A. Jordan, Jesus the Nazarene: The Talmud and the Founder of Christianity
Wipf & Stock, Eugene Oregon. 2023: 173 pp.
This is the final installment of a book report on A. Jordan’s Jesus the Nazarene, which is the first of its kind: a Jewish endorsement of the mythicist theory. The author argues that a single prophet living in the early first century BCE founded the Christian religion, that he is known in Jewish sources as Yeshu ha-Notsri, and so on. (A list of ten points was given here.)
Some positives of the book:
(1) Jordan takes seriously what the Talmud has to say about the Hasmonean-era Jesus/Yeshu. Very few New Testament scholars do so.
(2) In the course of Jesus the Nazarene, extensive citations are furnished from rabbinic texts. These save the average reader a great deal of trouble looking up citations in an unfamiliar corpus of literature.
(3) On pp. 73–78 Jordan zeros in on the sect of the Nasarenes (with sigma), discussed by Epiphanius in his Panarion (sect number 18). This is the correct sect to discuss when it comes to the first Christians. Jordan calls them “Nasaraeans” and points out their possible relationship to the Enochic tradition and to the Mandeans. He also correctly notes that the root of “Nasarene” is the same as the root of “Notsri” (both with a tsade rather than a zeta), meaning “watch, guard, keep, preserve.” These important points are fruitful paths for future research into Christian origins. Jordan closes the chapter by observing: “It is my contention that Jesus was a member of this sect and the title ha notsri refers to his identification as a Nasaraean.” I agree and go a step further: Jesus/Yeshu was the founder of the sect of the Nasarenes.
A Jewish perspective
Though a talmudic expert, the author is unfortunately poorly acquainted with Christian scholarship and uses the Jewish Encyclopedia as his primary reference. He demonstrates little or no acquaintance with form criticism and other tools of New Testament exegesis, taking the 4G at face value. He assumes that Jesus (or Yeshu?) actually did have a prostitute wash his feet with expensive ointment, actually did sit at table without washing his hands, actually did curse a fig tree for not producing fruit, and so on. Jordan does not suspect that the authenticity of at least some Pauline epistles is denied by a majority of scholars, that the epistles were written by more than one hand, that some are collections of shorter works, or even that the existence of Paul is called into question by certain scholars—including by Robert Price, who contributed a blurb on the back cover of Jesus the Nazarene. Without a critical eye, Jordan lumps the Talmud and the New Testament records together and searches them for clues to the renegade prophet, whom he finally concludes was “insane” (p. 88).
The author of Jesus the Nazarene also uncritically treats outlandish Jewish texts with respect. Consider the following Talmudic passage:
However, Rabbi Eliezer proceeds to attempt to convince the Rabbis through his manipulation of natural phenomena. First, he causes a carob tree to be uprooted from its place. Then, he caused a stream of water to flow backwards, afterward causing the walls of the study hall to lean inward. (P. 63)
Really? In this 21st century does anybody believe such things could actually happen? On the next page Jordan observes: “Jewish magicians were well-renowned in the ancient world.” But scholars today will only shrug, for they are interested in history, not magic.
A revealing statement occurs on the first page of Jesus the Nazarene: “There is no reason to die to make a claim about Jesus.” This statement is astonishing from the view of Christianity, with its long tradition of martyrdom and the example of Jesus/Yeshu who himself died on the cross and who ostensibly preached “No one has greater love than this, than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn 15:13). Similar tone deafness to the ethos of Christianity continues a few paragraphs later (p. 2): “[My approach] comes from a spirit of ecumenism and tolerance that has never existed from the Christian side” (emphasis added). This is an unfortunate accusation. Has the author forgotten the strident support Israel receives from the Christian right in the U.S.A. and from evangelicals the world over? Certainly, he will acknowledge that innumerable Jews are well placed in western governments, industry, and society… In our imperfect world, is this not at least a modicum of “ecumenism and tolerance”?
My impression is that Jordan has little understanding of gnosticism—which in this case is critical, for gnosticism was the core of Yeshu’s teaching. The author writes: “Gnosticism was a secret science that one needed to master after being initiated into a Gnostic group” (p. 67). This common misconception actually defines a mystery religion, like Mithraism. Gnosticism is deeper and broader than “a secret science” and primarily refers to man’s eternal search for understanding. Such a view completely escapes Jordan. He writes that “Gnosticism was fairly widespread throughout pre-Christian times. It was found in the archeological record from ancient times, and even with some possible references in the Hebrew Scriptures” (p. 8). This is true enough, but it does not sound like a “secret science” or “being initiated into a Gnostic group.”
In this book the author follows a long tradition of those seeking to reclaim Jesus as a Jew. But I have a message for such scholars: they are far too late. Those who shrilly announce that “Jesus was a Jew” must acknowledge that the Jews themselves excommunicated Yeshu/Jesus during the prophet’s lifetime. That separation is a critical point, for it eventually created the Christian religion. The Jewish establishment ejected Yeshu from the fold—that is what “excommunication” means—it is an acknowledgement that “you are no longer one of us.” From the moment that Perachiah excommunicated his protégé Yeshu (probably in 76 BCE, when the young man was twenty-four years old) Yeshu and his followers were no longer considered “Jews.” This separation was not contested by Jews of the time, nor by the Hellenist Christians who found it necessary to form a separate Church—for no place existed for them in Judaism. This is the history we have, and one does not conveniently “take back” history and undo it—especially not when so much blood has beens spilled through the centuries.
Writers like Rabbi Jordan, Rabbi Faur (author of The Gospel According to the Jews—which Jordan cites multiple times), and Geza Vermes (Jesus the Jew) cannot have it both ways. Their ancestors cannot excommunicate a prophet on the one hand and their descendants then reclaim him as a “Jew.” If Yeshu was not deemed a Jew when alive, he will not be deemed a Jew when dead.
The Talmud accused Yeshu ha-Notsri of “leading all the people astray” and of apostasy. Those were the twin reasons that the Sanhedrin subjected the prophet to a model religious trial and execution. Obviously, this has had momentous repercussions through history. In my opinion Yeshu ha-Notsri (albeit in the veiled form of Jesus of Nazareth) eventually became the compass of Western civilization. What the head (nasi) of the Sanhedrin, Yehoshua ben Perachiah, did 2,100 years ago by excommunicating the prophet stands. What the Sanhedrin did by executing him 2,088 years ago also stands.
And, of course, what they did in both cases was very wrong.
← Previous