Jesus in the Talmud

Jesus’ Execution 65With Jesus the Nazarene 16 it was different, for he was close to thegovernment (malkhut).This is a remarkable Bavli sugya. It starts with a comment by Abaye, aBabylonian amora of the early fourth century, arguing that the Mishna’svague “such and such a crime” must be made more precise: the heraldshould not just mention the crime but add the day, hour, and location ofthe crime. Only this more detailed description of the crime’s circumstancesguarantees the validity of the testimony of new witnesses who contradictthe testimony of the original witnesses which had led to the defendant’scondemnation. 17 The clear purpose of Abaye’s statement is tofacilitate the acquittal of the accused.The Bavli then returns to the Mishna lemma that regulates the procedureundertaken by the herald. The anonymous Bavli author clarifies theunambiguous-looking “before him [the convicted]” and specifies: physicallybefore the convicted on his way to the execution and not (chronologically)some other time before the day of the execution. This specification, whichclearly conforms to the plain meaning of the Mishna, meets with a contradictingteaching which proves itself to be an early Baraita, introduced by theformula tanya: the precedent was set, it argues, of Jesus the Nazarene, inwhose case the herald did not go out just before the execution but ratherforty days beforehand (meaning either forty consecutive days before the dayof his execution or just the fortieth day before the execution was carriedout). Whatever the precise meaning of these forty days is (most likely the latter),it becomes clear that this Baraita contradicts the Mishna as it is understoodby the anonymous author of the Bavli, allowing for a considerable intervalbetween the announcement of the herald and the actual execution.This tension between the Mishna/Bavli and the Baraita is “solved” by an exchangebetween Ulla (also a Babylonian amora of the early fourth century)and his anonymous respondent(s): Since Jesus had friends in high places,the Jews took extra precautions before executing him: they went beyond theletter of the law so none of his powerful friends could accuse them of executingan innocent man. 18 Accordingly, this exchange seems to conclude,his case was not a halakhically valid precedent but rather a real exception; 19in other words, the Baraita dos not contradict the Mishna.