Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth* Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval Tristram Shandy, in Laurence Sterne’s famous novel by that name, dwells upon the reasons of his father, Walter Shandy, in giving him his name. First, he elabo- rates on his father’s theory of names: “His opinion, in this matter, was, That there was a strange kind of magic bias, which good or bad names, as he called them, irresistibly impressed upon our characters and conduct.”1 To sustain this argument he brings as an example the name Judas: Your son! – your dear son, – from whose sweet and open temper you have so much to expect. – Your BILLY, Sir! – would you, for the world, have called him JUDAS? (…) – Would you, Sir, if a Jew of a godfather had proposed the name for your child, and offered you his purse along with it, would you have consented to such a desecration of him? (…) – If I know your temper right, Sir, – you are incapable of it; – you would have trampled upon the offer; – you would have thrown the temptation at the tempter’s head with abhorrence. Your greatness of mind in this action, which I admire, with that generous contempt of money, which you shew me in the whole transaction, is really noble; – and what renders it more so, is the principle of it; – the workings of a parent’s love upon the truth and conviction of this very hypothesis, namely, That was your son called Judas – the sordid and treacherous idea, so inseparable from the name, would have accompanied him through life like his shadow, and, in the end, made a miser and a rascal of him, in spite, Sir, of your example.2 A somewhat similar claim was put forward lately, though for different reasons, by the noted Israeli author, Abraham B. Yehoshua. In an article published in the newspaper Ha’aretz, Yehoshua issued a call to forego the description of Israel as “the Jewish state.” In his opinion, the name “Israel” is the proper name of the country and of the people who reside in it. According to Yehoshua, since the time of the Bible and throughout the age of the Exile, the word “Jew” has car- ried a negative connotation, because it evokes “the memory of Judas Iscariot.”3 * A shorter Hebrew version of the last part of this article (the figure of Judas in the Golden Legend) was published by us in 2005: “Oedipus in Christian Garb: The Legend of Judah Iscar- ioth in the Golden Legend,” Zmanim 91 (2005): 12–21. 1 Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (ed. Graham Pet- rie; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), 77. 2 Sterne, ibid., 78. 3 Ha’aretz, 10 June 2009. 198 Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval Yehoshua’s claim is a striking example of how images travel from one camp to the other. Astonishingly, in his statement, Yehoshua internalizes the Christian position, whose origins are to be found in the New Testament, according to which Judah, the name of Judas Iscariot, arouses associations with the Jew, a traitor, with one who greedily pursues wealth, with Satan. Judas’ figure does, indeed, loom large in Christian imagination, and, in view of its implications, there is little wonder that it reverberated in Jewish culture as well.4 In what follows, we shall examine the image of Judas Iscariot in three literary works, one Jewish and two Christian. Sefer Toledot Yeshu will be at the center of our discussion; to this we shall add the Legend of the Finding of the True Cross and the “apocryphal” biography of Judas in the Golden Legend. Our claim is that, despite the dispute between Jews and Christians regarding the ethical qualities of Judas, a broad agreement exists regarding many facets of his personality, behavior, and his central role in the story of Jesus. This agreement is based upon an evidently unchallenged axiom, according to which the man Judas represents the Jewish people, and his behavior represents the Jewish attitude to Christians and to their savior. As in the New Testament, so too in these texts, Ju- das is presented as a subversive figure, who acts clandestinely in order to destroy Christianity and to save Judaism or, on the contrary, to destroy Judaism and to save Christianity – all depending upon the identity of the text. Who is Judas Iscariot in Christian eyes? If every great drama revolves around the titanic struggle between good and evil, then in the Christian drama Judas plays the role of evil – and not just mundane evil, but the worst possible evil, diametrically opposed to Jesus, who represents the absolute good. Judas’ evil is, indeed, great. As one of the twelve disciples, he was among those who were particularly close to Jesus, but he betrayed Jesus for the sake of a handful of coins, turning him over to the Jews who were pursuing him, then tortured him and precipitated his crucifixion by the Romans. Judas thus represents the Jews, as indicated by his name. According to the Christian tradition, Qeriyot (from which derives the name, “Iscariot,” Ish-Qeriyot, “the man from Qeriyot”) is the city in Judaea mentioned in Jehoshua 15:24. If so, Judas was the only one among Jesus’ disciples to come from Judaea rather than from the Galilee. The Galilee was the cradle of the faithful, while Judaea was home to the Jews and traitors.5 4 For a recent survey on Judas Iscariot’s role in the Christian anti-Jewish imagination see: Jeremy Cohen, Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen (Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 255–61. Interest in Judas figure increased lately, follow- ing the publicized discovery of the Gospel of Judas. See inter alia, Bart D. Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Nevertheless, it seems that this text that raised much interest in academic circles, is not destined to change the long accepted, traditional image of Judas as the arch-traitor of Christian culture. 5 Hieronymus, In Matheum 10.4 (CCSL 77; eds. D. Hurst and M. Adriaen; Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), 64. Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth 199 Another theory explains that the name Iscariot implies that Judas was a member of the Sicarii.6 This theory, however, is problematic chronologically. Judas’ great sin was his betrayal of Jesus. The lowest level in Dante’s Inferno is named Iudecca, after Judas Iscariot, in which all those who betrayed their masters are punished. Lucifer, the archetype of all betrayers, who is placed in the center of this level, is also punished there. All the rivers of guilt flow towards him. Lucifer has three mouths, in each one of which an arch-traitor is ground in his teeth: Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius. Judas is stuck in the central mouth, as the worst of these three traitors; indeed, he is the worst of all the sinners in Hell.7 The Christian Gospels do not elaborate upon the story of Judas. The infor- mation about him is spread among several different books, and the details are not always consistent with one another. Nevertheless it is possible to put them together from the following story: Judas was one of the twelve disciples, whom Jesus appointed as a kind of treasurer, who held the collective money-purse (in Christian art the purse is one of his known attributes). This task enabled Judas to deceive the others and steal from them, and even act in a miserly manner in using the money to serve Jesus. In the final analysis, as he betrayed trust regarding money so he betrayed trust in general. Tempted by Satan, Judas com- mitted the greatest sin of all – he betrayed his master. He turned to the high priest, offered to turn Jesus over to him, and in return received thirty coins. That evening, Judas participated in the Last Supper together with the other disciples, and Jesus, who knew what was going to happen, gave Judas bread dipped in wine, saying that the one who would receive the bread would betray him, even asking that he hasten the deed. Judas left the table to meet the priests, while Jesus went with his disciples to Gethsemane, where he prayed. His disciples fell asleep. Soon Judas returned with the entourage of the high priest and kissed Jesus, thereby identifying him and turning him in. Jesus was arrested, tried, tortured and executed. After Judas saw that Jesus had been convicted, he regret- ted his betrayal, threw the money down in the Temple, and hung himself. With the money the priests bought a field for burying strangers, which they called “the field of blood” (Aramaic: hakel dama). According to the account in Acts (1:15–26), it was Judas who bought the field with the money he received for the betrayal and then, “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.” After Judas’ death, Matthias was chosen in his place and joined the disciples. 6 Robert Eisenman, James. The Brother of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1998), 516, 811–16. 7 Dante, Inferno, 39. See Sylvia Tomasch, “Judecca, Dante’s Satan and the dis-placed Jew,” in Text and Territory: Geographical Imagination in the European Middle Ages (eds. Sylvia Tomasch and Sealy Gilles; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 247–67. 200 Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval Sefer Toledot Yeshu In Sefer Toledot Yeshu, Judas Iscariot plays a far more central role than he does in the New Testament. This Jewish text reworks the facts related in the New Testament: its dispute is not about the facts, but rather about their interpretation. Our reading of the work is based upon two theoretical approaches. The first is a historical approach, based in large part on Amos Funkenstein’s famous definition of the genre of “counter-history.”8 Toledot Yeshu clearly belongs to this genre; indeed, Funkenstein himself used it as an example to characterize the genre. The second is a literary approach, building on the work of Frank Kermode, who sees the various versions of the Gospels as a midrashic attempt to reinterpret the tradition that stands before them – and this, not by interpretation of the text, but by the addition of various elements to the plot that create a different story.9 Following this approach, we consider Toledot Yeshu also a midrash and as such as an open-ended text that has different versions and is subject to various addi- tions and deletions. Similar to the New Testament itself, Toledot Yeshu is a text of an exegetical nature but, unlike the Gospels, where alongside the story of Jesus’ life we find parables, sermons, ethical aphorisms and prophecies, Toledot Yeshu expresses its viewpoint by means of narrative alone, using various devices such as thickening of the plot, additions, and changes according to the creative imagination of the various narrators. Like the Gospels, Toledot Yeshu weaves within its plot verses from the Bible which serve as “testimonies” (testimonia). Their function is to refute the New Testament claim that the Old Testament had already anticipated the biography of Jesus. Toledot Yeshu makes satiric use of these selfsame verses, exposing the distorted use made by the Gospels. Kermode takes note of the fact that Judas Iscariot is the figure who moves the Passion story forward in the New Testament.10 Judas is “a case of a character be- ing possessed by his narrative role.” The story is moved forward by his betrayal of Jesus; indeed, Judas becomes the very embodiment of treachery.11 The act of betrayal thus acquires a human image, whose life and actions have a narrative of their own. Unlike the New Testament, which creates a story out of an abstract idea, in Toledot Yeshu the story already exists, and the function of the narrator is to change its course and meaning and to turn it upside down. In addition to the New Testament, Sefer Toledot Yeshu, in its various versions, engages in dialogue with earlier versions of Jewish legends and stories about 8 Amos Funkenstein, “History, Counterhistory and Narrative,” Perceptions of Jewish His- tory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 32–49. 9 Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), 75–99. 10 Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy, 84. 11 Kermode, ibid., 94. Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth 201 Jesus found in the Talmud, and makes use of them. We assume that each of the extant versions of Toledot Yeshu confronts and interprets Christian and Jewish texts, by making additions to the plot, reorganizing the narrative, and inserting new emphases, and so on. As noted, the place attributed to Judas in Toledot Yeshu is far greater than the one he is given in the Gospels, at least in terms of the number of words and verses. Unlike the villain that emerges towards the end of the New Testament drama in order to advance the story of the Crucifixion, in Toledot Yeshu he ap- pears on the stage earlier in the narrative and disappears later (at least in some of the versions). Moreover, in Toledot Yeshu, Judas is the only active figure from the Jewish side among those participating. He alone saves the Jews with his own powers.12 Judas “stars” in three central scenes in Toledot Yeshu. In the first, he reveals the fact that Jesus is a deceiver who performs miracles by means of deceit, by his having stolen the Shem Hameforash – the holy name of God. No inverted mirror image of this scene appears in the New Testament. It copes with the miracles that Jesus performed, by whose means he acquired his followers. The background to this section comes from the law of the false prophet in Deuteronomy 13, which warns against believing in false prophets who perform miracles. With the Sages’ consent, Judas decides to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and to imitate his das- tardly acts. He enters the Holy of Holies, and he too steals the Shem Hameforash. A competition ensues between the two figures, in which each of them uses the Shem Hameforash to fly in the air, while attempting to make the other fall to the ground.13 Judas contaminates Jesus by urinating or ejaculating semen on him – the various versions differ on this point – causing Jesus to fall to the ground.14 This scene, with its homosexual overtones, may contain echoes of Judas’ kiss in the New Testament.15 Judas thereby removes the mask from Jesus’ face, and heroically destroys his claim to be the Son of God. Judas’ acts are justified by means of the verses in Deuteronomy 13:7–12: “If your brother, the son of your 12 Bernhard Dieckmann, Judas als Sündenbock: Eine verhängnisvolle Geschichte von Angst und Vergeltung (München: Kösel, 1991), 126. 13 This scene has its roots in the Christian Apocrypha, in stories such as Simon magus’ flying in the air. See Acta Petri (Acts of Peter) in New Testament Apocrypha. Edited by Wilhelm Sch- neemelcher, et al. (London: Lutterworth, 1963, 1965. 2nd edition: Cambridge: James Clarke; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991, 1992), 290. 14 This scene goes hand in hand with Christian descriptions of Jews transgression of norma- tive codes of physical conduct, especially through spitting. According to Anthony Bale, “the spitting Jew may have an intertext in late medieval images of the ‘judas kiss’; Judas’s kissing was certainly discussed in terms of defilement of Christ’s body …”: Anthony Bale, The Jew in the Medieval Book: English Antisemitisms, 1350–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 152. Susan Gubar elaborates on oral and anal motives in Judas image, describing him as “leaky Judas.” Susan Gubar, Judas: A Biography (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), ch. 3 (esp. pp. 107–10). 15 On the homosexual motive see Gubar, ibid., 158–210. 202 Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval mother … entices you secretly, saying: Let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him.” Jesus is thus exposed by Judas as an impostor and a false prophet. He is also described as “the son of your mother,” following the words of Deuteronomy concerning the false prophet; this reference also relates, of course, to Jesus’ depiction as a son without a father. The second scene is that of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas. Whereas, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus came to Jerusalem only once, on which occasion he was crucified, according to the Gospel of John he had visited there in the past, and even aroused the hatred of the Sanhedrin, who sought to kill him. (John 5:16–18). According to this version, Jesus’ return to the Galilee was essentially a flight from Jerusalem. This being the case, why did the Sanhedrin need Judas in order to identify Jesus? Wasn’t he already known to them? The Gospel ac- cording to John gives no answer to this question, but in some versions of Toledot Yeshu, an explanation is offered. According to the Wagenseil version, after Judas exposed Jesus’ deceit and Jesus is condemned to death, Jesus goes to the Jordan River and purifies himself anew, thus recovering the magical powers that Judas had taken from him. Wagenseil’s version continues in a consistent manner to the next stage. If urinating or ejaculating semen do not help, it becomes necessary to deprive Jesus of his magical powers by taking the Shem Hameforash away from him by force. Here, Judas again volunteers to act on behalf of the Sages and secretly, in the dark of night, while Jesus is sleeping, tears the Shem Hameforash from his flesh. Jesus, left with none of his magical powers, understands that the hour has come and his destiny has been sealed. He therefore decides to return to Jerusa- lem, the city from which he had fled. This time, however, he and his disciples arrive in disguise. The motif of the disguise does not appear in the New Testa- ment, and it should be seen as a dramatic device intended to explain why Judas and his act of betrayal were needed in order to identify Jesus. The Jewish version thus invents a secret visit of Jesus and his disciples to Jerusalem – perhaps in order to steal again the Shem Hameforash. Judas continues to act on behalf of the Sages and identifies Jesus again; that which is portrayed in the New Testament as treachery is shown here as a heroic mission. The course of the story in Toledot Yeshu matches only the Gospel of John. According to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3), Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at the beginning of his activity, even before he performed miracles. In contrast, according to John, Jesus had previously visited Jerusalem, aroused the wrath of the Jews (2:13–25), and only thereafter was he baptized in the Jordan (3:22). Moreover, as we noted, according to John, the Jews already sought to kill Jesus after his first visit in Judaea (John 5:16–18; 7:1), a sequence that Sefer Toledot Yeshu follows. The third scene in which Judas plays a central role is the story of Jesus’ burial in Judas’ garden. Here, too, a number of versions follow the Gospel of John, as Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth 203 only in that account is Jesus buried in a garden (19:41–42). In order to prevent Jesus’ followers from stealing the body and claiming that he had risen from the dead, Judas conceals his body and buries it beneath a water conduit in his gar- den. The Jewish narrator thus admits that Jesus’ grave was found empty, but has his own explanation as to how this came about. The discovery of Jesus’ body in Judas’ garden is intended to refute the claim of the Resurrection. Here, too, Judas both conceals and reveals. From all that has been said thus far, it is clear that the main purpose of Toledot Yeshu in general, and of the portrayal of the character of Judas in particular is, as Funkenstein put it, to present a counter-narrative to the Christian story. But alongside this central design, there exist other, secondary aims that are expressed in several scenes behind which there is no original Christian story. The Burial According to one of the versions of Toledot Yeshu, Judas buried Jesus in his garden, in a cesspool. This is a fulfillment of the words of the Talmud, “One who mocks the words of the Sages is judged in boiling excrement.”16 However, the Talmud speaks of a punishment imposed upon Jesus in the World to Come, whereas Toledot Yeshu speaks of his being shamed and insulted in this world. Judas is the one who actively fulfills the words of the Sages and does not wait for Heavenly punishment. Moreover, whereas the Talmud deals with Jesus and his punishment, Toledot Yeshu is concerned also with the actual place of burial. The site of Jesus’ burial – the Holy Sepulcher – is the holiest place of Christianity, a site of adoration and pilgrimage. It is the Christian alternative to the Temple (in Jerusalem), and takes its place.17 Sefer Toledot Yeshu mocks the cult of the holy place by transforming the Holy Sepulcher into a latrine.18 In the Hebrew sources relating to the First Crusade, the redemption of the Holy Sepulcher is portrayed as the main goal of the Crusaders;19 this version of Toledot Yeshu may thus reflect a Jewish answer to the Crusader enterprise, and may help to explain the appear- ance of this motif of the cesspool in Christian tales of the High Middle Ages. 16 Johannes Jacobus Huldricus, Historia Jeschuae Nazareni (Leiden: 1705), 88; b. Gittin 57a. 17 Ora Limor, “Conversion of Space,” in Conversion: Practice and Perceptions (eds. Miri Rubin and Ira Katzenelson; forthcoming). 18 Interestingly, Muslims ascribed to the Holy Sepulchre the name: Kanisat Al-Qumamah – Church of Dung (a play on the name Kanisat Al-qiyamah – Church of Resurrection). 19 Eva Haverkamp, ed., Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während des er- sten Kreuzzugs (MGH, Hebräische Texte aus dem mittelalterlichen Deutschland, 1; Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2005), 561. 204 Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval Much has been written about the cesspool as a place to humiliate, disgrace and profane the most sacred assets of the other religion.20 In Christian imagination, the Jews throw icons to the latrine; they stab Hosts (thus reconstructing the cru- cifixion) and leave it in the cesspool in order to disgrace it, and they kill Christian children, throwing their saintly bodies to the privy. An example of the connec- tion between disbelief and filth is brought forth also in the Christian widespread exemplum about a Jew who fell into a latrine on Saturday “but would not permit himself to be extracted out of reverence for his Shabbath.” The Lord of the place “did not permit him to be extracted the following Sunday out of reverence for his Shabbath. And so the Jew dies.”21 The burial of Jesus in a cesspool in Toledot Yeshu should be analyzed in the framework of the Talmudic motif on the one hand and the medieval Christian libels and anti-Jewish exempla on the other. In a more direct way it could also be a Jewish reaction to the description of Judas’ loathsome death in acts: “and fall- ing headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.”22 As Anthony Bale writes, “the reciprocity of the narrative forces us to link Christian and Jew, speaking an identical language.”23 The Curse An example of the tendency to add narrative elements to create a new and richer story is found in the Huldreich version. This version was most probably created in a German-speaking environment, as Jesus is referred in the text as “Yesus” and it is related that the Jews of Worms advised the king not to kill Jesus. This anecdote coincides with a local tradition from Worms, according to which a Jew- ish community already existed there in the time of Jesus, so that the Jews of this city cannot be blamed for the Crucifixion. The medieval background likewise emerges from the Vienna version, whose origin seems to be Italian, as Judas is referred to as “Judas Scarioto.” In this version it is stated that all the sages of the Gentiles “curse and revile Judas Iscarioto, and when they have a quarrel or 20 Israel J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 196–97; Christoph Cluse, “ ‘Fabula Ineptissima’ Die Ritualmordlegende um Adam von Bristol nach der Handschrift London, British Library, Harley 957,” Aschkenaz 5 (1995): 293–330; Bale, The Jew in the Medieval Book, 30–43. 21 See Anthony Bale’s illuminating analysis of “The Jew of Tewkesbury” exemplum: Bale, ibid., 23–53. 22 Acts 1:18. See Gubar, Judas, 110–27; Annette Weber, “The Hanged Judas of Freiburg Cathedral: Sources and Interpretation,” in Imagining the Self, Imagining the Other: Visual Representations and Jewish-Christian Dynamics in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period (ed. Eva Projmovic, Leiden: Brill, 2002), 165–88. 23 Bale, The Jew in the Medieval Book, 33. Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth 205 rivalry with one another they say: ‘May it be done to you as Judas Iscariot did to Jesus.’ ”24 A legal curse directed against a person who violates a commitment, that his lot shall be like that of Dathan and Abiram, Gehazi and Judas Iscariot, was already widespread in late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages. In the novella of the Justinian Code, following the section of the obligations, a series of curses against one who makes a false oath is presented: But if I will not observe all these things, may I dwell henceforth under the awesome judg- ment of the Lord, the Great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. And may my portion be together with Judas, and may I be struck with the leprosy of Gehazi, and with the dread of Cain, and may I be subject to the punishments written in the book …25 Curses that mention Judas as a trope for punishment were widespread in the Middle Ages. Judas’ name was part of a judicial-magical sanction: Whoever violates his oath will suffer as Judas. Such a curse is mentioned in the Middle Ages, for example, in a legal document from 11th century Lucca: sit deme[rsus de altitudine celi in profundo inferni, sit socius cum] Iuda sch[ariotim qui prop]ter cupiditatem vendidit Dominus et Magistrum suum et cum diabolum qui in in- fernum ligatus est.26 May you be thrust down from the heights of Heaven to the depths of Sheol; may you be a neighbor of Judas Iscariot who, because of his greed for wealth and money, sold his master and teacher, and is chained to Satan in Hell. In the Christian curse, Judas is portrayed as a scoundrel who gets his just due. The author of Toledot Yeshu knows full well that, in the Christian curses, Judas is the one who is accursed as, according to his words, the Sages of the Gentiles “curse and revile Judas.” However, when he invokes the language of the curse, he turns it upside down and says: “May it be done to you what Judas Iscariot did to Jesus.” According to this text, Judas is the one who punishes and Jesus the one who bears the punishment – a position consistent with the overall tendency of the entire work to turn things around, making Judas the one who is blessed, and Jesus – the one who is accursed. 24 Samuel Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1902; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1977), 74. 25 Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 3, nov. 8, tit.3. on Judas’ curse see: Archer Taylor, “The Judas Curse,” AJP 42 (1921): 234–52; On Judas’ curses inscribed on tombstones in Southern Atica: Bradley McLean, “A Christian Epitaph: The Curse of Judas Iscariot,” OCP 58 (1992): 241–244. 26 We are grateful to Katrin Dort of Trier for this information. See another example: Auguste J. Bernard and Alexandre Bruel, eds., Recueil des Chartes de l’abbaye de Cluny (6 vols; Paris: Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, 1876–1903), 3, no. 1753, 20: “Et si ullus homo qui carta ista contradicere voluerit, … et otoritatem Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sanctus sit excommunicatus, et cum Datan et Abiron permanead in infernum, et cum Juda, traditore Domini, in infernum sit demergatus.” 206 Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval The Joke Another example is the following story that is told in the Huldreich version. During the course of their journey to Jerusalem, Jesus, Peter and Judas look for a place to sleep. They come to an inn and wish to eat, but the inn-keeper has only one roast goose, which would be adequate for only one of the three figures. How shall they divide it? Jesus proposes that they go to sleep on an empty stomach, and the one who has the best dream will get the entire goose. In the middle of the night, Judas gets up and eats the goose. The next morning Peter relates his dream, in which he was sitting at the feet of the throne of God. Jesus says: my dream is better than yours, because I dreamt that I am the son of God and that you are sitting at my feet; therefore the goose is mine. Then Judas says: and I dreamt that I ate the goose.27 This joke relates ironically to the treacherous image of Judas in the New Testa- ment, of a person who takes care of himself and behaves sneakily with Jesus. But unlike the New Testament text, the Jewish version portrays a figure with whom it is possible to identify, perhaps a figure one might even like; it joins the well- known genre of Jewish jokes about the clever rabbi who deceives the priest and thereby proves the superiority of Judaism over Christianity.28 The Pogrom In another version, published by Samuel Krauss in Revue des Études Juives,29 an independent passage is added to the story of the hiding of Jesus’ body and its discovery by Judas. After the empty tomb was discovered, the Jews claim that the body had been stolen in order to invent the resurrection of Jesus. Queen Helena gives the Jews a reprieve of three days during which they are to present the body – and if not, she would kill them all, not leaving their slightest remnant. The plot develops as a story of salvation and deliverance, in which the danger 27 Huldricus, Historia Jeschuae, 51. 28 The story of the goose could be a far echo of the ancient legend about Judas and the cock that appears first in Acta Pilati: Judas returns home after betraying Jesus. His mother is devas- tated by his deed, claiming that he handed over the son of God and if he indeed will rise from the dead they all will suffer terrible punishment. Judas swears that the cock which is being roasted in the oven would rise more easily than Jesus. Immediately the half roasted cock flies out of the oven, grows back his feathers and cockscomb and heralds Jesus’ resurrection. The same cock later cries trice at the negation of Peter. Seeing this, Judas goes out and kills himself. See Paull Franklin Baum, “The English Ballad of Judas Iscariot,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 31 n.s. 24 (1916): 181–89 (Baum believes the story to be of oriental origin); Paul Lehmann, “Judas Ischarioth in der lateinischen Legendenüberlieferung des Mit- telalters,” Studi Medievali n.s. 2 (1929): 289–346; Dieckmann, Judas als Sündenbock, 34–36. 29 Samuel Krauss, “Une nouvelle recension hébraïque du Toldot Yeshu,” REJ 103 (1938): 65–73.