Two Bits Of Old Jewish Wordplay and What They Tell Us About Ancient Times

“Constantine made a big stir.

With a new sign, he'd be conqueror.

He won more and more,

His men were less sore,

For he was a chi-rho practicer”¹

You may find the above joke funny. A large part of why comes from taking the multiple potential meanings of Chi-Ro Practicer (Chiropractor, one who fixes joint pain and Chi-Rho practicer, someone who uses the Chi Rho, a symbol that combines the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ, chi (χ) and rho (ρ)). Granted, what may stop this bit of wordplay from being immensely funny is the fact that the latter meaning is less supported by the setup of the joke. While Constantine does make sense as a Chi-Rho practicer, as the first Christian emperor of Rome, the line “His men were less sore,” does not match as well with Constantine’s Christian status. As per researchers Justine T. Kao, Roger Levy, and Noah D. Goodman, the mix of the ambiguity in meanings and distinctiveness in how the two meanings are supported by a setup leads to us finding wordplay humorous².

There is no reason to posit that ancient people would not enjoy wordplay as well. Ancient people certainly had funny bones. Aristophanes, a writer of Greek comedies, received prizes at the ancient Greek Lenia festival’s play competitions.

There is also no reason to posit that ancient people were too “high-brow” for wordplay. Aristophanes wrote many dirty jokes, some being what we would call, “potty humor”. He writes

“Xanthias: Look, master, an audience! Shouldn’t I say something? Tell them one of those jokes they always fall for?

Dionysus: O, all right — say what you like. Only no jokes about how you’re dying to piss. I can’t stand those — they’re all so stale.

Xanthias: What about my other jokes?

Dionysus: Go ahead — just nothing about your bladder, about how it’s going to burst.

Xanthias: What? You mean I can’t tell that really funny one . . .

Dionysus: I suppose so — but don’t say anything about the bit.

Xanthias: What bit?

Dionysus: The bit about how you need to shift your load to take a piss.

Xanthias: Not even this one — “Here I am transporting such a load if I get no relief I may explode.”³

The last time I wrote an article on ancient wordplay (Four Bits Of Ancient Wordplay), many puns of Aristophanes had to be left on the cutting room floor, being too lewd⁴.

This article takes a more focused look at two pieces of wordplay in Jewish sources (both of which focus on interactions with Christianity). Further, instead of simply stating such instances of wordplay, this article seeks to uncover facts about the interactions between early Jews and other groups based on the function of such wordplay

1: Rabbinic Pun Battle

The extent to which Rabbinic Jews and early Christians were at odds is highly overstated. Still, it is undeniable that conflicts are depicted in sources from both groups. The Talmud in Sanhedrin, when discussing the proper trial procedure, cites a Baraita, an oral tradition not incorporated in the written Mishnah, that details the trial of five of the students of Jesus the Nazarene. The Talmud introduces the Baraita as follows:

“The Rabbis taught: There were five students to Jesus the Nazarene. Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.” (Sanhedrin 43a)

It is worth noting that no such disciples are described in the New Testament. The closest to any of these people is Matthew (not too far from Matai). It is possible that תַּלְמִידִים (Talmidim, students) here does not refer to direct disciples, but rather five students of Jesus in the way some modern thinkers may be “Students of Kant”. Christians certainly use discipleship to mean more than direct teaching⁵. Still, it seems more likely to me that these names were invented to set up the wordplay that follows. Mattai makes his plea to the court by spinning the meaning of a verse from Psalms.

“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (Psalms 42:2 NRSVue)

When in Hebrew is מַתַּי (Mattai), a homophone to the name of this disciple, מַתַּאי (Mattai). Thus, Mattai argues that this verse shows his righteousness. Unfortunately for Mattai, the Rabbis argue back citing

“My enemies wonder in malice when[מַתַּי (Mattai)] I will die and my name perish.” (

This continues with Nakai

“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]” (Psalms 10:8)” (Sanhedrin 43a)

Then Netzer,

“Then they brought Netzer in to stand trial. He said to the judges: Shall Netzer be executed? But isn’t it written: “And a branch [netzer] shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1)? They said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: “But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [netzer]” (Isaiah 14:19).” (Sanhedrin 43a)

Then Buni,

“Then they brought Buni in to stand trial. Buni said to the judges: Shall Buni be executed? But isn’t it written: “My firstborn son [beni] is Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [binkha]” (Exodus 4:23).” (Sanhedrin 43a)

Finally, Toda is brought to the stand.

“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).” (Sanhedrin 43a)

This story seems incredibly strange. One may ask why making a better pun would seemingly free or condemn these people to death. The answer relates to what is truly tested by these wordplay-offs. The disciples and the Rabbis in this story display their knowledge of scripture by showing their ability to devise a verse that has a fitting homophone. In turn, this Baraita does not make the point that the Rabbis, getting the final word, are better at using homophones. This Baraita actually makes the point that the Rabbis are better at using scripture. This makes sense considering the fact that Jews and Christians both used the same Old Testament and would both use these books to make points. The author of Matthew, for example, quotes Micah 5:2 which reads as follows:

“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2 NRSVue)

Matthew quotes this verse in chapter 2 to argue that Jesus’s time in Bethlehem is a sign of him being the Messiah:

“When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him, 4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:3-6 NRSVue)

With Christians making arguments from the interpretation of the Old Testament like this one it makes sense that there would be a Rabbinic text to snap back. In this way, this Baraita in Sanhedrin could be understood as the Rabbis reclaiming authority of the interpretation of the scripture. Thus, this wordplay battle is not about wordplay but about the Rabbinic authorities making the claim that it is still the Jewish Rabbis, not the Christian disciples, who are best equipped to and skilled at interpreting and understanding the Old Testament.

2: I Surrender To The Judge

Another Jewish story involving puns sees such humor used, not in a Jewish court but rather in a Roman one. This pun concerns the trial of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus. It is worth noting that Eliezer ben Hurcanus is not an unimportant Rabbi. In fact, according to Drew Kaplan’s study on Rabbinic Popularity in the Mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer is the sixth most mentioned Rabbi in all of the Mishnah, being mentioned over 300 times⁶. Rabbi Eliezer was also important enough to have later books written about him, such as Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (The Teachings of Rabbi Eliezer). The story in question goes as follows:

It happened to Rabbi Eli’ezer that he was arrested for sectarianism (Christianity), and they took him up to the βημα to be judged.

The ruler said to him: A sage such as you having truck with these matters!?

He said to him: I have trust in the judge.

The ruler thought that he was speaking of him, but he meant his Father in Heaven.

He said to him: Since you trust me, I also have said: It is possible that these gray hairs would err in such matters?

Dimus [=Dimissus]! Behold, you are dismissed.

Daniel Boyarin, in his book Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism makes a fascinating argument about this passage to argue for the closeness of Judaism and Christianity. The passage of course leads one to ask why Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus would ever be accused of Christianity to begin with. Suppose we view early Christianity and early Judaism as completely opposed to each other and different. In that case, it should be shocking that “A sage such as [Rabbi Eliezer] having truck with these matters!” What is even more shocking is the answer. Invoking “the judge” is certainly a bright idea, but in this life-and-death trial, a simple no would suffice and save Rabbi Eliezer any trouble⁷. For this reason, Dr. Boyarin understands this story to be evidence of the fact that early Christianity and early Judaism were religions that were far more interlinked than the level of involvement that is typically assumed⁸.

While this analysis is strong, a different (not necessarily contradictory) view of Rabbi Eliezer’s answer can be taken. First, we should recognize that Rabbi Eliezer’s answer to the ruler has all the traits that make puns humorous according to the aforementioned study from Justine T. Kao, Roger Levy, and Noah D. Goodman. There is an ambiguity in the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, as both interpretations are supported⁹. Thus, there is reason to believe that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is to be taken as humorous.

It is worth noting that reinterpreting this answer of Rabbi Eliezer as a pun gives it a new function. Now, Rabbi Eliezer is not only cleverly claiming to “have trust in the judge”, he is also mocking the ruler in front of him. The story goes out of its way to underline the fact that the ruler failed to understand Rabbi Eliezer’s trick. In this way, Rabbi Eliezer gives his clever defense against charges of Christianity, mocks the not-so-clever Roman authorities, and allows the audience a quick laugh.

1. Campbell, David C., and Timothy D. Campbell. The Pun-Dementals: Biblical Limericks, from Verse to Bad. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2023.

2. Kao, Justine T., Roger Levy, and Noah D. Goodman. "A computational model of linguistic humor in puns." Cognitive Science 40.5 (2016): 1270-1285.

3. Aristophanes, and Ian Johnston. Aristophanes’ Frogs. Oxford, Ohio, Faenum Publishing, 2015.

4. While I decided not to include the phallic puns that Aristophanes made in his plays, the scholar of Aristophanes, Dimitrios Kanellakis did include many of Aristophanes's more profane jokes in the paper cited below for all who wish to read.

Kanellakis, Dimitrios. “TRANSLATING ARISTOPHANES’ PUNS.” Greece and Rome 69.2 (2022): 238–253. Web

5. For an example, see the call in Matthew 28:19 to make “disciples of all nations”

6. Kaplan, Drew. “Rabbinic Popularity in the Mishnah VII: Top Ten Overall [Final Tally].” Blogspot.com, 2022, drewkaplans.blogspot.com/2011/07/rabbinic-popularity-in-mishnah-vii-top.html. Accessed 11 Feb. 2025.

7. It is true that Pliny mentions requiring accused Christians to pray to the Emporer in Epistulae 10.96. That being said, Jews had special permission in the Roman empire to only worship the god of Israel.

8. Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, Calif., Stanford Univ. Press, 2007.

9. see note 2