Magic and Monotheism JOSE FAUR formally charged in the Provincial Court of Maryland with blasphemy, a crime punishable by death and confiscation of goods. According to the de- position, Lumbrozo had said that Jesus's miracles were the effect of necromancy. Another witness testified that Lumbrozo had remarked that Jesus performed mira- cles “by ye Art Magic” and that he taught this art to his disciples. This perception of Jesus coincides with Rabbinic tra- dition. The Talmud (Sanhedrin, 43b) reports that Jesus ‘was brought to trial for practicing magic — a capital offense for both Jews and Romans — rather than as a “false Messiah,” which Jews never considered a criminal offense. Lumbrozo, however, did not acquire this view from Talmudic sources. He must have heard it in the “Story of Jesus” that the Jews kept orally from antiquity until modern times. During the “Holy Week,” right before Passover, my grandfather used to gather the children and recount the Jewish version of Jesus'slife (a custom probably originating in Christian Spain). Since many of the elements of this story date from the time of Jesus and early Christianity, and since it covers the entire history of Jesus, from the events anteceding his birth until after his death, it may be properly designated as‘“The Gospel According to the Jews.” It depictes Jesus as a magician. ‘Morton Smith, a leading historian noted for his erudi- tion, scientific methodology, boldness, and lucidity, examines this view. In his most recent book, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), he studies the evidence of the identity of Jesus as a magician. The crux of the problem is neatly formulated at the begin- ning of the Preface: “Jesus the magician” was the figure scen by most ancient Spponents of Jesus; “Jesus the Son of God" was the seen by the party of his followers which eventu- jumphed: the real Jesus was the man whose words and actions gave rise to these contradictory interpreta- tions. “Jesus the Son of God" is pictured the works that pictured “Jesus the Magic stroyed in antiquity after the Christians got control of the Roman empire. ‘New Testament scholars have overlooked the sup- pressed material, concentrating exclusively on the nar- ratives of the Christian Scriptures. “A picture of Jesus O: February 23, 1658, Dr. Jacob Lumbrozo was JOSE FAUR i Profesor of Rabbinical studies atthe Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 54 based on such a selection of material,” observes Smith, “has about as much historical value as a portrait of Charles de Gaulle or Mao Tse Tung drawn exclusively from Gaullist or Maoist publications. We must try to hear the other side too.” (p. 7) Smith does this in a most systematic and original way. All the related material preserved in Rabbinic literature, pagan sources, and ‘magical papyri are masterfully woven to serve asa back- ground for the historical Jesus. The following picture emerges from this data: " woman married toa jesus was brouj Nazareth as a carpenter, but left his home town and, after unknown adventures, arrived in Egypt where he became expert in magic and wat tattooed! in magical symbols and spells. Returning to Galilee he made him- self famous by his magical feats, miracles he did by control of demons. He thereby persuaded the masses that he was the Jewish Messiah and/or the son of a god. Although he pretended to follow Jewish customs.he formed a small cc of inmate dicples whom he tatught to despise the Jewish Law and to practice magic. ‘These he bound together and to himself by ties of “love,” meaning sexual promiscuity, and by particpa- “eee ening snl pmb, and fap cannibalism-they had some sort of ritual meal in w! they ate human flesh and drank blood. Surrounded by this circle he travelled from town to town deceiving many and leading them into sin. But he was not always successful. The members of his own family did not be- lieve him; when he went back to Nazareth his townspeople rejected him and he could do no miracle there. Stories of his libertine teaching and practice leaked out and began to circulate. The scribes arate etn aged bce Finally, when he went to Jerusalem the high priests had him arrested and turned him over to Pilate, charging hhim with the practice of magic and with sedition. Pilate had him crucified, but this did not putan end to the evil. His followers stole his body from the grave, claimed he hhad risen from the dead, and, as a secret society, per- petuated his practices. [p. 67] ‘The son of a soldier named Pamthera and 2 pean up The opposition and controversy generated by Jesus among both his Jewish and pagan contemporaries is objectively examined. The significance of the polemics and apologetics concerning Jesus's practices and views are analyzed in light of their historical context. Ex- pressions such as “Jesus’ power and authority,” “Can Satan cast out Satan,” “your hidden father,” “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” “Son of Mary” become intelligible once perceived in the semantic environment of that time. Midstream—August/September, 1980The transfiguration story, Jesus's Baptism, his going to the wilderness, his contempt of wealth, and a host of material inadequately understood recover their original meaning and function. The performing of miracles and casting of demons, as well as the accusations of can- nibalism, exorcism, and other magical rituals regarding the Eucharist, are interpreted within the framework of the historical Jesus. Details and motifs that seemed tri- vial and unimportant appear as remnants of a tradition that the Gospels wanted to reinterpret or suppress. The result is an exciting and intelligent exposition of one of the most important chapters in the annals of Western. beer Jewish opposition to magic is old. Magic i intrinsic to *Aboda Zara (imperfectly translated “idolatry,” but actu- ally meaning “strange,” i.e., unprescribed, “worship,” encompassing any ritual not included in the Jewish way of worshipping, even when directed to God).* Ina deep sense, magic and religion compete for the same things and apply similar methods: both aim at affecting the events of this world by influencing the realm of the beyond. The Talmudic legend that Abraham taught the art of necromancy to the children of the concubines (Sanhedrin, 91a, cf. Rashi ad. loc.),* reflects the intimate relation between magic and religion. Although one is superior to the other, both were taught by the Patriarch Abraham, hence the fierce rivalry between them. Traces of this fight are found in Rabbinic literature (Mishna Sanhedrin, VI 4 and P.T. ad. loc.; Bethorot, 8a-9a, etc.). This brings us to a fundamental problem: how to distinguish between them. At the practical level there was no problem. Certain rituals and acts were classified as “magical,” others as “religious.” Conceptu- ally, however, it was another matter. The distinction between “white” and “black” magic (or “good” and “evil” spirits, etc.) usually made in this connection, can- not be accepted by a monotheistic religion believing in ‘one omnipotent God, Creator of everything, “pure” and “impure.” Let us consider, for the sake of illustration, a miracu- lous event brought about by Moses or Elijah: is it the effect of magic or religion? When the rabbis put in the ‘mouth of Pharaoh the ironic question, “Moses, do you intend to introduce magic into Egypt?” (Tankuma, Va- era, 13), they were in fact acknowledging the problem of distinguishing between miracles and necromancy.* The same concern is evident in Elijah's prayer that his mira- les not be perceived as necromancy (Berathot, 6b). Ina question addressed to Haayye Gaon, head of the Babylonian Academy, he is asked, “What is the differ- ence between what is executed through Prophecy and what is executed through Magic,” and “how can one distinguish the miracles of the Prophet from what the ‘common people [i.e. non-prophets] can execute by {in- voking a divine or magical] name.”* There is no doubt Review Essays that Maimonides’ statement that magic is sheer non- sense and useless (‘Aboda Zara XI, 17) offended the religious sensitivities of many. To them, denial of the magical was tantamount to denial of the miraculous. ‘We can now examine a question that is fundamental to the understanding of Judaism and early Christianity. Jesus was perceived as the Son of God by his followers, ‘as a magician by his opponents: by which criteria can ‘one distinguish between one and the other? There is a passage in Rabbinic literature bearing upon this problem. R. Yohanan (c.180-c.279) defines a magician as he “who denies the heavenly powers” (Sanhedrin, 67b)' a view directly dependent on the view of his teacher, R. Hanina (early 3rd century), who taught, “There is no one except Him (Deuteronomy 4, 35) — [this applies] even in matters concerning necro- mancy!” ([bid.) The meaning is clear: what appears as the effect of the powers of the magician is in fact the result of God's works and the order He had established in this universe (cf. ‘Aboda Zara, 54b). Unlike the biblical prophet who acts as the agent of God — God alone executes the miracle, not the prophet — the magician “denies the heavenly powers” and arrogates to himself the might and authority to alter and control. now understand why, in spite of the biblical tion against necromancy, Jews were celebrated for proficiency in the magic arts from early antiquity until modern times.* Although they were performing exorcism, spells, cures, and other acts that can be classified as magical, they did not arrogate autonomous power for themselves: they acknowledged the supreme authority of God. Accordingly, they were not consid- ered magicians. The “traditional” Jewish magician did not claim any personal authority; rather, he was utiliz- ing “the order of things” to bring about the desired result. R. Menahem Meiri aptly describes the principle ‘governing this type of action, “Whatsoever is done as a natural act does not fall into the category of necro- Vicor its sens, Jost weft tn unener the question asked by the high priests, “By what authority do you do these things?” (Mark 11, 27 ff), is highly significant, Had he acknowledged God asa source of his power, there could have been no grounds for any charges against him. Smith's analysis of the question and refusal to answer is extremely helpful on this crucial point: ‘The refusal has been elaborated into a “game story" demonstrating Jesus’ cleverness. He counters the ques- tion by asking his opponents one they cannot safely answer, and then says, implicily, “Since you won't an- swer my question, I won't answer yours.” So he wins, that is, he escapes the embarrassment ofa blunt refusal to answer. But why refuse at all? No classical Israclite prophet of Yahweh ever hesiated to declare, “Yahweh as sent me"; but Jesusis never said to have said so—not in so many words. The synoptics put the claim in his mouth, but only indirectly. John, of course, remedied 55the oversight — repeatedly! Since the later tradition developed the claim, a story reporting Jesus’ refusal to ‘make itis probably early. But, again, why refuse? Who- ever told the sory showing his cleverness in avoiding an answer must have thought he had something to conceal. ‘What did they think hissecret was? Or what di he think it was, that made him unwilling to declare it? And why did he never say, "Thus saith the Lord”? [p. 37] ‘Accordingly, the answer to the question as to why other exorcists were not charged with the crime of magic (LK 11, 19) is obvious (cf. pp. 130, 143). At this juncture, it is worth noting, that Rabbinic tradition re- ports that Jesus was tattooed with magical spells (Shab- bat, 104b). As Smith observed, this report is not polemi- cal and was transmitted by a rabbi who was born at the time of the crucifixion: ‘The Rabbinic report that in Egypt Jesus was tattooed with magic spells does not appear in polemic material, but is cited as a known fact in discussion of a legal question by a rabbi who was probably born about the time ofthe crucifixion. The antiquity of the source, t of citation, connection with the report that he was in Egypt, and agreement with Egyptian, magical practices ate Considerable arguments ini favor. (pp. 160-151] ‘Tomy mind, in order toavoid the charge of magician, it was essential to develop the notion that Jesus was the “Son of God.” As Smith shows, in Semitic, this expres- sion means that he was a god (pp. 39ff, 177). Within the context of the monotheistic religion, it meant, necessar- ily, that he was God. The alternatives are clear; there are only two options left: Jesus was either a magician or God. Eventually those who opted for the later had to develop a trinitarian theology in order to reconcile with biblical monotheism the belief that Jesus himself was God. Tre perception of Jesus as a magician helps us to gain a better understanding of the Eucharist. As is well- known, for the rabbis, the Eucharist has nothing to do with the Paschal sacrifice.! Smith’s analysis of the Eucharist is invaluable in order to grasp its original meaning and the function of its symbols. To begin with, Smith concurs with Bultmann’s thesis that Paul's connection of the Eucharist with the Passover ceremony is secondary and does not derive from Jesus himself (p. 147). Moreover, by examining the Eucharist in light of the magic tradition current at that time, Smith shows that it is “a familiar magical operation — giving enchanted food to cause love.” The particulars compris- ing this ritual become perfectly clear, “Often the food identified with the body and/or blood of a god with whom the magician is identified.” In this way “the food becomes also the body and blood of the magician; who- ever eats it is united with him and filled with love for him." (p. 122) This perception is essential to grasping the full significance of the Eucharist within its original 56 semantic context. The following excellently summarizes the key issues raised by this perception; it also affords us a better understanding of Jesus and early Christianity from the perspective of traditional Judaism: A conspicuous case is that of the Eucharist, an unmis- takably magical rite, the institution of which was re- ported by a tradition attributed to Jesus, that Paul “re- Ceived” after his conversion within Tour or five years of the crucifixion. Substantially the same rit is still secret, hesuppresses the story and discusses the miracle only by allusion. In all the sources we sce it variously inter- moralized and adjusted to Old Testament legend, by additions to the wording, by commentary, or by location in a secondary, theologically motivated framework. When such window dressing is stripped away, what remains is an absolutely primitive figure: magician-god who unites his followers to himself by iving them his body and blood to eat and drink. Can re be any doubt as to which clement is original, or where it came from? [p. 146] Finally, it should be noted that concern for magic among the rabbis was limited to a small group of schol- ars. For reasons that seem obvious from the preceding, the rabbis had litte interest in the subject. All the schol- ars discussing the definition of magic (Sanhedrin, 67a- 68a) are directly or indirectly connected with R. Yehoshua ben Hanina. He was ordained before the destruction of the Temple and participated in the Le- vites' Choir. R. Yehoshua was one of the mostinfluential rabbis after the destruction of the Temple and one of the principal leaders of the Jewish community. He isthe first rabbi reported as having actually performed acts of magic (P.T. Sanhedrin, 25d). His colleague, R. Eliezer ben Horqanos (like him a disciple of Rabban Yobanan ben Zakkai) was known for his erudition in the Rabbinic legislation concerning magic; hence he was considered an expert in the techniques and teachings relating to this art. However, he was not personally involved with the practice of magic. The single case in which he ap- pears to have performed an act of magic (Sanhedrin, (68a) was in fact an illusion designed to illustrate a law pertaining to witchcraft. The definition of magic found in Mishna (Sanhedrin, VIL, 11), comes from R. Yehoshua and his circle. Inter- est in magical acts necessitated a distinction between lict and illicit magic. There are 13 rabbis participating in the discussion ensuing afterwards in the Talmud (Sanhed- rin, 67a-68a). All of them have direct academic ties. Concern for magic, whether at conceptual or practical levels, was transmitted to a select group of scholars. From the circle of R. Yehoshua, this concern reached R. Yehuda ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah. From him it was transmitted to the Academy in Tiberias, and from there through Ze‘ire, a student of R. Hanina, it passed to R. Yehuda, the founder of the Academy in Pumbedita, Babylonia; R. Yehuda transmitted this knowledge and concern to some scholars of the same school." . Midstream—August/September, 1980(MIDSTREAM,