The synagogues of several cities in the Middle Ages did in fact, produce apocryphal letters which they pretended had been written by their forefathers remonstrating with the Jewish Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and requesting that Jesus might be spared. An epistle was produced by the Jews of Ulm in A.D. 1348, another by the Jews of Ratisbon about the same date, from the council at Jerusalem to their synagogues.(106) The Jews of Toledo pretended to possess similar letters in the reign of Alfonso the Valiant, A.D. 1072. These letters probably served to protect them from feeling the full stress of persecution which oppressed the Jews elsewhere. The most astonishing ignorance of Gospel accounts of Christ and the apostles is observable in both anti‐evangels. Matthias and Matthew are the same, so are John the Baptist and John the Apostle, whilst Thaddaeus is said to be “also called Paul,” and Simon Peter is confounded with Simon Magus.(107) These are instances of the confusion of times and persons into which these counter‐Gospels have fallen, and they are sufficient to establish their late and worthless character. The two anti‐Gospels are clearly not two editions of an earlier text. The only common foundation on which both were constructed was the mention of Jeschu, son of Panthera, in the Talmud. Add to this such distorted versions of Gospel stories as circulated among the Jews in the Middle Ages, and we have the constituents of both counter‐Gospels. Both exhibit a profound ignorance of the sacred text, but a certain acquaintance with prominent incidents in the narrative of the Evangelists, not derived directly from the Gospels, but, as I believe, from miracle‐plays and pictorial and sculptured representations such as would meet the eye of a mediaeval Jew at every turn. We have not to cast about far for a reason which shall account for the production of these anti‐evangels. The persecution to which the Jews were subjected in the Middle Ages from the bigotry of the rabble or the cupidity of princes, fanned their dislike for Christianity into a flame of intense mortal abhorrence of the Founder of that religion whose votaries were their deadliest foes. The Toledoth Jeschu is the utterance of this deep‐seated hatred,—the voice of an oppressed people execrating him who had sprung from the holy race, and whose blood was weighing on their heads. And it is not improbable that the Gospel record of the patient, loving life of Jesus may have exerted an influence on the young who ventured, with the daring curiosity of youth, to explore those peaceful pages. What answer had the Rabbis to make to those of their own religion who were questioning and wavering? They had no counter‐record to oppose to the Gospels, no tradition wherewith to contest the history written by the Evangelists. The notices in the Talmud were scanty, incomplete. It was open to dispute whether these notices really related to Christ Jesus.