Validating the ‘Jesus is Boiling in Excrement’ Babylonian Talmud Quote

As the first of my new series of articles validating famous quotes from the Talmuds we have one of the most infamous which is the claim from Folios 56b and 57a of Tractate Gittin from the Babylonian Talmud that Jesus is ‘boiling in excrement’.

To quote van Voorst translation of the passage concerned:

‘[Onkelos the son of Kalonymos, nephew of the Roman general and emperor Titus, who desired to become a proselyte] called up Balaam [from the world of the dead] by necromancy. He said to him, ‘Who is honored in this world?’ He [Balaam] replied, ‘Israel.’ ‘What about [my] joining them?’ He replied, ‘You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days’ (Deut. 23:6) He said to him, ‘What is your punishment?’ He replied, ‘To be in boiling semen.’

He called up Jesus by necromancy. He said to him, ‘Who is honored in this world?’ He [Jesus] replied, ‘Israel.’ ‘What about joining them?’ He replied, ‘Seek their good, do not seek their harm. Injuring them is like injuring the apple of your own eye.’ He said, ‘What is your punishment?’ He replied, ‘To be in boiling excrement.’ As a teacher has said, ‘Everyone who mocks the words of the wise is punished by boiling excrement.’ (1)

Now this should be pretty cut and dried as far as references go in that the passage explicitly states that Jesus has been punished by God for his ‘offences’ by being boiled in excrement in Gehenna.

However typically jews like David Lange at ‘Israellycool’ have realised that this really isn’t a good look for them in front of their Christian Zionist allies and are claiming that this is a ‘misunderstanding’ and/or a ‘minority view’. (2)

He writes that:

‘But now to the claim that the Talmud teaches that Jesus is boiling in hellfire and excrement.

There is a quote in Gittin 57a of the Babylonian Talmud, to which the young man seems to be referring. There are many Rabbis, like Rabbi Gil Student, who claim this is not the same Jesus of Christianity, who is not mentioned in the Talmud at all:

[Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) “You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days.” [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

Here we see a story of the famous convert Onkelos who, prior to converting, used black magic to bring up famous villains of history and ask them whether their wickedness saved them in the world to come. In both cases (there is a third case of Onkelos calling up Titus as well) the sinner is being terribly punished in the afterlife while Israel is being rewarded. Presumably, this helped convince Onkelos to convert to Judaism.

As we have explained elsewhere, Yeshu is not Jesus of the New Testament. He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE.

Rabbi Student also mentions another important point, in rebuttal to those many people who claim “Balaam” is codeword for the Jesus of Christianity:

Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam’s mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can’t have it both ways.

Now I won’t pretend that there aren’t also some Rabbis who argue that ‘Jesus’ of Gittin 57a is the same Jesus. But even if one accepts this interpretation (which I believe to be in the minority), I would respond by agreeing with what Ben Shapiro mentioned, namely that one needs to remember the Talmud was written at a time when Jews were being persecuted by Christians in the Roman Empire. So it is not inconceivable that some anti-Christian sentiment might be reflected in this book at such a time.’ (3)

Deconstructing Lange and Student’s arguments here is not hard in that Lange is claiming – without any evidence mind you that the equation of ‘Yeshua’ with Jesus is a ‘minority view’ – and Student just claims it is so but as Peter Schaefer writes in his ‘Jesus in the Talmud’ this is complete and utter nonsense.

Since as he explains this passage has to do with the ‘arch-villains of jewish history’ (4) and how they are punished ‘because, obviously, punishment stands in direct relationship to their crime committed against Israel’. (5)

Now identifying ‘Balaam’ with Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud is a credible scholarly argument and has been frequently made by scholars such as Frederick Fyvie Bruce (6) and Robert Travers Herford (7) and it is still a common position among scholars. (8)

The reason for this is – as Van Voorst explains – because:

‘Balaam is presented as an outsider who seduces the people of God to false religion, a traditional picture shared by rabbinic writers.’ (9)

Now while there are reasonable objections to this position (10) the identification of ‘Balaam’ with Jesus is a secondary issue because if ‘Balaam’ in Gittin 56b is not Jesus then it only rules out ‘boiling in semen’ not ‘boiling in excrement’ as Jesus’ punishment according the rabbis.

Jesus is quite explicitly understood to be the ‘Yeshua’ of the Gittin 57a passage precisely because the rabbinical context (and a common sense) clearly suggests that Jesus (i.e., Yeshua) is the one meant.

Schaefer explains this rather well when he explains that:

‘In our Bavli Gittin story, Jesus appears explicitly in the context of the afterlife, together with Balaam (and with Titus). The Tosefta parallel to the Mishna addressed the question, which is not dealt with in the Mishna and the Bavli (but probably presupposed in the latter), of how long these sinners are punished in the Gehinnom: the ‘sinners of Israel’ and the ‘sinners of the nations’ are supposed to stay in the Gehinnom for twelve months only: ‘after twelve months their souls perish, their bodies are burnt, Gehinnom discharges them, and they are turned into ashes, and the wind blows them and scatters them under the feet of the righteous.’ In regard to the various kind of heretics, however, and the destroyers of the first and second Temples (the Assyrians and the Romans): ‘the Gehinnom is locked behind them, and they are judged therein for all generations.’ So presumably the punishment in Gehinnom of Balaam (who belongs to the ‘sinners of the nations’) and of Jesus/the sinners of Israel is terminated – after twelve months they will cease to exist – whereas Titus (the destroyer of the second Temple) will be punished in Ghenninom forever: even ‘She’ol will perish, but they [the destroyers of the Temple] will not perish.

All three sinners being punished in Gehinnom give the same answer to Onqelos’ question of who is held in highest regard in the Netherworld: Israel. Now that these arch-villains finally are where they belong, they realize to whom they should have showed due respect on earth.’ (11)

In truth then the ‘Yeshua’ of Gittin 57a is certainly Jesus and Student’s claim it was ‘another first century Yeshua’ who was just loathed – remember that the Babylon Talmud was composed around 500 A.D. – and was merely ‘mistaken’ for Jesus by later Christians is patently ludicrous.

It is also worth noting that we even have mentions in historical chronicles of jews interpreting Gittin 57a as ‘Jesus boiling in excrement’ such as one jew in Mainz declaring in 1096 that:

‘And you shall be condemned to hell together with your god and in boiling faeces.’ (12)

This is nearly two centuries before the first anti-Christian polemics about the Talmud begin; so, you can’t blame it on a ‘distorted Christian interpretation’ either!

It is further worth noting that Ben Shapiro’s ‘argument’ cited by Lange that ‘the persecution of jews by Christians’ triggered this claim and thus is not valid because it is merely a ‘historical belief’ not a current one is also incorrect. Since many jews continue to endorse such interpretations, (13) but also – more fundamentally – this argument if extended out to similar situations would justify – for example – Julius Streicher’s ‘Der Sturmer’s’ arguments/rhetoric/cartoons about jews because they were arguably a reaction to contemporary and historic jewish behaviour – ‘Der Sturmer’ was primarily a scandal magazine not an ideological publication – as well as the heavy jewish involvement in the atrocities and genocides of Lenin’s and then Stalin’s Soviet Union!

The argument cuts both ways Ben!

So in summary: yes, the claim that in Folios 56b and 57a of Tractate Gittin the Babylonian Talmud states that Jesus is ‘boiling in excrement’ is an accurate interpretation of the passage and the traditional/current jewish understanding of it.

References

(1) Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, ‘Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence’, 1st Edition, William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, pp. 110-111

(2) https://www.israellycool.com/2024/12/03/does-the-talmud-really-say-jesus-is-boiling-in-excrement/

(3) Ibid.

(4) Peter Schaefer, 2007, ‘Jesus in the Talmud‘, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 87

(5) Ibid.

(6) Frederick Fyvie Bruce, 1974, ‘Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament’, 1st Edition, Hodder and Stoughton: London, p. 59

(7) Robert Travers Herford, 1903, ‘Christianity in Midrash and Talmud’, 1st Edition, William & Norgate: London, pp. 70-71

(8) Van Voorst, Op. Cit., p. 110

(9) Ibid., p. 110, n. 76

(10) For example: Ibid., p. 115

(11) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 86

(12) Israel Jacob Yuval, 2008, ‘Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages’, 1st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley, p. 132; that this certainly refers to Gittin 57a see Ibid., p. 132, n. 109

(13) See for example Israel Shahak, 2008, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press: London and Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton