Historicist Bias With Respect to the Jewish Reports About Jesus

[Secret Alias]

I naively went along with the idea that the notion that the rabbinic literature knew that Jesus was a bastard, the son of a soldier named Pantera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_ ... es_Pantera. But the sources aren't so specific. True, Celsus references a 'soldier named Pantera' and all that. But the form in the Talmud is בן פנדירא or better yet 'son of Pandora' בן פנדורה. Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmudicumri, s.v. סטד, סטדא, p. 73-2 and s.v. פנדורה, p. 874 (Fischer's ed.); Hoffmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, p. 90 sq.; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1:76; Nitzsch, Ueber eine Reihe talmudischer undpatristischer Tauschungen welche sich an den missverstandenen Spottnamen, בן פנדירא , geknupft, in the Theologische Studien ut. Kritiken (1840), p. 115 sq.; P. Cassel, Panthera-Stada, etc., in his Apologetische Briefe (Berlin, 1875). (B. P.). The argument that Celsus references the soldier named Pantera story is eclipsed by the fact that Irenaeus repeatedly makes reference to the heretical understanding of Jesus as the son of Pandora where Pandora is clearly the equivalent of Eve.

Those [heretics] who hold the same [system of] infidelity have ascribed, no doubt, their own proper region to spiritual beings,--that, namely, which is within the Pleroma, but to animal beings the intermediate space, while to corporeal they assign that which is material. And they assert that God Himself can do no otherwise, but that every one of the [different kinds of substance] mentioned passes away to those things which are of the same nature. Moreover, as to their saying that the Saviour was formed out of all the AEons, by every one of them depositing, so to speak, in Him his own special flower, they bring forward nothing new that may not be found in the Pandora of Hesiod. For what he says respecting her, these men insinuate concerning the Saviour, bringing Him before us as Pandoros (All-gifted), as if each of the AEons had bestowed on Him what He possessed in the greatest perfection. [Adv Haer 2.14.2]

Again, our Lord Jesus Christ confesses this same Being as His Father, where He says: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." What Father will those men have us to understand [by these words], those who are most perverse sophists of Pandora? Whether shall it be Bythus, whom they have fabled of themselves; or their Mother; or the Only-begotten? Or shall it be he whom the Marcionites or the others have invented as god (whom I indeed have amply demonstrated to be no god at all); or shall it be (what is really the case) the Maker of heaven and earth, whom also the prophets proclaimed,--whom Christ, too, confesses as His Father,--whom also the law announces, saying: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord thy God is one God?"

[Secret Alias]

My point is - why is it generally assumed that the ben Pandira story is rooted in a historical person when the final aleph clearly indicates the feminine ending in Qumran Aramaic (Genesis Apocryphon, Targum to Job), in documents from Wādī Murabba‘āt, also on an ossuary from Jerusalem, dated about 50 C.E. (K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1984, p. 342). The Qumran Copper Scroll 3Q15 usually follows the same spelling to indicate the final vowel -a, as noticed already by J.T. Milik, in: M. Baille t, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux (eds), Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD 3), Oxford 1962, p. 227, §3a. See also P. Muchowsk i, Zwój miedziany (3Q15). Implikacje spornych kwestii lingwistycznych, Poznań 1993, p. 73. Pandira or Pandora (or any of the original variants) all point to the name as being that of a woman not a man.

[Secret Alias]

My point would be then that Celsus has inherited an incorrect understanding of the Pandira/Pandora tradition. The heretical understanding reported by Irenaeus is likely the original context.

[spin]

Can you check out the form found in Tosefta Hullin 2:24? Neusner (Rabbinical Narrative I, 2003, 248) gives:

I bumped into Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, and he told me a teaching of Minut in the name of Jesus ben Pantiri, and it pleased me.

Being in the Tosefta, it is probably earlier than your other sources.

[Secret Alias]

Well that is a good point. 'Jesus the son of Pantiri' in the Tosefta stands alone for the most part and the story here is one which reads "Jesus the Notsri' in other sources. The Pandera references are later but ultimately separate and distinct from these https://books.google.com/books?id=T0lQR ... ra&f=false If it were a case where Pantiri appears in the Tosefta and Pandera in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud fine, you'd have pretty much a slam dunk. But we have a case where Pantiri is preserved in one story upto 200 years after it was first told and Pandira, Pandora, Pantira in all other stories from 400 to 600 years after they were told.

[spin]

My interest in ben Pantiri was its use in helping to show the Notzri reference in the version of the Eliezer ben Hyrkanos heresy story told in Avodah Zarah 16b-17a was likely secondary. And I take Pantiri as a lectio difficilior given the relative frequency of Pandera in later texts.

I'm puzzled by "Pandora" here: Schaefer does not give it anywhere in Jesus in the Talmud, so where does it come from?

[Secret Alias]

No it's my own wrinkle (I always have unusual observations - some interesting, others not so interesting). It's Irenaeus who mentions Jesus as being born of Pandora:

Moreover, as to their saying that the Saviour was formed out of all the AEons, by every one of them depositing, so to speak, in Him his own special flower, they bring forward nothing new that may not be found in the Pandora of Hesiod. For what he says respecting her, these men insinuate concerning the Saviour, bringing Him before us as Pandoros (All-Gifted), as if each of the AEons had bestowed on Him what He possessed in the greatest perfection. (2.14.5)

But if the twelve apostles were chosen with this object, that the number of the twelve AEons might be indicated by means of them, then the seventy also ought to have been chosen to be the type of seventy AEons ... Moreover we must not keep silence respecting Paul, but demand from them after the type of what AEon that apostle has been handed down to us, unless perchance [they affirm that he is a representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all], who derived his being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term All Things, as having been formed out of them all. Respecting this being the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandora--that is, "The gift of all"-- for this reason, that the best gift in the possession of all was centred in him. In describing these gifts the following account is given: Hermes (so he is called in the Greek language), Aimulious te logous kai epiklopon hqos autaus Katqeto (or to express this in the English language), "implanted words of fraud and deceit in their minds, and thievish habits," for the purpose of leading foolish men astray, that such should believe their falsehoods. For their Mother--that is, Leto--secretly stirred them up (whence also she is called Leto, according to the meaning of the Greek word, because she secretly stirred up men), without the knowledge of the Demiurge, to give forth profound and unspeakable mysteries to itching ears. And not only did their Mother bring it about that this mystery should be declared by Hesiod; but very skilfully also by means of the lyric poet Pindar, when he describes to the Demiurge the case of Pelops, whose flesh was cut in pieces by the Father, and then collected and brought together, and compacted anew by all the gods, did she in this way indicate Pandora and these men having their consciences seared by her, declaring, as they maintain, the very same things, are [proved] of the same family and spirit as the others. (2.21.1,2)

What have they similar to show, as having been made through themselves, or by themselves, since even they too are the Workmanship and creatures of this [Creator]? For whether the Saviour or their Mother (to use their own expressions, proving them false by means of the very terms they themselves employ) used this Being, as they maintain, to make an image of those things which are within the Pleroma, and of all those beings which she saw waiting upon the Saviour, she used him (the Demiurge) as being [in a sense] superior to herself, and better fitted to accomplish her purpose through his instrumentality; for she would by no means form the images of such important beings through means of an inferior, but by a superior, agent. For, [be it observed,] they themselves, according to their own declarations, were then existing, as a spiritual conception, in consequence of the contemplation of those beings who were arranged as satellites around Pandora. And they indeed continued useless, the Mother accomplishing nothing through their instrumentality,--an idle conception, owing their being to the Saviour, and fit for nothing, for not a thing appears to have been done by them. But the God who, according to them, was produced, while, as they argue, inferior to themselves (for they maintain that he is of an animal nature), was nevertheless the active agent in all things, efficient, and fit for the work to be done, so that by him the images of all things were made; and not only were these things which are seen formed by him, but also all things invisible, Angels, Archangels, Dominations, Powers, and Virtues,--[by him, I say,] as being the superior, and capable of ministering to her desire. But it seems that the Mother made nothing whatever through their instrumentality, as indeed they themselves acknowledge; so that one may justly reckon them as having been an abortion produced by the painful travail of their Mother. For no accoucheurs performed their office upon her, and therefore they were cast forth as an abortion, useful for nothing, and formed to accomplish no work of the Mother. And yet they describe themselves as being superior to Him by whom so vast and admirable works have been accomplished and arranged, although by their own reasoning they are found to be so wretchedly inferior! (2.30.3,4)

he Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan,(Πάν) because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by Monogenes, for the confirmation of the Pleroma; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father; and yet another, the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma (3.16.1)

Again, our Lord Jesus Christ confesses this same Being as His Father, where He says: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth."(1) What Father will those men have us to understand [by these words], those who are most perverse sophists of Pandora? Whether shall it be Bythus, whom they have fabled of themselves; or their Mother; or the Only-begotten? Or shall it be he whom the Marcionites or the others have invented as god (whom I indeed have amply demonstrated to be no god at all); or shall it be (what is really the case) the Maker of heaven and earth, whom also the prophets proclaimed,--whom Christ, too, confesses as His Father,--whom also the law announces, saying: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord thy God is one God?" (4.2.1)

[spin]

Wrist slap.

[Secret Alias]

I am going through the myth that Irenaeus describes and I have to admit it's not clear that there was a female goddess named Pandora who was Jesus's mother. Rather there is an accusation that Irenaeus brings against the heretics that their mythical understanding of 'the Savior' being formed out of or from 'all the aeons' is borrowed or stolen from Hesiod's Pandora. In Book One at the end of the section on Valentinians he says:

They have much contention also among themselves respecting the Saviour. For some maintain that he was formed out of all; wherefore also he was called εὐδοκητόν (= well-pleasing), because the whole Pleroma was well pleased through him to glorify the Father.(1.12.4)

The idea that Jesus was associated with being 'well-pleasing' appears over and over again in the gospel:

Mark 1:11/Matthew 3:17 "Son, in You I am well-pleased (εὐδόκησα)."

which is ultimately derived from Isaiah ὁ παῖς μου ὃνᾑρέτισα, ὁ ἀγαπητός μου ‹εἰς› ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου· θήσω τὸ Πνεῦμά μου ἐπ' αὐτόν

The aorist in Mark 1:1 is interesting. It is as if the voice from heaven says "You are my beloved son. I have put my stamp of approval on you." This may reflect back to sending the Spirit as a dove or the baptism or the idea that (if you are one of these heretics described by Irenaeus) that the aeons 'formed' Jesus in their image at baptism.

[Secret Alias]

My point about the aorist is that Σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα refers to god's one-time or punctiliar act of being pleased with Jesus as his son at baptism. If we connect this to the idea in Irenaeus that "they have much contention also among themselves respecting the Saviour. For some maintain that he was formed out of all; wherefore also he was called Eudocetos, because the whole Pleroma was well pleased through him to glorify the Father" it is easy to see that those who prefer Mark understanding Christ have come down upon Jesus at baptism is the one-time confirmation of his approval.

Notice how many times the idea of 'well-pleasing' comes up in the discussion of the gospels. Earlier (in the section just cited) Irenaeus mentions that while some (viz. the followers of Mark?) assume that ALL the aeons came down upon Jesus there were those who said it was just the twelve aeons, the last of three original productions of 8, 10 and 12. Apparently those who preferred John saw the ogdoad as coming down upon Jesus:

Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus is their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phos, and Sorer, and Christus, and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved to be one and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces. And when this is destroyed, their whole system sinks into ruin,--a system which they falsely dream into existence, and thus inflict injury on the Scriptures, while they build up their own hypothesis.

Getting back to look at the gospel of Mark exegesis, there is a clear distinction between Jesus and Christ that is equated with Son and Father:

the twelve AEons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos (Man). Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced