February 16, 2010

  • Jesus the Pharisee:Trial of Jesus and the View of Early Christianity

     It is difficult to write about the crucifixion of Jesus.  Rivers of Jewish blood have been shed because of it, despite the fact that it was Romans, and not Jews, who performed the execution.  But the Gospels insist that a Jewish Sanhedrin delivered him up to the Romans, after adjudging him guilty.  The most enigmatic aspect of all this is that scholars have been unable to ascertain with any degree of precision the cause of the guilt.  Some have suggested blasphemy, others that he claimed to be the Messiah, but all such theories lack substance when scrutinized in the light of Jewish law .

    I should like to suggest a different approach based on R. Jacob Emden's thesis that Jesus of Nazareth had sought to establish a religion for the Gentiles based upon the Noahide Commandments.  The Christian Bible tells us John 11:49-51; 18:14) that the High Priest Caiaphas, who had convened the Sanhedrin to try Jesus, said to them, "It is better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed." This phrase is found virtually verbatim in one rabbinic source (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 94:9) in conjunction with a Halakhic ruling which was discussed some two hundred years after Jesus' crucifixion.  We shall seek to demonstrate that this later case bears a direct relationship to Caiaphas' remark and the resultant crucifixion.

    The Halakha under discussion there states (Tosefta, Terumot 7:23) that if a group of traveling Jews are suddenly confronted by Gentiles who demand that they hand over a Jew to them to be killed, or else they will all be murdered, they must all agree to die and not hand over one of their number.  However, if the Gentiles identify a specific Jew to be handed over, he should be given to them. 

     
     It is then related (Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot, end ch. 8, and Midrash Genesis Rabbah 94:9) that a certain Ulla bar Koshev-apparently a member of the rabbinic community-was once sentenced to death by the Romans, and he sought protection at the home of the third century C.E. Sage R. Joshua ben Levi.  Representatives of the Romans soon appeared in the town, and threatened to kill a large number of Jews if Ulla was not turned over to them.  The Jerusalem Talmud records that the Sage then spoke to Ulla, convinced him to surrender, and handed him over to the Romans.  But the Midrash is more explicit, and quotes R. Joshua as uttering basically the same words spoken two hundred years earlier by Caiaphas, "It is better that you should die than that the community  should be punished because of you," and R. Joshua then handed him over to the Romans.

          The Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash then tell us that R. Joshua ben Levi had previously been frequently visited by the prophet Elijah (according to the Taimuds, exemplary pious sages were accorded this honor), but the Prophet ceased visiting him following this incident.  R. Joshua fasted for a long time, until Elijah finally appeared to him.  Angrily, Elijah rebuked the Sage, "I do not visit those who hand over a Jew.  " R. Joshua replied in self-defense, "Did I not act in accordance with the Mishnah (teaching or law)?" Ulla had of course been identified by the Gentiles as the one causing the danger, and it was therefore permitted to surrender him in order to save the other lives.  The Prophet again reprimanded him, "Is this the Mishnah of the Hasidim (pious ones)?" The usual interpretation here is that although R. Joshua had acted in accordance with the law, the Hasidim (truly pious) were expected to act beyond the letter of the law, and someone other than the sage should have handed Ulla over to the Romans .
     
    However, this is difficult, especially as we do not find any precedent in Jewish law to differentiate between Hasidim and others where danger to life is involved . (The Halakhic principle involved here is that of the "rodef" [pursuer], i.e., one who pursues an innocent person with the intent of killing him,any individual having the right and obligation to save the pursued innocent,even if it necessitates slaying the pursuer [see Sanhedrin 72B-74A]  .)33

    Since we have established that the formula spoken by Caiaphas and R. Joshua ben Levi pertained to the same Halakha, there is a more profound analogy here.  In previous posts the opinion is shown many times  that Christianity as a religion for the Gentiles was founded by the Hasidim-the Essenes and disciples of Hillel from whose midst Jesus of Nazareth emerged.  I have also demonstrated that the Pharisees criticized by Jesus were the School of Shammal, who dominated Jewish life and thought in Jesus' time, and therefore were the Pharisees in control of Caiaphas' Sanhedrin as well.  Bet Shammai would have been opposed to Christianity on two grounds.

            First, they held salvation of the Gentiles to be impossible, for, according to them, even those Gentiles who observed the Noahide Commandments did not merit a share in the World to Come, as per R. Eliezer (Sanhedrin 105A).  The only mitigating factor would have been that such a Gentile religion might have helped the Jews especially in the long exile foretold by the prophets, which was soon to begin.  Perhaps Rome's conversion to Christianity might even have saved the Jerusalem Temple, as the Romans would have been brought closer to the Torah of Moses.  But Bet Shammai's negative attitude toward the Gentiles would have dismissed such a stance.  They would have argued that if the pagans received a new religion based on the Torah of Moses, it would only be a matter of time before they would insist that theirs was the only true religion, thatJews be missionized, and even persecuted and forced to embrace their new faith.  A "new covenant" to the Gentiles would come to mean a breaking with the old, rather than a strengthening and reaffirmation . According to Bet Shammai, such a new religion would not lead to brotherhood under God, but to the murder and persecution of Jews .

         We may now attempt to comprehend the session of the Sanhedrin as recorded in John (I 1:47).  The priests and Pharisees said, "If we let him go on like this, the whole world will believe in him.  Then the Romans will come in and sweep away our Sanctuary and our nation." In other words, they feared that if the Roman rulers should embrace Christianity, they would destroy the Temple and Jewish government.  Caiaphas then pointed out to them that the main issue was not the Temple or government, but Jewish lives!  Christians would murder Jews!  Jesus would have then been accounted as a "pursuer" (rodef) of the innocent under Jewish law, and it was for this reason that he was sentenced to death.

          Needless to say, the Hasidim-Bet Hillel and the Essenes-held a different view of the Gentile world.  Hillel had taught "Love mankind and bring them nigh to the Torah," and the Essenes had given as their goal "to love all the sons of light.  R. Joshua ben Hananiah of Bet Hillel gave their tradition (Sanhedrin 105A)-which is accepted by all Jewry since the Heavenly Voice's intervention in favor of Bet Hillel-that those Gentiles who observe the Noahide Commandments merit a share in the World to Come.  To them the Gentiles were not a threat, and certainly not murderers.  To the Hasidim, the Gentiles would become brothers in God's Kingdom.  I would venture to say therefore that Jesus of Nazareth was mainly motivated by just such a hope: that the conversion of Rome to Christianity-according to the Noahide Commandments of the Torah of Moses-would save the Temple.

         Unfortunately,the beliefs of Bet Shammai and the Saducee Zealot priests were the ones that came true.The lack of understanding of the Judaic concepts that spawned the Christian movement and what the real meaning of what was said in their texts,led to its break away from brotherghood with Judaism and a millinium and a half of murder,torture and forced conversion.

          It is only today that Christianity seeks its roots with a desire to understand the cultural and historical aspects of the first century.

    Through earlier posts,I have shown by examination of what the two schools taught,that it was the one's that applied the concepts of Bet Shammai to thier beliefs that opposed the early Christians.The Saducee,who had ties to Rome,the Zealots that were violently anti-gentile,and the sect of Pharasee that believed no Gentile could merit the World to Come.

       With regard to Bet Hillel's relationship with early Christianity, attention should here be drawn to R. Gamaliel the Elder's intervention in order to save the lives of the Apostles, after they had been sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34).  In his statement to the latter body-which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (5:39)-this grandson of Hiliel states, "If it (Christianity) does in fact come from God you will not only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves fighting against God." (See R. Jacob Emden's comment in Lechem Shamayzm to Avot 4: 1 1, where he refers to Christianity and Islam as an "assembly for the sake of Heaven" which will in the end be established.) R. Gamaliel thereby offers a strong indication that he knew what the ultimate purpose of its founder was-namely, as a religion for the Gentiles according to the Halakha.

           I have also previously pointed out  that the Jewish-Christians who initially opposed Paul and refused to admit uncircumcised Gentiles into the Christian Church were influenced by the teachings of certain Pharisees who had joined them (Acts 15:5); we now understand that those Pharisees were Shammaites who would have given their School's position that even those Gentiles who observe the Noahide Commandments do not merit a share in the World to Come, and this position caused the error of the Apostles.  Paul, like Jesus before him, had ties to Bet Hillel, and knew the Hillelite view that righteous Gentiles merit salvation.  Accordingly, Paul's statements concerning Jews must also be viewed within the same context of protest against Bet Shammai's influence in his time.

              Jewish scholars have long been mystified as to why Simeon son of Hillel and father of R. Gamaliel the Elder-who served as Nasi(leader of the Sanheddrin) following Hillel's death, is not quoted or discussed even once in the entire Talmudic literature (except for the brief statement that he succeeded Hillel [Shabbat 15A]).  I believe that the Talmud is thereby telling us that the School of Hillel reached its nadir in his time, and that he had no say at all in the affairs of the community.

            Returning now to the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash, we realize that R. Joshua ben Levi is not recorded as having approached the Romans in an attempt to save Ulla's life.  If he would have spoken to them as a rabbi of God's love for humanity, of man being created in the image of God, or similar teachings, perhaps they would have relented and spared Ulla.  He made no attempt however to plead with the Romans.  The Prophet Elijah thus rebuked R. Joshua ben Levi for uttering Caiaphas'words and handing over a Jew.  When R. Joshua replied that he had acted within the law, the Prophet reminded him that this was not "Mishnat Ha-Hasidim, that a true Hasid would have first endeavored to speak to the Gentiles, to intervene and attempt to teach and inspire them.  A Hasid had to see the best in humanity.  Since R. Joshua had not acted in such a manner, he was not worthy of the Prophet's visitation.  Thus, Elijah's condemnation was in reality directed simultaneously toward Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin as well, for they too had handed over a Jew, and not judged the Gentiles as the Hasidim had.

    The Jerusalem Talmud in fact gives the Prophet's rebuke as "Is this the Mishnah of the Hasidim?" to which the Midrash adds, "Such an act should have been carried out by others, and not by you." But here again the Midrash does not mean to imply that R. Joshua should have bowed out of the picture, while someone else surrendered Ulla.  The Prophet is rather saying that some other person should have remained with Ulla, ready to hand him over at a later time should the Sage's mission to the Gentiles prove fruitless.

        We should also note that after giving the Tosefta's ruling that the Jew identified by the Gentiles may be handed over and immediately prior to the incident involving the Prophet Elijah-the Jerusalem Talmud records a dispute between the two third century C.E. Amoraim, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.  According to the latter, he may be handed over only if he is guilty of a capital offense according to the Torah, whereas

    R.    Johanan rules that even a completely innocent person may be surrendered to the Gentiles.  It is entirely possible then that Ulla bar Koshev was really an innocent man despite an unjust Roman conviction, and this led to the Prophet's condemnation (Turei Zahav  initially offers this interpretation, but abandons it because he believes Maimonides to have assumed that Ulla was guilty of a crime).  If this were so, two important questions before the Sanhedrin at Jesus' trial would have been, first, whether an innocent man may be handed over, and second, whether a mission to the Gentiles takes precedence.The term "Mishnah of the Hasidim" would then apply both to Resh Lakish's opinion (which would explain why Maimonides adopted his view, even though R. Johanan's opinion is always accepted) and to the mission.

         Our previous identification and analysis of the mission of the Hasidim to the Gentiles two centuries earlier has thus enabled us to offer this new understanding of the Prophet's reference to "Mishnah of the Hasidim."

       It would seem that R. Judah Ha-Nasi-a descendant of Hillel in the second century C.E. who compiled the most important work of Jewish law, the Mishnah-left Bet Hillel's view of Caiaphas for posterity by referring to him (Parah 3:5) as Ha-Kof (the monkey), a play on his name  which would be related to his remark before the Sanhedrin.