1 The conclusion that the language of TY is a Babylonian Aramaic dialect is presented in Michael Sokoloff, “The Date and Provenance of the Aramaic Toledot Yeshu on the Basis of Aramaic Dialectology,” in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference (ed. Peter Schäfer, Yaacov Deutsch, and Michael Meerson; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 13–26. An alternate view is proposed by Willem Smelik, who posits that the composition was originally created in the Land of Israel, and that it was revised and developed in Babylonia; see “The Aramaic Dialect(s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments,” AS 7 (2009) 39–73. On Sokoloff’s conclusion, it is important to keep in mind that a Babylonian Aramaic dialect would have been found in the Mesopotamian area known as the Jazīra, between the Tigris and Euphrates. This was an important area of Jewish-Christian interchange and is, in my opinion, a likely possibility for the area in which TY was initially created and circulated.

2 The best and most recent introduction to this protean narrative is Michael Meerson and Peter Schäfer, “Toledot Yeshu”: The Life Story of Jesus; Two Volumes and Database (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), https://online.mohr.de/toledot.

3 This categorization was proposed in Riccardo di Segni, Il vangelo del ghetto (Rome: Newton Compton, 1985). See also the categorization efforts, prior to di Segni as well as after his work, referred to in n. 21.

4 See the overview of manuscript evidence in Miriam Goldstein, “Judeo-Arabic Versions of Toledot Yeshu,” Ginzei Qedem 6 (2010) 9*–42*. I reevaluate and in some cases revise my assessments of these manuscripts in my forthcoming monograph, which will include the texts and translations of all known Judeo-Arabic manuscripts of the Helene version of TY.

5 See Sarah Stroumsa, “Jewish Polemics against Islam and Christianity in the Light of Judaeo-Arabic Texts,” in Judaeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (ed. Norman Golb; Amsterdam: Psychology Press, 1997) 241–50, at 246–47. On al-Muqammaṣ, see Sarah Stroumsa, Twenty Chapters: An Edition of the Judeo-Arabic Text (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2016).

6 See Daniel J. Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa, The Polemic of Nestor the Priest: “Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf” and “Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer” (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1996).

7 See the discussion of the piyyuṭ by Yosef ibn Avitur, who spent most of his life in the East, in Michael Rand, “An Anti-Christian Polemical Piyyut by Yosef ibn Avitur Employing Elements from Toledot Yeshu,” European Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (2013) 1–16.

8 The apparent shift in popularity between the Pilate and Helene versions is evident from the Judeo-Arabic manuscript record and from textual preservation in Hebrew. Gideon Bohak is preparing an edition and translation of all of the Pilate versions, including the Judeo-Arabic.

9 See the discussion of dated Hebrew manuscripts in Meerson and Schäfer, “Toledot Yeshu”: The Life Story of Jesus, 2:1. Debate continues regarding the undated manuscripts. One salient example is the TY manuscript originally thought to be one of the earliest Hebrew Helene versions, and which is included in a collection known as the “Strasbourg manuscript,” MS Strasbourg BNU 3974. This undated manuscript was later dated to the eighteenth century in William Horbury, “The Strasbourg Text of the Toledot,” in “Toledot Yeshu” Revisited (ed. Schäfer, Deutsch, and Meerson) 49–60. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra has recently suggested a return to the earlier dating; see “On Some Early Traditions in Toledot Yeshu and the Antiquity of the Helena Recension,” in “Toledot Yeshu” in Context: The Jewish “Life of Jesus” in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern History (ed. Daniel Barbu and Yaacov Deutsch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). I am grateful to Dr. Stökl Ben Ezra for sharing this article with me prior to its publication.

10 For ease of reference in what follows, I use the abbreviation “R3005” in order to refer to both shelfmarks of this Judeo-Arabic manuscript version, since the two fragments originated in the same full manuscript.

11 See the sources cited below in nn. 14 and 16.

12 I thank Dr. Edna Engel, of the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel, for her assistance in assessing the approximate dating of the manuscripts discussed here.

13 See n. 2.

14 Meerson and Schäfer, “Toledot Yeshu”: The Life Story of Jesus, 2:54.

15 Ibid.

16 See Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, “An Ancient List of Christian Festivals in Toledot Yeshu: Polemics as Indication for Interaction,” HTR 102 (2009) 481–96; and idem, “On Some Early Traditions” (see n. 9).

17 See the discussion in Yaacov Deutsch, “New Evidence of Early Versions of Toledot Yeshu,” Tarbiz 69 (2000) 177–97, at 181–82 (Hebrew).

18 In this way, the Judeo-Arabic evidence corroborates Gager and Ahuvia’s suggestion that the introduction of the element of the “son of the menstruant” to the TY literature followed soon upon the composition of tractate Kallah in Babylonia. This Judeo-Arabic evidence suggests favoring the earlier end of the period they cite (9th–12th centuries). See John G. Gager and Mika Ahuvia, “Some Notes on Jesus and His Parents: From the New Testament Gospels to the ‘Toledot Yeshu,’” in Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Ra‘anan Boustan et al.; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 2:997–1019, at 1010 n. 53.

19 See the discussion by Michael Rand cited in n. 7.

20 I edit and translate sections of these early manuscripts in my article “A Polemical Tale and Its Function in the Jewish Communities of the Mediterranean and the Near East: Toledot Yeshu in Judeo-Arabic,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 7 (2019) 192–227.

21 The turn to critical scholarship on TY was set in motion largely by the 1902 publication of Samuel Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1902). Earlier stages of categorization of TY manuscripts can be found in the former, as well as in William Horbury, “A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Jeshu” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1970), and di Segni, Il vangelo del ghetto. For the recent publication of Meerson and Schäfer, see n. 2.

22 For example, Ashkenazi A: “a certain time”; Ashkenazi B: “a week’s time,” as well as “thirty days”; Late Yemenite A: “time”; Late Oriental: “three days and three nights.” These data are my translations of the texts available online: Meerson and Schäfer, “Toledot Yeshu”: The Life Story of Jesus, https://online.mohr.de/toledot.

23 Ms. Leipzig BH 17, f. 3r, accessed at ibid., and corrected against the original manuscript in digital format, available on the National Library of Israel website, https://www.nli.org.il/en/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH002637792/NLI#$FL51027175. The translation is mine.

24 For example, in the figure of Reyhan in the popular Turkic epic of Köroğlu/Göroġlï. Reyhan appears as the enemy in a number of versions, yet features as an admired companion in others (Karl Reichl, email correspondence with author; with thanks to Prof. Reichl for his guidance on this question and for sharing unpublished material).

25 A term referring to the separation between husband and wife according to Jewish law, which includes the days of menstruation, plus seven days following the end of menstruation.

26 A wife abandoned with a writ of divorce (geṭ).

27 I examine this Judeo-Arabic account of the true cross in a forthcoming publication.

28 The appearance of this legend in Hebrew versions of TY is noted in Witold Witakowski, “Ethiopic and Hebrew Versions of the Legend of the Finding of the Holy Cross,” StPatr 35 (2001) 527–35. Witakowski provides a brief discussion of the narrative sequence in TY, on the basis of the texts published by S. Krauss (see n. 21). A recent discussion of this account with respect to TY can be found in Alexandra Cuffel, “Between Epic Entertainment and Polemical Exegesis: Jesus as Antihero in Toledot Yeshu,” in Medieval Exegesis and Religious Difference: Commentary, Conflict, and Community in the Premodern Mediterranean (ed. Ryan Szpiech; New York: Fordham University Press, 2015) 155–70.

29 See Michael Higger, Masekhtot Kalah (New York: Hotsa’at de-be Rabanan, 1936) 191–92.

30 This usage is common even today in traditional Arabic-speaking societies. I observed this usage during my work with the Jewish community of Djerba, Tunisia, some fifteen years ago.

31 Ms. Leipzig BH 17, 3r-v. See n. 23 for electronic resources. The translation is mine.

32 On the surprising appearance of Joseph Pandera as Miriam’s husband in the Italian versions, see n. 24.

33 See n. 20.

34 For views emphasizing the long chronological development of TY narratives, see Galit Hasan-Rokem, “Polymorphic Helena: Toledot Yeshu as a Palimpsest of Religious Narratives and Identities,” in “Toledot Yeshu” Revisited (ed. Schäfer, Deutsch, and Meerson) 247–82, at 248–49; Hillel I. Newman, “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature,” JTS 50 (1999) 59–79, at 59 and citing di Segni.

35 I estimate that there is a single folio missing between RNL Evr.-Arab. II:2550 and RNL Evr.-Arab. I:3014.

36 This is the dating provided by the British Library.

37 The pages are parallel to the text found in Lasker and Stroumsa, Polemic of Nestor, 141–42. Inexplicably, the word “Karaite” is inscribed on the title page that includes Elkan Nathan Adler’s seal, apparently by one of the JTS librarians. I have not been able to locate any information regarding the acquisition of this compilation or its creation.

38 See the description of RNL Evr.-Arab. II:1343 in the previous section.

39 For example, the “Wagenseil” version; see Meerson and Schäfer, “Toledot Yeshu”: The Life Story of Jesus 1:286.

40 The most comprehensive study on the Arabic preface remains Peter Freimark, “Das Vorwort als literarische Form in der arabischen Literatur” (PhD diss., Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, 1967).

41 Sa‘adya Ga’on (882–942), for example, begins many of his prefaces with this same “blessing” formulation. Other Jews employ the language of ḥamdala, as is found in the prefaces of the 11th-cent. Andalusian grammarian Jonah b. Janāḥ; see, for example, The Book of Hebrew Roots: Edited with an Appendix; Containing Extracts from Other Hebrew-Arabic Dictionaries (ed. Adolf Neubauer; Oxford: Clarendon, 1875; repr., Amsterdam: Philo, 1968).

42 T. Fahd, W. P. Heinrichs, and A. Ben Abdesselem, “Sad̲ j_̲ ʿ,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, http://dx.doi.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0959.

43 R. Nissim b. Jacob ibn Shāhīn taught and wrote in Qairawan in the 11th cent.; this composition, al-Faraj Ba‘d al-Shidda, or, in its Hebrew translation, Ḥibbur yafeh min hayšu‘ah, is the most famous and well-preserved of his numerous works. See Naḥem Ilan, “Ibn Shāhīn, Nissim ben Jacob,” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-jews-in-the-islamic-world/ibn-shahin-nissim-ben-jacob-COM_0011110. See also Israel Moses Ta Shma, “Nissim ben Jacob ben Nissim ibn Shahin,” EncJud 15:279–80.

44 The parallels between Esther and TY are discussed at length in Sarit Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified: The Book of Esther and Toledot Yeshu,” in “Toledot Yeshu” Revisited (ed. Schäfer, Deutsch, and Meerson) 158–80, at 161–69.

45 See ibid., 162–63; and David Biale, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity: The Sefer Toldot Yeshu and the Sefer Zerubavel,” Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999) 130–45, at 135 and n. 11.

46 The connection between Purim and anti-Christian rituals is discussed in Elliott S. Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). A thoughtful reevaluation of the evidence can be found in Kattan Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 169–76.

47 I adopt here the terminology used in Geoffrey Khan, “Judeo-Arabic,” in Handbook of Jewish Languages (ed. Aaron D. Rubin and Lily Kahn; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 22–63.

48 See, e.g., Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995; Hebrew); Benjamin H. Hary, Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Rachel Hasson-Kenat, “New Manuscripts Written in Late Judaeo-Arabic from the Firkovitch Collection: Classification, Description and Sample Texts” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2016; Hebrew); Geoffrey Khan, “A Linguistic Analysis of the Judaeo-Arabic of Late Genizah Documents and Its Comparison with Classical Judaeo-Arabic,” Sefunot 20 (1991) 223–34 (Hebrew); Heikki Palva, “A 17th-18th Century Manuscript in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Part Two: Linguistic Notes,” Le Muséon 121 (2008) 93–123.

49 The original reads “and” ungrammatically; I translate in accordance with the intent of the parallel phrases.

50 The text begins with RNL Evr.-Arab. II:1345, 1r.

51 Lit., “they wanted them to return him.” I have expressed what I believe to be the intent of this somewhat unclear sentence.

52 Apparently, the intent is the Arabic ىغط or نايغط, “exceeding proper bounds” or even “oppression.” The word is written with a tav, but interchange between ט and ת is well attested in later Judeo-Arabic texts. This lexical item is a fraught and negative theological term in Arabic. For example, it is used to describe the actions of the arch-idolator “Pharaoh” in Qur’ān 20:43, in a chapter largely devoted to the description of Pharaoh’s idolatrous behavior. The use of the verb may even relate to the mention of “the Pharaohs” a line or two earlier in this Judeo-Arabic text.

53 The text continues here with RNL Evr.-Arab. I:3005, 5r.

54 This presentative usage is found in many dialects and often appears in the context of narratives and storytelling. See the folkloristic usage discussed in Hasson-Kenat, “New Manuscripts in Late Judaeo-Arabic,” 113. See also Blau, Grammar, 32; El-Said Badawi and Martin Hinds, A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1986) 32.

55 This does not reflect the well-known Judeo-Arabic phenomenon of the interchange of the verb forms I-IV, but rather is a feature of Cairene Judeo-Arabic; see Blau, Grammar, 77; Joshua Blau, A Dictionary of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2006; Hebrew) 263b.

56 This phrase, appearing here in the tenth form, is attested in this meaning in the first form in colloquial Egyptian Arabic. See Badawi and Hinds, Egyptian Arabic, 663.

57 This usage seems to be found only in Judeo-Arabic texts that are highly influenced by Hebrew. See Blau, Dictionary, 408–9; Joshua Blau, “Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies,” JSS 17 (1972) 173–90, at 177–79.

58 لاكو اشاح

59 There is an erasure prior to this word: ועתב is marked for erasure with lines over the letters.

60 See Blau, Dictionary, 395.

61 Apparently, what is intended is something like what is found in a parallel rendering in RNL Evr.-Arab. II:1993, יש קאטא אמ: “He could not tolerate.” See also n. 52.

62 Regarding this form, which is common in Judeo-Arabic, see Blau, Grammar, 57.

63 The root a.l.d. attested here is a secondary formation of the root w.l.d. It appears here in the fifth form and is attested in the second form in Blau, Dictionary, 16.

64 See n. 62.

65 Lit., “more.”

66 This meaning is attested in Badawi and Hinds, Egyptian Arabic, 199.

67 This fifth-form verb is written with a prosthetic alef. See Blau, Grammar, 77.

68 This sentence is composed with a double negative, lit., “The school children were not considered before him to be nothing.”

69 There is a word or phrase missing here, although Yeshu’s age is clear from the context.

70 Lit., “did not do ‘rising and honoring.’” A Hebrew phrase, qimah vekavod, is used here and elsewhere in the text as a fixed paired expression; this pairing is not attested in Hebrew literature, to the best of my knowledge.

71 I have not found this verb form attested in dictionaries. This root appears in the second form with the meaning of “to praise (in the liturgy)” in Badawi and Hinds, Egyptian Arabic, 549. This phrase appears later in the narrative as well, in the phrase םאנצאל (!) ובאווטי where it appears to mean “bow down to.”

72 The intent of this phrase is היפ י'דלא, lit., “in which there was.”

73 On this form, see Blau, Grammar, 75.

74 Lit., “two words.”

75 The intent is the term ىروش, “counsel.”

76 The intent is the colloquial relative pronoun ي^ّلا.

77 The interchange of ‘alā, “over,” and ilā, “to,” is common; See Blau, Grammar, 115.

78 The intent is apparently הנוגע.