[1] The text of the Tol'doth Yeshu, in several versions, is published along with critical discussions in Krauss, Samuel, Das Leben Jesu nach jüischen Quellen (Berlin: Calvary, 1902)Google Scholar. It is also con veniently published in the anthology: Eisenstein, J. D., Ozar Wikuhim (Israel, 1969) 226–35Google Scholar. A recent discussion of this work, the publication of another version of the text, a bibliography and an updating of the issues is to be found in Schlichting, Günter, Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohx, 1982).Google Scholar

[2] Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 246.Google Scholar

[3] Klausner, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth, tr. Danby, Herbert (New York: Macmillan, 1946) 53Google Scholar. For various other proposals for the date (from the first to the tenth centuries) see Schlichting, , Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu, 2Google Scholar. Schonfield distinguishes between the Tol'doth and an Ur-Tol'doth, suggest ing the latter goes back to about the end of the fourth century. See Schonfield, Hugh J., According to the Hebrews (London: Duckworth, 1937) 227.Google Scholar

[4] In a perceptive article Ernst Bammel depicts the substructure of the Tol'doth Yeshu as having something in common with the oral tradition behind the canonical Gospels. See Bammel, Ernst, ‘Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition’, NTS 13 (1966–1967) 317–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Bammel, Ernst, ‘Ex lila Ita que Die Consilium Fecerunt…’, in Bammel, Ernst, ed., The Trial of Jesus (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 13; Naperville, Ill.; Alec R. Allenson, 1970) 11–40.Google Scholar

[5] For a discussion of these editions see Marx, Alexander, ‘The Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America’, in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus (1867–1923), no ed. (New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1929) 247–78Google Scholar; Horbury, W., ‘The Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut's Eben Bohan’, Sefarad 43 (1983) 221–37.Google Scholar

[6] In some editions the Gospel text appears in other books.

[7] Howard, George, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press) forthcoming. The text of the Hebrew Matthew as quoted in this paper follows the British Library manuscript (London) up through Matt 23. 22 where it breaks off. It is catalogued as no, MS. Add.. 26964. From Matt 23. 23 onward a manuscript from the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (New York) is followed. It is catalogued MS. 2426 (Marx 16). The references to Matthew are followed in each case by the relevant pereqs in the manuscripts.Google Scholar

[8] As early as 1690 Richard Simon mistakenly identified the text of Matthew in Shem-Tob with the versions of Münster and du Tillet. See Simon, Richard, Histoire Critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam: R. Leers, 1690) 231Google Scholar. Cf. Herbst, Adolf, Des Schemtob ben Schaphrut hebraeische Übersetzung des Evangeliums Matthaei nach den Drucken des S. Münster und J. du Tillet-Mercier (Göttingen: Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1879)Google Scholar; Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) 295Google Scholar; Lindsey, Robert L., A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, n.d.) 67Google Scholar. For a corrective of this view see Howard, George, ‘The Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthew’, JBL 105 (1986) 49–63.Google Scholar

[9] The article by Lapide, Pinchas E. (‘Der “Prüfstein” aus Spanien’, Sefarad 34 (1974 227–72) should be consulted at this pointGoogle Scholar. It is a detailed analysis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. Of par ticular importance is the discussion of ‘Romanismen’ on pp. 246–9 which reflect late revisions. Unfortunately Lapide believes the Hebrew Matthew is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, partially, perhaps, because he used the Neofiti ms which shows considerable assimilation to the Vulgate in places where other mss do not. Lapide himself notes many differences in Shem-Tob and the Vul gate without, however, recognizing the true nature of the oldest layer of the Hebrew text. Other problems with the article are: 1) It fails to note Shem-Tob's relationship to the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron against the Latin tradition, and to the Old Latin against the Vulgate. 2) It shows no recognition of Shem-Tob's relationship to the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. 3) It fails to note most of the puns, word-connections and alliteration that are so characteristic of Shem-Tob's Matthew. 4) It lacks a discussion of the abbreviation/circumlocution for the divine name. 5) Finally a general misunderstanding of the nature of Shem-Tob's Matthew characterizes the article. Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties, Lapide's study can be read with profit.

[10] Eisenstein, , Ozar Wikuhim, 310–15. The editor dates it in the ninth century, p. 310.Google Scholar

[11] Rosenthal, Judah, Jacob ben Reuben, MilhamotHaShem (Israel, 1963) 8 [in Hebrew]Google Scholar. See also Rosenthal, Judah, ‘Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew in Jacob ben Reuben’, Tarbiz 32 (1962) 48–66 [in Hebrew]. The editor dates the text to 1170 CE.Google Scholar

[12] Rosenthal, Judah, Sepher Joseph Hamekane (Jerusalem, 1970) 17. The text dates to the thirteenth century.Google Scholar

[13] Berger, David, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979). The text dates to the thirteenth century.Google Scholar

[14] An exception is the version in Krauss, (Das Leben Jesu) published on pp. 118–21.Google Scholar

[15] Ibid., 68.

[16] See especially the exchange between Baumgarten, Joseph M., ‘Does TLH in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?’ JBL 91 (1972) 472–81Google Scholar and Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament’, (CBQ 40 (1978) 493–513Google Scholar. See also Hengel, Martin, Crucifixion, tr. Bowden, J. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 84–5Google Scholar; Ford, J. M., ‘“Crucify him, crucify him” and the Temple Scroll’, Expository Times 87 (1976) 275–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halperin, David J., ‘Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation’, JJS 32 (1981) 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[17] Allegro, J. M., Qumran Cave 4, I (4Q 158–4Q 186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 37–42.Google Scholar

[18] Yadin, Yigael, ‘Pesher Nahum (4QNahum) Reconsidered’, IEJ 21 (1971) 1–12Google Scholar; The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977, 1983) Three vols.Google Scholar

[19] Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 128Google Scholar. For a discussion of the hanging of Jesus on a tree along with various sources for the legend see Schlichting, , Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu, 216, n. 608.Google Scholar

[20] Ibid., 45, 120, 128.

[21] Ibid., 68, 80, 81. For various forms of death penalties among the Jews see Winter, Paul, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961) 70.Google Scholar

[22] For evidence that hanging in the sense of strangulation was considered one and the same act see Baumgarten, , ‘Does TLH in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion’, 472–81.Google Scholar

[23] See Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 80, 141, 147.Google Scholar

[24] For the meaning of this word see Cohn, Haim, The Trial and Death of Jesus (New York: Har per and Row, 1971) 209–10.Google Scholar

[25] See Luke 22. 4, 52; Acts 4. 1, 5. 24, 26. Cf. Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 214Google Scholar; Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, Kirsopp, The Beginnings of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, r.p. 1979) 4, 40; V, 300–2Google Scholar. In regard to who actually arrested Jesus, Jews or Romans, see Catchpole, David R., The Trial of Jesus Leiden: Brill, 1971) 148–52.Google Scholar

[26] For a discussion of hanging and crucifixion in Jewish and Roman law and practice see Cohn, , The Trial and Death of Jesus, 208–39.Google Scholar

[27] Herford, R. Travers, Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash (Clifton, NJ: Reference Book Publishers, r.p. 1966) 86Google Scholar. See also Klausner, , Jesus of Nazareth, 27–8Google Scholar. On this point see further Bammel, Ernst, ‘The Trial Before Pilate’, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, edd. Bammel, E. and Moule, C. F. D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 415–51 (esp. 445).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[28] The Tol'doth Yeshu (see Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 80) speaks of Jesus’ hands and feet being bound before he was put on the treeGoogle Scholar. It is interesting to note that Luke speaks of one of the robbers executed with Jesus as ‘hung’ (κρ εμαοθέντων) (Luke 23. 39) and twice he speaks of Jesus as ‘hung on a tree’ (κρ εμάσ αντες έπι ξύλον) (Acts 5. 30, 10. 39). In Gal 3. 13 Paul interprets the death of Christ in light of Deut 21. 23: ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (ό κρ εμ άμ ενος έπι ξύλον)’. Arguments for a Jewish execution of Jesus are set forth by Cooke, Harold P., ‘Christ Crucified – and by whom?’ Hibbert Journal 29 (1930–1931) 61–74.Google Scholar

[29] Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 39, 66, 71, passim.Google Scholar

[30] Ibid., 42, 72, 119; especially Eisenstein, Ozar Wikuhim, 228: .

[31] E.g., Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 42, 80, 82 and passimGoogle Scholar. Krauss notes this point himself on p. 257 n. 14. For a discussion of this term used in reference to Jesus' disciples see Horbury, William, ‘Christ as brigand in ancient anti-Christian Polemic’, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, edd. Bammel, Ernst & Moule, C. F. D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 183–95 (esp. 191, 194)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See in the same volume the article by Bammel, E., ‘Jesus as a Political Agent in a Version of the Josippon’, 197–209.Google Scholar

[32] Krauss, , Das Leben Jesu, 46, 120Google Scholar; 129.

[33] Ibid., 80.

[34] Ibid., 48.

[35] Cf. the reference in CD IV. 3–4 which speaks of the Sons of Zadok who ‘are the chosen of Israel, called by name, who will stand () at the end of days’.