nero) but instead preferred to destroy the Temple of the Jews.¹⁵ This Onqelos brings up by means of necromancy three arch villains of Jewish history out of their graves to get their informed advice: Titus, the destroyer of the second Temple; Balaam, the prophet of the nations; and Jesus the Nazarene, who is quite dubious, however, because in some versions of the Bavli he is replaced by the broad category of the “sinners of Israel.” All three are obviously in the Netherworld (the biblical She’ol or Gehinnom) where they are punished for their grave misdeeds.

The background of our story is the famous passage in the Mishna that lists those terrible sinners who have no portion in the world to come.¹⁶ Among them are certain heretics and Balaam as one of the four “commoners” (together with Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi). As we have seen, the Bavli Berakhot story about the wicked disciple replaces Balaam with Jesus, insinuating by this bold move that Jesus, like Balaam, did not have a share in the world to come.¹⁷ In our Bavli Gittin story, Jesus appears explicitly in this context of the afterlife, together with Balaam (and with Titus). The Tosefta parallel to the Mishna addresses the question, which is not dealt with in the Mishna and the Bavli (but probably presupposed in the latter), of how long these sinners are punished in the Gehinnom: the “sinners of Israel” and the “sinners of the nations” are supposed to stay in the Gehinnom for twelve months only: “after twelve months their souls perish, their bodies are burnt, Gehinnom discharges them, and they are turned into ashes, and the wind blows them and scatters them under the feet of the righteous.” In regard to the various kinds of heretics, however, and the destroyers of the first and second Temples (the Assyrians and the Romans): “the Gehinnom is locked behind them, and they are judged therein for all generations.”¹⁸ So presumably the punishment in Gehinnom of Balaam (who belongs to the “sinners of the nations”) and of Jesus/ the sinners of Israel is terminated—after twelve months they will cease to exist—whereas Titus (the destroyer of the second Temple) will be punished in Gehinnom forever: even “She’ol will perish, but they [the destroyers of the Temple] will not perish.”¹⁹

All three sinners being punished in Gehinnom give the same answer to Onqelos’ question of who is held in highest regard in the Netherworld: it is undoubtedly Israel. Now that these arch-villains finally are where they belong, they realize to whom they should have showed due respect on earth. Yet they diverge with regard to the subsequent question of whether one should strive to join Israel’s fold as long as one enjoys living on earth. Titus, dismissing the model of his predecessor Nero, has decided for himself that there is no point in trying to emulate the Jews; instead, he opts for the other possibility, to persecute them, and hence to become the ruler of the world (if, sadly, only temporarily)—and this is the advice he gives to the son of his sister. Balaam, the prophet of the nations, gives quite a surprising answer: the verse that he quotes from the Bible (Deut. 23:7) does not refer to Israel at all but to the Ammonites and Moabites, the archenemies of Israel. The Ammonites and Moabites must forever be excluded from the “congregation of the Lord,” the Bible demands (Deut. 23:4–7), because they hired Balaam to curse Israel. However, as we know from Numbers 22–23, Balaam did not curse Israel as requested by Balak, the king of Moab, but instead blessed them. Nevertheless, Balaam is held responsible for initially wanting to carry out Balak’s request and to curse Israel.²⁰ Therefore, ironically, the author of the Bavli narrative puts the verse originally referring to Ammon and Moab into Balaam’s mouth, turning it into an advice against Israel. So in the end Balaam gets what he always wanted: to curse Israel. And finally Jesus or the sinners of Israel, respectively: They are the only ones who actually advise Onqelos to seek Israel’s welfare and not their harm, that is, in the present context, to indeed join them. The stark warning “Whoever touches them is as though he touches the apple of his eye” is an allusion to Zechariah 2:12, obviously interpreting “his eye” not as “his own eye” but as “His [God’s] eye.” Hence, Jesus/the sinners of Israel come out on top of this “contest” between the wicked of the wicked—but still, they are punished in the Netherworld for what they did in their lifetime.

What is it then that our arch-villains of Jewish history did, and how are they punished (because, obviously, the punishment stands in direct relationship to their crime committed against Israel)? Titus’ case is the simplest of the three: He has burned the Temple to ashes and has fittingly decreed that after his death he shall be burned and his ashes be scattered over the seas. In an ironical enactment of his will, his punishment consists of his body being reassembled and burnt and his ashes being scattered over the seas over and over again—literally forever, as the Tosefta tells us. Balaam’s sin, of course, is his attempt to curse Israel (unfortunately, he cannot take the credit for the fact that the curse failed and was transformed into a blessing), but what about his punishment in boiling semen? This can be inferred from the biblical account of Israel attaching itself to the Moabite god Baal-Peor, whose worship entailed, according to the Bible, whoring with Moabite women (Num. 25:1–3) and eating sacrifices offered to the dead (Ps. 106:28). The former is regarded as indulging in sexual orgies connected to the worship of Baal-Peor, and since Balaam enticed Israel into this sexual transgression (Num. 31:16), he is appropriately punished in the Netherworld by sitting in boiling semen.

Now Jesus/the sinners of Israel: We do not hear anything about his/their crime and cannot, therefore, explain the punishment (which is bizarre enough) as a consequence of any particular crime. The Talmud editor, in his first comment on the Jesus/sinners of Israel part of our narrative, encounters the same problem. The anonymous “master” alludes to the only parallel from the Bavli which mentions boiling excrement as a punishment:²¹

This exposition of the difficult verse from Qohelet, attributed to two Babylonian scholars from the early fourth and the mid fourth century, respectively, belongs to a series of statements that emphasize the importance of the teachings of the Oral Torah against (and even above) the teachings of the Written Torah. Immediately preceding is an exegesis of the first half of the verse from Qohelet: “And furthermore, my son, be admonished: Of making many books there is no end” (Eccl. 12:12), which concludes: “My son, be more careful (about observing) the words of the scribes²² than the words of the Torah. For the words of the Torah contain both positive and negative commandments (which warrant varying punishments); but, as to the words of the scribes, whoever transgresses the words of the scribes incurs the death penalty.”²³ Following this harsh verdict Aha bar Ulla declares that ridiculing the words of the Sages results in the death penalty of sitting (presumably forever) in boiling excrement. He reaches this quite eccentric conclusion by interpreting, first, the Hebrew word for “study” (lahag) as “ridicule” (la’ag)²⁴ and, second, the unusual expression “weariness of the flesh” as “excrement” (the weariness of the flesh results in excrement or rather, producing excrement results in the weariness of the flesh). Rava, the famous mid fourth century Babylonian amora, rejects this interpretation of lahag as la’ag and prefers a pre-digestion exposition: Studying the words of the rabbis is as enjoyable as tasting meat.²⁵

We can hardly take for granted that the master’s explanation of the crime (ridiculing the words of the Sages) is presupposed in our Bavli narrative²⁶ and hence that the crime committed by Jesus/the sinners of Israel was indeed ridiculing the Sages. Tempting as this interpretation may be—not least in view of the talmudic story portraying Jesus as a bad disciple²⁷—it is more likely that our Talmud editor uses the parallel from Bavli Eruvin in order to explain a weird punishment for a crime the original circumstances of which were unknown to him.²⁸ Nor can we take it for granted that the second (anonymous) comment in the Bavli (“Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the gentile nations”) belongs to the original core of our narrative or, more precisely, that it reflects the original core and that therefore the “sinners of Israel” were the original subject of our story and not Jesus.²⁹ No doubt that the final Bavli editor wanted the text to be understood this way, but he may have had his own agenda. Of course, he refers to the difference between the prophets of the gentiles (Balaam) and the sinners of Israel with regard to the advice they give Onqelos and not with regard to their punishment and their presumed crime: Balaam speaks against Israel, whereas the sinners of Israel speak in their favor. Their punishment, in contrast, is strikingly similar because it hardly makes much of a difference whether one sits in the Netherworld in boiling semen or in boiling excrement. Hence, despite their very different attitudes toward Israel, they are inflicted with almost the same punishment, or to put it differently and more precisely: the sinners of Israel’s positive attitude toward Israel, acquired postmortem in the Netherworld, did not change their fate and did not affect their punishment in Gehinnom (they have to serve their time, no matter what they think of Israel now). It may well be that this irony is what the Bavli editor wants to convey with his remark.

Furthermore, if we consider the Tosefta’s statement about the time the different categories of sinners spend in the Netherworld, the “sinners of Israel” and the “sinners of the nations” fall into one category (after twelve months in Gehinnom they cease to exist), and the heretics and the destroyers of the Temple into another (they are punished forever). So with regard to their punishment (and the presumed crime related to it) there is no difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations (Balaam). This makes the Bavli’s remark, with its emphasis on the advice given to Onqelos, even more obscure or forced. It is not at all incongruous, therefore, to argue that in an earlier editorial layer Jesus was indeed the third sinner, conjured up from the Netherworld by Onqelos, and that a later Bavli editor changed “Jesus” to the “sinners of Israel,” adding the two comments by the “master” and the anonymous author. This also fits much better with the logic of the narrative with three individuals punished in Gehinnom (Titus, Balaam, Jesus) and the similar punishment for the latter two (sitting in boiling semen and excrement, respectively).

This conclusion, however, does not yet solve the enigma of the crime committed by Jesus and the deeper meaning of his punishment (presuming that there was one, as in the case of Titus and Balaam). If we follow again the Tosefta’s categorization, we have Balaam as the representative of the sinners of the nations and Titus as the representative of the destroyers of the Temple. This leaves us with either the sinners of Israel or the heretics as the appropriate category for Jesus. If we forgo the Bavli’s artificial and probably secondary identification of Jesus with the sinners of Israel, we can put Jesus into the category of the heretics and then have Titus for the destroyers of the Temple, Balaam for the sinners of the nations, and Jesus for the heretics (the first and the third punished in Gehinnom forever, the second released into nonexistence after twelve months). With this solution we finally arrive at a crime for Jesus: he has no portion of the world to come and is accordingly punished in Gehinnom because he is one of the worst heretics that the people of Israel have ever produced. Moreover, according to the Tosefta’s taxonomy, he is punished in Gehinnom forever (like Titus). And this is clearly the essence of the Bavli’s statement about Jesus: it claims (as in b Berakhot, but much more forcefully) that Jesus was not only never resurrected from the dead but that he still sits in Gehinnom, together with the other sinners who are denied an afterlife, and is punished there forever. This, of course, sends also a strong message to his followers, telling them that they better give up any hope for an afterlife for themselves: as with their hero, there is no afterlife reserved for them; they will be punished in Gehinnom forever.

But what then about the meaning of Jesus’ punishment—if there is any connection with his crime and if it is not merely modeled along the line of Balaam’s punishment with no deeper meaning? In Titus’ case we have the link between burning the Temple and burning Titus’ body, and in Balaam’s case the link between enticing Israel into sexual orgies and sitting in hot semen. So what could be the link between Jesus’ heresy and his sitting in hot excrement? Since the text does not give any clue (as in the case of Titus) and since we cannot use the Hebrew Bible to fill the gap left in the Bavli text (as in the case of Balaam), we can only speculate—and this is what I am prepared to do. We are looking for a connection between Jesus’ heresy and his punishment (hot excrement), and I propose a connection as bizarre as the punishment. The Talmud does not tell us what the heresy was that Jesus propagated, but we can safely assume—with our knowledge of the other texts discussed—that it must have to do with idolatry and blasphemy. The first and obvious possibility that comes to mind is Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees in the New Testament when the Pharisees ask why Jesus’ disciples do not wash their hands before they eat. Jesus explains to the crowd following him that “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.”³⁰ The disciples get the more detailed explanation:

Hence, what Jesus apparently argues is that the Pharisaic purity rules do not really matter. What is important is not the purity of the hands and of the food—because food is processed within the body, and any inherent impurity will be excreted and ends up in the sewer—but the purity of the “heart” (because it is processed through the mouth and, when uttered, starts a fatal life of its own). In other words, not food is impure but human intentions and actions are impure. The rabbinic counternarrative about Jesus’ punishment would then ironically invert his attack on the Pharisaic purity laws by having him sit in excrement and teaching him (as well as his followers) the lesson: you believe that only what comes out of the mouth defiles, well, you will sit forever in your own excrement and will finally understand that also what goes into the mouth and comes out of the stomach defiles.

It is certainly possible that our Bavli story refers to this particular New Testament discussion with the Pharisees. I would like, however, to go a step further and put up for discussion an (admittedly rather speculative) interpretation that focuses on the accusation of blasphemy and idolatry, in close parallel to Titus and Balaam (Jesus’ attack on the rabbinic purity laws can hardly be understood as blasphemy and idolatry). Let us look again at the analogy to Balaam. Semen, in Balaam’s case, is what sexual intercourse produces. Similarly, excrement is what eating produces: everyone who eats produces excrement. Balaam incited Israel to sexual orgies—and hence is punished by sitting in semen. Jesus incited Israel to eating—and hence is punished by sitting in what eating produces: excrement. And what is the “eating” that Jesus imposed upon his followers? No less a food than himself—his flesh and blood.³² As he has told his disciples during the Last Supper:

What we have, then, in our Bavli narrative is a devastating and quite malicious polemic against the Gospels’ message of Jesus’ claim that whoever follows him and, literally, eats him becomes a member of the new covenant that superseded the old covenant with the Jews. How early the Eucharist was understood realistically as consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus is controversial, but it seems as if already Ignatius of Antioch (martyred soon after 110 C.E.?) attacks heretics who do not accept this view.³⁴ More important, the Gospel of John (composed around 100 C.E.) provides us with a discussion between Jesus and the Jews about precisely this problem of how to understand the eating of Jesus’ flesh:³⁵

Here we have it all. First, the clear equation of eating bread and eating the flesh of Jesus as well as drinking (presumably wine) and drinking the blood of Jesus. Second, the incredulous Jews contesting precisely this grotesque claim that Jesus can demand from his followers to eat his flesh: How can someone, who is not out of his mind, seriously offer his flesh to eat? Third, the unambiguous juxtaposition of the old and the new covenant: The Jews ate the bread from heaven, the manna; the followers of Jesus eat the real bread from heaven, his flesh. Moreover, and most conspicuously, eating the manna leads to death; eating Jesus’ flesh (and drinking his blood) leads to life—not just to a prolongation of life but to eternal life.

It is this claim, not accidentally made explicit again in the Gospel of John, which our Bavli narrative attacks or rather parodies. No, it argues, Jesus is dead and remains dead, and eating his flesh won’t lead to life. Not only that those who follow his advice and eat his flesh will not live forever, as he has promised; rather, he is punished in the Netherworld forever and not granted the milder punishment of those who will be released after twelve months into merciful nonexistence. And the peak of irony: the initiator of this bizarre heresy is appropriately punished by sitting in what his followers excrete, after allegedly having eaten him: excrement! With this explanation we finally have a crime (the heresy of the Eucharist) and a fitting punishment. And not least we have a case analogous to Balaam and to Titus.

One last remark: If my conclusion is correct that an earlier layer of the Bavli story indeed refers to Jesus (and not to the sinners of Israel), it is striking that the advice to Onqelos (“Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them is as though he touches the apple of his eye”) is put in the mouth of Jesus. Obviously, our author wants to convey the message: despite his horrendous and disgusting heresy, Jesus is still different from the destroyer of the Temple and from the prophet of the nations. He is still one of us, a sinner of Israel, and it may be that he has even come to his senses while being punished in Gehinnom. Although too late for him—he cannot be rescued, and he knows it, because of the gravity of his crime—by his advice to Onqelos he may want to give this message to his followers: do not believe any longer in my heresy, do not persecute(?) the Jews; repent and return to the “old covenant” because the alleged “new covenant” is fake and folly.³⁶ If this is the case, our Bavli editor not just parodies Jesus life and death and an essential aspect of the Christian faith; he addresses the contemporary Christians and calls upon them to follow the advice of their founder issued from the Netherworld. (8. Jesus’ Punishment in Hell, pp. 82-94)

Chapter 8

Jesus’ Punishment in Hell

1. Lk. 24:51: “While he blessed them, he parted from them” (some manuscripts add “and was carried up into heaven”).
2. Could this be the source of the forty days the herald announces Jesus’ forthcoming death in the Talmud (see above)?

3. Two angels.

4. Acts 1:9–11.

5. b Git 55b–56a. On this cycle of stories and its anti-Christian implications see Israel J. Yuval, “Two Nations in Your Womb”: Perceptions of Jews and Christians, Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2000, pp. 65–71 (in Hebrew).

6. According to Josephus (Bell. 2, 409f.), the order issued by the Temple captain Eleazar, the son of the High Priest Ananias, to suspend the daily sacrifice for the emperor was indeed the decisive act of rebellion that made the war with Rome inevitable. The rabbinic literature, in its characteristic way, transfers the events from the level of the priests to the rabbis.

7. Which again is historically correct: they are indeed brought to Rome and depicted on the arch of Titus.

8. The gnat is obviously chosen because it not only is small but also, as the Talmud explains, because it has only an entrance (to take food) but no exit (to excrete).

9. b Git 56b.

10. b Git 56b–57a.

11. Yeshu ha-notzri in Ms. Vatican Ebr. 130; Yeshu in Mss. Vatican 140 and Munich 95; the Soncino printed edition leaves out either one, and the standard printed editions have “sinners of Israel.”

12. Cf. Zech. 2:12: “whoever touches you (pl. = Israel) touches the apple of his [God’s] eye.”

13. Some printed editions add “the idolaters.”

14. So in Ms. Vatican Ebr. 130 and most of the printed editions; Ms. Vatican 140: “R. Shim’on b. Eleazar”; Ms. Munich 95: “R. Eliezer.”

15. The Palestinian tradition refers to Aquila as the son of the sister of Hadrian; see Peter Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981, pp. 242–244.

16. m Sanh 10:1; see above, p. 32.

17. b Ber 17a–b; see above, pp. 30ff.

18. t Sanh 13:4f.

19. t Sanh 13:5.

20. It is God who prevented Balaam from cursing Israel, and Deut. 23:6 says explicitly: “But the Lord, your God, refused to heed Balaam.”

21. b Er 21b.

22. “Scribes” (soferim) is here understood as referring to the (rabbinic) scholars.

23. b Er 21b.

24. Obviously reading the Hebrew lahag harbe (“much study”) as la’ag ha-rabbanim (“ridiculing the rabbis”).

25. How he arrives from yegi'at basar ("weariness of the flesh") at ta'am basar ("taste of flesh") is his secret. (“taste of flesh”) is his secret. The Soncino translation suggests that he turns the 'at in yegi'at to ta' in ta'am (not bothered by the fact that the yegi'at is a taw and the t in ta'am a tet).

26. In other words, that our narrative in b Gittin refers to b Eruvin, as Maier suggests (Jesus von Nazareth, p. 98).

27. See above, ch. 2.

28. Also, the similarity of the punishments for Balaam and Jesus/the sinners of Israel (hot semen and hot excrement) makes it highly probable that the hot excrement punishment originated in the context of our b Gittin story rather than of b Eruvin.

29. As Maier again takes for granted (Jesus von Nazareth, p. 98). Quite the opposite seems to be the case if we follow the logic of the story: Jesus is the climax at the end and as such the “sinner of Israel” par excellence.

30. Mt. 15:1–20; Mk. 7:1–23; Lk. 11:37–41.

31. Mt. 15:17–20; Mk. 7:18–23.

32. The credit—or the blame (depending on the viewpoint)—for this particularly bold interpretation must be given to Israel Yuval: in this case, I still remember vividly that when we were preparing our seminar and were pressing the obvious analogy between Balaam and Jesus, he suddenly came up with this suggestion, which has the advantage of taking seriously the particular punishment of Jesus.

33. Mt. 26:26–28; Mk. 14:22–24; Lk. 22:19–20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–26.

34. Ignatius, Letter to the community of Smyrna 7:1 (Early Christian Fathers, vol. 1, trans. and ed. by Cyril C. Richardson, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953, p. 114). And see Justin, Apol. I:66.

35. John 6:48–58.

36. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, p. 71, comes to a different conclusion. He sees here, put into the mouth of Jesus, an echo of Augustine’s theological claim to protect the life of the Jews and to save them for future salvation. (Ibid., pp. -174)

Further Reading

Jesus in the Rabbinic Traditions