Jesus in the Talmud

168 Notes to Chapter 611. The name is erased in Ms. Munich.12. Lit. “they hanged him.”13. The name is erased in Ms. Munich.14. Again only in Ms. Firenze.15. The name is again erased in Ms. Munich.16. Same.17. If we understand Abaye’s comment as the herald referring to the precisetime of the execution, he contradicts the following interpretation of the Mishnalemma (“not beforehand”), which is certainly possible but does not go well withthe structure of the sugya: Abaje would agree with the Baraita, which contradictsthe anonymous interpretation of the Mishna lemma.18. I owe this clarification to a remark by Richard Kalmin.19. This has also been argued by Maier, Jesus von Nazareth, p. 223.20. m Sanh 6:4; see also Sifre Deuteronomy, 221 (ed. Finkelstein, pp.253–255). On m Sanh 6 see now Beth A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention:Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 65–94.21. That the hanging is performed on a tree is evident from Deut. 21:22f.; onthe Mishna’s interpretation of “tree,” see the following discussion.22. Lit. “blessed” (a euphemism for “cursed”).23. The name of God.24. It can also mean (literally): “a curse of God.”25. In conspicuously leaving out the stoning and mentioning only the hanging,the Talmud is obviously influenced by the New Testament narrative andidentifies hanging with “hanging on the tree = cross” = being crucified.26. m Sanh 7:4.27. m Sanh 7:10.28. Ibid., end of the Mishna; see also ibid., 10:4.29. m Sanh 7:11.30. For a summary of the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ trial (neatly distinguishingbetween primary and secondary traditions and editorial accretions), see Winter,Trial of Jesus, pp. 136–148; much more thorough is Raymond E. Brown, TheDeath of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the PassionNarratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1994. For acritique of what he calls “critical ignorance” of some of recent New Testamentscholarship, see Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1995, pp. 41–58. Much as these analyses may (or may not) contribute to