15.08.2015 Views

Jesus in the Talmud

4IAjqbGxC

4IAjqbGxC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

110 Chapter 9If <strong>the</strong> whore’s son (bera di-zeneta) tells you:There are two gods,answer him:I am <strong>the</strong> one from <strong>the</strong> sea—and I am <strong>the</strong> one from S<strong>in</strong>ai! [ ...]And if <strong>the</strong> whore’s son tells you:There are two gods,answer him:It is not written here (<strong>in</strong> Deut. 5:4): “Gods 54 spoke (dibberu elohim) [toyou] face to face,” but “The Lord 55 spoke (dibber YHWH) [to you]face to face on <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong>.”As was <strong>the</strong> case with <strong>the</strong> previous midrash, <strong>the</strong> two answers given to <strong>the</strong>heretical question are standard rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>the</strong>ology. The first refers to <strong>the</strong> famousmidrash about God who, despite his various historical manifestations(exemplified by his appearance at <strong>the</strong> Red Sea and on MountS<strong>in</strong>ai), always rema<strong>in</strong>s one and <strong>the</strong> same. Although at <strong>the</strong> Red Sea he appearedas a warrior, and hence a young man, and on Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai as <strong>the</strong>wise and serene giver of <strong>the</strong> Torah, and hence an old man, God is and rema<strong>in</strong>salways <strong>the</strong> same God. He does not change, and one certa<strong>in</strong>ly cannotconclude from his various appearances that <strong>the</strong>re is more than oneGod. 56 Similarly, that God is referred to <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bible verse about <strong>the</strong> revelationon Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular and not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> plural is clear proofthat he is one God and not two or more. 57However, this use of traditional midrashic material does not necessarilymean that our text has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with <strong>Jesus</strong>. 58 Nor does <strong>the</strong> possibilitythat we may <strong>in</strong>stead be deal<strong>in</strong>g with anti-gnostic polemics pose a persuasivecounterargument. 59 Quite on <strong>the</strong> contrary, “gnosticism” is too vague alabel to be of much value—and should not be played off aga<strong>in</strong>st “Christianity”anyhow, s<strong>in</strong>ce often enough nei<strong>the</strong>r can be neatly separated <strong>in</strong> ourrabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources. And <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> argument <strong>in</strong> favor of anti-<strong>Jesus</strong> polemic, ofcourse, is <strong>the</strong> programmatic open<strong>in</strong>g “If <strong>the</strong> whore’s son tells you.” Whoelse could be <strong>the</strong> “son of <strong>the</strong> whore” o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>Jesus</strong>, <strong>the</strong> bastard, bornfrom an adulterous mo<strong>the</strong>r, who dist<strong>in</strong>guishes himself from his fellow rabbisby lead<strong>in</strong>g a life of sexual promiscuity and frivolity? The proposal thatthis disparag<strong>in</strong>g epi<strong>the</strong>t refers, <strong>in</strong>stead of to <strong>Jesus</strong>, just to pagan idolaters 60 is

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!