^{page 317 note 1} æuvres, XXVI (1879), 222.Google Scholar For a sketch of Voltaire's opinion of Jesus see Strauss, D. F., Voltaire (Ges. Schr. XI, 1878), pp. 179 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 2} E.g. Mead, G. R. S., Did Jesus live 100 B.C.? (London, 1903).Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 3} Grätz, H., Geschichte der Juden III ⁴ (1888), p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 4} Güdemann, M., cited by Krauss, S., Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (1902), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 5} Cf. the statements cited by Heller, B., M.G.W.J. (1933), p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 6} I am thinking of the Formstecher-Schoeps theory, that he who is to return according to the teaching of the Church and he who is to come according to the Synagogue ‘will bear one and the same countenance’ (Paulus, 1959, p. 274Google Scholar); E.T. 1961, p. 258Google Scholar; Israel und Christenheit, 1961, p. 227Google Scholar; E.T. (1963), p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 7} It is typical that the most recent Jewish investigation into the trial of Jesus, Winter's, P.On the Trial of Jesus (1961Google Scholar), is based exclusively on the research of the school of Formgeschichte.

^{page 318 note 1} Collections of the material are to be found in de Rossi, J. B., Bibliotheca Judaica Anti-Christiana (Parma, 1800Google Scholar); Laible, H., Jesus Christus im Thalmud (1891Google Scholar) (, E.T. 1893Google Scholar); Strack, H. L., Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen (1910Google Scholar); Goldstein, M., Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (1950Google Scholar).

^{page 318 note 2} The question was reopened in a promising way by Stauffer, E., Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (1957), p. 147Google Scholar (, E.T. 1959, pp. 161 f.Google Scholar); Jerusalem und Rom (1957), pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar; Novum Testamentum (1956), PP. 96 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 3} A special investigation into this is being prepared by Mr D. Catchpole-Bristol.

^{page 318 note 4} Jesus in Talmude, I (Altdorf, 1699), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 1} Blumenkranz's, B. investigations (especially his Juifs et Chrétiens dans le Monde Occidental, 1960Google Scholar) highlight this aspect; cf. Th.L.Z. 1966, cols. 351 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 2} Bergmann, J., Jüdische Apologetik (1908), p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 3} Lauterbach, S., Rabbinic Essays (1951), p. 475Google Scholar, considers the possibility that these sources contained even more material in their original form.

^{page 320 note 1} It is disputed whether the oldest sources which mention the name of Jesus (Sanh, . 43a; 107bGoogle Scholar) make reference to the Christ of the gospels or to some unknown person of that name (the main arguments for and against are summarized already by Meelführer, , I, 4 ff.Google Scholar). But even if the latter against all probabilities were true, it would not be of substantial relevance in the context of our problem, as at least since the time of Ulla (third century) Sanh. 43a was understood as referring to the founder of Christianity and was seen as the key passage for the Jewish picture of Christ, which in turn influenced the interpretation of other passages (Sanh. 43a is cited at the end of Sanh. 107b). The same question arises in respect of cover names and of the opprobrious appellations said to refer to Jesus. Here the possibility cannot be ruled out that traditions originally of a different kind were linked at a secondary stage. But this is a special problem, which was played up during the Middle Ages for obvious reasons and which does not affect the fact that most of the sources, and especially the Tannaitic ones, are meant to refer to Jesus and that they all testify to the rise and development of a Jewish portrait of Christian origins.

^{page 320 note 2} §2 (ed. by Krauss, , p. 118Google Scholar). The heritage of this is still noticeable in Salvador, J., Histoire des Institutions… (1828), p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 3} See the discussion of this point in Guttmann, M., M.G.W.J. (1933), pp. 38 f.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 4} The story is preserved in two almost identical versions (Sanh, . 107bGoogle Scholar; Sota, 47aGoogle Scholar) besides a third one (Chag, j. II. 2Google Scholar) which differs greatly and which makes no mention of Jesus. The last one is (Förster, W., Palestinian Judaism, 1964, p. 72Google Scholar, gives a different interpretation) a revision which misses the point of the story: that it is the bride = Jerusalem who had called for Joshua and who is criticized by his pupil. But the question is not of decisive relevance for the problem we are concerned with. It would be so only if A. Meyer were right in maintaining that the name Jesus for the disciple intruded from the concluding sentence (Handbuch z. d. neutestamentl. Apokryphen, 1904, p. 59Google Scholar). But this is unlikely. The concluding remark reproduces a phrase of Sanh. 43a, a case which is described in a way so dissimilar to that of Sanh. 107b that the idea of an identification could only arise if the name of Jesus were already given in the story itself.

^{page 320 note 5} This is (apart from Ber. 17a/b; Sanh. 103 a) the only passage in the old sources where Jesus is pictured as a disciple of a rabbi. The Huldreich version of the Toledoth (Leiden, 1705) names Joshua too (the Wagenseil version, Altdorf, , 1681, p. 5Google Scholar, gives the teacher the name Elchanan), whereas the other versions remain silent about such a rabbinic education. A similar line is advanced in a late (sixteenth or seventeenth century) cabbalistic text on Jesus, published by Krauss, S., R.E.J. LXII (1911), 240 ff.Google Scholar, where Joshua b. Perachjah is said to have forgotten to circumcise the fatherless child Jesus. He gave rise in this way to the action of the high priest, who decided to kill Jesus when he, like any other Israelite, entered the temple to sacrifice the Passover lamb.

^{page 321 note 1} This is the common picture in the Celsian citations from ‘a Jew’.

^{page 321 note 2} G. R. S. Mead was the only one who was inclined to adopt this dating of the life of Jesus.

^{page 321 note 3} This date is even used as a fixed point for the whole calculation in Seder Olam ch. 30 (Ed. by Ratner, B., Seder Olam Rabba. Die grosse Weltchronik, Wilna, 1897, p. 145Google Scholar); cf. Marx, Al., Seder OlamGoogle Scholar, Diss. Königsberg, , 1903, p. XiGoogle Scholar. The ‘eighty years’ are alluded to too in Ab. z. 8 b.

^{page 321 note 4} Something similar happened in the Yosippon statement on John the Baptist, where the author, attracted by John's preaching againt Antipas' unlawful marriage, associates him with ‘the sages of Israel’ who are also said to have been put to death by the tetrarch.

^{page 321 note 5} If Sanh, . 67aGoogle Scholar (Jesus is condemned in Ludd, the site of the activity of Akiba) is dependent on this (thus Sinker, R., Essays and Studies, Cambridge, 1900, p. 67Google Scholar), the tendency goes back to the second century. It would result from this that the linkage with the time of Alexander Jannaeus is likely to be older.

^{page 321 note 6} The story is, of course, related neither to the slaughter of the children by Herod (so Rösch, G., Th. St. Kr. 1873, p. 94Google Scholar) nor to the Jewish accusation against Jesus of learning magic in Egypt (so, with modifications, still Salvador, , Histoire, I, 1828, p. 196).Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 7} Teh. to Ps. xvi. 13; Ixxvi. I.

^{page 321 note 8} The mourning woman Jerusalem is prominent in Lam. i. I; Ps. Sol. ii. 4; IV Esdras, x. 7Google Scholar; the barren woman in Gal. iv. 21 ff. (cf. IV Esdras, ix. 38ff.Google Scholar); the rejoicing heavenly Jerusalem in Gal. iv. 26 ff.; IV Esdras, x. 27Google Scholar, 44; Rev. xxi. 9.

^{page 322 note 1} Is it turning to the cult of the moon? For different opinions see Krauss, , p. 189Google Scholar: Zimmels, H. J., J.Q.R. (1952/1953), pp. 225 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 2} This feature does not play any role in Jewish tradition. I. Heinemann gives a neutralizing interpretation when stating that accordin to Sanh. 107b Jesus ‘forsook Judaism as the result of an over-emphatic, but not undeserved, reproof of his teacher’ (Jehuda Halevi, 1947, p. III).Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 3} The dependence of this passage on Sanh, . 107bGoogle Scholar makes it possible to date the latter.

^{page 322 note 4} A shorter and less precise version in Sanh, . 103a.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 1} Goldstein, , pp. 115 f.Google Scholar (but cf. pp. 66, 120 with rather different statements).

^{page 323 note 2} The relationship is presupposed in the statement of Eleazar ha-qappar (Yalqut Shimoni, § 766), who, in this actual sentence, exploits the assumed relationship for an argument against Jesus; Goldstein, , pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar, is unconvincing.

^{page 323 note 3} Sanh, . 106a.Google Scholar Such a statement is not unheard of in other parts of Jewish tradition. Akiba's saying in Sanh. 90a is an early example (cf. Moule, C. F. D., Miracles, 1965, pp. 189f.Google Scholar). Thus it is a scheme which is applied to Balaam, who, in this way, had already become an archetype figure. An even more detailed picture of Balaam is given in Tanch. B iv. 134.

^{page 323 note 4} Ps. Philo, , Ant. Bibl. XVIII, 11Google Scholar (modicum mihi superest sancti spiritus qui manet in me) may be taken as the remainder of the earlier more positive tradition; cf. Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, VIGoogle Scholar, footnote 784.

^{page 323 note 5} Sanh, . 106aGoogle Scholar, Lauterbach argues against the interpretation of the passage as an allusion to Jesus that this would mean an acknowledgement by the rabbis of his originally having been a prophet, ‘which is very unlikely’ (op. cit. p. 512Google Scholar). Is this an argument at all?

^{page 323 note 6} We find parallels for this in Mandaean literature, e.g. Ginza 152 (G.T. by Lidzbarski, M., 1925, p. 51).Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 7} Sanh, . 106b.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 8} Ed. by Krauss, S., R.Et.J. CIII (1938), 65–90.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 9} See Stauffer, E., Nov. Test. (1956), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 10} Saeki, P. Y., The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China ² (1951), pp. 142, 144.Google Scholar The 32 years mentioned there correspond to 30 years according to Western calculation. 60 years are a life's span in China.

^{page 323 note 11} The last sentences of the passage do not go back to the Tannaitic authority but are a later addition.

^{page 323 note 12} Rab. Papa in Sanh, . 106a.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} This is to be deduced from Epiph. Haer. XLI, 3. 4Google Scholar; cf. Hilgenfeld, A., Ketzergeschichte d. Urchristenthums (1884), p. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 2} Eisenmenger, J. A., Entdecktes Judenthum, I (1742), 100 f.Google Scholar, draws attention to Emek hammelech fols. 20 and 135, where Jesus is associated with Cain (or Sammael respectively). On pp. 98 f., 101 ff. he assembles passages where Jesus is identified with Esau, Edom and Corah. But all these instances are late and testify to a difference in attitude in Tannaitic and Amoraic sources.

^{page 324 note 3} Justin, , Apol. 1, 30Google Scholar; Origen, , c.Cels. 1, 28Google Scholar; Arnobius, , c.Nat. 1, 43Google Scholar, ‘Amolo; gentis suae dissipatorem Aegyptium’ (MPL 116, p. 33Google Scholar; Strack, , p. 16Google Scholar), in the Vienna MS ch. xi of the Toledoth Jeshu (Krauss, , p. 78Google Scholar) and in the Huldreich version of the Toledoth, p. 26Google Scholar; later on the same in Hadassi, §99 : their faith is linked with the Egyptian one. For Jesus learnt from them, and he learnt from the books, the sorceries and the magical arts of Egypt (ed. by Bacher, W., J.Q.R. II, 1896, 439Google Scholar). Something similar is maintained by the Jews in ch. 6. 42 of the Paris MS of the gospel of John (Thilo, J. A., Codex Apocryphus N.T. 1832, p. 869).Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 4} He was, according to the Wagenseil version of the Toledoth, a soldier, but a scion of the tribe of Judah.

^{page 324 note 5} Origen, , c.Cels. 1, 28, 68Google Scholar, 67. The last passage is of particular interest as it gives evidence of a Jewish tradition on a test miracle in the temple Jesus was challenged to perform. It was the ‘Messianic miracle’ under circumscribed conditions.

^{page 324 note 6} It is a side effect of these stories that the notion of Jesus as a disciple to a rabbi is becoming meaningless.

^{page 324 note 7} Cf. p. 321, n. 5; one of the purposes of this may be to show that Akiba's judgement, which was wrong in respect of Bar-Kochba, was entirely right in the case of Jesus.

^{page 325 note 1} For discussion of the importance of these fragments see Ginzberg, L. in Ginze Schechter, I (1928 = Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theol. Sem. of America, 7), 324 ff.Google Scholar; Krauss, S., M.G.W.J. (1933), pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar; Heller, B.M.G.W.J. (1933), pp. 206ff.Google Scholar: Schonfield, H. J., According to the Hebrews (1937Google Scholar); Goldstein, , pp. 162 f.Google Scholar The old view of the Toledoth is still represented in the statement of L. I. Newman, who regards them as having originated during the Middle Ages as a compilation of those myths and fragments of folklore which grew up as a reaction to persecution (Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, 1925, p. 330).Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 2} Jesus' walking on the water is of some importance in Gnostic literature as it testifies to his true spiritual nature; cf. Döllinger, I. v., Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (1890), 169.Google Scholar Is the Jewish polemic based on and conditioned by such a Gnostic understanding of the story?

^{page 325 note 3} This very apt term was used by Rösch, G., Th.St.Kr. (1873), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 1} F. C. Burkitt refers to the state of affairs when saying: ‘I now recognize that in Mark there is development… The second stage is marked first by a determination to withdraw (vi. 31, vii. 31).’ It is important that he carries on: ‘Mark is quite unconscious of producing’ this development. Thus, he is thinking of a pre-Marcan framework (Jesus Christ. An Historical Outline, 1932, p. 66).Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 2} Stauffer, E., Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte, pp. 67 f.Google Scholar (, E.T. pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar); Montefiore, H., N.T.S. (1961/1962), pp. 135 fGoogle Scholar

^{page 326 note 3} Cf. John, xi. 56Google Scholar, ; for an illumination of the these terms see Bickermann, E., Rev. Hist. Rel. CXII (1935), 213 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} See the penetrating investigation of Ad. Merx, , Die vier kanonisehen Evangelien, II, I (1902), p. 230Google Scholar; II, 2 ( 1905), PP. 54 f.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} Z.N. W. (1955), PP. 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 3} Origen, , c.Cels. II, 9Google Scholar (in the transl. of Chadwick, H.). Pass. Andr.Google Scholar 3 may answer a similar accusation; cf. Bauer, W., Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutest. Apokryphen (1909), e.g. p. 477Google Scholar, n. 3.

^{page 327 note 4} is not to be translated ‘before him’ (thus frequently, e.g. Laible, E.T. p. 85Google Scholar, Soncino, transl. ad loc.Google Scholar) but ‘with regard to him’, as has been observed already by Chr. Caspari, E., Chronologisch-geographische Einleitung i.Google ScholarLeben jesu, d. (Hamburg, 1869), p. 156Google Scholar (E.T. 1876, p. 182Google Scholar). The mishnah deals with the possibility of last-minute alteration of a death sentence, e.g. the information given by the herald. The Baraitha states that, contrary in some ways to this regulation, the herald went forth for forty days in connexion with Jesus. Thus, the figure of the herald links mishnah and Baraitha. It may be deduced from this that he was inserted when the Baraitha was incorporated into the present context and that the original text ran something like this: On the eve of the Passover Jesus was hanged. He was condemned forty days before the stoning took place, because he practised sorcery….

^{page 327 note 5} Saeki, , p. 212Google Scholar, verse 74; cf. p. 241. The tractate makes use at this place of a short description of the life of Jesus.

^{page 327 note 6} Shahrastani, ef. by Cureton, W. (1842), p. 167Google Scholar; G.T. by Haarbrücker, Th., 1 (1850), 254.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 7} Thus the Baraitha itself. The special reason given by Ulla (or is it even a later addition?) ‘befriended with the government’ is in keeping with the Toledoth tendency to involve the Romans in the proceedings.

^{page 328 note 1} In the Agobard II report for instance; for the literary analysis of the Agobard passage see Th.L.Z. (1966Google Scholar), col. 353.

^{page 328 note 2} It is only in the late Christ passage (interpolation?) in the Paris MS of Yosippon that Jesus is executed by the Romans; ‘die Juden träfe hiernach für die Kreuzigung Jesu keine Verantwortung’ (Eisler, R., Jesous Basileus, I (1929), p. 509).Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 3} It is in keeping with this that the form of execution, as described in Agobard II, is a combination of Roman (furca) and Jewish (lapis) procedure.

^{page 328 note 4} A period of teaching which was not objectionable-dubious teaching after the entrance into Jerusalem-trial and execution. Parts 2 and 3 are omitted and replaced by the Agobard II report. But the main lines can be deduced by inference with complete certainty.

^{page 328 note 5} ‘Pῆμα = public ministry; ήμεīς = private teaching; άνείλαν = trial. This is even more clear in the archetype of D: .

^{page 328 note 6} See Grätz, H., M.G.W.J. (1868), pp. 161 ff.Google Scholar; Geschichte der Judea, XI ² (1900), pp. 49 f.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 1} E.g. Klein, G., Z.N.W. (1901), pp. 344f.Google Scholar; Kohler, K., Grundriss einer syst. Theologie d. Jdts auf geschichtl. Grundlage (1910), p. 373.Google Scholar Cf. Leipoldt, J., Hat Jesus gelebt? (1920), p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 2} Publ. by Krauss, S., R.E.J. LXII (1911), 36.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 3} Details will be communicated later.

^{page 330 note 1} Saeki, , p. 141Google Scholar, verse 168: after the baptism, which in the opinion of the author seems to have taken place not long after Jesus' twelfth birthday, he ‘submitted to (John) as a disciple’.

^{page 330 note 2} See Miracles, ed. by Moule, C. F. D. (1965), p. 201Google Scholar, n. 5; cf. Ps. Clem. Hom. II, 23 f.Google Scholar; Rec. 54.Google Scholar For a different view of Pistis Sophia and related writings see Keck, L. E. in Suppl. to Numen, x (1965), 184 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 3} Toledoth Jeshu, ed. by Huldreich, J. J. (Leiden, 1705), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Krauss, , p. 158.Google Scholar The Paris MS of Yosippon sees him likewise as a disciple of Jesus: ‘he practised baptism according to the views of Jesus…’ (see Neumann, A. A., H.U.C.A. 23, 2, p. 138).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 4} He is called in the anonymous Strassburg Nizzachon, too (ed. by Wagenseil, J. Chr. in Tela Ignea Satanae, Altdorf, 1681, pp. 58 f.Google Scholar; for the meaning of see Eisenmenger, , I, 280Google Scholar). But apart from this verbal similarity the context is different from that in the Huldreich Toledoth. The author refutes the teaching of the Christians who claim that as the Law was given before the arrival in the land it means that Joshua = Jesus had, in order to bring them into the land, to lead them across the Jordan and that the Baptist became instrumental in this leading away from the Law; in contrast to this Geschichtstheologie he points to the constancy of God.

^{page 330 note 5} Just. Dial. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 6} Origen, , c.Cels. II, 55Google Scholar, referring, as it seems, especially to Peter.

^{page 330 note 7} Of course, this is not done out of considerateness for the Jews, ‘who hated him even more than Jesus’ (thus Semisch, K. G., Justin, II (1842), 339Google Scholar, and Ritschl, A., Altkatholische Kirche ², 1857, PP. 309f).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 8} Ed. by Schechter, S., J.Q.R. (1897/1898), pp. 657, 659Google Scholar; cf. Krauss, S., J.Q.R. (1892/1893), p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} See Ad. Jellinek, , Beth ha-Midrasch, VI(² 1938), 9 f., 155 f.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 2} On top of them Peter admonishes the Christians to refrain from doing anything wrong against the Jews. The same is said of Jesus in Gittin 57: seek their good and not their evil. But it seems that this phrase, which militates against the tenor and structure of the passage, is due to an elaboration. The passage, in its present form, seems to picture Jesus as someone who repents but who nevertheless suffers the same or rather even worse (thus Laible, , E.T. p. 94Google Scholar) penalties than Titus and Balaam.

^{page 331 note 3} ‘Propter duritiam et hebetudinem sensus’ (Agobard).

^{page 331 note 4} In the Huldreich version of the Toledoth this role is attributed to Judas and, under his direction, to another person whose name is Simon.

^{page 331 note 5} Jellinek, VI, 9.Google Scholar He uses a paraphrase of the saying attributed to Caiphas in John xi. 50, when he announces his sacrifice for the nation. For a penetrating investigation into the history of this logion in Jewish legal literature see Daube, D., Collaboration with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law (1965).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 6} What we find here is exactly the opposite of the Marcionitic Geschichtsaufriss.

^{page 332 note 1} Jellinek, vi, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} Jellinek, VI, 13.Google Scholar It is interesting that in the Hebrew version of the Toledoth published by Krauss, , R. Et. J. CIII (1938), 65Google Scholar, Paul appears as the adversary of Peter, and tries to unmask him in his actions in favour of the Jews.

^{page 332 note 3} Goldziher's transl.-see the following note-(‘die Religion Jesu ans Licht zu bringen’) is not right.

^{page 332 note 4} Hazm, Ibn, ed. by Goldziher, I., Jeschurun. Zeitschr. f. d. Wits. d. Judenthums, VIII (1871), 99.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 5} See Fritsch, E., Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter (Breslauer Studien z. histor. Theologie, 17, 1930), p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 6} , Fritsch, p. 50.Google Scholar The version of Isfaraini, mentioned by Fritsch, , op. cit.Google Scholar, differs in so far as most of the Jewish elements are dropped (only his former activity as a Jewish leader and the innocuous detail that he lived in ‘one of their houses’ are retained). The text is translated by Horten, M., Die philosophischen Systeme…im Islam (1912), pp. 103–5Google Scholar; cf. Zwemer, S. M., The Moslem Christ (1912), pp. 139–41.Google Scholar Similar, but more fanciful in details, is the version reproduced by Browne, E. G., Islamica, II (1926), 131 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 7} Or Jesus? Shahrastani's text is not quite clear.

^{page 332 note 8} Shahrastani (Haarbrücker, , 1, 261).Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 9} Qarafi (Fritsch, , p. 49Google Scholar; Isfaraini, , loc. cit.Google Scholar). A less ominous version is presented by Mohammed ibn-abi-Talib (Fritsch, , p. 51).Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 10} Qarafi (Fritsch, , pp. 49 f.Google Scholar; Isfaraini, , loc. cit.Google Scholar). His suicidal end is not an act of penitence but just a new form of fraud.

^{page 333 note 1} Isfaraini and, as it seems, Shahrastani.

^{page 333 note 2} Ibn Hazm (Fritsch, , p. 48Google Scholar); Abdullah (Zwemer, , p. 142).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} His statement on Christianity is to be found in his unpublished work . The text of this particular passage is, in a form based on his own conflation of two Leiden MSS, edited by Steinschneider, M., Catalogue Cod. Hebr. Acad….Lugduno-Batavae (1858), pp. 393–5.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Cited after the Petersburg/Leningrad MS.

^{page 333 note 5} Cf. Shahrastani: friends of God (Haarbrücker, , 1, 253).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 6} § 99 .

^{page 334 note 1} See Z.N.W. (1958), p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 2} Shahrastani distinguishes between Anan, who according to Shahrastani refuted the prophetical claims of Jesus, and ‘some of his’ followers, who denied that Jesus ever made such claims.

^{page 334 note 3} The cabbalistic fragment-see p. 320, n. 5-calls Jesus and gives him a share in the world to come. But nothing is said of his teaching and the reason for the rise of Christianity. True, he is hinted at in Daniel; but this, traced by way of gematria, is not taken to give him a place in salvation history; it does not mean more than that everything to come into existence is in nuce already in the Bible, a doctrine emphasized in cabbalistic literature. Thus, the text only witnesses to some kind of positive evaluation of Jesus and a tragical interpretation of his death in certain nonorthodox circles.

^{page 334 note 4} It was unfortunate that Is. Troki, who lived at the beginning of the modern period, returned to what may be called Holzhammermethnde when he wrote his polemical work against Christianity.

^{page 335 note 1} Hieronymus ad Matt, . xxvii. 15 (Google ScholarMPL 26, 206Google Scholar).

^{page 335 note 2} One of the reasons may be that the Jewish tradition, trained in the scheme teacher-disciple, was not able to cope with the different and very personal approach to ethical problems that is exemplified by Jesus. The Huldreich version of the Toledoth, , p. 43Google Scholar, inveighs against Jesus' abolishing the Law. The same is true for the Aramaic Genizah fragment (Ginzberg, L., Ginze Schechter, I, 1928, p. 328).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} The question whether there are historical elements beneath can be approached only if this context of Jewish thought is kept in mind.