The life of the man or divinity worshipped by Christians as “Jesus” and the “Christ” and honored by Muslims as Isa or Issa is dealt with in collections known as the New Testament of the Bible and the Quran but it is also dealt with in diverse sources by Jews who despise and deprecate him as a fraud and a sorcerer. A Jewish alternative to the Christian gospels and Muslim reports in the Quran is reflected in diverse parts of the Talmud, both in the Palestinian and the Babylonian versions, but it is perhaps most detailed in a series of narratives of unknown origin or date entitled the Sefer Toledot Yeshu (the Life of Jesus; in Hebrew, ספר תולדות ישו). The numerous versions share common themes but differ widely in details and are divided into different family groups based on their similarities, principle among them being the Helena group, the Pilate group, the Herod group, the Aramaic Group, the Hebrew Group and the Yiddish Group.

The author stumbled on the Toledot Yeshu while researching the causes of cyclical antisemitism not only during the Common Era but starting with the antipathy between the ancestors of the Hebrews and the Egyptians and then the Canaanites and the Hellenes, something that seems important as the ironic Israeli attitude towards genocide is once again increasing antipathy towards Jews because of the conduct of  a politicized segment of Judaism known as Zionism which seeks to speak and act in the name of all Jews despite the objections of many who insist that Zionists do not act in their name, especially with reference to the slaughter of Palestinians and increasingly, Muslims in general.  The attitude reflected in the Toledot Yeshu is scurrilous, insulting and humiliating but then, the conduct of Christians with respect to Jews since their schism has also been scurrilous, insulting and humiliating.  Notwithstanding its tenor and purpose however, the diverse variants of the Toledot Yeshu provide interesting insights into the divergence of the Abrahamic faiths in a manner which seems to mirror the mythical relationship between their common ancestors, Cain and Abel, and provide interesting alternative perspectives with respect to the life of a mytho-historical figure who has had a major impact, for good but also for terrible evil during the past two millennia.

In this article, the author uses what he understand is the Aramaic version of the protagonist’s name, Yešu, although Christians refer to him as Jesus or Christ and Jews as Yeshua or Yeshu[1] and melds different variants of the Toledot Yeshu into a coherent narrative using footnotes to highlight alternative versions. Rather than an academic, historic and linguistic analysis, the goal of this article is to provide the general public with information concerning the substance of the narratives reflected in diverse versions of the Toledot Yeshu in an easily readable and digestible summary.  For serious and detailed academic treatments of the Toledot Yeshu reference is made to the conference held in 2011 at Princeton University under the leadership of Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer and Yaacov Deutsch which includes articles by diverse academics and authorities on this topic and in a symposium text edited by Daniel Barbu entitled “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies” found in Cromohs’ Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022 published by the Firenze University Press, in Florence, Italy.  Cromohs is an organization that specializes in publication of “theoretically informed work from a range of historical, cultural and social domains that interrogate cross-cultural and connected histories, intersecting the history of knowledge, emotions, religious beliefs, ethnography, cartography, the environment, material culture and the arts”.  Specific suggested readings and sources are listed at the end of the article.

The Sefer Toledot Yeshu
ספר תולדות ישו

Introduction & Overview:

There is little agreement as to when the events described in the many variants of the  Toledot Yeshu took place (McDowell, 2023).  Some versions claim that the events on which they report took place as early as the year 90 before the start of what became known as the Common Era (“BCE”), the year 3671 according to the Hebrew Calendar, in the days of King and High Priest Alexander Jannaeus, while others imply that they took place almost four centuries later under the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine.  Most, however, agree that they started during the reign of Octavius, the first of Rome’s Emperors during the first decade BCE and came to a climactic ending sometime during the last part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius or the early part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Gaius, known as Caligula during the fourth decade of the Common era.  The confusion in large part stems from variants of the Toledot Yeshu in which a royal personage by the name of Elena, Helen, Heleni or Helena plays a principle role.  In some variants, the earliest chronologically, the personage is Queen Salome Alexandra, the wife of Alexander Jannæus for some reason called Helene, but most refer to Heleni of Adiabene[2], a queen from a nearby Parthian vassal kingdom or to Helen Augusta, the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine (Deutsch: 2011, p. 59) who lived long after Yešu’s death and the founding of Christianity.

Variants of the Toledot Yeshu differ a great deal concerning Yešu’s immediate ancestry, his birth, the sexual proclivities of his mother and how he became a heretical schismatic although they all accept the fact that he was adept at the performance of benign supernatural acts including creation and return of life, something his followers believed to involve miracles but which Jewish sources claim involved black magic using one of two sources of power.  In a majority of the cases the source involved knowledge and use of the letters of the ineffable name of the Hebrew deity, the “Shem HaMephorash” also referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ transliterated as YHWH or YHVH (referred to herein as the “Ineffable Name”), but other sources claimed that Yešu’s supernatural power was based on Egyptian magic, either obtained during a sojourn in Egypt or provided to him by his cousin, the person known to Christians as John the Baptist. 

The Ineffable Name was apparently carved on the foundation stone of the most sacred section of the Hebrew temple constructed by Herod the Great to replace the temple initially built by Solomon but destroyed by the Babylonians, the same temple subsequently destroyed by the Romans (referred to herein as the “Second Temple”).  The part of the Second Temple involved was apparently the room in which the arc of the covenant was kept, a relic referred to as the “Holy of Holies”, and was accessible only once a year to the Hebrew High Priest.  If that were not the place referenced and instead, it was more generically within that precinct but more accessible, then anyone entering it might have had easy access to the Ineffable Name (unless it was hidden, perhaps somehow covered or disguised).  It seems incoherent that an almighty divinity would have been so easily manipulated by anyone with access to its name, making it seem more a tool than a sovereign. 

According to the variants that claim that Yešu’s purported miracles were accomplished through use of the Ineffable Name, Yešu was not the only one with inappropriate access thereto as the Jewish leaders who opposed him made access to the name available to various opponents of Yešu, including the person Christians refer to as Judas Iscariot but to whom Jews refer in a number of other ways, among them, as a rabbi by the name of Yehuda (Deutsch: 2011, p. 293) and to Yešu’s uncle Shimon to assist him in deceiving and betraying Yešu’s followers (Gager, 2011, pp. 224-225). Yehuda, frequently described as a learned Jewish rabbi, is the hero in most versions of the Toledot Yeshu as he defeats Yešu in an aerial battle by depriving him of the knowledge or use of the Ineffable Name by anally raping him although more subtle versions substitute the rape with urination or merely pollination with semen.

Most if not all versions of the Toledot Yeshu deal with a trial of Yešu, although disagreeing as to who presided over the trial.  In some versions it was one of the aforementioned foreign queens residing in Jerusalem. One wonders at the nature of her jurisdiction over the Jews since except in the case of Salome Alexandra, she was either the spouse of a sovereign from the Parthian vassal state of Adiabene or else the mother of a future Roman emperor, in every case during times that do not coincide with the general hypotheses concerning the period during which Yešu lived.  A second major series of versions of the Toledot Yeshu have the trial of Yešu presided over by the Roman procurator of Palestine, Pontius Pilate, somewhat coinciding with the version reflected in the Christian gospels, but assigning the execution of Yešu to the Jews themselves, Pilate having refused to take part.  Indeed, one point on which all versions of the Toledot Yeshu agree is that it was the Jews themselves who executed Yešu, something disputed publicly by Jewish leaders[3] during the twentieth century although proudly asserted in private.  A third series of variants involve the Roman emperor Tiberius, claiming that Tiberius was responsible for the execution of Yešu when a promised miracle, the virgin birth of a grandson through a daughter of Tiberius did not take place as, through the intervention of members of the Sanhedrin, the embryo miraculously given life by Yešu was turned to a stone, thus making Yešu appear to Tiberius as a heretical fraud.  Finally, a fourth series of variants have the trial of Yešu presided over by Herod Antipas, tetrarch over Galilee and Perea, rather than by the leaders of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, and are, among other things, distinguished by the assertion that rather than having “stolen” access to the Ineffable Name, Yešu simply learned the name while at the Beit Midrash (the Jewish school), Deutsch, 2022, p. 143.

The core of all versions is similar in that Yešu was a mesmer (bastard) conceived while his mother was menstruating, that he falsely claimed to be the son of the Hebrew god and his messiah and that his deception was discovered and he was executed by the Jews for his blasphemies but there are very diverse differences among the various versions of the Toledot Yeshu concerning not only Yešu’s ancestry, birth and upbringing, but also concerning events following his trial.  In some, Yešu escaped only to be recaptured by or with the assistance of Yehuda while in others the members of the Sanhedrin proceed directly to execute Yešu, although not without difficulties, most stemming from Yešu’s use of the Ineffable Name to prevent trees from being used to hang him (hanging, rather than crucifixion being a common theme), a difficulty overcome by using other forms of vegetation, usually cabbage stalks for such purpose. Another common theme in the different variants of the Toledot Yeshu involves the temporary disappearance of Yešu’s corpse after his execution but with a number of different details concerning how it was eventually recuperated and disposed of (after an initial period when it appeared that it had ascended to join the Hebrew divinity in Heaven).

Some variants of the Toledot Yeshu continue the story beyond the disposition of Yešu’s corpse, with two further series of episodes. One deals with Yešu’s uncle Shimon and how he deceived and betrayed Yešu’s followers, leading many to their deaths by having them believe he was miraculously taking then to battle Yešu’s enemies levitating them onto a cloud only to drop them to their collective deaths, and the other, a much more interesting variant, deals with the apostles Peter, Paul and sometimes John, indicating that they were Jewish infiltrators among the followers of Yeshu whose task it was to take over the young movement and separate it from Judaism in order to minimize conversion of Jews by having the followers of Yeshu organize a separate religion with different holy days and even a different alphabet (see, e.g., Chuecas, 2022, pp. 172-175), pretty much what Saul of Tarsus, who Christians call St. Paul, did, perverting Yešu’s original teachings into the Christianity we know today.

Compilation of the Alexander Jannæus[4], Helena, Helene and Heleni of Adiabene [5] Versions

The following narrative combines elements from the version of the Toledot Yeshu that started during the reign of Judean King Alexander Jannæus (circa 103-76 BCE) prior to the Roman conquest in the year 63 BCE with versions that take place almost a century later during the period when the Parthian vassal queen Heleni of Adiabene resided in Jerusalem, purportedly as if she ruled there.  In part, that decision is based on the coincidence of factors involving the diverse Helena, Helene and Heleni variants, one of which involves King Alexander Jannæus’ wife Salome Alexandra who apparently exercised significant power following his demise.  It thus combines several disparate versions in order to provide a more ample range of events than any one of them provided independently.  Consequently, the initial events are as reported in the Alexander Jannæus variant, but the trial of Yešu is based on the narratives that predominate in the diverse Helena, Helene and Heleni of Adiabene versions.  In this regard it should be noted that there are hundreds of different manuscripts of the Toledot Yeshu with differing narratives and differing points of emphasis, none of which can be deemed more representative than the others.

The Alexander Jannæus version[6] relates that there had lived in Bethlehem an attractive albeit disreputable man of the tribe of Judah[7] whose name was Joseph Pandera[8] and who lusted after an attractive but chaste woman by the name of Miriam[9].  Miriam was the daughter of a widow and betrothed to a god fearing Torah scholar descended from the royal house of David whose name was Yohanan. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, apparently with the connivance of Miriam’s mother[10], surreptitiously entered Miriam’s darkened room late at night, surprising her as, although under Jewish law, Yohanan, as her betrothed, was entitled to enjoy carnal relations with her, he had declined to do so or did so infrequently, but at any rate, because she was menstruating and it would have been inappropriate for him to have had intimate relations with her at that time.  At any rate, on that night, Joseph Pandera, pretending that he was Yohanan, had forced her to engage in conjugal relations with him notwithstanding her menstruation, after which he had departed[11].  When next Miriam had encountered Yohanan and criticized his behavior, so alien to his normal strict adherence to Jewish laws and traditions, he, shocked, had denied that he had forced himself on her or had even been with her that night, and, after they had both questioned Miriam’s mother, Miriam and Yohanan became aware of her rape by Joseph Pandera.  Even worse, the rape of Miriam had left her with child. [12]

Furious and horrified, Yohanan had sought counsel from Shimon ben Shetach, a Pharisee scholar and Nasi (referred to in rabbinic literature as a rabbinic Sage ranking with Hillel) of the Sanhedrin closely connected with the royal court.  Unfortunately, according to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetach, because of the absence of qualified witnesses to the rape (usual, of course, in the case of rape), neither Yohanan nor Miriam had any legal recourse against Joseph Pandera who thus escaped the incident free of punishment, Jewish law being notoriously antifeminine.  Devastated but also irresponsible, Yohanan had then abandoned Miriam to her fate and left for Babylonia.  In some variants, Miriam then fled to her relatives in Bethlehem but they refused to help her and she gave birth in a stable (Yellin, 2022, p. 151) while other variants claim that Yohanan left for Egypt with Miriam and accepted the child as his own.

At any rate, Miriam eventually gave birth to a son she named Yehoshua after her brother (or, in some versions, her father) and, as called for under Hebrew law, he was duly circumcised on the eighth day following his birth[13].  When he attained the proper age, Miriam had him admitted to the study of Jewish traditions in Jerusalem, a study at which he excelled, excelled so much that not infrequently he corrected scholars assigned to teach him and his peers, much to his teachers’ embarrassment and annoyance. On one such occasion, while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin[14], he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and, in an ensuing debate, held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he’d had to receive counsel from Jethro. Because of his conceit and arrogance he was not popular with either his teachers or with his classmates, both groups eventually finding opportunities to cause him significant harm, opportunities made possible, according to this variant, by Yehoshua’s own childish carelessness and conduct and, notwithstanding his erudition, by his inattention to ritual details.

According to the Alexander Jannæus version of the Toledot Yeshu, one day Yehoshua (the name initially used prior to his excommunication) had disrespectfully walked in front of the “sages” (either his teachers or members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, or both) with his head uncovered and had greeted only his own teacher while ignoring the rest of the scholars present.  That had set them to speculating on his unnatural nature.  Much more seriously on a subsequent occasion, he had been playing with a ball (or hoop) and, chasing it, had inadvertently entered the Second Temple, again bareheaded. Because of the foregoing, and because of the malice that the scholars bore against Yehoshua they decided to conduct a thorough investigation as to his background, an investigation which eventually led them back to the famous Rabban Shimeon ben Shetach, the rabbi with whom Yohanan had consulted concerning the rape of Miriam and in whom he had confided, and the rabbi had shared with the members of the Sanhedrin involved the information with which he had been entrusted by Yohanan, information which, after being threatened with torture and death, Miriam had confirmed[15].  Thus, Yehoshua was declared a mamzer (a bastard), expelled from his studies, excommunicated from his faith and his name had been expunged (whereupon he became known merely as Yeshu[16]) and forced to flee to Upper Galilee where he remained until King Alexander Jannæus expired and his wife, Salome Alexandra assumed the leading role in the governance of Judah.

Upon the change in leadership, Yeshu had purportedly slipped back to Jerusalem and then surreptitiously entered the sacred precincts of the Second Temple, entry that had been forbidden him when he’d been excommunicated[17] and while there had come upon the Ineffable Name of the Hebrew god which was carved on the stone tablet on which the Arc of the Covenant was set[18].  The Arc of the Covenant, the most sacred relic in all of Judaism and referred to as the Holy of Holies, was kept in a room in the shape of a perfect cube fifteen feet in every direction modeled on the wilderness tabernacle that had been constructed in accordance with the specific instructions given to Moses by the Hebrew god himself, a room considered so sacred that only one person, the High Priest, was allowed to enter it, and then only one day out of the entire year, because it was claimed that it was the actual dwelling place of the Hebrew god[19]. 

The Ineffable Name was protected by two figurines in the shape of huge brass lions (or perhaps dogs, it was hard to tell) stationed at the entrance to the innermost precincts of the Second Temple so that anyone who improperly obtained knowledge of the Ineffable Name would be shocked by their roars into forgetting it upon passing them as he left.  Knowing of this because of his studies of Hebrew law and lore, Yeshu had copied the letters of the Ineffable Name using a bit of charcoal from the brazier set near the entrance to the Holy of Holies on a tiny slip of parchment that he had fortuitously brought with him, and, using the power of the Ineffable Name to perform miracles, he had sliced open his thigh (or perhaps his calve) without feeling pain and had hidden the small parchment inside his own skin, healing, the incision with the power thus obtained thereby making it possible to recover the knowledge he would lose after exiting the Second Temple. As he’d left, the brass lions (or dogs) had roared as expected and he’d forgotten the Ineffable Name but not the fact that he’d obtained it, or how, and thus, when he came to the dwelling in Jerusalem where he’d been hiding since his return, he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife and withdrew the parchment, recovering the knowledge he’d lost and thus attaining the ability to perform all kinds of miracles through use of the letters of the Ineffable Name, including, the miracle of immediately healing the incision he had made.[20]

Using the ability thus obtained, Yeshu made himself known in Jerusalem and throughout diverse sectors of Judea[21] including the towns of Bethlehem and Nazareth and the Upper Galilee, performing benign miracles by helping the afflicted and diseased, miracles he always attributed to the Hebrew god and, eventually, he gathered a following of three hundred and ten young Jewish men.  He also refuted those who had spoken ill of his birth and those who had excommunicated him, asserting that they had done so only because they had been jealous of his knowledge which threatened their quest for wealth and power and despised him because of his criticism of their abuses and corruption. Yeshu proclaimed that he was in fact the “Messiah” of whom Isaiah had prophesied, quoting diverse prophetic texts such as “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” insisting that King David, who he claimed as his ancestor, had prophesied concerning him, and that the Hebrew god himself had spoken to him, saying “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Of course, he’d had to provide evidence for his claims as even his most devoted followers had proven skeptical and insisted on proofs.  He’d provided the evidence demanded by curing a man who’d been lame from birth, and another who suffered from leprosy, in each case using the letters of the Ineffable Name, after which even the most skeptical among his followers had accepted him as the Messiah and the son of the Hebrew god. As one might anticipate, when word of the foregoing reached the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, its members, furious, had decided to infiltrate the nascent movement and capture Yeshu. To do so they recruited two volunteers, a certain Annanui and a certain Ahaziah, who, pretending to be disciples, suggested to Yešu that he accept an invitation to visit the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Concerned because of his devastating prior experiences with Jewish authorities Yeshu had agreed to accept the invitation but only if the Sanhedrin’s members agreed beforehand to accept him in accordance with his claims of Davidic descent. The leaders of the Sanhedrin had deceptively agreed and, in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah, Yeshu had travelled towards Jerusalem arriving at Knob where he acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem.  However, when he arrived, the leaders of the Sanhedrin had immediately broken their oaths and had bound him and brought him before a Queen[22] then residing in Jerusalem, accusing him of sorcery and enticement to violate Jewish law.[23]

Rather than despairing, Yeshu had confidently addressed the Queen asserting that the prophets had long ago prophesied his coming, quoting “… and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse” and proclaiming that he was the one of whom they’d foretold and, further, evidently with respect to his accusers but directed at the Queen as well, quoting “blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly”.  Impressed, the Queen had turned to the leaders of the Sanhedrin and asked them whether or not what Yeshu had quoted was indeed in the Hebrew Torah, which they’d had to admit.  But they’d then forcefully responded that it did not apply to Yeshu and, also quoting from scripture, their spokesman had replied “… and that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”  They had then insisted that Yeshu had not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.

The Queen, confused by the rhetorical battle had turned to Yeshu who’d again addressed her insisting that he was indeed the Messiah and that as proof thereof he had, as prophesied revived the dead.  The Queen had reacted to that claim by calling for a corpse to be brought before Yeshu and, in her presence and in the presence of his accusers, Yeshu had pronounced the Ineffable Name and the corpse had sprung up, alive, seemingly proving his claim to the Queen’s satisfaction.  Astonished and angered, she had then turned to the leaders of the Sanhedrin and reproached them, saying “this is a true sign” and had sent them off, humiliated, from her presence.

For a while thereafter Yeshu’s following increased as did the opposition led by the leaders of the Sanhedrin, dividing and polarizing Israel[24]. Eventually, Yeshu left Jerusalem to visit the Upper Galilee where he’d dwelt in exile.  However, as soon as he left the leaders of the Sanhedrin had returned to the Queen, again insisting that everything Yeshu did he did through sorcery and that rather than engaging in benign healing, Yeshu was merely seeking to lead the Jewish people astray.  Vacillating before the insistence of the Sanhedrin, the Queen partially acquiesced in their demands by sending the two false disciples who’d initially lured Yeshu back to Jerusalem, Annanui and Ahaziah, with orders for him to again present himself before her.  When they found him and sought to arrest him, his followers had intervened but Yeshu had ordered them not to oppose the summons with a battle, rather, he had asserted that he would once more prove himself to the Queen using the power of his father in Heaven.  He did so before large crowds as witnesses by first molding birds from clay and then, using the Ineffable Name, had breathed life into them and set them to flight.  Then, he had recited the letters of the Ineffable Name over a millstone which had been sunk into deep waters, whereupon it had floated to the surface and he’d sat upon it, floating as if in a boat. When the people had witnessed those miracles they had marveled and, at the behest of Yeshu, Annanui, Ahaziah and the other emissaries sent by the Queen had departed and had faithfully reported what they’d seen to the Queen who had trembled in astonishment, regretting her doubts. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing the leaders of the Sanhedrin had not only remained unrepentant and unconvinced but had decided to violate the holy law that forbade access to the Ineffable Name and, determined to fight fire with fire, had elected a rabbi by the name of Judah Iskarioto (a variant on Yehuda) who they brought into the sanctuary and, despite the fact that he was not the High Priest and that it was not the feast day on which the High Priest was authorized to enter into the presence of the Holy of Holies, had permitted him to enter the sacred precinct and to copy the Ineffable Name, as Yeshu had done, and as Yeshu had done, to reacquaint himself with its letters once outside the Second Temple and to thereby also attain and retain the power to perform miracles.  Then, for a third time Yeshu found himself summoned to appear before the Queen to prove his claims, but this time, unbeknown to him, opposed by another with access to the Ineffable Name.  On this final occasion, Yeshu sought to prove his status as the true Messiah by ascending in the air[25] as if towards Heaven, but then the leaders of the Sanhedrin ordered Judah Iskarioto who was also present to do likewise, which he did, chasing Yeshu and seeking to force him to earth whereupon an aerial battle ensued.  For a while, neither was able to gain the upper hand but eventually, again in complete disregard for Jewish law or traditions, Judah Iskarioto engaged in an act that defiled the Ineffable Name for both of them, spewing his semen on Yeshu, and they both crashed to earth, polluted and, having lost knowledge of the Ineffable Name and thus unable to invoke their powers.  The agents of the Sanhedrin, not waiting for a further decision from the Queen had seized Yeshu, covered his head and beaten him with pomegranate staves after which they’d taken him as their prisoner to a synagogue in Tiberias[26].  There, they’d bound him to a pillar and tortured him, forcing him to drink bitter vinegar instead of water and had impaled his head with a crown of thorns (a situation similar to that reflected in the Christian gospels).

Reacting to the foregoing, Yeshu’s followers in Tiberias, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and Upper Galilee had assembled to battle the members and agents of the Sanhedrin who’d captured and imprisoned Yeshu and they’d eventually prevailed, freeing him and fleeing with him to a region near Antioch[27] where Yeshu had remained, recuperating, until the eve of the following Passover.[28]

Unable to continue his ministry without access to knowledge of the Ineffable Name which was lost when he was polluted with the semen of Judah Iskarioto, Yeshu eventually resolved to abandon his exile and return to Jerusalem in order to re-acquire such knowledge and he set his return to coincide with certain prophecies associated with a Passover that was to coincide with a Sabbath.  Thus, on the eve of that Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by many of his disciples and welcomed by many others returned to Jerusalem riding upon an ass and, after a triumphal entry, headed for the Second Temple surrounded by many of his closest disciples who sought to create confusion as to which one among them was Yeshu thus minimizing the risk of interference with his mission by agents of the Sanhedrin and the temple priests who opposed him. However, Judah Iskarioto, also disguised, had infiltrated Yeshu’s disciples and sent word to the leaders of the Sanhedrin concerning Yeshu’s plans and further, had indicated that he himself would unmask him to agents of the Sanhedrin and the priests at the Second Temple by bowing to him.  Unfortunately for Yešu, events unfolded in the manner which Judah Iskarioto, the Sanhedrin and the priests had arranged and, once more, Yeshu found himself in their hands.

When he was seized, Yeshu had been asked his name by his captors to which he’d replied with various names and recited diverse versus from Jewish lore, all contradicted by the representatives of the Sanhedrin present with counter quotations whereupon, without a trial, he’d been sentenced to death by hanging at the sixth hour of the eve of the Passover (after which, the laws of the Sabbath would have forced a delay during which the followers of Yeshu might have engaged in more mischief and perhaps even rescued him again)[29].  However, when the members of the Sanhedrin sought to hang him[30], every tree they tried to use for such purpose refused to support his weight apparently because, while still able to conjure using the Ineffable Name, he’d enchanted all trees so that they would not cooperate in causing him harm.  But his plan was flawed as it had been limited to trees and thus did not apply to the carob-stalk, more a plant than a tree, and thus, the members of the Sanhedrin, the priests and their agents eventually succeeded in executing Yeshu by hanging him, albeit not in the traditional manner.  His corpse remained hanging from the carob-stalk until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it was written in Scripture that the body of a person executed by hanging could not remain throughout the night upon the “tree” so they had cast his corpse in a hole they’d caused to be dug outside of Jerusalem adjacent to an estuary near a river where refuse and human waste where regularly scattered (i.e., a dung heap), thus desecrating it.

Yeshu had prophesied his death but also, that he would not remain dead and would instead, ascend to join his father in Heaven and, for a while, it seemed that his prophecy had been fulfilled.  When his followers had visited the place where his body had been cast and sought to claim it, it had vanished therefrom, something of which they promptly informed the Queen, claiming that it proved the claims Yeshu had made to her and disproved those of the members of the Sanhedrin.

Shocked, the members of the Sanhedrin and the priests together with emissaries sent by the Queen immediately went to the spot where Yeshu’s body had been cast and found that indeed, it had disappeared.  When that information was conveyed to the Queen, she was furious as well as distraught considering that she may have been deceived into permitting the murder of the true Messiah but the members of the Sanhedrin and the priests dissuaded her from punishing them immediately, obtaining a reprieve of three days during which they would either provide evidence that Yeshu had not ascended to Heaven or be severely punished by the Queen.

As the deadline was set to expire towards the end of the third day, while walking in the field where Yeshu’s body had been cast, lamenting over his fate and praying for a miracle, one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Tanhuma, met the owner of a certain nearby garden who, upon hearing the rabbi’s laments, approached him and confessed that he himself had removed the corpse and had buried it in the sand in his own garden so that Yeshu’s followers would be unable to steal the body and claim that he had ascended into heaven[31]. Elated and relieved, Rabbi Tanhuma quickly shared the news with the other members of the Sanhedrin and the priests whereupon, together, they dug up the corpse and, tying it by the hair to the tail of a horse, transported it to the Queen, exclaiming gleefully “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven”.  Presented with such evidence, the Queen once more reversed her judgment agreeing that the prophecy of Yeshu’s ascension to Heaven had been false and that, consequently, Yeshu had proven to be a false prophet who had enticed the people and led them astray, after which she ridiculed Yeshu’s followers and praised those who had exposed him.

However, many of Yeshu’s followers refused to accept the judgment of the Queen and twelve of them dispersed to preach his message among diverse people.  Three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms by the sea, each preaching that the followers of the Sanhedrin had slain “the Messiah of the Lord”.  Miriam, Yešu’s mother,

…. became ill after the death of her son and therefore made a will. She ordered the faithful followers of her son to set a tombstone over her grave. She died and the news quickly spread. Many came to her funeral to mourn her and deliver a funeral oration … recounting her good deeds and those of her son. …. The Sanhedrin then had the tombstone torn down and forbade anyone to erect a new one in the same place [making it] impossible to see that anyone had ever been buried there (Michels, 2022, p. 94).[32]

The Israelites loyal to the Sanhedrin had mockingly replied to the message of Yešu’s followers, taunting them and claiming that they had been foolishly deluded by a false prophet and for thirty years there was endless strife and discord between the two groups.  However, disturbingly, more and more Jews became deceived into following the heretical teachings of Yeshu’s followers.  In response to that growing dilemma, the leaders of the Sanhedrin devised a scheme to subvert the growing movement of Yeshu’s followers by once again infiltrating it, this time, with a mission to create an irreversible schism between the followers of Yeshu and loyal Jews.

The person that the Sanhedrin chose to implement its scheme was a greatly learned man, a rabbi by the name of Shimon Kaipha[33] who went to Antioch, then the main city of the followers of Yeshu who had taken to referring to themselves as “Nazarenes” and he claimed to them that he had been among the principle disciples of Yeshu and the Yeshu himself had charged him with leading his followers after his death and had empowered him to perform miracles “as Yeshu himself has done”, something he was indeed able to do because, as in the case of Judah Iskarioto, the priests of the Second Temple had made the power of the Ineffable Name available to him by granting him access to its secret.  Thus, he easily deceived Yeshu’s followers into accepting him as Yeshu’s heir by healing a leper and a lame man. Once the followers of Yeshu, the so called Nazarenes, had accepted him as their leader, Shimon Kaipha, as had been planned by the Sanhedrin, convinced them that now that Yeshu was enshrined in Heaven at the right hand of his father, he had ordained that his followers were to reject many of the most sacred aspects of the Hebrew faith, claiming that in a vision, Yeshu from Heaven had ordained that he and the Father abhorred the Hebrew new moons and feasts and even the Hebrew alphabet, and that his Nazarenes were thenceforth to observe as sacred the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were also to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Finally, that they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering.

All these new ordinances which Shimon Kaipha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.  It’s interesting that this Shimon Kaipha was represented as Paul, supposedly formerly Saul of Tarsus, rather that Peter (formerly Cephas, or Simeon or Simon), given the nature of the names involved, but then, Peter was usually portrayed in the Christian gospels as poorly educated and not particularly intelligent.  However, other versions of the Toledot Yeshu claim that Peter was indeed also an infiltrator and a learned, erudite and talented author as well (Gager, 2011, pp. 221-246).

Concluding Observations

The diverse versions of the Toledot Yeshu were, in part, based on information contained in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and other formal Jewish teachings but a good deal probably involve folklore; traditions orally passed on, especially during periods when such teachings involved serious personal danger.  Thus, the earliest versions of the Toledot Yeshu have proven impossible to date and an original version impossible to identify. In one sense, the diverse versions of the Toledot Yeshu are counterpoints to the Christian gospels, the canonical gospels as well as the apocryphal gospels (those rejected by traditional Christians), many of the latter having come to light in the last century.  In another sense, they seem a form of psychological passive resistance to the abuses heaped by Christians on Jews since the epoch of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately, they are also, in part, responsible for the periodic tides of vehement antisemitism as they evoke the most lurid aspects of accusations by Christians against Jews, holding Jews collectively responsible for the death of Yešu.  Interestingly, beginning in the middle of the twentieth century, after the Nazi Holocaust, Jewish leaders externally denied any role in the death of Yešu, a claim formally accepted as valid by the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations, while internally, disparate groups of Jews continue to cling to many of the claims made in the diverse versions of the Toledot Yeshu, if perhaps not to its outlandish supernatural aspects. Outlandish but perhaps not unusual or very different from the miracles claimed by all three of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Claims which seem entirely credible within each branch, but ludicrous when espoused by another.

Personally, the author is particularly taken by the versions of the Toledot Yeshu that claim that saints Peter and Paul, the two most important saints in Christendom, were in fact, Jewish agents charged with infiltrating and subverting the nascent heresy into a full blown schism and in that manner, minimizing conversion of gullible Jews.  That is certainly a strategy worthy or the ancestors of today’s Mossad and Shin Bet and resonates with the role that Saul of Tarsus in fact played in the evolution of Christianity from one of the many variants of Judaism that existed two millennia ago into the myriad of frequently antisemitic, Hellenized variants of Christianity that exist today.  It’s ironic that Islam, which evolved seven centuries later, seems so much closer to the Judaism prevalent at the dawn of the Common Era than do most variants of today’s Judaism and certainly more so than any major branch of Christianity, and that Christians and Jews today so thoroughly criticize Islamic insistence on strict obedience to the Judaic Laws purportedly delivered to Moses directly by YHWH.

In conjunction with how similar beliefs are viewed so differently when espoused by others, it seems appropriate to reflect, at least for a moment, on the concept of genocide, a concept deemed abhorrent and anathema when applied to a group of which we are part, but sacred and holy when applied to others, at least among the Abrahamic faiths. Illustrative of the latter, of course, is the current genocide being inflicted by Zionists claiming to act in the name of and for the benefit of all Jews, a claim vociferously rejected by many Jews of conscience, especially when contrasted with the genocide perpetrated against Jews (and others, indeed, most victims were not Jews but Slavs, Russians, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) by the Nazis during the second “war to end all wars”.  But the current Zionist attitude towards genocide is not alien historically to Jews who according to the Torah approved of genocide on numerous occassions, e.g., with respect to the Flood; to the killing of the Egyptian primogenitors; to the killing of all the men, women, elderly and children of Jericho by Joshua after the death of Moses; to the slaughter of the Canaanites throughout the Middle East; to the slaughter of Christians in Jerusalem during the Persian conquest of the city in the seventh century of the Common Era, etc. And of course, that is not a phenomenon unique to Jews, consider the genocide perpetrated by Europeans of all stripes on indigenous populations in the Americas, in Africa, in Australia and in Asia, especially by the United Kingdom, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians and last but certainly not least, by the United States.

Bibliography, Sources and Suggested Readings:

Alexander, Philip (2011): “The Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 101-__; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Asimov, Isaac (1981): Guide to the Bible, Wings Books (Random House), New York.

Barbu, Daniel (2022): “Emotions and the Hidden Transcript: The Jewish Gospel Toledot Yeshu in Early Modern Italy”; pp. 110-141 in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Barbu, Daniel (2022): “Foreword”; pp. 77-79 in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Baring-Gould, Sabine (1874): The Lost and Hostile Gospels: An Essay on the Toledoth Jeschu, and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of Which Fragments Remain; Ulan Press edition, (2012), Neuilly sur Seine.

Berenbaum, Michael; Skolnik, Fred, eds. (2007): “Ashkenaz”; Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 2, pp. 569–71 (2nd ed.); Macmillan Reference, Detroit.

Brunner, José (2007): Demographie–Demokratie–Geschichte: Deutschland und Israel; Verlag, Wallstein.

Carmilly-Weinberger, Moshe (1977): Censorship and Freedom of Expression in Jewish History; Yeshiva University Press), New York page 185.

Casey, Maurice (2011). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching; T&T Clark, London.

Chajes, H.P. (1903): “Ben Statla (Notes on the period before the Destruction of the Second Temple)”, S. A. Horodetski’s Ha-Goren, Berdichev, 1903, IV, pp. 33-37; Tel Aviv.

Chuecas Saldias, Ignacio Javier (2022): “The ladino Istoriah de Iesus natsareno (E.H. 47 D 10) as the Vorlage of the Huldricus version of the Toledot Yeshu”; pp. 160-187 in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.  

Cohen, Jeremy Cohen (1982): The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism; Cornell University Press, Ithica.

Cohen, Rodrigo Laham (2019): “Jesús en las narrativas judías del primer milenio”; Anuario del Centro de Estudios Históricos Profesor Carlos S. A. Segreti, pp. 34-53; Consejo Nacional Argentino de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Cordoba.

De Young, James (2004): Terrorism, Islam, and Christian Hope: Reflections on 9-11 and Resurging Islam; Wipf and Stock, Eugene OR.

Derenbourg, Hartwick (1867): Essai sur les formes des pluriels arabes; Imprimerie Imperial, Paris.

Deutsch, Yaacov (2011): “The Second Life of the Life of Jesus: Christian Reception of Toledot Yeshu”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 283 – 295; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Deutsch, Yaacov (2022): “Deutsch, An Unknown German Translation of Toledot Yeshu by Franz Ferdinand Engelsberger, a Seventeenth Century Christian Convert from Judaism”; pp. 142-159 in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Di Segni, Riccardo (2022); “Afterword: The Changing Fortunes of Toledot Yeshu Research”; pp. 188-190 in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Ekstrand, Donald W. (2008): Christianity; Xulon Press, Maitland, FL.

Elwell, Walter A. (Ed.) (2001): Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Academic, Ada MI.

Espin, Orlando (2007): Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies; Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN.

Foote, George William; J.M. Wheeler (1885): The Jewish Life of Christ; Progressive Publishing Co., London.

Gafni, Isiah H. and Stephen G. Wald (2011): “Rethinking Talmudic History: the challenge of literary and redaction criticism”; Jewish History volume 25 pp. 355–375; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Gager, John (2011): “Simon Peter, Founder of Christianity or Saviour of Israel?”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 201-245; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Gribetz, Sarit Kattan (2011): “Hanged and Crucified: The Book of Esther and Toledot Yeshu”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 159-180; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Griffiths, Emma (2004): “Why get cross about Xmas?”; BBC News, London.

Harvey, Richard S (1991): Raymundus Martini and the Pugio Fidei – the Life and Works of a Medieval Controversialist; University College, London.

Hasan-Rokem, Galit (2011): “Polymorphic Heleni – Toledot Yeshu as a Palimpsest of Religious Narratives and Identities”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 246 -282; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Herford, R. Travers (1903): Christianity in Talmud and Midrash; Williams & Norgate, London.

Hildesheim: OIms. 1977).

 Hindson, Ed; Caner, Ergun (2008): The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity; Harvest House, Eugene OR.

Horbury William (2010): “Rabbinic Perceptions of Christianity and the History of Roman Palestine”, 165 Proceedings of the British Academy, p. 353-76, London.

Howard, George (1998): Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; Mercer University Press, Macon.

Ilan, Tal (2009): “Helenie, Queen of Adiabene”; The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, Newton, MA.

Kjær-Hansen, Kai (1992). “An Introduction to the Names Yehoshua/Joshua, Yeshua, Jesus and Yeshu”; Jews for Jesus, San Francisco.

Klausner, Joseph (1922): Jesus of Nazareth: His life, times, and teaching (Engl. transl. 1925); George Allen & Unwin, London.

Klausner, Joseph (1925, translation 1944): Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teachings; The MacMillan Company, London.

Krauss, Samuel (1902): Das Leben Jesu nach jiidischen Quellen; S. Calvary, Berlin; reproduced,

Langton, Daniel R. (2010): The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination; Cambridge University Press, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Limor; Ora and Israel Jacob Yuval (2011): “Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 196-200; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Martini, Raimundo (1651): Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos; Gregg Press (1967); University of Lausanne, Lausanne.

McDowell, Gavin (2023): “The Alternative Chronology: Dating the Events of the Wagenseil Version of Toledot Yeshu,” pp. 59-80 in Toledot Yeshu in Context: The Jewish “Life of Jesus” in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern History, ed. D. Barbu and Y. Deutsch; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, available at https://hal.science/hal-03928867/document.

Mead, George Robert Sow (1903): “Chapter X – The Talmud Ben Stada Jesus Stories”; Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?; Theosophical Pub. Society; London.

Meerson, Michael (2011: “Meaningful Nonsense: A Study of Details in Toledot Yeshu”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 181-195; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Meerson, Michael and Peter Schäfer (2014): Toledot Yeshu, vol. 1:286–304 (English) and vol. 2:211–37 (Hebrew); Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Meerson, Michael, and Peter Schäfer (2014): “Toledot Yeshu: The life story of Jesus”; Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism; p. 159 et. seq.; Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen.

Michels, Evi (2022): “Marian Devotion and the Jewish Gospel (Toledot Yeshu) in Eighteenth Century Amsterdam” in Barbu, Daniel, Ed. (2022): “The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ in Early Modern Contexts: Case Studies”; Cromohs, Cyber Review of Modern Historiography, Issue 25, 2022; Firenze University Press, Florence, available at https://www.academia.edu/104749904/The_Jewish_Life_of_Jesus_Toledot_Yeshu_in_Early_Modern_Contexts_Case_Studies.

Montini, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria (1965): Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965; Vatican Archives, Vatican City, available at https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

Mosk, Carl (2013): Nationalism and economic development in modern Eurasia; Routledge, New York.

Oppenheim, D., and J. Oppenheim (1861): “Ueber Den Verfasser Des Nischmath Und Das Alter Der Piutim”; Monatsschrift Für Geschichte Und Wissenschaft Des Judentums, vol. 10, no. 6, 1861, pp. 212–24; Dresden/Breslau/Berlin.

Origen (Ed. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Frederick Crombie (original, sometime during the third century of the Common Era, translation, 1885): “Origen Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter XXXII”; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV; Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo, NY.

Patrick, John (2009): The Apology of Origen in Reply to Celsus;

Például Gero, Stephen (1988). “The Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth … Apocryphal Gospels: A Survey of Textual and Literary Problems”; Hildegard–Haase, Wolfgang (hrsg.): Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW), II.25.5: pp 3969–3996; de Gruyter, Berlin.

Piovanelli, Pierluigi (20119: “The Toledot Yeshu and Christian Apocryphal Literature: The Formative Years”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 88-100; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Prager, Edward (2005): A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations; Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Pritsak, Omeljan (1978): The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism; Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 2, No. 3 (September 1978), pp. 261-281; Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge.

Rice, Bradley N. (2017): “The Apocryphal Tale of Jesus’ Journey to India: Nicolas Notovitch and the Life of Saint Issa Revisited”; Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions: Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha: Proceedings from the 2015 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium. Edited by Tony Burke, 265-284. Cascade Books, Eugene, OR.

Riddell, Peter G. (2001): Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and Responses; University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Rokeah, David (1970) “Ben Stara is Ben Pantera: In Search of Clarification of a Historical Philological Problem”, Tarbiz, vol. 39, number 1, pp. 9-18; Magnes Publishing House at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem;

Schäfer, Peter (2002): Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah; Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Schoeps, H (1948): Simon Magus in der Haggada; 21 Hebrew Union College Annual. 258; Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati.

Schonfield, Hugh J. (1937): According to the Hebrews; Duckworth, London.

Stanislawski, Michael (2011): “A Preliminary Study of a Yiddish “Life of Jesus” (Toledot Yeshu): JTS Ms. 2211”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 78-87; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Tartako, Paola (2011): “The Toledot Yeshu and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Medieval Crown of Aragon”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 283 – 295___; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

The Qur’an (M.A.S Abdel Haleem, Trans.) (2004): Oxford University Press.

Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998): The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide: Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis.

United Church of God (2011): “What Do ‘Messiah’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ Mean?”; Beyond Today, Charlotte, NC.

Urantia Foundation (1955): The Urantia Book; Urantia Foundation, Chicago.

Van Voorst, Robert E (2000): Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. WmB Eerdmans Publishing.

Whitehead, James; Burns, Michael (2008): The Panther: Posthumous Poems. Moon City Press, Springfield.

Wikipedia contributors (2024), September 1). The Urantia Book. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:06, October 5, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Urantia_Book&oldid=1243405890

Yassif, Eli (2011): “Toledot Yeshu: Folk-Narrative as Polemics and Self-Criticism”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 101-180; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Yoffie, Adina M (2011): “Observations on the Huldreich Manuscripts of the Toledot Yeshu”; Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference; Michael Meerson, Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch (Eds.), pp. 61-78; Volume 143 of Texts and studies in ancient Judaism; Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Zanzig, Thomas (2000): Jesus of history, Christ of faith; Saint Mary’s Press, Winona, MN.

About the Author:

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, the Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com.

---

[1] Phonically of course, as neither Hebrew nor Aramaic use the Latin alphabet.

[2] Heleni of Adiabene (Hebrew: הֶלֵּנִי‎ Hellēnī, who died circa 50–56 of the Common Era), was a queen mother in the Parthian vassal state of Adiabene.  She was, at least initially, purportedly married to her brother Monobaz I to whom she bore the monarchs Izates II and Monobaz II. About the year 30 of the Common Era, well within the most commonly accepted timeline for the life of Yešu, she and her family converted to Judaism to which she became devoted and, upon her death, she was buried in a pyramidal sepulchral in Jerusalem. According to Josephus, she was the daughter of King Izates I and according to Moses of Chorene she was the chief wife of Abgar V, king of Edessa, rather than of her brother, Monobaz I (although perhaps, at different times she had been wife to them both).  Problematic with respect to her inclusion in diverse variants of the Toledot Yeshu is the probability that she only moved to Jerusalem in the year 45 or 46 of the Common Era, well after the crucifixion of Yešu (Hasan-Rokem: 2011, p. 266).

[3] The public repudiation by Jewish leaders having been formally accepted by Catholics at least in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) when Pope Paul VI issued the declaration Nostra aetate (“In Our Time”; Montini, 1965).

[4] See generally Meerson, 2014.

[5] See generally, Ilan, 2009; Hasan-Rokem, 2011.

[6] Frequently referred to as the Wagenseil version.

[7] In some versions, a nobleman.

[8] Interestingly, the initial reference to a purported Pantera as a possible father of Yešu was by a Roman philosopher by the name of Celsus, a second century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity, in his literary work, The True Word, see Patrick, 2009; Origen, circa 3rd century, C.E.; Gager, 2011, p. 242.

[9] Miriam, or more probably Mariam, was the Aramaic and Hebrew form of the Greek name, “Maria”, anglicized to “Mary”.

[10] Some variants, however, have Joseph Pandera enter Miriam’s home by cutting a hole in the roof.

[11] Other related versions have Miriam willingly engaging in intimate relations with Joseph Pandera because they were both very attractive and desirable but Yohanan, her betrothed, had shown little interest in Miriam physically.  Thus she was an adulteress and Yohanan a cuckold.  In some of those versions, Miriam remained with Joseph Pandera after she was abandoned by Yohanan.  Indeed, in one version, Yohanan helped her escape her de facto imprisonment through the window of her bedroom using a ladder, after which they had eloped (Checas, 2022, p. 167).

[12] The Alexander Jannæus version is the kindest version with respect to Mary/Miriam/Mariam, as most have her as either a prostitute or a promiscuously unfaithful wife.  Most, if not all versions, have her conception of Yešu take place during her menstrual period.  In some versions, she deceives her fiancé Yohanan into believing that Yešu is his child, and he remains and raises him as if he were (see Michels, 2022).

[13] Other variants assert he was not circumcised and refused to adhere to Jewish dietary laws.

[14] A tract on the nature of damages under Jewish law, part of the fourth Order of the Mishna (also the Tosefta and Talmud) which dealt with Jewish criminal and civil law and the Jewish court system.

[15] Related versions had Yešu demand that his mother claim that he had been born from her forehead, and that she had acquiesced, claiming to have remained a virgin.  Furthermore, in those versions, she is a vocal supporter of Yešu when he is imprisoned and assists in his escape (see Michels, 2022).

[16] A negative acronym meaning “may his name and memory be blotted out” (Yimach Shmo Uzichro), Gribetz, 2011, p. 174.

[17] Incoherently implying that prior to his excommunication he’d had access to the sacred precinct reserved only to the High Priest, and that only once a year.

[18] Other versions assert that he came upon the Ineffable Name accidentally earlier when, in an incident somewhat similar to the one described above, as a child, he had entered the sacred precincts while chasing the hoop (or ball) but had inappropriately appropriated its use pretty much in the manner here described.

[19] Apparently, as illustrated in many versions of the Toledot Yeshu, it was a frequently violated sacred rule as not only Yešu but members of the Sanhedrin seemed to come and go there whenever they found it convenient to make the Ineffable Name available to someone for use in opposing Yešu.

[20] Consistent, apparently, with the general tenor of Jewish criticism of Jesus’ miracles going at least as far back as Celsus (second century of the Common Era, Gager, 2011, p. 242), which does not deny Jesus’ ability to perform miracles, accusing him instead of practicing magic. This version even accepts the divine origin of the miracles, attributing them to his misuse of the divine name. In the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith is accused of a similar crime purportedly using the power of the Ineffable Name to escape from the Garden of Eden (Schäfer, 2011, p. 6).

[21] Most versions have the events taking place in the diverse parts of what would become the Roman province of Judaea but the Romans had not yet conquered Judea during the reign of Alexander Jannæus.

[22] Given that the Queen in question might have been any one of the various Helena, Helene or Heleni alluded to, the author has elected to just refer to the queen in question generically as the “Queen”.

[23] At this point, this compilation transitions to one more related to the Queen Helena, Helene and Heleni variants even though confusion reigns given the role played after the demise of King Alexander Jannæus by his wife, Salome Alexandra for some reason also referred to as Helene, all of which seem similar.

[24] Although the events took place in either a kingdom known as Judaea or a subsequent Roman province also referred to by that name, before its name was changed to Palestine, the term “Israel” was used to refer to its Jewish inhabitants.

[25] Described in some versions as riding on a sunbeam (Chuecas, 2011, p. 161).

[26] There is a good bit of incoherence here as Tiberias was founded sometime around 18–20 CE in the Herodian Tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea by the Roman client king Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great.  However, the narration purports to be from the Alexander Jannæus variant of the Toledot Yeshu which takes place almost a century earlier.

[27] Some traditions say Egypt.

[28] In a variation on the story, Judah was able to out-miracle Yeshu in the sign contest without defiling him and Yeshu was thus discredited, arrested, but, as in this version, his followers had been able to break him free, and, he had not forgotten the letters of the Ineffable Name. In that variant he had escaped to Egypt in hopes of learning Egyptian magic (regarded as the best magic in the world) but Judah had gone to Egypt and again infiltrated Yeshu’s disciples, posing as one himself.  From that vantage point that Judah had been able to cause Yeshu to forget the Ineffable Name, resulting in Yeshu’s decision to return to Jerusalem and relearn it. But Judah had promptly sent warnings to the leaders of the Sanhedrin along with suggestions as to how to arrest Yeshu.

[29] In this variant, no queen is present as Yeshu is convicted and executed directly by the Sanhedrin, which differs from most other Queen Helena or Heleni variants, and indeed, from the variants which have Emperor Tiberius, King Herod or Pontius Pilate presiding over a trial.

[30] Perhaps a euphemism for crucifixion but most variants of the Toledot Yeshu seem to insist that he was hung, rather than crucified, and that is consistent with the claim that it was the Sanhedrin rather than the Romans who executed Yešu as crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.

[31] One variant at least has the body deliberately removed by a rabbi, Gamliel, rather than a gardener, and hidden in order to prevent Yešu’s followers from stealing it and claiming that it had ascended, a plot that went astray when it inadvertently supported the suppositions of Yešu’s followers, but was subsequently corrected when Gamliel disclosed where he had hidden it so that it could be disclosed to the Queen.

[32] Another variants states the following concerning Miriam’s death and burial:

In those days, Mary, the mother of Jesus, died. King (Herod) ordered her to be buried under the tree where her son had been hanged, as well as the brothers of Jesus and his sisters, whom the king ordered to be hanged. And they hanged them and wrote on the tombstone, ‘Here the children of fornication (Hos 2:6) were hanged, and their mother was buried beside them. Shame on them!’ But some villains (פריצים) from Jesus’s family came and stole the tombstone and put another in its place, on which they wrote, ‘Behold, a ladder is set up on the earth with its top reaching the heavens, and the angels of God are ascending (Gen. 28:12). The mother of the children rejoices. Praise the Lord! (Ps. 113:9).’ When the king heard what the villains ( פריצים) had done, he ordered to demolish the tombstone, and he killed about 100 relatives of Jesus (Michels, 2022, pp. 95-95).

[33] Diverse variants claim it was not one person who infiltrated and sabotaged the evolving movement but two or three, men who promptly became major saints of the evolving heresy and who are known to foolish Christians as saints Peter, Paul and John.