Jesus the Bastard Son: Part 2

[michaelsherlock]

In the 9th century a Jewish biography of Jesus, known in Hebrew as the ‘Toledoth Yeshu,’ came to the attention of the fanatical anti-Semitic archbishop of Lyon, Agobard. These texts painted a picture of his beloved saviour, which was less than flattering. Among the various versions of this Toledoth (biography), were stories of Jesus’ promiscuous mother Mary, who had committed adultery and conceived Jesus on her ‘Niddah’ (period of menstruation), a time of ritual impurity, according to Jewish tradition. They relayed how Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier by the name of Pandira/Pandera, and how his foster father, Yochannan (John) a god fearing Torah scholar and descendant of the House of David, found out and quietly separated from his wife, choosing not to disgrace her. It told of how Jesus, on account of his poverty, had hired himself out in Egypt as a servant, during which time he became infected by Egyptian magic, in a cut on his skin. Following this, some versions of the Toledoth report that he returned to Israel and proclaimed himself to be the son of god and on account of his charisma and sorcery, gained followers. In the end, he was stoned for his heresies, hung from a tree, buried near a garden, only to have his body snatched and hidden by his disciples, so that they could claim that he had been resurrected in the flesh in accordance with one of his prophecies. Unfortunately, the body was discovered and brought back to the authorities, which resulted in the execution of his five closest disciples.

Now, there are a few different versions of this Toledoth Yeshu. Between the various accounts, exist details which stand in contradiction to one another, details regarding the name of both his foster father and father, his date of birth, how and where he received his magic, the events following his death, etc. Such contradictions however, do not, according to Christian logic, prevent them being used as historical testimony. Nor do some of the more mythological events which take place within these narratives.

The Wagenseil Version

The Wagenseil Version of the Toledoth Yeshu was translated from Hebrew by the fanatical 17th Century Christian and outspoken anti-Semite, Professor Johann Christian Wagenseil. It provides the following account of the information contained within a few versions of the Toledoth Yeshu and is as follows:

In the year of the world 4671, in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel. There arose at that tune a scape-grace, a wastrel and worthless fellow, of the fallen race of Judah, named Joseph Pandira. He was a well-built man, strong and handsome, but he spent his time in robbery and violence. His dwelling was at Bethlehem, in Judah, And there lived near him a widow with her daughter, whose name was Miriam; and this is the same Miriam who dressed and curled women's hair, who is mentioned several times in the Talmud.(1)

These were the events which shortly preceded the conception and birth of Jesus ben Pandera. From the outset, we see many parralells to the Gospel’s accounts of Jesus; his father being a man named Joseph from the tribe of Judah, his residence in Bethlehem, in accordance with “Matthew’s” Gospel, yet in contradiction to Luke’s, and his mother being Miriam, or Mary. There is a striking peculiarity with this account, namely, the period in which Jesus’ birth was supposed to have taken place. Leaving aside the ignorance of Wagenseil, who mistakenly ascribed the events to the year 4671 (“4671 years after the creation of the universe,” or 910BCE), in accordance with the later Christian dating system, a system not used by the Jews until well after this manuscript was written, we are given a clue which does appear to correspond with other versions of the Toledoth and the Talmud. This is of course is the reference to King Alexander Jannaeus, of whom records show, ruled Judea from 106BCE-79BCE. The Toledoth Yeshu places the birth of Jesus within this period, almost a century earlier than the Gospels claim their Jesus was born.

To be continued….

1. Rev. S. Baring Gould. The Lost and Hostile Gospels. Williams and Norgate. (1874) Pg. 76

[NoMoreFaith]

Seeing as this is clearly a text written hundreds of years after the gospels, which in themselves, compiled hundreds of years after the "fact". What does this prove exactly.

I'm struggling to see the point of bringing up the Toledot Yeshu, which as amusing as its claims are, appear to be even more dismissible than the gospels, although potentially only through a greater extent of written record in which to refer to in the period it was written.

Evidence of early Satire more than evidence of the Bastard status of Christ I would have thought.

[michaelsherlock]

Seeing as this is clearly a text written hundreds of years after the gospels, which in themselves, compiled hundreds of years after the "fact". What does this prove exactly.

I'm struggling to see the point of bringing up the Toledot Yeshu, which as amusing as its claims are, appear to be even more dismissible than the gospels, although potentially only through a greater extent of written record in which to refer to in the period it was written.

Evidence of early Satire more than evidence of the Bastard status of Christ I would have thought.

It is not over yet...

[NoMoreFaith]

So I see, but the post itself seems incongruous without any statement asserting its relevance or status.

Carry on anyway, its entertaining all the same

[michaelsherlock]

So I see, but the post itself seems incongruous without any statement asserting its relevance or status.

Carry on anyway, it is entertaining all the same

I am busy editing my current 3 volume series so my time is somewhat limited, but just to give you a spoiler:

I do not end up proving that Jesus was the bastard son of a menstruate and promiscuous woman from 100 BCE!

[Minimalist]

In Chapter 28 of Book I of Contra Celsus, Origen gets all huffy because Celsus states:

Chap. 28

...[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

Now, what is particularly interesting about this is the dating. Celsus wrote in the late 2d century. Origen "answered" in the 3d. But the Talmud, which contains some stories about various jesus-type characters was not more or less completed until around 500. So it would appear that these stories were in circulation - and being ripped by Greco-Roman writers - long before the Jews got their act together.

[michaelsherlock]

In Chapter 28 of Book I of Contra Celsus, Origen gets all huffy because Celsus states:

Chap. 28

...[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

Now, what is particularly interesting about this is the dating. Celsus wrote in the late 2d century. Origen "answered" in the 3d. But the Talmud, which contains some stories about various jesus-type characters was not more or less completed until around 500. So it would appear that these stories were in circulation - and being ripped by Greco-Roman writers - long before the Jews got their act together.

Ohhh! Dude!!! That was going to be in about the 4th post, where I show that the traditions in the Talmud (Jerusalem & Babylonian), Tosefta and Toledoth, go back to at least the 2nd century and one particular tradition found in these works, even goes back to the first century, as it appears in the Gospel of "Matthew". That's cool. Good going anyway.

Celsus and Porphyry are two of my favorite early anti-Christians, although Porphyry is my number one, but with wit like the following, who can blame me:

“In another passage Jesus says: These signs shall witness to those who believe: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. And if they drink any deadly drug, it will hurt them in no way." Well then: the proper thing to do would be to use this process as a test for those aspiring to be priests, bishops or church officers. A deadly drug should be put in front of them and [only] those who survive drinking it should be elevated in the ranks [of the church]. If there are those who refuse to submit to such a test, they may as well admit that they do not believe in the things that Jesus said. For if it is a doctrine of [Christian] faith that men can survive being poisoned or heal the sick at will, then the believer who does not do such things either does not believe them, or else believes them so feebly that he may as well not believe them.” "

R. Joseph Hoffman, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Oxford University Press (1994). Pg. 50.