Does the Talmud back up the New Testament on the account of the trial and execution of Jesus the Son of God. People often argue that there is not much evidence outside the New Testament itself backing up the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Natzerat. Josephus and Tacitus talk about the life and death of Jesus but not extensively, but can the Talmud shed light on the matter?

So you ask first what is the Talmud? Outside of the Torah the Jews had an oral tradition often called the “Oral Torah”. This was laws, customs and traditions that were passed down by word of mouth and not written down. Often called Divrei Orayta, Divrei Torah or Torah Sheba’al Peh תורה שבעל פה and it was very respected and by some people equal to the written Torah. After the destruction of the second Temple a group of Rabbi’s called the Tannaim (teachers in Aramaic) feared the oral tradition would be lost forever, so they set out to write it down.

In the first century ce over a 100 year or so period with an approximate completion date of 189 in the second century ce, the Oral Torah was codified in a book called the Mishnah. The Mishnah which means to repeat or to study was written in six orders often called the “Shas” short for Shisha S’darim meaning six orders and was written in Mishnaic Hebrew which was the next evolution after Biblical Hebrew. Over time the Mishnah was very debated and a commentary developed which was called the “Gemara” which means completion or to finish and the Gemara is what is known as the Talmud (meaning to learn). There are two Gemaras, the first completed Gemara is the Talmud Yerushalmi ( The Jerusalem Talmud ) written not in Jerusalem but in the Galilee region and was written in Galilean Aramaic around 350-400 ce (Some say about 370 ce and other scholars say as late as late as 450 ce ). Then around 500 ce the Talmud Bavli or Babylonian Talmud was completed. This version the Babylonian Talmud is bigger and studied more often. The Babylonian Talmud is what this article will concern.

What does the Talmud say about the trial and death of Jesus of Nazareth? Here is tractate Sanhedrin page 43 verse 20.

וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו. לְפָנָיו – אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא – לָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח תְּלָאוּהוּ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי, וְהַכָּרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם: ״יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁכִּישֵּׁף וְהֵסִית וְהִדִּיחַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כׇּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבוֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו״. וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, וּתְלָאוּהוּ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח.

(from the Mishnah) a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him . And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they s hung his corpse on Passover eve.

Here it says Yeishu ha’Notzri יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִ as the person in question and Yeishu was an Aramaic style for Jesus, and ha’Notzri means the one from Natzrat which is the Hebrew pronunciation of Nazareth. So this does mean Jesus of Nazareth. Plus who else as the above Talmud tractate says, who else was killed on Passover eve, so this is clearly Jesus Christ. The gospel accounts are clear Jesus was killed on Passover eve.

Yes it is very true Jesus or Yeshua was a very common name at the time of the second temple, however no other other famous Jesus was from the very small town of Nazareth. There is simply no historical record of any mentioned Jesus from that small town at all except Jesus Christ. So this is about Jesus our Lord, no doubt but what does all this mean? Also on the issue of is Yeishu derogatory for Yeshua or Yehoshu? Yes sometimes but that is not our concern. My concern is about identity not whether the writers here in the Talmud like Jesus but are they talking about him and they are, so how Yeishu is meant is not the point. Maybe later in Jewish culture more toward the Medieval period Yeishu may have became a pejorative but the name is correct Jewish Babylonian Aramaic for Yeshua, Yehoshua and Jesus.

So despite the the derogatory vitriol toward Jesus this is a powerful witness and let us establish what is says as fact.

1. Jesus of Nazareth or Yeshua/Yeishu ha’Notzri lived historically as a fact and was a substantial religious leader.
2. The leaders of the Jewish establishment accused, convicted and executed Jesus and this fact is not denied.
3. He was executed indeed on the eve of the holiday of Passover as all four Gospels state.

This is where there is agreement but what about the contradictions above in the text.

1. Why does it say the they stoned Jesus and this word here lisakeil לִיסָּקֵל is used meaning “to stone” (kill by stoning). The basic answer is that the Talmud is a commentary on the oral traditions. Oral traditions are often a mix of fact and fiction and there is Rabbinical interest in not validating the New Testament accounts. Instead of saying that Jesus was executed by Rome by request of the ruling Jewish authorities and Crucified by the Roman authorities because he claimed to be the Mashiach/Messiah and Son of the living God. They say instead that witchcraft was the crime in question not sedition as the New Testament says. That stoning was the method of execution not crucifixion. Here it says that “and incited and led astray Yisrael וְהֵסִית וְהִדִּיחַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל . They here admit without admitting that he claimed to be the Son of God. So why admit is was crucifixion? Admitting the crucifixion validates the New Testament for one. We must also remember that even Rome did keep great records on who they executed and so it is also possible that is how the account of the execution of Jesus may have been handed down in the Jewish community.

History does not always agree on how things happened and that is apparent if you read different accounts from different countries on wars for instance. England said Napoleon was short, however Napoleon was 5’6 which was average height at that time in history. England denies that they ever had arrest warrants for John Hancock and Samuel Adams. History is not monolithic and accounts from different eyes vary, that is why the Bible had four Gospels to lock down the account. The Jewish community simply have have recalled the trial of Jesus in that way without malicious intent. The facts in common are very strong evidence for the truth of the New Testament account despite the differences. In modern courts it is not uncommon for different witnesses to disagree on varying details as they testify in court. When two witnesses do agree on a factual detail it is very powerful evidence and almost always believed by a jury. It would have been in Rabbinical interest to not speak of Jesus at all but yet they confirmed more of the New Testament account than they disagreed on.

The Talmud also confirms parts of the New Testament besides just the trial and execution also.

יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁכִּישֵּׁף

Yeishu ha’Notzri was taken out to be stoned for sorcery.

Kiseif כישוף, sorcery or witchcraft. Here is Luke chapter 11:14-16

¹⁴ Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. ¹⁵ But some of them said, “By Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” ¹⁶ Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Here is Matthew 12.22-28

²² Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. ²³ All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

²⁵ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Again here obviously derogatory statement but it backs up the Biblical account that the Pharisees accused Jesus of driving out demons and healing people by magick or witchcraft. Beelzebub is slang term for Lord of all that is disgusting. It comes from the two words baal zevuv meaning Lord of flies and flies then were associated with dung. So Baal zevuv or Beelzebub means something like master of dung. It was a slang term for Satan basically. So let us go a bit farther and explore the Talmud more.

Here is verse 22 in page 43a of Tractate Sanhedrin.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי – מַתַּאי, נַקַּאי, נֶצֶר, וּבוּנִי, וְתוֹדָה. אַתְיוּהּ לְמַתַּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַתַּי יֵהָרֵג? הָכְתִיב ״מַתַּי אָבוֹא וְאֵרָאֶה פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים״? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, מַתַּי יֵהָרֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״מָתַי יָמוּת וְאָבַד שְׁמוֹ״.

Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?

So first thing to point out is the meaning of the term baraita. It means outside in Aramaic and refers to an opinion outside the scope of the Mishnah, the Mishnah is the basis of the Talmud and it’s discussions. So the baraita is significant because it addresses opinions not already expressed in the Mishnah itself.

It says that Jesus had 5 disciples, is this a problem? The fact that Jewish authorities only knew of 5 disciples does not mean there were not more. The Bible itself says Jesus had thousands of followers, the 12 were just the primary main figures. This shows that Jewish authorities only knew of or had incriminating evidence on 5 followers, not his total following.

Is Mattai the Matthew (or Matityahu) of New Testament fame. Perhaps although no record exists of him being tried for sedition along with Jesus, he also also seems absent from the Book of Acts too. We do not know or maybe the Talmud is mistaken on its history or maybe Matthew was jailed and released. This does go to show that there is extra-Biblical evidence of thr disciple Matthew. It could also be possible that Mattai referred above was the Mattias who replaced Yehudah/Judas the betrayer later on.

אַתְיוּהּ לְנַקַּאי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: נַקַּאי יֵהָרֵג? הָכְתִיב ״וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל תַּהֲרֹג״? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, נַקַּאי יֵהָרֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּמִּסְתָּרִים יַהֲרֹג נָקִי

Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isn’t it written: “And the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent Naki.

I would guess this could be the Nicodemus of John 3:3.

3 There was a man among the P’rushim (Pharisees), named Nakdimon (Nicodemus), who was a ruler of the Judeans. ² This man came to Yeshua by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know it is from God that you have come as a teacher; for no one can do these miracles you perform unless God is with him.” ³ “Yes, indeed,” Yeshua answered him, “I tell you that unless a person is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

So Nakai נַקַּאי means blameless or innocent one, from the word naki meaning clean. So Nakai is a Aramaic short name like Mike or Joe from the Hebrew Nakdimon or Greek Nicodemus. Nicodemus being a Phaisee himself would have been known to the Jewish leaders.

אַתְיוּהּ לְנֶצֶר. אָמַר: נֶצֶר יֵהָרֵג? הָכְתִיב ״וְנֵצֶר מִשׇּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶה״? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, נֶצֶר יֵהָרֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה הׇשְׁלַכְתָּ מִקִּבְרְךָ כְּנֵצֶר נִתְעָב״

Here it refers to a follower named Netzer. I would guess that Netzer was a less known anonymous follower. The village name Nazareth or Natzrat is named for netzer which means shoot or branch. The name here Netzer likely just meant “random unknown follower of the man of Nazareth (Jesus).

אַתְיוּהּ לְבוּנִי. אָמַר: בּוּנִי יֵהָרֵג? הָכְתִיב ״בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל״! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, בּוּנִי יֵהָרֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ

Here they talk about a follower named Buni, which likely means my son in Aramaic.

אַתְיוּהּ לְתוֹדָה. אָמַר: תּוֹדָה יֵהָרֵג? הָכְתִיב ״מִזְמוֹר לְתוֹדָה״? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, תּוֹדָה יֵהָרֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹבֵחַ תּוֹדָה יְכַבְּדָנְנִ

Then they brought Toda in to stand trial. Toda said to the judges: Shall Toda be executed? But isn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [toda]” (Psalms 100:1)? They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me” (Psalms 50:23).

The name Toda meaning thank you is related to Judah meaning praise or thanks. This is likely Thaddaeus (the Greek form) the of Jude or Judas other than the one from Kriot the betrayer.

So where any of the disciples tried and convicted with Jesus? I do not know, so you ask why does written history outside the Bible sometimes conflict with the Bible? History is not precisely perfect! Napoleon was not huge but was not short either and George Washington surely lost his teeth young and had false teeth but never really had wooden teeth. I once read that Charlemagne was 7 feet tall and yes Chalemagne was quite tall maybe about 6’4 but was not 7 feet tall. It is very true that Basketball came to its modern form as we know it at Springfield College in Springfield Massachusetts. Basketball itself was played for hundreds of years in Peru and other South American countries. James Naismith an Canadian ex-patriot who taught at Springfield College on Wilbraham Rd in Springfield, MA was on a missionary trip in Peru and saw the game of Basketball being played. Then when back in the US at a summer camp in a small town in Massachusetts called Plainfield not far from where I live today. There in Plainfield was a childrens camp and Naismith was a councelor there and he and the kids played a primitive type Basketball. The campus of that camp exists today still as an adult rehab facility. Then in september back in Springfield the game of Basketball took its current form. So you see the history books are a combination true things and misinformation. The fact that a group of people with every interest against Christianity validated as many facts as they did is a strong witness in my opinion. The fact in and of itself that the Talmud states unequivocally that Jesus of Nazareth was executed on Passover eve is to me proof of the historicity of the Gospels!

So what else can we look at see what the Talmud has in common with the Gospels? So lets look at these quotes for context from various tractates of the Talmud.

• Hagigah 13a: This passage is sometimes quoted as stating that “sacred food was intended for men, but not for dogs” and comparing this to the Torah being for the Chosen People but not Gentiles.
• Mishnah Nedarim 4.3 and Bekhorot 5.6: These texts discuss animal carcasses unfit for Jewish consumption, noting they can be sold to Gentiles or fed to dogs. Scholars argue this mentions them together only because Jewish dietary laws did not apply to either group, not to equate them.

Let us look at something similar in Mathew 15

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

²⁴ He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

²⁶ He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

²⁷ “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Here Jesus gives a test of faith and once the woman passes her daughter is healed. Jesus clearly quotes from the Oral tradition as it was called then, remember the Talmud was codified 500 years later. I think Jesus did this to show the Pharisees that he was not only master of the written word of God but knew the oral customs also.

Now I want to look at the New Testaments claim that the Pharisees were to interested in their own oral traditions and less interested in the word of God and love of God.

So first let us ask who were the Pharisees? The word comes from the Hebrew word P’rushim פְּרוּשִׁים meaning separated ones or that is pious ones more broadly.Most likely coming from the word parash which can mean to apportion in some cases.They were the most prominent group in Jewish thought in second Temple times and after the groups like the Sadducees faded away (maybe became the Kara’ites) the Pharisees would define the direction of Rabbinical thought.

There were two main sub groups of the P’rushim, The House of Hillel who were considered the good Pharisees and The House of Shamai who were the people that Jesus conflicted the most with and were sort of the bad Pharisees. So why did Jesus and Beit (house) Shammai have so many problems.

Here below is Mark chapter 7

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus ² and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. ³ (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. ⁴ When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

⁵ So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

⁶ He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
⁷ They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.

⁸ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

⁹ And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ¹⁰ For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother, and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ¹¹ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— ¹² then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. ¹³ Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Is this true that Beit Shammai forgot God’s law in favor of their own? So let us look at the Talmud a bit in Tractate Sanhedrin 4a-2.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

§ The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages is explained as an example of the more general question of whether the written consonantal text or the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. As Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosei says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, they all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and that the halakha is therefore decided based on the meaning of the word as pronounced, and not on possible alternative readings of the written text.

Also Sanhedrin 4a-7

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. וּבְחַטָּאת – שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר

With regard to Beit Shammai, the proof that they also hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative is as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 36b): Beit Shammai say: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented on the external altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation the offering has effected atonement, even if more presentations are ideally required, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that even with regard to a burnt-offering, which requires multiple presentations of the blood, a single presentation is sufficient to render the offering valid after the fact. But with regard to a sin-offering, it is valid only if there were at least two presentations. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin-offering that one presented with one presentation, it has effected atonement after the fact.

And so for a few verses Beit Shammai elaborates on the authority of the vocalization of the Torah. So now is Beit Hillel in countering in 4a-9

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: קַרְנוֹת, קַרְנַת, קַרְנַת – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, וְאַחַת לְעַכֵּב.

And Beit Hillel say: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text. The word “horns” is written once plene, with a vav, which means that it must be read in the plural; and the other two times the words “horns” and “horns” are written deficient, without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular. Therefore, there are four references to horns here. Three of these presentations are written to indicate that they are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, but the offering is valid even absent their presentation. And the remaining one, i.e., the fourth presentation, is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not presented against at least one horn of the altar. Evidently, Beit Shammai hold the vocalization is authoritative, whereas Beit Hillel hold the consonantal text is authoritative.

It appears here that Beit Shammai holds that the oral tradition of vocalization is authoritative and Beit Hillel sides with consonantal written text .So Beit Shammai’s own opinions do seem to hold true that the Pharisees or at least Beit Shammai favor their tradition over strict observance of the written text .So also in fairness to the House of Shammai there are times when the (there are not vowels in the Hebrew Alpha-Bet or Alef Beit) so a choice must be made on interpretation because some words have the same lettering but differing meanings.

Here is Sanhedrin 4b-14

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם פְּלִיגִי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּשָׁנֵי קְרָא מִמָּסוֹרֶת. אֲבָל הַאי ״חֵלֶב״ וַ״חֲלֵב״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

Rather, the explanation that everyone holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative must be rejected, and it must be explained that the Sages actually do disagree whether it is the vocalization of the Torah or the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written that is authoritative. And in order to explain the unresolved problem with regard to the baraita about the prohibition of cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk, the explanation is that this statement, that they disagree as to whether the vocalization or the tradition is authoritative, applies where the vocalization of the word differs from the tradition of the manner in which the word is written. But in this case the words milk [ḥalev] and fat [ḥelev] are written in an identical manner, as there is no difference in the writing at all, only in the way they are vocalized. Therefore, all agree that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

So here is an interesting point in that one reading of the Torah here in Exodus 23:19

יט רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּֽחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ

The best of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God, do not cook a young male goat in the milk of it’s mother.

This word here חלב if vocalized as chalav or chalev in Biblical times means milk and vocalized cheilev means fat or the choicest portion.In the times of Jesus there were no nikud (nikud means dot or dots) or vowel points in the Bible and that did not happen until about the 7th or 8th centuries CE. So the correct vowel pronunciation was handed down in the oral traditions from generation to generation in the oral Torah that later became the Mishnah which became the basis of the Talmud.

So Beit Shammai has an important and valid point and very often if you read the Talmud their opinions are smarter and more thought out.However here is where Jesus has a point in that Beit Shammai prioritized arguments over legal rulings and making them more profound.Whereas Beit Hillel although wrong on this point showed they loved God more by prioritizing the written text of the Bible itself.Also that Jesus said not that the oral traditions were wrong,quite to the contrary but that the motive of Beit Shammai in being so adherent to the oral custom was because it was their own not for love of God.

Rabbi Hillel was famous for saying “That which is hateful to you do not unto your neighbor ,that is the whole Torah all the rest is commentary”

So Beit Hillel prioritized love of God and your fellow man over the finer points in legal rulings. Not to say those legal rulings were not wise but that Beit Shammai cared more for that wisdom than love of God.

Here is an interaction between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai from the Mishna Shabat 17b

Beit Shammai say: One may spread traps for an animal and birds and fish only if there is sufficient time remaining in the day for them to be trapped in them while it is still day, and Beit Hillel permit doing so even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day.

So you see again that Beit Hillel is more relaxed on rules and Shammai is hyper strict on halakhic (that is legal) interpretation. Meaning that while Beit Hillel placed greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, Shammai was obsessed with every detail inn legal rulings which became more important than God himself. Beit Shammai taught that only the most worthy and learned students should ever be allowed to study Torah. Whereas Beit Hillel said everyone should be allowed to study Torah in hopes it would bring them to repentance. Also I want to point out that by no means am I saying that Beit Hillel in Rabbinical times were Christian (although some may have become followers of Jesus in Jesus’s time) but the later Beit Hillel was not Christian. I am using the contrast to make the point that the New Testament was right by the Pharisees own admissions in later times about what Jesus accused them of. I would imagine that Jesus met Rabbi Hillel because Jesus would have been a teenager when Hillel died so it is very possible they met and spoke at some point and that Hillel may very well have recognized the Messiah before he died in 10 CE.

Here is Matthew 23

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ² “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. ⁴ They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

⁵ “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries (tefillin) wide and the tassels (tzitzit) on their garments long; ⁶ they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; ⁷ they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

Here in Matthew 23 it is clear that Jesus is talking about self righteousness and making a public display thereof.

Here again is Matthew 12

²² Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. ²³ All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

²⁵ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

²⁹ “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

³⁰ “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

My personal take this and the so called unforgivable sin in which is obviously directed at the Pharisees. I personally do not believe the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is directed at any modern person. I do think Jesus was using sarcasm to show the Pharisees that if they are so hard hearted that they cannot recognize their own Messiah then maybe they are beyond help.

I hope you enjoyed this exploration of the subject of the Pharisees in the Gospels. So not just to learn more about them but also show the accuracy of the New Testament by how later Rabbinical writings show why the Gospels are accurate. This is important because so many skeptics argue that there not a lot outside the New Testament to validate it but this is clearly not true.

One more important thing is that indeed Jesus died on the eve of Passover and not Passover day which is nisan 15.

This article is for people out there thinking that John and the synoptic Gospels conflict on above subject and why and that is your reason to reject God’s word.

Mathew chapter 26 here:

26 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, ² “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

Now to verse 17

¹⁷ On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

The Crucifixion of Jesus from Matthew 27

³² As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. ³³ They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). ³⁴ There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. ³⁵ When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. ³⁶ And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. ³⁷ Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews.

Jesus is now dead as evening approached in Matthew 27.

⁵⁷ As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. ⁵⁸ Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. ⁵⁹ Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, ⁶⁰ and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. ⁶¹ Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

Here is Mark 15

²⁵ It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. ²⁶ The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

²⁷ They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. ^[28]  29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, ³⁰ come down from the cross and save yourself!” ³¹ In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! ³² Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

The Death of Jesus

³³ At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. ³⁴ And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

Here is Luke 22

The Last Supper

⁷ Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. ⁸ Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

⁹ “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.

¹⁰ He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, ¹¹ and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ¹² He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”

¹³ They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

It appears here that the last supper was preparation day the 14th of Nisan and so according to Luke Jesus would be crucified at 9am the next day by Roman calendar but still the 14th of Nisan by the Jewish calendar. So Mathew also indicates preparation day which is Nisan 14 and Mark 14 also indicates that the last super was Nisan 14 preparation day

The Last Supper

¹² On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

here comes the controversy ,John has a differing account they say (the sceptics) on when Jesus died.So now lets look at John. And here is John 19

John 19:31 New International Version

³¹ Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

This question is commonly asked:

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the Gospel of John appear to disagree on the timing of Jesus’ death in relation to the Passover meal, with the Synoptics placing the Last Supper as part of the Passover celebration while John presents it as occurring before the Passover, leading to a discrepancy in the day Jesus was crucified; this is often referred to as the “Passover chronology problem” in biblical studies.

There is a clear mistake here, I see and have nowhere that the Bible says Jesus died on Passover or nisan 15. People wrongly assumed that if the last supper was preparation day the day before Passover nisan 14 then that meant Jesus died on nisan 15 but this is wrong!

The Jewish calendar is a sundown to sundown calendar.

So if preparation began at the beginning of nisan 14 which would be just after sundown on nisan 14, a half hour earlier would be nisan 13 you see.

So if the next morning Jesus was arrested and had a short trial and was crucified about 9 in the morning it is still nisan 14 preparation day.

Then Jesus died shortly before or after at 3 pm (or maybe 2:30 pm) which in Jerusalem in spring time the sun is still up. Maybe in Norway or something the sun might be down at 3 pm in early spring. So the Hebrew month nisan is similar to late march or early april in a Gregorian calendar. In Israel there was daylight at 6pm or 18:00 easy. So it was still nisan 14 when Jesus died then by all four Gospel accounts then.

Let me put this in Gregorian calendar term for simplicity just for example, if we convert Hebrew to Gregorian it looks like this. The last super about 12:30 am say april 3rd and the crucifixion about 3pm or 15:00 then the death of Jesus about 9:30 pm or 21:30 hours. So even though a day passed in Roman days, less than a day happened in Hebrew time.

Timeline

Last supper: 6:30 pm/18:30 on nisan 14 and april 3rd (just for arguments sake) on the Julian or Gregorian calendar.

The trial: early in morning of nisan 14 but now april 4th on the Roman calendar.

The crucifixion: 9am nisan 14 and april 4th Roman calendar.

The death of Jesus: 2:30-3 pm nisan 14 and april 4th.

So another day happened on the Roman calendar but it is still the 14th of nisan, preparation day on the Hebrew calendar.

So all four Gospels then say Jesus died on preparation day or nisan 14.