Originally Posted by Duvduv

The Toldoth has some kernels referring to the Talmudic references, but most of it is a mishmash that may not have even been written by a Jew at all.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Eusebius VC 65: How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church. -

THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church.

For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. (1)

Others, however, there were, who voluntarily and with real sincerity embraced a better hope. Meantime the prelates of the several churches. continued to make strict inquiry, utterly rejecting those who attempted an entrance under the specious disguise of false pretenses, while those who came with sincerity of purpose were proved for a time, and after sufficient trial numbered with the congregation. Such was the treatment of those who stood charged with rank heresy: those, however, who maintained no impious doctrine, but had been separated from the one body through the influence of schismatic advisers, were received without difficulty or delay. Accordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were, their own country after an absence in a foreign land, and acknowledged the Church as a mother from whom they had wandered long, and to whom they now returned with joy and gladness. Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. (2) And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.

Originally Posted by mountainman

IMO after the research I have done on the non canonical material it was most likely written in Greek just like all the other UNOFFICIAL STORIES about the new and strange god to whom Constantine subscribed. Many of these stories exhibit satire and parody directed against the canonical orthodox books and church.

In fact, if Epiphanius knows this book in order to cite its story about Jesus being born out of the rape of Mary by a Roman soldier a century BCE, then the story is obviously circulating mid 4th century in Greek, just like the other gnostic gospels and acts. This seems quite reasonable enough.


Of course in retaliation for these UNWANTED stories about Jesus the Christian regime severely punished those who preserved prohibited books.

My question is whether anyone here can understand the motive for someone writing this alternative and highly satirical "Life of Jesus" once they had heard the Good News that the Emperors were running with the canonical Jesus.

????

Originally Posted by Iskander

They probably had the the same motive as the authors of ‘the life of Brian’

Originally Posted by WIKI about Life of Brian

The film contains themes of religious satire that were controversial at the time of its release, drawing accusations of blasphemy and protests from some religious groups. Thirty-nine local authorities in the UK either imposed an outright ban, or imposed an X (18 years) certificate (effectively preventing the film from being shown, as the distributors said the film could not be shown unless it was unedited and carried the original AA (14) certificate). Some countries, including Ireland and Norway, banned its showing, with a few of these bans lasting decades. The film makers used such notoriety to benefit their marketing campaign, with posters stating "So funny it was banned in Norway!".

Originally Posted by mountainman

Well done !

My next question is about the amount of raw political power that the religious authorities had at the time (a) in the year 1979 CE and (b) in the years on and after the year 325 CE, and what their reactions to the authorship and circulation of "Life of Brian" amidst the populace at large ....


While the motives of authorship were the same, the political climate was - shall we say - far more intense, and black and white 1700 years ago. The head of the church was essentially the Bishop of Bishops ... ahem ... Bullneck, Son of Helene, the Great Cross Archaeologist of the Holy Land. The problem of course was that the majesty of the emperor would not take kindly to any person or persons who laughed at loud at clever satirical treatments of his published Bible, directed against his Chosen One in that specific Greek publication, Jebus the Good. (Jesus CHRESTOS)

Originally Posted by mountainman

IMO after the research I have done on the non canonical material it was most likely written in Greek just like all the other UNOFFICIAL STORIES about the new and strange god to whom Constantine subscribed. Many of these stories exhibit satire and parody directed against the canonical orthodox books and church.

In fact, if Epiphanius knows this book in order to cite its story about Jesus being born out of the rape of Mary by a Roman soldier a century BCE, then the story is obviously circulating mid 4th century in Greek, just like the other gnostic gospels and acts. This seems quite reasonable enough.

Originally Posted by Eusebius Eusebius VC 65: How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church. - THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. (1) Others, however, there were, who voluntarily and with real sincerity embraced a better hope. Meantime the prelates of the several churches. continued to make strict inquiry, utterly rejecting those who attempted an entrance under the specious disguise of false pretenses, while those who came with sincerity of purpose were proved for a time, and after sufficient trial numbered with the congregation. Such was the treatment of those who stood charged with rank heresy: those, however, who maintained no impious doctrine, but had been separated from the one body through the influence of schismatic advisers, were received without difficulty or delay. Accordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were, their own country after an absence in a foreign land, and acknowledged the Church as a mother from whom they had wandered long, and to whom they now returned with joy and gladness. Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. (2) And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That Epiphanius makes mention of the Toledot Yeshu storyline does not date the creation of that story to his time. That would not be a reasonable position to take.

Originally Posted by mountainman

But this is the current position. Have you done any background reading? It appears to be a 4th century creation. The following is from WIKI ...




Again, many others have suggested parody and satire. Did you read the references people have provided in this thread above?

EG:



http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html


I am not a JC historicist.

My position is that the canonical JC is a 4th century fictional character.

And the noncanonical JC is also 4th century and obviously fictional, but a Greek parody of the canon.

My position atm is that the Gnostic gospels were a Greek literary reaction to the appearance of Constantine's Bible and the implementation of an imperially managed monotheism in the Roman Empire following the military victory of Constantine.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

my bolding

And that bolded quote is where I stand. It would be more fruitful to drop all this anti-Toledot Yeshu rhetoric and deal with the story that it contains. A story dealing with a birth in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and a death in the time of a Queen Helene. The identity of the Queen Helene being the subject of the OP.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Because a)the Toledot refers to Christian festivals and observances that only originated after the 4th century, and b) Epiphanius knows of it's claims, when the book is traced to its source we find ourselves in the 4th century. No earlier.

The evidence points to a 4th century composition, and you have already cited Mead's suggestion that Queen Helene was Bullneck's mother. Mead may have had some good reasons for this option.

If the author of the piece decided to call Queen of the Jews Hellene its may have been because he was an Hellene. Epiphanius himself tells us that Hellenism was considered a heresy in the later 4th century. (Along with Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, etc). It would be equivalent of writing a story about the wife of a Roman Emperor called "Hebrew"