The Pharisees, and those of the Sanhedrim who had not fallen into his hands, sought safety in flight. It was then probably that Jehoshua, son of Perachia, went down into Egypt and was accompanied by Jeschu.

Jehoshua was buried at Chittin, but the exact date of his death is not known.85

Alexander Jannaeus died B.C. 79, after a reign of twenty-seven years, whilst besieging the castle of Ragaba on the further side of Jordan.

It will be seen at once that the date of the Talmudic Jeschu is something like a century earlier than that of the Jesus of the Gospels.

Moreover, it cannot be said that Jewish tradition asserts their identity. On the contrary, learned Jewish writers have emphatically denied that the Jeschu of the Talmud is the Jesus of the Gospels.

In the “Disputation” of the Rabbi Jechiels with Nicolas, a convert, occurs this statement. “This (which is related of Jesus and the Rabbi Joshua, son of Perachia) contains no reference to him whom Christians honour as a God;” and then he points out that the impossibility of reconciling the dates is enough to prove that the disciple of Joshua Ben Perachia was a person altogether distinct from the Founder of Christianity.

The Rabbi Lippmann86 gives the same denial, and shows that Jesus of the Gospels was a contemporary of Hillel, whereas the Jeschu of the anecdote lived from two to three generations earlier.

The Rabbi Salman Zevi entered into the question with great care in a pamphlet, and produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jeschu of the Talmud was not the Jesus, son of Mary, of the Evangelists.87

We can see now how it was that the Jew of Celsus brought against our Lord the charge of having learned magic in Egypt. He had heard in the Rabbinic schools the anecdote of Jeschu, pupil of Jehoshua, son of Perachia, – an anecdote which could scarcely fail to be narrated to all pupils. He at once concluded that this Jeschu was the Jesus of the Christians, without troubling himself with the chronology.

In the Mischna, Tract. Sabbath, fol. 104, it is forbidden to make marks upon the skin. The Babylonish Gemara observes on this passage: “Did not the son of Stada mark the magical arts on his skin, and bring them with him out of Egypt?” This son of Stada is Jeschu, as will presently appear.

In the Mischna of Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 43, it is ordered that he who shall be condemned to death by stoning shall be led to the place of execution with a herald going before him, who shall proclaim the name of the offender, and shall summon those who have anything to say in mitigation of the sentence to speak before the sentence is put in execution.

On this the Babylonish Gemara remarks, “There exists a tradition: On the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jeschu. For forty days did the herald go before him and proclaim aloud, He is to be stoned to death because he has practised evil, and has led the Israelites astray, and provoked them to schism. Let any one who can bring evidence of his innocence come forward and speak! But as nothing was produced which could establish his innocence, he was crucified on the rest-day of the Passah (i. e. the day before the Passover).”

The Mischna of Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 67, treats of the command in Deut. xiii. 6-11, that any Hebrew who should introduce the worship of other gods should be stoned with stones. On this the Gemara of Babylon relates that, in the city of Lydda, Jeschu was heard through a partition endeavouring to persuade a Jew to worship idols; whereupon he was brought forth and crucified on the eve of the Passover. “None of those who are condemned to death by the Law are spied upon except only those (seducers of the people). How are they dealt with? They light a candle in an inner chamber, and place spies in an outer room, who may watch and listen to him (the accused). But he does not see them. Then he whom the accused had formerly endeavoured to seduce says to him, ‘Repeat, I pray you, what you told me before in private.’ Then, should he do so, the other will say further, ‘But how shall we leave our God in heaven and serve idols?’ Now should the accused be converted and repent at this saying, it is well; but if he goes on to say, That is our affair, and so and so ought we to do, then the spies must lead him off to the house of judgment and stone him. This is what was done to the son of Stada at Lud, and they hung him up on the eve of the Passover.”88 And the Tract. Sanhedrim says, “It is related that on the eve of the Sabbath they crucified Jeschu, a herald going before him,” as has been already quoted; and then follows the comment: “Ula said, Will you not judge him to have been the son of destruction, because he is a seducer of the people? For the Merciful says (Deut. xiii. 8), Thou shalt not spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him. But I, Jesus, am heir to the kingdom. Therefore (the herald) went forth proclaiming that he was to be stoned because he had done an evil thing, and had seduced the people, and led them into schism. And (Jeschu) went forth to be stoned with stones because he had done an evil thing, and had seduced the people and led them into schism.”

The Babylonish Gemara to the Mischna of Tract. Sabbath gives the following perplexing account of the parents of Jeschu:89 “They stoned the son of Stada in Lud (Lydda), and crucified him on the eve of the Passover. This Stada's son was Pandira's son. Rabbi Chasda said Stada's husband was Pandira's master, namely Paphos, son of Jehuda. But how was Stada his mother? His (i. e. Pandira's) mother was a woman's hair-dresser. As they say in Pombeditha (the Babylonish school by the Euphrates), this one went astray (S'tath-da) from her husband.”

The Gloss or Paraphrase on this is: “Stada's son was not the son of Paphos, son of Jehuda; No. As Rabbi Chasda observed, Paphos had a servant named Pandira. Well, what has that to do with it? Tell us how it came to pass that this son was born to Stada. Well, it was on this wise. Miriam, the mother of Pandira, used to dress Stada's hair, and … Stada became a mother by Pandira, son of Miriam. As they say in Pombeditha, Stada by name and Stada by nature.”90

The obscurity of the passage arises from various causes. R. Chasda is a punster, and plays on the double meaning of “Baal” for “husband” and “master.” There is also ambiguity in the pronoun “his;” it is difficult to say to whom it always refers. The Paraphrase is late, and is a conjectural explanation of an obscure passage.

It is clear that the Jeschu of the Talmud was the son of one Stada and Pandira. But the name Pandira having the appearance of being a woman's name,91

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Joseph. Antiq. xii. 5; 1 Maccab. i. 11-15, 43, 52; 2 Maccab. iv. 9-16.

πονήροι, ἀσεβεῖς. – Antiq. xiii. 4, xii. 10.

Baba-Kama, fol. 82; Menachoth, fol. 64; Sota, fol. 49; San-Baba, fol. 90.

Menachoth, fol. 99.

Baba-Kama, fol. 63.

Mass. Sopherim, c. i. in Othonis Lexicon Rabbin. p. 329.

Philo is not mentioned by name once in the Talmud, nor has a single sentiment or interpretation of an Alexandrine Jew been admitted into the Jerusalem or Babylonish Talmud.

Aristobulus wrote a book to prove that the Greek sages drew their philosophy from Moses, and addressed his book to Ptolemy Philometor.

Gal. iv. 24, 25.

Col. i. 16.

1 Cor. x. 21.

Dante, Parad. xiv.

See the question carefully discussed in M. F. Delaunay's Moines et Sibylles; Paris, 1874, pp. 28 sq.

See, on this curious topic, C. Aubertin: Sénèque et St. Paul; Paris, 1872.

Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. The Bishop of Caesarea is quoting from Philo's account of the Therapeutae, and argues that these Alexandrine Jews must have been Christians, because their manner of life, religious customs and doctrines, were identical with those of Christians. “Their meetings, the distinction of the sexes at these meetings, the religious exercises performed at them, are still in vogue among us at the present day, and, especially at the commemoration of the Saviour's passion, we, like them, pass the time in fasting and vigil, and in the study of the divine word. All these the above-named author (Philo) has accurately described in his writings, and are the same customs that are observed by us alone, at the present day, particularly the vigils of the great Feast, and the exercises in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among us. He states that, whilst one sings gracefully with a certain measure, the others, listening in silence, join in at the final clauses of the hymns; also that, on the above-named days, they lie on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his own words, abstain altogether from wine and from flesh. Water is their only drink, and the relish of their bread salt and hyssop. Besides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those who administer the ecclesiastical functions committed to them, those of deacons, and the presidencies of the episcopate as the highest. Therefore,” Eusebius concludes, “it is obvious to all that Philo, when he wrote these statements, had in view the first heralds of the gospel, and the original practices handed down from the apostles.”

It is deserving of remark that the turning to the East for prayer, common to the Essenes and primitive Christians, was forbidden by the Mosaic Law and denounced by prophets. When the Essenes diverged from the Law, the Christians followed their lead.

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ιησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή; ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τ᾽ ἀληθῆ δεχομένων; καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν. Καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἵ γε πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες; ἐφάνη γαρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων; εἰς ἔτι νῦν τῶν χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλίπε τὸ φῦλον. – Lib. xviii. c. iii. 3.

Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. iii.

He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ, Contr. Cels. i.

Juvenal, Satir. vi. 546. “Aere minuto qualiacunque voles Judaei somnia vendunt.” The Emperors, later, issued formal laws against those who charmed away diseases (Digest. lib. i. tit. 13, i. 1). Josephus tells the story of Eleazar dispossessing a demon by incantations. De Bello Jud. lib. vii. 6; Antiq. lib. viii. c. 2.

Hist. Eccl. i. 11.

Contr. Cels. i. 47; and again, ii. 13: “This (destruction), as Josephus writes, ‘happened upon account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, called the Christ;’ but in truth on account of Christ Jesus, the Son of God.”

Acts xxiii.

Bibliothec. cod. 33.

Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 17; Epiphan. adv. Haeres. xix. 1.

Epiphan. adv. Haeres. x.

For information on the Essenes, the authorities are, Philo, Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον, and Josephus, De Bello Judaico, and Antiq.

Compare Luke x. 4; John xii. 6, xiii. 29; Matt. xix. 21; Acts ii. 44, 45, iv. 32, 34, 37.

Compare Matt. vi. 28-34; Luke xii. 22-30.

Compare Matt. v. 34.

Compare Matt. vi. 25, 31; Luke xii. 22, 23.

Compare Matt. xv. 15-22.

Compare Matt. vi. 1-18.

From אסא, meaning the same as the Greek Therapeutae.

Compare Luke x. 25-37; Mark vii. 26.

Matt. iv. 16, v. 14, 16, vi. 22; Luke ii. 32, viii. 16, xi. 23, xvi. 8; John i. 4-9, iii. 19-21, viii. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, 10, xii. 35-46.

Luke viii. 10; Mark iv. 12; Matthew xiii. 11-15.

Clem. Homil. xix. 20.

Compare Matt. xv. 3, 6.

The reference to salt as an illustration by Christ (Matt. v. 13; Mark ix. 49, 50; Luke xiv. 34) deserves to be noticed in connection with this.

Clem. Homil. xiv. 1: “Peter came several hours after, and breaking bread for the Eucharist, and putting salt upon it, gave it first to our mother, and after her, to us, her sons.”

Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 9.

Const. Apost. lib. viii. 33.

Acts ii. 46, iii. 1, v. 42.

Acts xv.

Acts i. 22, iv. 2, 33, xxiii. 6.

Acts xxiii. 7.

Acts xv. 5.

Acts xv. 29.

Clem. Homil. vii. 8.

Col. ii. 21.

Gal. iv. 10. When it is seen in the Clementines how important the observance of these days was thought, what a fundamental principle it was of Nazarenism, I think it cannot be doubted that it was against this that St. Paul wrote.

Col. ii. 16.

Clement. Homil. xix. 22.

Gal. v. 2-4.

1 Cor. v. 1.

Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 29.

Ibid.

“Lies der Papisten Bücher, höre ihre Predigen, so wirst du finden, dass diess ihr einziger Grund ist, darauf sie stehen wider uns pochen und trotzen, da sie vorgeben, es sei nichts Gutes aus unserer Lehre gekommen. Denn alsbald, da unser Evangelium anging und sie hören liess, folgte der gräuliche Aufruhr, es erhuben sich in der Kirche Spaltung und Sekten, es ward Ehrbarkeit, Disziplin und Zucht zerrüttet, und Jedermann wolte vogelfrei seyn und thun, was ihm gelüstet nach allem seinen Muthwillen und Gefallen, als wären alle Gesetze, Rechte und Ordnung gans aufhoben, wie es denn leider allzu wahr ist. Denn der Muthwille in allen Ständen, mit allerlei Laster, Sünden und Schanden ist jetzt viel grösser denn zuvor, da die Leute, und sonderlich der Pöbel, doch etlichermassen in Furcht und in Zaum gehalten waren, welches nun wie ein zaumlos Pferd lebt und thut Alles, was es nur gelüstet ohne allen Scheu.” – Ed. Walch, v. 114. For a very full account of the disorders that broke out on the preaching of Luther, see Döllinger's Die Reformation in ihre Entwicklung. Regensb. 1848.

Epistolas, 1528, ii. 192.

1 Cor. xi. 1.

Acts xxi. 23, 24.

James ii. 20.

It is included by Eusebius in the Antilegomena, and, according to St. Jerome, was rejected as a spurious composition by the majority of the Christian world.

Rev. ii. 1, 14, 15.

בלעם, destruction of the people, from בלע, to swallow up, and עם, people = Νικόλαος.

2 Pet. ii. 21.

Τοῦ ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνομον τίνα καὶ φλυαρώδη διδασκαλιάν – Clem. Homil. xx. ed. Dressel, p. 4. The whole passage is sufficiently curious to be quoted. St. Peter writes: “There are some from among the Gentiles who have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the Law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God, which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”

“Apostolum Paulum recusantes, apostatam eum legis dicentes.” – Iren. Adv. Haeres. i. 26. Τὸν δὲ ἀπόστυλον ἀποστάτην καλοῦσι. – Theod. Fabul. Haeret. ii. 1.

Hom. xi. 85.

Hom. iv. 22.

Clem. Homil. ii. 38-40, 48, iii. 50, 51.

Of course I mean the designation given to the Pauline sect, not the religion of Christ.

Adv. Haeres. i. 24.

Origen, Contr. Cels. lib. viii.

Ibid. lib. vi.

Contra Cels. lib. i.

Ibid. lib. ii.

Amongst others, Clemens: Jesus von Nazareth, Stuttgart, 1850; Von der Alme: Die Urtheile heidnischer und jüdischer Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 1864.

Adv. Haer. lib. iii; Haer. lxviii. 7.

“Quantae traditiones Pharisaeorum sint, quas hodie vocant δευτερώσεις et quam aniles fabulae, evolvere nequeo: neque enim libri patitur magnitudo, et pleraque tam turpia sunt ut erubescam dicere.”

Haeres. xiii.

Beracoth, xi. a.

Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 107, and Sota, fol. 47.

Bartolocci: Bibliotheca Maxima Rabbinica, sub. nom.

Sepher Nizzachon, n. 337.

Eisenmenger: Neuentdecktes Judenthum, I. pp. 231-7. Königsberg, 1711.

Tract. Sabbath, fol. 67.

Ibid. fol. 104.

The passage is not easy to understand. I give three Latin translations of it, one by Cl. Schickardus, the second quoted from Scheidius (Loca Talm. i. 2). “Filius Satdae, filius Pandeirae fuit. Dixit Raf Chasda: Amasius Pandeirae, maritus Paphos filius Jehudae fuit. At quomodo mater ejus Satda? Mater ejus Mirjam, comptrix mulierum fuit.” “Filius Stadae filius Pandirae est. Dixit Rabbi Chasda: Maritus seu procus matris ejus fuit Stada, iniens Pandiram. Maritus Paphus filius Judae ipse est, mater ejus Stada, mater ejus Maria,” &c. Lightfoot, Matt. xxvii. 56, thus translates it: “Lapidârunt filium Satdae in Lydda, et suspenderunt eum in vesperâ Paschatis. Hic autem filius Satdae fuit filius Pandirae. Dixit quidem Rabb Chasda, Maritus (matris ejus) fuit Satda, maritus Pandira, maritus Papus filius Judae: sed tamen dico matrem ejus fuisse Satdam, Mariam videlicet, plicatricem capillorum mulierum: sicut dicunt in Panbeditha, Declinavit ista a marito suo.”

פנדירה. As a man's name it occurs in 2 Targum, Esther vii.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента

Купить и скачать всю книгу

<1...4 5 6

На страницу:

Перейти

6 из 6