Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-29-2011, 07:57 AM

I have never heard it argued that the Toledoth Yeshu and other sources preserve a tradition related to Jesus the angel of God. The reason for this is because so much of the information in the works reinforce a particular (hated) historical individual which was reinforced by the Catholic tradition which made Jewish and Samaritan lives miserable. Nevertheless within this tradition is a little story whose essential details change very little and which I would like to present to everyone.

The tradition that a particular individual who lived slightly after Jesus became the messiah by cutting into his skin and having the name of God enter into him is preserved in a number of very early sources. The tradition becomes associated with a historical individual named 'Jesus' because the Jews learned from their Gentile rulers that such a historical Jesus 'existed.' Yet all evidence suggests to me at least that the tradition was originally associated with an individual named ben Stada who was NOT Jesus but in a later period the traditions became fused. I am not alone in this assessment. I also think the traditions are rooted in a particular Alexandrian initiation of proselytes hinted at in the writings of Philo.

Here are the pertinent traditions regarding the core understanding, first the confusing of the ben Stada tradition as applying to Jesus in the medieval Toledoth Yeshu:

Quote:

After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraved the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.

Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters

And again a little later in the same document:

Quote:

The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.

Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.

That this account was originally part of a 'Passion narrative' which gets preempted by the introduction of other narratives (and thus Jesus 'escapes' and is captured again) is evidenced in the Toledoth Yeshu:

Quote:

Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.

David J Halperin happens to preserve a slightly different oral tradition about the same material preserved in Yiddish where Yeshu = Yozel (= the diminutive of Joshua) and Frandrik is a corruption of Pandera:

Quote:

Yozel Frandrik was a wonder child, born in the days of the Temple. He could speak from the time he was born. When he was still a child, he crept into the Temple and cut off the Shem ha-Meforash, the Ineffable Name of God. Then he took a knife and made a cut in his foot and put the Name inside it, and sewed it shut. At that instant he grew wings, and after that there was nothing he could not accomplish. He flew like a bird and ascended on high, until he was flying with the angels. But an angel poured water on his feet, making him impure. All at once his magic powers left him, his wings fell off, and he tumbled to the ground. He could not fly any more after that, but he never returned the Ineffable Name, and no one knows where it is to this day.

He adds in the footnote that "in another text, Megillat Ahimaaz, a dead man is brought to life when God's Name, written on parchment, is implanted in his arm. However, such apparent life leaves the man without a soul, and unable to pronounce God's Name during prayers. It is this inability that gives him away. "

Many Yiddish speakers had no idea that Yozel was actually the diminutive of Joshua as it is commonly used to mean 'cross' (perhaps 'thing' on the cross). But the sense is always that of a supernatural creature - not a man. Another example:

Quote:

We despised the goy, and we hated his religion. The goy, according to the stories crooned into the ears of the children, wantonly worshipped an unsightly creature called the yoisel – and a dozen names too foul for repetition. The yoisel had once been a human being and a Jew. But one day he had gone out of his mind, and in that pitiably bewildered state announced that he was the Lord God himself. To prove it, he offered to fly over the populace like an angel. With the help of a page blasphemously torn out of Holy Writ, and placed under his sweating arm the yoisel did fly over the multitudes of Jews in the crowded streets of Jerusalem. So impressive a spectacle did he create that even the most pious among the Jews were moved in his direction. But Rabbi Shammai, angered at the foul impudence of this demented creature, and fearful of a possible religious crisis on earth, tore out two leaves from the pages of Holy Writ, and placing them one under each arm flew even higher than the yoisel with only one page of Holy Writ for motor power. He flew over the yoisel himself and urinated over him. Instantly the power of the yoisel‘s bit of Holy Writ was nullified and the yoisel fell to the ground amidst the jeers and taunts of the true believers in the streets of Jerusalem. This extraordinary caricature of the founder of the opposing religion made possible one of the queerest adventures of my life. [Samuel Roth, from “Leolom Tickach: Always Take,” JEWS MUST LIVE, 1934]

The supernatural boogeyman Jesus is remembers in other references I pulled out of books. Here are a scattering of such allusions:

Quote:

one of my great-grandfathers might have had a hand in the slaying of this man whom our folks here in Burlington, as in the Old Country, derisively called "DerYoisel" or "Yoshke Pandre."

Quote:

What is the origin of pandre and pandrik? There is another variant, yoshke pandrik, which I recall from this derogatory ... What is the distribution of yoshke pandre, yosele pandrik and yoshke pandrik? I can report yoshke pandre for [Jesus]

Quote:

Thus, it is also his perspective on Jesus—not only that of the Evil Inclination—that we hear in the phrase “Er hot oykh mer nisht gevolt zikh bukn tsum yoyzl” (he no longer felt like bowing to the little Jesus).

Quote:

may have been an allusion to Jesus' illegitimate birth) and its Yiddish variant,Yoyzl Pandrek (a combination of the diminutive Yiddish name for Jesus— Yoyzl— with the surname Pandrek, a distortion of Pandera, meaning "Mr. Shit").

The point of all of this is that it is difficult to argue with the idea that this myth originated in the ben Stada tradition but later became associated with Jesus because the tradition was related to the cross and Christianity. Nevertheless - as we read in the various debates between Jews and Christians in the medieval period, the Jews knew of a second individual called 'ben Stada' who 'cut his flesh' and had the divine Name enter into his person. I think that Jesus was originally the angel who fights with the flesh cutter and that the tradition has something to do with a retelling of Moses and Jacob's wrestling with supernatural beings.

Toto · 08-29-2011, 09:25 AM

When I read that, the Greek myth of Icarus keeps coming to mind - making or growing wings, flying up to heaven, and then losing his power. I know of no other connection between the Christ myth and Icarus.

stephan huller · 08-29-2011, 09:36 AM

You're not the first Toto. Schwartz doesn't even seem to recognize the Jesus connection and treats it as an icarus myth. There is a parallel but ultimately positive myth of Elisha of wings which I think is related. I think the ultimate source is Platonism

mountainman · 08-29-2011, 06:36 PM

In which century does your Rabbinic evidence arise?

stephan huller · 08-29-2011, 07:41 PM

The Toledoth Yeshu is a medieval text but it preserves parallels to things known to the Jewish anti-Christian text used by Celsus (c 177 CE) which to you means the text was written last Tuesday

Doug Shaver · 08-30-2011, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

. . . which to you means the text was written last Tuesday

:rolling:

maryhelena · 08-30-2011, 04:34 AM

I’m lost here - how can a story/tradition that dates the birth of Yeshu to around 90 b.c. in any way be connected to the birth story of JC during the time of Herod the Great (general dating from 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.)

(In the year 3671 in the days of King Jannaeus......
http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics.../toledoth.html.......)

OK, that rules out the Toledoth Yeshu being a parody on the gospel story (at least the story as we now have it). And Paul? Well, he makes no mention about a birth date at all - so it’s the Pauline story/tradition that could be traced back to 90 b.c. and the events that followed the birth story of Yeshu. So, don’t we have here, with the Toledoth Yeshu and the gospel JC story - not one story being a parody on the other story - but we have two different stories set in two different time frames. With the Toledoth Yeshu story being more in line with the Pauline story/tradition than that of the gospels.

The supernatural events in the Toledoth Yeshu story don’t cancel out the normal human birth story. One should not be cherry-picking and opting for a supernatural Yeshu (Jesus) as though that story is the only element that matters in the Toledoth Yeshu story.

If as seems more likely, it is the Pauline JC story, rather than the gospel JC story, that could be considered a follow-on to the Toledoth Yeshu story - then does not the question arise that the gospel JC story, set within a different time frame, is a story attempting to add a new birth story to the earlier 90 b.c. birth story. In other words; are we not dealing with two different historical figures whose lives have been ‘fused’ together into the symbolic figure that we now find in the gospel JC story?

As you are aware, I’ve been interested in Antigonus for some time. I think that his crucifixion, flogging and beheading in 37 b.c. has influenced the gospel writers in the creation of their JC figure. Could Antigonus have been born in 90 b.c. Very probable. Alexander Jannaeus was his grandfather. His death in 37 b.c. would make him around the age of 53 years old. The death of Antigonus in 37 b.c. does not place him outside the time frame for the Toledoth Yeshu story. The big problem with that story is the identity of Queen Helene. I can’t find anything, online, that can confirm that the Queen Helene of the Toledoth Yeshu was Queen Salome Alexandra (wife of Jannaeus). It’s purely an assumption - and does, of course, limit the time span for the storyline.

So, who was Queen Helene of the Toledoth Yeshu. I’ve come across these suggestions:

1) Queen Salome Alexandra - 76 – 67 b.c.
2) Queen Salome Alexandra with a son named Monobaz II - Monobaz II was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene in Mespotamia d.56 c.e. (The Jewish Life of Christ)
3) Helena - mother of Emperor Constantine (d.330 c.e.)
4) Cleopatra Selene I (d.69 b.c.)

Epiphanius goes with *Salina* who is also called Alexandra.

Quote:

“For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans; and this Alexander, one of the Christs and ruling princes placed the crown in his own head… After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown.”

Thus, whatever ones take on Epiphanius, it seems evident that the identity of the Queen Helene in the Toledoth Yeshu is rather ambiguous.

Can using the execution of Antigonus (37 b.c.) as a baseline, offer any suggestions re Queen Helene? I think perhaps it can. Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by Marc Antony (not in Jerusalem but in Antioch). Marc Antony had a child by Cleopatra - a child who later became Queen Cleopatra Selene II and was married to Juba II of Numidia. (Wikipedia) Cleopatra Selene II was born in 40 b.c. (d.6.c.e. Wikipedia - a life span that would cover the death of Antigonus and the two ‘birth’ dates for the gospel JC).

Yes, obviously, the Toledoth Yeshu is not history. And no doubt as time went on its storyline gets an influx of new elements. The bare bones are the timeline of Alexander Jannaeus and Queen Helene. As the identity of Queen Helene is ambiguous - then how we choose to identity that figure will have consequences for how long the timeline of the story runs. Running from 90 b.c. to the death of Salome Alexandra, in 67 b.c., is only 23 years. Making its Yushu a rather young man (gospel storyline having JC around 30 years at his crucifixion).

To sum up. I can’t see the Toledoth Yeshu story being a parody on the gospel JC. It makes no sense to place a parody of a story that is set in the time of Pilate back over 100 years to the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Queen Salome Alexandra. It makes more sense to develop that storyline and give it a new more modern day setting. All the gospel JC story is is a more polished, sophisticated, version of the Toledoth Yeshu - with the addition of a new birth story - indicating a development in the Yeshu/Jesus concept, ie a fusing together of the life stories of two historical figures within a symbolic or allegorical type story rather than a parody. Which does mean that this JC story has a very long genesis - the gospel JC story being the end product of a storyline that has long simmered in that pot on the stove....

Anyway, that’s my take on things as of now.....

Footnotes:

Wikipedia: Helen

Helen is a feminine given name derived from the Greek Ἑλένη Helene, meaning "torch" or "corposant."[1] Another possible derivation is the Greek σελήνη or Selene, meaning "moon.
-----------------
After the death of Cleopatra Selene II, Juba II married Glaphyra, the widow of Alexander, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne. Glaphyra divorces Juba and marries Archelaus - causing trouble in Judea and his exile in 6 .c.e. Wikipedia.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 05:21 AM

If we are going to get diverted by questions regarding the consistent misplacing of Jesus's life in the rabbinic tradition to the first century BCE it should be noted that this has never satisfactorily been explained by anyone. My explanation is that 'Jannai' is always the king associated with Jesus. It can be either a diminutive of John or Jonathan. The name is also associated as another name of Agrippa in the rabbinic literature. I think this is the only possible explanation - namely that a rabbinic tradition about Jesus's association with Agrippa (= Jannai) i.e. that he lived while the king was alive or knew or was associated with this monarch was misapplied to Alexander Jonathan (= Jannai).

It is worth noting also that the rabbinic literature itself gets confused between the three Jannais in its tradition - John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jonathan and Agrippa. I forget the exact passage but it basically says that one Jannai started off wicked and became good and the other started off good and became wicked.

The Toledoth Yeshu is composed of a number of different reports which are strung together quite haphazardly - some are historical, others wholly mythical.

maryhelena · 08-30-2011, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If we are going to get diverted by questions regarding the consistent misplacing of Jesus's life in the rabbinic tradition to the first century BCE it should be noted that this has never satisfactorily been explained by anyone. My explanation is that 'Jannai' is always the king associated with Jesus. It can be either a diminutive of John or Jonathan. The name is also associated as another name of Agrippa in the rabbinic literature. I think this is the only possible explanation - namely that a rabbinic tradition about Jesus's association with Agrippa (= Jannai) i.e. that he lived while the king was alive or knew or was associated with this monarch was misapplied to Alexander Jonathan (= Jannai).

It is worth noting also that the rabbinic literature itself gets confused between the three Jannais in its tradition - John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jonathan and Agrippa. I forget the exact passage but it basically says that one Jannai started off wicked and became good and the other started off good and became wicked.

The Toledoth Yeshu is composed of a number of different reports which are strung together quite haphazardly - some are historical, others wholly mythical.

No, Stephan - there is no diversion here - unless it's by your own insistence of linking Agrippa II to the gospel JC storyline....

The tradition re Alexander Jannaeus is just that a tradition - seemingly a tradition of long standing. To cherry-pick this story to somehow make the 90 b.c. dating to be inconsequential - what next?

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 07:58 PM

But what is the alternative explanation for the confusion in the rabbinic literature about dating Jesus to the rule of Jannai? I think there is a radical faction within the so-called mythicists who overstep the line and argue that because there is confusion and error about the dating of Jesus that 'therefore' everything's full of shit and can be ignored. The reality is that the confusion with respect to almost all historical figures is wrong in Jewish, Samaritan and early Christian sources. These sources get events related to the figure of Mohammed wrong. Indeed they often get the information wrong 'together' - example, that Samaritans and Christians swear up and down that Mohammed led the Islamic armies that conquered Palestine.

If these sources can get basic things wrong about Mohammed how can it be surprising that when they read about Jesus living in the reign of 'Jannai' that they substituted one king named Jannai for another. Unless you have an alternative suggestion?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2011, 09:25 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	When I read that, the Greek myth of Icarus keeps coming to mind - making or growing wings, flying up to heaven, and then losing his power. I know of no other connection between the Christ myth and Icarus.

08-29-2011, 09:36 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You're not the first Toto. Schwartz doesn't even seem to recognize the Jesus connection and treats it as an icarus myth. There is a parallel but ultimately positive myth of Elisha of wings which I think is related. I think the ultimate source is Platonism

08-29-2011, 06:36 PM	#4
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	In which century does your Rabbinic evidence arise?

08-29-2011, 07:41 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The Toledoth Yeshu is a medieval text but it preserves parallels to things known to the Jewish anti-Christian text used by Celsus (c 177 CE) which to you means the text was written last Tuesday

08-30-2011, 05:21 AM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If we are going to get diverted by questions regarding the consistent misplacing of Jesus's life in the rabbinic tradition to the first century BCE it should be noted that this has never satisfactorily been explained by anyone. My explanation is that 'Jannai' is always the king associated with Jesus. It can be either a diminutive of John or Jonathan. The name is also associated as another name of Agrippa in the rabbinic literature. I think this is the only possible explanation - namely that a rabbinic tradition about Jesus's association with Agrippa (= Jannai) i.e. that he lived while the king was alive or knew or was associated with this monarch was misapplied to Alexander Jonathan (= Jannai). It is worth noting also that the rabbinic literature itself gets confused between the three Jannais in its tradition - John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jonathan and Agrippa. I forget the exact passage but it basically says that one Jannai started off wicked and became good and the other started off good and became wicked. The Toledoth Yeshu is composed of a number of different reports which are strung together quite haphazardly - some are historical, others wholly mythical.

08-30-2011, 07:58 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But what is the alternative explanation for the confusion in the rabbinic literature about dating Jesus to the rule of Jannai? I think there is a radical faction within the so-called mythicists who overstep the line and argue that because there is confusion and error about the dating of Jesus that 'therefore' everything's full of shit and can be ignored. The reality is that the confusion with respect to almost all historical figures is wrong in Jewish, Samaritan and early Christian sources. These sources get events related to the figure of Mohammed wrong. Indeed they often get the information wrong 'together' - example, that Samaritans and Christians swear up and down that Mohammed led the Islamic armies that conquered Palestine. If these sources can get basic things wrong about Mohammed how can it be surprising that when they read about Jesus living in the reign of 'Jannai' that they substituted one king named Jannai for another. Unless you have an alternative suggestion?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.