Jesus in the Talmud

Jesus’ Execution 69Jews interpret this claim as his declaration to be the Son of God (andhence as blasphemy), 32 whereas Pilate concludes from it that Jesus wantsto be the king of the Jews/of Israel (and hence is to be regarded as a politicaltroublemaker). 33 The New Testament does not explicitly mention thecharge of sorcery, but the first charge brought against Jesus by the (false)witnesses is the alleged claim that he is able to destroy the Temple and torebuild it in three days: 34 this claim could easily be understood by the Talmudeditors as sorcery. Moreover, Jesus’ practice of casting out demons isexplicitly connected with the messianic claim 35 and may indeed be presupposedin the trial before the High Court. Interestingly enough, whenCelsus portrays Jesus as returning with “certain magical powers” fromEgypt, he concludes that “because of these powers, and on account ofthem [he] gave himself the title of God,” 36 clearly connecting sorcery withthe claim to be God. It is futile, therefore, to contrast too narrowly thecharge of blasphemy (New Testament) with the charge of idolatry/sorcery(Bavli). 37 The narratives in both the New Testament and the Bavli aremuch more complex and “thicker” than so minimalist an approach isable to reveal. Again, it is not a (alleged) talmudic source for the trial ofJesus that is at stake here (and needs to be refuted) but the talmudic readingand interpretation of the New Testament narrative. As far as thecharge is concerned, both are closer than one might expect at first glance.As to the procedure of the execution, the Gospel narrative clearlyagrees with the mishnaic procedure according to which the witnesses,particularly in criminal cases, must be investigated most thoroughly in orderto avoid false testimony. 38 Both Matthew and Mark inform us that theSanhedrin needed witnesses to proceed with the trial, 39 but that the legalprocedure was a farce from the outset—and hence in disagreement withthe Mishna—insofar as the Sanhedrin was deliberately looking for falsewitnesses. 40 Finally the members of the Sanhedrin did find two concurrentwitnesses, as required by the law, who put forward the accusation ofthe destruction and rebuilding (within three days) of the Temple. 41 SinceJesus did not respond to this obviously fabricated accusation, the HighPriest came up with the most devastating charge of the alleged blasphemy:Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, which Jesus answeredaffirmatively (Mark) 42 or at least ambiguously (Matthew). 43 In viewof this evident mistrial, it is a matter of course that the Gospel narrative