https://earlywritings.com/forum/
There is nothing in the Mishnah about Jesus as magician.PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Leucius Charinus,
The traditional date of the Mishnah, the first part of the Talmud is around 200 CE, which I don't think is too far from the time of the NT gospels creation.
Josephus says this about the Egyptian:MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)
R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] (Morey, p. 6)
Warmly,Antiquities 20.8.5 169-172 (War 2.13.5 261)
These deeds of the robbers filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now conjurers and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would show them manifest wonders and signs that would be performed by the providence of God. And many that were persuaded suffered the pain of their folly, for Felix brought them back and punished them. At this time there came out of Egypt to Jerusalem a man who said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which lay a distance of five furlongs from the city. He said that he would show them that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, through which he promised that he would procure them an entrance into the city. Now when Felix was informed of this he ordered his soldiers to take up their weapons, and with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem he attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped from the fight and did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans.
andrewcriddle wrote:There is nothing in the Mishnah about Jesus as magician.PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Leucius Charinus,
The traditional date of the Mishnah, the first part of the Talmud is around 200 CE, which I don't think is too far from the time of the NT gospels creation.
The main source is the Babylonian Talmud centuries later.
Andrew Criddle
If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] is Mishnah R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada learn only by means of scratches upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools is Tosefta c 300 CE the rest is Gemara (much later commentary)PhilosopherJay wrote: Connecting a Jewish view of Jesus as a magician in the year 200 Mishnah is also this from Sam Samoun's "Jesus in the Rabbinic Tradition" http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm:MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)
The latter part is Gemara How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. "And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, is Tosefta on the Mishnah For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one.PhilosopherJay wrote:R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned. ["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).] (Morey, p. 6)
What is the source for your information that the Tosefta is 300 C.E., which puts it 111 years after the Mishnah (189 CE).According to rabbinic tradition, the Tosefta was redacted by Rabbis Ḥiya and Oshaiah (a student of Ḥiya).[2] Whereas the Mishna was considered authoritative, the Tosefta was supplementary. The Talmud often utilizes the traditions found in the Tosefta to examine the text of the Mishnah.
The traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view pre-supposes that the Tosefta was produced in order to record variant material not included in the Mishnah.
Modern scholarship can be roughly divided into two camps. Some, such as Jacob N. Epstein theorize that the Tosefta as we have it developed from a proto-Tosefta recension which formed much of the basis for later Amoraic debate. Others, such as Hanokh Albeck, theorize that the Tosefta is a later compendium of several baraitot collections which were in use during the Amoraic period.
More recent scholarship, such as that of Yaakov Elman, concludes that since the Tosefta, as we know it, must be dated linguistically as an example of Middle Hebrew 1, it was most likely compiled in early Amoraic times from oral transmission of baraitot.[3] Professor Shamma Friedman, has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material and that parts of the Tosefta predate the Mishnah.[4]
Alberdina Houtman and colleagues theorize that while the Mishnah was compiled in order to establish an authoritative text on halakhic tradition, a more conservative party opposed the exclusion of the rest of tradition and produced the Tosefta to avoid the impression that the written Mishnah was equivalent to the entire oral Torah. The original intention was that the two texts would be viewed on equal standing, but the succinctness of the Mishnah and the power and influence of Yehuda Ha-Nassi made it more popular among most students of tradition.[5]
Ultimately, the state of the source material is such to allow divergent opinions to exist. These opinions serve to show the difficulties in establishing a clear picture of the origins of the Tosefta.
The Tosefta in its present form is almost certainly later than the Mishnah. Some passages in the Tosefta seem to be commentary on an already existing Mishnah. Much of the material in the Tosefta is older than the compilation of the Mishnah but that is another matter.PhilosopherJay wrote:What is the source for your information that the Tosefta is 300 C.E., which puts it 111 years after the Mishnah (189 CE).
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
.The Tosefta predates the Mishnah. This paradigm is often attributed to a series of articles which culminated in Shamma Friedman’s Tosefta Atikta (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Universtiy Press, 2003). Brody agrees that “there is no doubt that Friedman is correct in claiming that the Tosefta sometimes preserves sources which are identical or very similar to those underlying specific passages of the Mishnah.” In Brody’s opinion, however, the operative word is sometimes. Since he has no general preference for one option over the other, he presents himself as an impartial observer, in each case trying to point out which option makes more sense (his treatment of Judith Hauptman’s Rereading the Mishnah, which espouses a similar point of view but makes more far-reaching claims, is somewhat less deferential).
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.
andrewcriddle wrote:The Tosefta in its present form is almost certainly later than the Mishnah. Some passages in the Tosefta seem to be commentary on an already existing Mishnah. Much of the material in the Tosefta is older than the compilation of the Mishnah but that is another matter.PhilosopherJay wrote:What is the source for your information that the Tosefta is 300 C.E., which puts it 111 years after the Mishnah (189 CE).
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
The exact date of the Tosefta is unclear, but if it is in its present form partly a commentary on the Mishnah (compiled c 200 CE) and is used by the Palestinian Talmud (compiled c 400 CE) then a date of 300 CE seems sensible.
The main point is that although the Tosefta contains passages about Ben Stada (which may be ancient) it is only in later material that Ben Stada is identified with Jesus.
Andrew Criddle
Even if The Tosefta is earlier than the Mishnah (IMO unlikely), it would not alter the facts that a/ Ben Stada is not identified with Jesus in the Tosefta b/ Ben Stada is (probably) not regarded as a magician in the Tosefta.PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Andrew,
According to this 2005 article by Talmudic scholar Judith Hauptman, in the peer-reviewed JSIJ (Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal), (http://www.biu.ac.il/js/JSIJ/4-2005/Hauptman.pdf_) the Tosefta may predate the current Mishnah (189 CE), and may be reacting to an earlier Mishnah. She begins the article by saying, "Since 1989, I have been arguing that much of the Tosefta precedes the Mishnah and acts as its basis." Later she notes, " the Tosefta cites not an alternative version of our Mishnah but a forerunner of our Mishnah" (111).
On the Blog page of the Group for the Study of Late Antiquity, In a September 29th review of the recently published Mishnah and Torah by Robert Brody, (https://www.facebook.com/GSLAisrael/pos ... 3530372829), we read,.The Tosefta predates the Mishnah. This paradigm is often attributed to a series of articles which culminated in Shamma Friedman’s Tosefta Atikta (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Universtiy Press, 2003). Brody agrees that “there is no doubt that Friedman is correct in claiming that the Tosefta sometimes preserves sources which are identical or very similar to those underlying specific passages of the Mishnah.” In Brody’s opinion, however, the operative word is sometimes. Since he has no general preference for one option over the other, he presents himself as an impartial observer, in each case trying to point out which option makes more sense (his treatment of Judith Hauptman’s Rereading the Mishnah, which espouses a similar point of view but makes more far-reaching claims, is somewhat less deferential).
It seems that there is no longer a scholarly consensus in the Jewish Academic World that the Tosefta is any later than the Mishna. Thus there is not reason not to suppose that Jews in the 2nd Century were talking about a magician named Ben Stada who was executed.