Validating the ‘Jesus was a Sorcerer’ (Sanhedrin 67a and Shabbat 104b) Babylonian Talmud Quotes

In addition to the claim in Tractate Sanhedrin on folio 43a of the Babylonian Talmud that I have previously discussed and validated; (1) there is a further mention of the same claim which is also made in the same tractate on folio 67a and is clarified in Tractate Shabbat on folio 104b.

Rabbi Gil Student reproduces his own translation as follows from Tractate Sanhedrin 67a:

‘It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses. How do they deal with [the enticer]? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him "Tell me again what you said to me in private" and he tells him. He says "How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?" If he repents, good. If he says "This is our obligation and what we must do" the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him. And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover.’ (2)

He also reproduces his own translation as follows from Tractate Shabbat 104b:

‘It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.

Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.

R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.

[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.

[No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.’ (3)

Now Rabbi Student claims these are not references to Jesus of Nazareth but rather some other jewish individual named ‘Ben Stada’ who has been ‘confused by Christians’ with Jesus.

However, as Peter Schaefer points out the objections to ‘Ben Stada’ being Jesus of Nazareth are nonsensical and also inherently contrived since he writes that:

‘I do not see any reason why the tannaitic Jesus ben Pantera/Pandera (“Jesus son of Pantera/Pandera”) and Ben Stada (“son of Stada”) passages should not refer to Jesus.’ (4)

He also points out that the main authority that Student is using - John Meier’s 1991 two volume biography of Jesus ‘A Marginal Jew’ – (5) denies the validity of these passages because of Meier’s desire to solve the ‘historicity problem’ of Jesus (6) and Meier postdating these Talmudic references to Jesus to a much later period allows him to sidestep them as well as the overt jewish hatred for Jesus of Nazareth and Christians contained within the Talmud.

Student simply presents his readers with the relevant passages in the Talmud and then interprets them without context for his readers in an effort to deny that ‘Ben Stada’ is actually just another name for Jesus of Nazareth as Schaefer explains at length and also reproduces the all-important passage from Shabbat 104b in a more academic translation rather than Student’s clipped and misleading one:

‘This is bad enough, but the two Talmudim come up with an even worse explanation of why tattooing one’s body on the Sabbath is forbidden, when they have Eliezer ask: “But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches/tattoos (biseritah) upon his flesh?” In all three versions the Sages dismiss R. Eliezer’s objections with the counterargument that Ben Satra/Stada was a fool and that they would not let one fool’s behaviour influence the implementation of Sabbath laws.

It is within this context that the Talmud (Shab 104b) proceeds with a clarification of the enigmatic “fool’s” family background. The text is only preserved in the uncensored manuscripts and printed editions of the Bavli; I quote according to Ms. Munich 95 (written 1342 in Paris), with some variations in the footnotes:

(Was he) the son of Stada (and not on the contrary) the son of Pandera?

Said Rav Hisda: the husband (ba’al) was Stada (and) the cohabiter/lover (bo’el) was Pandera.

(But was not) the husband (ba’al) Pappos ben Yehuda and rather his mother Stada?

His mother was [Miriam], (the woman who) let (her) women’s [hair] grow long (megadla [se’ar] neshayya).

This is as they say about her in Pumbeditha: This one turned away from (was unfaithful to) her husband (satat da mi-ba’alah).’ (7)

Now we can already see that Student has left out quitter a lot in his English translation of Shabbat 104b and from Schaefer’s more complete version we can see that the debate is over the heritage of ‘Ben Stada’ and we can see that ‘Ben Stada’ is clearly thought to be Jesus of Nazareth from the reference to Jesus’ lineage in the Talmud – as well as the Greek pagan philosopher Celsus as it happens – as ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pandira’ (lit. ‘Son of the Panther’ with said individual being held to be a Roman soldier) (8) because the discussion over ‘Ben Stada’ and ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pandira’ is referring to the same individual not two different individuals as Student’s argument necessitates.

As Schaefer explains:

‘This is a typical discourse of the Bavli, which tries to clarify the contradiction between the two traditions: according to one received tradition, the fool/magician is called “son of Stada” and according to another one he is called “son of Pandera.” What, then, is his correct name? In other words, the Talmud is concerned about the problem that the same person is called by two different names and not about the question of who this person is (the answer to this latter question is obviously presupposed: everybody seems to know it).’ (9)

Essentially the text is being mischaracterized by those such as Student and Meier who wish to deny that it mentions Jesus of Nazareth at all, because they are clearly talking about one person who Rav Eliezer and Rav Hisda alternatively think is either called ‘Ben Stada’ or ‘Ben Pandera’ meaning that this is one person who they both know not two separate people who they are trying to figure out who is being referred to (Student and Meier’s position) which would make no sense in the context of discussing the ‘sorcery’ of the ‘foolish’ individual concerned in relation to tattoos.

After all they aren’t correcting each other but are referring to the same person but aren’t quite sure who his father and mother were and because we know ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pandira’ only means Jesus of Nazareth in the Babylonian Talmud then ‘Ben Stada’ must be Jesus of Nazareth. (10)

Further in the debate around the origins of ‘Ben Stada’ and ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pandira’ the rabbis are arguing about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mamzer’ (lit. ‘Bastard’) and if he was such then couldn’t be considered truly jewish because of this fact (de to Deut. 23:3) and that therefore the origins of Christianity lay in sexual promiscuity by the Virgin Mary. (11)

Student’s objection that ‘Ben Stada’ cannot be Jesus because Sanhedrin 67a states that ‘Ben Stada’ was hanged in Lod (aka Lydda) is not an argument against it being a reference to Jesus of Nazareth because Sanhedrin 67a also references the correct date for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth – the eve of Passover – and since we only know this from the Gospel of John – Matthew, Mark and Luke are vague and only John is specific – and this detail never varies over the various early Talmudic manuscripts we have. Then it strongly suggests – along with the ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pandira’ reference – that the Babylonian Talmud does indeed mean Jesus of Nazareth by ‘Ben Stada’ and not some other unnamed individual. (12)

Since Student and Meier are arguing from no positive evidence themselves – since they cannot explain who ‘Ben Stada’ is if it is not Jesus of Nazareth but only claim ‘it can’t be’ Jesus of Nazareth because the smallest detail of the three points of external references is incorrect and then claim the other details are merely ‘coincidence’ which is clearly ridiculous and likely a predetermined conclusion – (13) then we have to dismiss their claims that ‘Ben Stada’ is not Jesus of Nazareth as the positive evidence in its favour significantly outweighs their relatively insubstantial objections to it.

Thus we are forced to conclude that Sanhedrin 67a and Shabbat 104b do indeed refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a sorcerer.

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-was-a-sorcerer

(2) https://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

(3) Ibid.

(4) Peter Schaefer, 2007, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 7-8

(5) https://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html (see Student’s constant reference to Meier’s authority to buttress his own claims); also see Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, ‘Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence’, 1st Edition, William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, p. 108

(6) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 8

(7) Ibid., p. 16

(8) See Tosefta Chullin 2:23

(9) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 17

(10) Ibid., pp. 17-18

(11) Ibid., p. 97

(12) Ibid., pp. 72-73

(13) Van Vorst, Op. Cit., p. 119