Page - 36 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 05/01

Italy, the work was abridged and copied alongside medieval anti-Christian po- lemics or appended to new polemical writings such as Judah Briel’s Hassagot al sippure ha-sheluchim (Criticisms of the Writings of the Apostles), apparently in order to illuminate the historical context of the Christian Gospels.31 In the Ger- man lands, Toledot manuscripts were perhaps more scarce, although recurring references to the narrative in the writings of Christians converts from Judaism suggest that it was widely known.32 An autograph manuscript preserved at the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, does show that despite his official rebuttals, Josel of Rosheim himself copied extracts of Toledot Yeshu – maybe from the Constan- tinople manuscript Capito had shown him – for the sake of transmitting this ancient “oral tradition” to future generations.33 At the same time, the tradition also moved eastwards, following the move- ment of Jewish populations in the early modern era, as suggested by the signif- icant number of manuscripts copied in eastern Europe, or even in the Caucasus, in the 18th and 19th centuries.34 The best manuscript exemplar of the standard medieval version of the work, the so-called Strasbourg text of Toledot Yeshu, first published by Samuel Krauss in 1902, was copied in Eastern Galicia in the 17th or 18th century by a Karaite scribe, confirming that the narrative was a matter of interest for both Rabbanites and Karaite Jews.35 It was via eastern Europe that the work eventually also reached the United States.36 31 See the discussion in Horbury 1970: 153–169; Meerson/Schäfer 2014, vol. 2, 192–195. A third of the extant Hebrew manuscripts were produced in Italy; see Barbu, forthcoming. 32 Cf. Deutsch 1997; Carlebach 2006. Christian converts from Judaism describing the customs of their former coreligionists regularly claimed that the Jews recited Toledot Yeshu on the eve of Christmas as a way to instill a fear of Jesus among Jewish children. See the sources quoted in Shapiro 1999; and for an analysis, see also Scharbach 2013. The accusation first appears in Ebendorfer’s prologue to his Latin translation of Toledot Yeshu; see Callsen/Knapp/Nieser/Pryzbilski 2003, 36–37. 33 Ms. Oxford, Bodleian, Opp. 712, f. 157a, with the following preamble, quoted in Fraenkel-Goldschmidt 2006, 412 and Carlebach 2006, 456: “This is the book of the judgment of Yeshu ben Pandira. Although it cannot be found in German lands, I copied it as a novelty, and who can blame me for this. It concerns what happened in ancient times and great things that our predecessors received by oral tradition. It is not fitting for me to write things that were not written or did not happen: I have not refrained from writing the truth in order that it should last for many days.” 34 For a list of manuscripts, see Meerson/Schäfer 2014, vol. 2, 1–48. A number of additional witnesses should, however, be added to that list. I thank Michael Krupp for sharing with me a list of the manu- scripts in his possession. 35 Krauss 1902, 38–50. See now Meerson/Schäfer 2014, vol. 1, 167–184 (English) and vol. 2, 79–95 (He- brew). On this manuscript, see Horbury 2011; Stöckl Ben Ezra, forthcoming. On the circulation of the Strasbourg version in the Middle Ages, see Barbu/Dahhaoui 2018. That polemical material circulated between the Karaite and Rabbanite communities in that context is further illustrated by Isaac of Troki’s Hizzuk Emunah; see Miriam Benfatto’s contribution in the present volume. 36 Cf. the case mentioned above, n. 19 and Schlichting 1982, 17–19. In addition to the two Brooklyn prints in Hebrew mentioned by Schlichting, I have found a copy of the Yiddish text published by Meyer Chin- sky (1897?) under the title Yeshu ha-Notzri, oder Yosef Pandre in the library of the Centre for Jewish History, New York (YIVO Library, Main Stack Collection 000004708 a). 36 | Daniel Barbu www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/1