Jesus in the Talmud

Jesus’ Execution 71moreover had sent out a herald to proclaim this sentence publicly fortydays before the execution (an unusually long period, not required in theMishna), so that everybody could know it and, if necessary, had ampletime to come up with exonerating evidence to prevent a wrong judgment.Hence, in providing the forty-day period the Bavli intends to expose Jesusonce more as a swindler and false prophet who makes a fool of himself inclaiming to predict what everybody already knew.Now the death penalty and execution. Here we have a major discrepancybetween the New Testament and the Talmud: according to the NewTestament Jesus was crucified (obviously following Roman law), 48 whereasaccording to the Talmud he was stoned and subsequently hanged (followingrabbinic law). The reason for this, of course, was the simple fact thatthe Sanhedrin could not impose and execute the death penalty but had torely on the Roman authority, which followed Roman and not rabbinic law.So shall we conclude from this that the Talmud does not preserve any reliableevidence about the (historical) trial and execution of Jesus, and insteadimposes on him later rabbinic law? 49 Yes, of course, but again, thisis the wrong question. Not the historical execution—crucifixion versusstoning/hanging—is at stake here but the question of why the Talmudregards it as a matter of course, or rather insists, that Jesus was executedaccording to rabbinic law.To answer this question, the rabbis were certainly aware that crucifixionwas the standard Roman death penalty, 50 that Jesus was indeed crucifiedand not stoned and hanged. Hence, why their stubborn insistence on thelatter? Because this is precisely the core of their polemical counternarrativeto the Gospels. The author of our Bavli Baraita does not need to distort theNew Testament report as such: the fact that Jesus was put on trial and executedlike an ordinary criminal was devastating enough—such a story canhardly be made any worse. Instead, of the two (and indeed conflicting) storiesabout Jesus’ trial in the New Testament he chooses the “Jewish” oneand completely ignores the “Roman” one. Unlike Pilate, who emphasizesthe political part of the charge against Jesus, our Bavli author adopts andinterprets the version of the trial before the Sanhedrin, combining it withthe mishnaic law: the accusation and condemnation of a blasphemer andidolater, who leads astray all of Israel. We, the Jews, he argues, have puthim on trial and executed him for what he was: a blasphemer, who