The other editions follow, more or less closely, the line sketched (mt above, though in detail there is considerable variety. All of them describe the seduction of Miriam by Joseph Pandira, some with a disgusting relish of obscenity. The remainder of the story is variously embellished with wonder-
working and low comedy, and that word-play in which Jewish wit delighted. There is not the faintest ray of genius, or the least sign of literary skill in any of the versions, or the slightest indication that He of whom the story was told was a great or a good man. If, as Krauss is bold to affirm, the ToVdoth was intended seriously as a history of Jesus, it says little for the intelligence of its author and its I'eaders. It is rather the wretched device by which ignorant and persecuted Jews revenged themselves, and found a pitiful amusement in mocking the Christ of their perse- cutors. It remains, an unseemly relic of evil days, but still claiming a place in mediaeval literature ; and if it bears witness against those who wrote it, it does so no less against those Avhose cruelty drove them to write it (see Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jiid. Quellen, 1902, for an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject).
(b) Polemical references to Christ. — We pass to a pleasanter region of literature, one where mention is made of Jesus in terms which, if not such as Christians would use, are very different from those of the ToVdoth.
The references to Jesus in the mediaeval Jewish literature, apart from the ToVdoth, are not numer- ous. The reasons for this seem to be two : (I) that in controversy with Christians the Jews were not disposed to say more than they could help upon a subject where every word was likely to give offence and draw down persecution upon themselves ; and (2) that the Jews were well aware of the difference between the Founder of Christianity and His followers. Their main quarrel was with the latter ; and in their theological arguments they defended the unity of God, and denied the Trinity, upon Scripture grounds, with hardly any reference to the actual Jesus. To the Jews He was, of course, only a man. To the Christians He was God ; and there was no common ground between them, or any occasion for debate as to His personal charac- ter and the events of His life. The controversy between Jews and Christians was fought in regard to pi'inciples, not persons, and was further em- bittered by mutual hatred. The Jews, if left to themselves, would never have mentioned Jesus at all, though armed at all points against Christians. Even in their own writings intended for Jewish readers, they say extremely little about Jesus, and in what they do say there is no attempt to estimate His character. For them He is simply ' that man,' or ' he who is known.'
The foregoing may be taken to represent the general attitude of the mediaeval Rabbis towards Jesus ; indeed, it is found in much later times. It may be described in the phrase ' cold neutrality ' ; and it remained unaltered until the great Jewish historians of the last century made a serious study of Jesus as a figure in their national history. The attitude of Jews towards Christians began to change much earlier ; but that does not come within the scope of this article.
The media'val Jewish references to Jesus may be illustrated from the report of a disputation, held at Paris on June 25, 1240, between R. Jehiel and a certain Nicolaus Donin (fragment published by Wagenseil in his Tela Ignea Satana', 1681). The Chiistian, who was a converted Jew, quoted the passages from the Talmud (described in § i. of this article) as evidence of Jewish blasphemy. The Jewish champion denied that these referred to the Jesus whom Christians worshipped :
' In truth, we have not spoken thus against the God of the Gentiles (i.e. Christ), but only against another Jesus, who mocked at the words of the wise, and did not believe in their words, but only in the written Law, as thou dost. And thou mayst know that this is true ; for behold, it is not written "Jesus the Nazarene," but "Jesus Gereda." Moreover, if it had been he (i.e. Jesus the Nazarene), he not only did this, but
880
CHRIST IN JEWISH LITERATURE
also deceived and led astray Israel, and made himself God, and denied the essence (of religion). But, clearl}', it was another man, who did not deny the written Law, but only the oral, and is called a min (heretic) ' (p. 16 in Wagenseil). R. Jehiel also I lys stress on the fact that the man of whom the Talmud speaks was a contemporary of R. Joshua b. Perahiah, while the Jesus of the Christians lived a century later (p. 21). He saj'S that it is quite possible that both were called Jesus, ' just as there are many boys in France called Louis, who are not on that account kings of France.' Being solemnly adjured to declare his real thought on the matter, he says : ' As I live, and hope to return home in safety, we have not thought of him (i.e. Christ) that he should be "condemned to filth" (according to the Talmudic assertion), nor have we said these things concerning him' (p. 24).