The Talmud appears to confuse Jesus with Ben Stada who it designates as the son of Pandira. He was a sorcerer from Egypt and he had cuts in his skin for magical purposes. It is thought that Ben Stada was around after the time Jesus supposedly lived.
The mother was Mary or Miriam who was a hairdresser and the husband was Stada and the lover, the father Pandira. The mother was also called Stada meaning gone astray or adulteress. We will see later that Ben Stada would have been a Zealot and had a following of Zealots.
He Walked Among Us suggests that the Talmud is confused for it mixed up Mary Magdalene with Mary for Magdalene is a similar word to hairdresser which was M’gadd’la. But there is no support for this idea at all. And the Jews would have loved to have accused Jesus of sleeping with Magdalene for they were very close and so they would not have confused the two Marys unless the gospellers made the Magdalene up after the tradition about the mother of Jesus was written down.
And there is nothing wrong with the husband being called Stada and her being called that in a different sense though the book says there is (page 61). Stada was the nickname of Mary and they called the husband Stada to avoid calling him Joseph. The husband of Mary’s proper name was Pappas Ben Yehuda who the book says lived too late and who was alive in the 130s AD but there were lots of Pappas Ben Yehudas.
The book quotes a rabbi saying that Ben Stada was not Jesus but that is only to be expected when Ben Stada was never proved to be Jesus to everybody’s satisfaction. And it is wholly unfair to cite the evidence of a man who did not say why he believed Jesus was not Ben Stada. Through the centuries, scholars have taken Ben Stada to refer to Jesus. And Ben Stada had a wound through which he brought sorcery so was he Jesus having survived the cross? Jesus was believed by many to have achieved miracle or sorcery power through the wounds of the cross.
Ben Stada was described as mad as was Jesus.
If there is confusion it may be a clear testimony that the Jesus it means was such a nebulous person that nobody could be sure of anything about him. Perhaps even his existence was uncertain.
I would suggest that the Talmud could be saying that Ben Stada was Jesus playing a different role after Jesus’ “demise” or that Ben Stada was suspected of being this resurrected Jesus person. The activities of Ben Stada would certainly make him need to masquerade as a man who did not exist. He could have been claiming to be a resurrected man though the man never lived. The Talmud is saying that Jesus did not miraculously rise again at all but did appear after his alleged death but as an ordinary madman.
Ben Stada is thought to have been the Egyptian in Josephus (page 60, He Walked Among Us) and in the book of Acts who was guilty of insurrection.