The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by PETER J. TOMSON a d DORIS LAMBER...
57 downloads
1462 Views
25MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by PETER J. TOMSON a d DORIS LAMBERS-PETE
Wissenschafiliche Untersuchungen aum Neuen Testament 158
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jorg Frey Mitherausgcber I Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie . Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel - Otfried Hofius - Hans-Josef Klauck
The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by Peter J. Tomson and Doris Larnbers-Petry
Mohr Siebeck
P E ~ EJ.RTOWSON, born 1948; Professor of New Testament and Patristics, Protestant Theological Rculty, Brussels (Flemish Section); President of the lnstitutum ludaicum Belgium. DORISLAMBERS-PETRI, born 1955; curre~itlyteaching History and 1,iterature of the Second Temple Period and Patristics at the Protestant Theological Rculty in Brussels (French Section).
ISBN 3-16-1J8(fc)4-5 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche lJntersuchungcn Turn Neuen Tcstan~cnt) Dic Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliopaphie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at hrrp:/llnh.ci(lh.tII:
O 2003 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.0 . Box 2040, D-71010'rubingcn. This book may not be reproduced, In whole or In part,rn any form (beyond that perni~tted by copyright law) without the publisher's wrttten permlr\lon.Thls applle\ part~cularlyto reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and prtxe\sing In electronic \)stern\. The book was printed by Ciulde Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper and bound by Spinner in Qttersweier Printed in Germany.
The following chapters are the elaborated form of the papers read at the colloquium held in Brussels under the auspices of the Institutum Iudaicum of Belgium on 18 and 19 November, 2001. We regret not being able to print two of the lectures read; conversely, we are happy to publish a paper that could not be presented. As distinct from the colloquium program, the papers are arranged more or less chronologically. We have left some variation in bibliographical format in place. The Institutum ludaicum is an interfaith, inter-university working group aiming at fostering the study of Judaism at institutions of higher education in Belgium. It is financially supported on a regular basis by the Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Belgium, and incidentally, for larger colloquiums, by the governmental institutions for scholarly research. Every year it organises a colloquium, inviting not only specialists but also a wider audience. Subjects vary from Jewish Bible exegesis, via the universal savant Abraham ibn Ezra and a theme like "Surviving after the Shoah", to the position of the Jews, next to Christians and Muslims, in modem Western European society. The subject of 'Judaeo-Christianity'deserves some explanation. To the mind of the editors, it was motivated by the same aim as the other themes we have studied: the interest in Judaism in itself in its various appearances in past and present. The ancient Judaeo-Christians are a forgotten element both in the history of Judaism and in Church history. The editors grow ever more convinced that the re-discovery of this element can lead us not only to a more nuanced understanding of ancient history but also to a new insight into obscured, essential aspects of both Judaism and Christianity. The theme, however, carries some ambivalence. On the one hand, the disappearance of the Judaeo-Christians from the history and the consciousness of Jews and Christians must be remedied, but on the other, the revived interest in the phenomenon tends to be monopolised by evangelical Christians in the framework of heightened eschatological expectations and with outspoken missionary intentions. It is only logical that this ambivalence plays its part when scholars in our day unite to study the ancient Judaeo-Christians. There is no totally detached or 'objective' science here any more than elsewhere. All scholars have their personal motivations and serve particular aims and interests, and
these are bound to colour their observations and presentations in some way or another. The best we can do is be frank about these, so that our listeners or readers are able to cross-check our presentations on our motivations and draw their own conclusions. That is why we had the Colloquium start with a special section on present-day Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews and on the mission to the Jews. In the printed form, such a separate section did not seem preferable. The respective contributions were moved to the back of the book, by way of outlook on modern times. They largely accord with the view of the organisers that the presence of Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews in our midst is to be welcomed as an important fact both theologically and historically, but that in our post-Shaah era, more than ever, relations between Jews and Christians must be based on mutual respect and abstention from mission and active proselytism. Otherwise, the contributions are printed at the sole responsibility of the authors. While many converging lines reflect a common interest, points of disagreement are not absent. This includes the first paper that aims at outlining a synthesis of the early history of Jews and Christians which could accommodate for the Judaeo-Christians - instead of excluding them - by building on the Jewish basis of the message of Jesus and his disciples. Readers can see for themselves that the contributors have their own views there. So let it be. Scholarship is a democratic process in which discussion is vital. It is our fervent hope that the debate on the present subject may grow in depth, in substance and in candidness, and that in such a way a better understanding of the common history of Jews and Christians and of their mutual traditions will come within reach. It remains for us to thank all those who participated in the colloquium, in the first place, and most heartily, the authors who took so much effort to give their papers and to prepare them for publication. In the second place we wish to thank the institutions who gave their material support: the Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Belgium, the VIaams Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onder~oek,the Fonds National de Recherche Scientifique, and the Comrnunaute Frangaise de Belgique.
Peter Tomson Doris Lambers-Petty
Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PETERTOMSON The wars against Rome, the rise of Rabbinic Judaism and of Apostolic Gentile Christianity, and the Judaeo-Christians: elements for a synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A paradigm for the early history of Jews and Christians 1 The social impact of the Great War 5 The regime of Rabban Gamliel (Mt 6; Did 8) 8 The separation of Christians from the community (Jn 9:22) 14 Evidence of enduring continuity (Luke-Acts, IClement) I8 The radical separation process after Bar Kokhba 22 The Judaeo-Christians within Jewish and Christian history 25 DORISLAMBERS-PETRY Verwandte Jesu als Referenzpersonen fiir das Judenchristentum Die Jakobusklauseln 32 Der Jakobusbrief 35 Der Judasbrief 3 7 Traditionen llber das Martyrium des Jakobus und des Symeon 38
V
1
. ... .
Die BrOder Jesu in den Schriften judenchristlicher Gemeinschaften des zweiten Jahrhunderts 41 Das Nazargerevangelium 42 Das Ebioniierevangelium 43 Das Hebrtierevangelium 44 Die Judas-Thomas-Tradition 45 Das Thomasevangelium 46 Thomasbuch und Thomasakten 46 Gnostische Jakobustraditionen 47 Der Apokryphe Jakobusbrief 48 Die Jakobusapokalypsen 49 Jakobus in den judenchristlichen Traditionen der Pseudoklementinen 49 Schlussbemerkungen 51
DANIEL STOKLBENEZRA 'Christians' observing 'Jewish' festivals of Autumn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Paul and Hebrews: No call for abandoning the Fast of Yom Kippur Luke-Acts: Christian God-fearers observing Yom Kippur 61 Hegesippus: Christian Jews reinterpreting Yom Kippur 63
57
VIII
Contents
Origen and John Chrysostom: Gentile Christians observing Yom Kippur 66 'Abd al-Jabbiir and his Judaeo-Christian Source: Jesus observed Yom Kippur 70 Conclusions 72
FOLKER SIEGERT Vermeintlicher Antijudaismus und Polemik gegen Judenchristen imNeuenTestament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Das Problem 74 Johameisches 75 Matthaus und seine paradoxe Verwendung in der Kirche 78 Judenchristen als Gegner des Paulus 80 Die Lage in den ersten christlichen Gemeinden 80
74
Abwehr judenchristlicher Korrelchiren der paulinischen Mission im Galaterbrief 81 Die V e r h m n g der Fronten 82 Einfluss und Legitimation des Herrenbruders Jakobus 83 Zurn Konflikt zwischen Jakobus und Paulus 86 Lukanische Kompromissversuche 86 Das Aposteldekret und andere ,Nachbesserungen" 87 Die Brtiskierung des Paulus durch die Judenchristen in J e ~ s a l e m 87 Die Nachtr2glichkeit des Aposteldekrets 91 aerlegung zu den doktriniiren Komponenten des Konflikts 92 Distanznahmen vom Jerusalemer Judenchristentum 96 Seitenblicke auf andere neutestamentliche Texte 99 Der HebrZLerbrief 99 Der Jakobusbrief 101 Bemerkung m 1Kor 14,34 102 Die Apokalypse des Johannes 102 SchIuss 103
JONATHAN DRAPER A continuing enigma: the 'Yoke of the Lord' in Didache 6.2-3 and early Jewish-Christian relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 The question of redaction 107 The textual evidence 108 Scholarly options 111 The origin and extent of the Two Ways 111 The origin and nature of Didache 6.2-3 112 The Doctrina Apostolorum 114 Earliest form and redaction of 6.1-7.4 and 13.3-7 115 A Jewish sub-structure? 118 An instruction of the Apostles 120 MARKUSBOCKMUEHL Syrian memories of Peter: Ignatius, Justin and Serapion . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Tradition, memory and the 'House of Peter' 124
Contents Three named individuals 127 Serapion 128 Justin 132 Ignatius 136 The Letter to Smyrna I38 The Letter to Rome 140 What else might Ignatius know?
141
WILHELM PRATSCHER Der Herrenbruder Jakobus bei Hegesipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Die Funktionen des Jakobus I48 Jakobus als Priester 148 Jakobus der Missionar 151 Die Titel des Jakobus 153 Der Gerechte 153 ,,Obliasm 156 Die theologische Wertung des Martyriums 15 7 Zusammenfassung I60
1Rrcw BAUCKI-IAM
The origin of the Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Who were the Ebionites? 162 Patristic reports of the Ebionites (excepting Epiphanius) 162 The Gospel of the Ebionites 163 The Ascents of James 164 The origin of the Ebionites 172 The Ebionite literature 172 Christology 175 Anti-Paulinism 1 76 On sacrifices 176 The name 'Ebionites' 177
JOSEPH VERHEYDEN Epiphanius on the Ebionites
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Jewish-Christian 'sects' in the Panarion The dangers of syncretism 186 A singular theology and false arguments Confronting Jesus and the Law 200 Conclusion 205
182
184 187
SIMONC. MMOUNI Les elkasaiites : ktats des questions et des recherches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 &tatdes questions 209 &tat des sources 212 Les temoignages chretiens 213 Les temoignages manicheens 214 Les tkmoignages islmiques et mazdkens 214
X
Contents Le probleme de l'origine du mouvement elkasaite 215 Le fondateur du rnouvement 216 La genkse du mouvement 21 7 Le problbme de l'histoire du mouvement elkasayte 220 La localisation geographique du mouvement 221 La litthatme du mouvement 222 Les pratiques et les croyances du mouvement 223 Msentation d'un 6crit elkasa'ite : 17Apocalypsed'Elkasai ou Rkvelation d'ElkasaP 225 Conciusion 228
GUYG. STROUMSA A nameless God:Judaeo-Christian and Gnostic 'theologies of the Name' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 The unutterable Name 23 1 Kyrios 233 Early Christian speculation on the Name 235 Jesus and the Name 238 Gnostic speculations 240
ZEEVSAFRAI The house of Leontis 'Kaloubas' - a Judaeo-Christian? The structure 245 The mosaic and the inscriptions 245 The o m e n t a t i o n 246 The nature of the house 24 7 Kaloubas 248 The Judaeo-Christians 249 The Judaeo-Christian hypothesis 250 Judaeo-Christian centres in the 4th-5th Century 255 Conclusion 259
. . . . . . . . . . 245
Appendix: Rabbinic sources about minim from the Amoraic Period Figures 1-3 264
GIDEON BOHAK Magical means for handling minim in rabbinic literature Stereotyped stories 268 Unusual stories 2 72 Conclusion 276 WILLIAMHORBURY
260
..... . ...
267
The depiction of Judaeo-Christians in the Toledot Yeshu: . . . . . . . . . 280 Toledot Yeshu 280 Images of the followers of Jesus 281 Reflections of Jewish-Christian relations 286
Contents
RANCorn-SHERBOK Modern Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism . . . . . . . , . . . . . 287 Modem Missions to the Jews 287 Hebrew Christianity 288 Messianic Judaism 290 Critical reactions 292 Responding to criticism 296
SIMON SCWOON Christians and Jews after the Shoa and the Mission to the Jews Christians after the Shoa 299 A new paradigm? 301 Church documents 302 A worldwide change 304 Forms of dissent 306 Beyond the Mission to the Jews? 308 The 'Parting of the Ways' 309 Jewish Christians today 31 1 Indexofsources
.. ..
299
.........................................
315
Index of modem authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1
The wars against Rome, the rise of Rabbinic Judaism and of Apostolic Gentile Christianity, and the JudaeoChristians: elements for a synthesis Peter Tomson
The aim of this first contribution is to try and gain an overview of the period of history in which the phenomenon of Judaeo-Christianity saw the light. The underlying assumption is that up till now, partial views of this history predominate among scholars, and that it is only in a more inclusive perspective that we can really begin to understand Judaeo-Christianity. Consequently, the task of this paper is anything but a summing up of wellknown facts all agree on. Rather, it will have to consist of an inventory of major problems that must be tackled and of a sketch of some elements for a synthesis: building blocks for an inclusive overview of the first centuries of common Jewish and Christian history in which the Judaeo-Christians can be naturally accounted for.
A paradigm for the early history of Jews and Christians The problems we are dealing with have to do not just with the nature of the sources and the way we read them, but, even more fundamentally, with the way we view it all together, or in other words, with the paradigm by which we interpret the period and its events and work them into a synthesis. In various ways, this includes both early Christian and early Jewish history, by themselves, and taken together. As to early Christianity, we have been taught to view it as an entity whose splendid isolation vis-8-vis Judaism was not impaired by the rather incidental encounters between church fathers and rabbis. Reports of clashes between Jesus or Paul and the Jewish leaders, or bctween rabbis and Christian heretics, only reinforce our idea of separateness. If we come to think of the Judaeo-Christians, however, they seem to be hard to fit in. They are something of an anomaly, and this is revealing.'
'
I am referring to Ku~IN's description of the process of a scientific 'paradigm shifi' being prepared by the gradual identification of 'anomalies', i.e. observations that remain unexplained and that finally lead to the breakthrough of a more adequate overall theory.
The term Judenchristen - Jewish Christians or Judaeo-Christians - "was brought to prominence by F.C. Baurna2He was the founding father of historical criticism, and the novel method he explored made it necessary to posit a middle ground between the separate entities of Judaism and Christianity. Baur had put himself to the task of finding a historical explanation of the rise of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish cradle, rather than content himself with the traditionally presumed theological difference between the two religion^.^ Without the intermediate term of Judaeo-Christianity, such a historical explanation could not be given. Baur's 'Judenchristen" may be seen as a first breach in the traditional paradigm. But it was not sufficient. The point is that while the earliest followers of Jesus, like their master, were all Jews, it would be absurd to designate them by terms like 'JudaeoChristians'or 'Jewish Chri~tians'.~ Yet in what sense would Peter, James or Paul be so different from their second-century counterparts that such terms would be unfitting for the former yet perfectly acceptable for the latter? There is something fundamentally wrong with the traditional paradigm. Even with Baur's adaptation, it does not take account of the Jewishness of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, I suspect this also explains why scholars find so much difficulty in defining Judaeo-Chris~ianity.~ Apart from the aspect of diversity, which is prominent also in mainline ancient Judaism and Christianity, the characteristic feature of the JudaeoChristians is precisely that they continued to live Christianity just as it had started with Jesus and his disciples, i.e. as a 'sect' of Judaism. 'The crucial part of Baur" approach which is still widely supported by scholars both Christian and Jewish, concerns the pivotal role of Paul. Baur assumed a primordial opposition between Paul and the Jewish apostles and even could speak of "the opposition of Paulinism and Judaism"."n his terminology, 'Pauline' law-free Christianity came up against law-observant, 'Petrine'Judaeo-Christiani~y,~ and in that sense Paul would have
CARLETON PAOEI73 1 , referring to BAIJR'S ground-breaking study of 183 1 . Thus the task of historical criticism since BAURas SCHWEITZER perceived it in his history of Pauline research. Cf SCHOFPS 356. DE BOER interestingly focusses on the much more adequate 1998a. appellation 'Nazoraeans', tracing it back to the NT. Cf also MIMOUNI 1998b: 3 1-72; BLANCIIEKLIJN;KHIEGEL; CARLETON PAGFT73 1-74 1 ; MIMOUNI ~ C R 95-83; E HOWARDp4 n5. See also n30. BAUR1863/1: 42, chapter title: 'Das Christenthum als allgemeines Heilsprinzip, der Gegensatz des Paulinismus und Judaismus, und seine Ausgleichung in der ldee der katholischen Kirche.' The importance of these concepts o f Raur's is correctly underlined by DUNN 1992: viii -ix.
The wars against Rome
3
been the founder of exclusive Gentile Chri~tianity.~ As a result, the 'parting of the ways'between Christianity and Judaism, as it has become usual to call it,9 would be the necessary consequence of theological dijff'erences over the validity of the Jewish law. This is where the old paradigm is still in place. Neither Judaeo-Christianity nor the beliefs and practice of Jesus and his disciples can have a legitimate place in it. Baurb assumption about Paul, while being part of his historical approach, was fully in line with traditional Protestant theology, which should not surprise us.I0 On another level, it makes apostolic Christianity's struggle against Marcionism and Gnosticism and for the preservation of the Jewish scriptures as the basis of Christianity hard to comprehend." The decisive shortcoming, however, is that Baur's assumption is an anachronism when read into the pre-70 situation as it appears from a large part of the evidence. Both Paul himselP2 and his historian, Luke,I3 emphasised that the Church envisaged by Paul and the other apostles embraced both law-abiding Israelites and 'law-Sree'Gentiles and presupposed mutual respect within the overarching salvation perspective. A similar perspective was apparently still entertained by the authors or editors of such definitely un-Pauline documents as the Didache and the Revelation of John.I4 Hence we must begin rebuilding our paradigm by taking fully serious the Jewish basis of the earliest Christian m o ~ e m e n t . 'This ~ sounds as a commonplace, but beyond the stage of lip service being paid to it, it is not. It means that subsequent Christian history consists of continuations of - or of reactions against - the original Jewish beginnings of Christianity. It means that Jesus'own views and law interpretations are part and parcel of what is termed 'New Testament theology' and not, as Baur and his immensely influential latter-day follower Bultmann would have it, a mere 'Jewish
Thus also ALON 25f, identifying 'Pauline'and 'Gentile" (anti-Jewish) Christianity; SIMON91 and SCI~IFFMAN 155f, who hold that the Bar Kokhba revolt completed what Paul had started. Classically, William WRcDE termed Paul, not Jesus, the 'actual founder' of Christianity. See LIEUfor criticism of the narrow theological-doctrinalbasis of the concept. l o For discussion of these insights see TOMSON1990: 1-8. I ' The explanation by means of 'early Catholicism' as the synthesis of Paulinism and Judaism (cf above n6) is unconvincing since it supposes both the victory and the defeat of Gentile Paulinism. Nonetheless, central parts of this theory have been prominent in such Protestant theologians as HARNACK (cf below nl12) and BULTMANN (below n16). l2 Gal 2:l-10; Rom 4:10-12; lCor 7:17-20. l 3 Acts 106 15f; 21. On Luke's 'disinterested' presentation see below. l 4 Did 1.1, second title: 'Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles" 6.2-3 on food laws and idol offerings (for the un-Pauline character see FLUSSER1987; cf below n43); Rev 7:4 10. l 5 A similar approach seems implied by ALEXANDER.
presupposition'.I6 It also means that second century Judaeo-Christians can be fully accommodated for. The need to call them by that peculiar name is only because we have been taught to view Gentile Christianity as it rose to prominence in the same century as 'normative'. On the side of Judaism," the historiographical problems are of a different nature. A fundamental question is which degree of continuity and change we may assume between the situation before and aAer the Roman wars, in particular the Great War of 66-70. To a large extent, it had been a civil war which deeply changed Jewish society. Of the three 'parties' in the Land of Israel described by Josephus, two disappeared. The Sadducees, previously in command of the resources of the Temple, lost this political and financial basis, and the Essenes saw their spiritual centre at Qumran wiped out and being used as a Roman garrison for some time. The loss of these social landmarks must have strongly reduced the sense of diversity that we get from Second Temple Judaism. In the impoverished social landscape, the Pharisees remained in place and it now befell to them to fill the gaps. The precise nature and the measure of uniformity of the subsequent Pharisaic-rabbinic regime will occupy us in further sections. On this side of the paradigm as well, we must take the Jewish beginnings of Christianity fully serious. For students of Judaism who view Christianity as being totally foreign to Judaism, not only the Judaeo-Christians but also Jesus and his disciples must remain outside their scope. Aided in particular by the evidence of the Dead Sea scrolls, they should widen their view of Second Temple Judaism and try to put such 'nonconformist'Jews somewhere on its social map. The big question for us is how much of this diversity was left after 70 and what that meant for the followers of Jesus. A methodological problem is that whereas for the pre-war period we are l 6 BAUK1864: 45, "Wenn man die Lehre Jesu ais cinen eigenen Bestandtheil der ntl. Theologie betrachtet, so ist dabei wohl zu beachten, dass sie n~itden verschiedenen 1,ehrbegriffen, in welche die ntl. Theol. sich theilt, nicht in eine Keihe zusammengestellt wcrden kann. (Sie) ist das Prinzipielle, ...sie ist die Grundlage und Vorausseuung ...; sie ist [fberhaupt nicht Theologie, sondern Religion;" p128, "...In der ursprllnglichen l,ehrc Jesu (zeigt sich) der innere Zusammenhang und die wesentliche Identitat des Christenthums mil der atl. Religion...; so ist dagegen der Paulinismus der entschicdenste Bruch des christl. Bewusstseins mit dem Gesetz und dem ganixn auf den AT' beruhenden Juden(unmistakably influenced by BariK but adding the history-of-religions thum." BLJLTMANN phraseology) opening sentence p I: "Die Verkllndigung Jesu geh6rt zu den Voraussetzungen der Theologie des NT und is: ein Teil dieser selbst;" p3, "Mit solcher VerkUndigung steht Jesus im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang der judischen End- und Zukunftserwartung;" p190, "Die Theologie des Paulus ist der Predigt Jesu gegenilber eine neue Bildung, und das demonstriert nichts anderes als ebcn dieses, dass Paulus seine Stellung innerhalb des hellenistischen Christenturns hat." 1 follow the historical perspective proposed by A 1 . o ~ .
The wars against Rome
5
in the comfortable possession of Josephus' historical accounts, for the post-war period we must do with snippets of information culled from church fathers and rabbis, in addition to what is available from Roman sources. 'I'he conclusion that Josephus correctly ranged himself in the vicinity of Pharisaic tradition is only a partial remedy.I8 The problem is especially important far studying the Bar Kokhba war that ensued in 132-135 CE. Apart from Roman sources and brief passages in Eusebius and other Christian writers, our information must be carefully gleaned from rabbinic literature, without forgetting of course the important archaeological finds of 'Bar Kokhba letters'. The result is at least that the image of post-70 Palestinian Judaism as a community in retreat from history - a view strongly influenced by Eusebius'thoroughly Gentile Christian Church History - is wrong.I9 Even after 135, rabbinic leadership in Galilee was vigorous. It was only the privileged position of Christianity under Constantine the Great that ushered in the gradual decay of Palestinian Jewry. We are exploring the outlines of a historical paradigm. It includes both a view of early Christianity that integrates the essential Jewish beginnings of the new movement, and a perspective on ancient Judaism that accounts for early Christianity as a dissident movement among others. If we want to accommodate for Jesus and his early followers and for the second century Judaeo-Christians, we must keep both sides of the paradigm in view. Basically, we are dealing with one inclusive paradigm by which to read the first two centuries of common Jewish and Christian history.
The social impact of the Great War Another basic hunch to be expressed here is that the separation between Jews and Christians and the consequent isolation of the Judaeo-Christians was not the necessary result of theological dissent over the law, let alone of 'the essential difference' between two religions. Differences between religions can not be measured by the standard of doctrines or 'essences', but by the shifting social patterns they are embedded in and express themselves by, and doctrinal disputes must always be understood in relation to their social ba5is. The double separation, of Gentile Christianity from Judaism, and of both of them from Judaeo-Christianity, must have resulted from a historical amalgam in which doctrinal differences coalesced with enormous socio-political processes of change to become insuperable ideological b o u n d a r i e ~ . ~ ~ Is l9
20
For Josephus' position vis-a-vis Pharisaic halakha see TOMSON2002. See QPPFNHEIMI.K, esp. the first essay written by the editor. Cf similar emphasis by RIC~~AKDSON 33-47.
Logically, we could view Christianity as a messianic movement that originated and spread among Jews but quickly also began to attract nonJews, not unlike the 'Godfearing' Gentiles who in antiquity aff~liatedwith Judaism. Certainly, there were clashes with synagogues over the messianic significance of Jesus, but these can be well understood as inner-Jewish conflicts. As from the late first century, however, we observe a different phenomenon. Christian writings began to affirm Christianity over against Judaism,and this development became overwhelming over the course of the second century. It was also during this century that representatives of Gentile Christianity increasingly began to denounce Christians who kept to Jewish customs. Apparently a decisive part of JesusVoilowers had meanwhile become deeply estranged from the Jewish basis of their tradition. Moreover because the estrangement contradicted their basic tradition, it must be associated with external factors. What could be the cause? It is dificult not to think of the wars against Rome as a factor of social change. A good case in point is Antioch. This important city, where close interaction between Jews and non-Jews is evidenced over the ~enturies,~' also witnessed the first major i n f l u of Gentile members to what - going by Acts -- was up till then basically a Jewish movement. If this presentation of the facts seems to idealistically oppose later developments, this does not as such justify the assumption that it was created to that aim. It is at least as plausible that the tradition of a Jewish movement which had gradually begun to accept nonJews is authentic. It is also likely that the Latinism Xpto~tavoi,which according to Acts 11:26 was first used in Antioch, originally denoted members from both communities. Confirmation may be found in the information Paul gives in passing - in a letter that reflects rising tensions between Jews and non-Jews in the churches in the 50"s -- to the effect that in preceding years, the Jews had managed without problems to eat together with non-Jews within the Antiochian church (Gal 2: 12f).22 The apostolic project of one Church embracing Jews and Gentiles was bound to run aground, however. Some two generations later the bishop of the same city of Antioch, writing while under way to become a martyr in Rome following his great examples Peter and Paul, could bluntly present Xptottavtop6q as the antithesis of 'IouGaiop6& or being Christian as the opposite of being Jewish: "It is improper to speak of Christ and to live -
Cf on Antioch BOCKMUEHL 49-83, and, succinctly, TOMSON1990: 2f. This first-hand repon agrees with the harmony in the Antiochian church around Peter, Barnabas and Paul as presented by Acts 1 1 :26. Similarly lPet 4: 16 Xpioriav6q, possibly addressing Gentiles (4:3), needs not exclude Jews; cf the priesthood imagery 807, an 2 5 , 9. In view of Roman synagogues named after prominent persons, SCHRAGI.: erstwhile ovvayoyq Xpioriavdjv in Antioch embracing Jews and non-Jews is not unthinkable. On the whole see the informative study of TAYLOR. 21 22
The wars against Rome
7
Jewishly'" 'Do no longer keep Sabbath, but live from Sunday to Sunday."23 The bishop would certainly have taken care to voice the feelings of large parts of his diocese. In between lay the Great War against Rome, and all indications are that as far as Antioch was concerned, it was this that precipitated the rupture. Tensions between Jews and non-Jews had been existing all along, not least in the Land of Israel, and they must have been an important factor in fuelling the war.24 The radicalisation process of the war gave these tensions a fatal turn. Not only in ~ n t i o c h but , ~ ~in many other cities in Palestine and Syria as well, relations between Jews and Gentiles turned violent. This not just involved Jews as against pagans. Josephus tells that at the outbreak of war in the Syrian cities, even non-Jews who sympathised with Jewish ceremonies (lou6ai(ovs~~) were mistrusted by the pagans as foreigner^'.^^ It is therefore likely that the war has extremely aggravated existing tensions not only between Jews and non-Jews in general but also between Gentile and Jewish Christians. The aftermath of the war must only have consolidated this situation. For one thing, the fiscus judaicus, the Jewish temple tax converted into a tribute to the emperor, symbolised the undesirable position of the Jews and their associates in the empire, especially . ~about ~ the same years, it seems, Josephus during the reign of D ~ m i t i a nIn saw reason to write a pamphlet combatting the anti-Jewish ideas of the late Alexandrian rhetorician Apion which were enjoying an upsurge in popularit~.~"uch developments made it not very attractive for Gentile believers to keep associating with Jews. 1,ooking back from the second century, three entities emerged from the post-war theatre. Firstly, Rabbinic Judaism began taking shape, being forged out of the material of Pharisaic tradition under the guidance first of the gentle mystic Yohanan ben Zakkai and then, with unprecedented centralism, of Garnliel the Younger. Secondly, Gentile Christianity began distinguishing itself, setting itself off from the Jews while basing itself both on the Jewish Scriptures and on writings tributary to the later 'New Testament'.29 In our latter-day eyes, these two powerfkl bodies appear as being conditioned by their mutual rivalry. Thirdly, in between the two major fronts we perceive the much less tangible entity we do call, for lack of a better term, Judaeo-Christianity: followers of Jesus who like their Master Ignatius, Rom. 4.3-5.1, cf Eph. 12.2; Magn. 9.1; 10.3; Phil. 6.1. Cf RAPPAPORT, who (p171f) especially refers to Bell. 2.457ff; his presentation is a bit too pessimistic, cf ALON 548-564 for the post-war period. 2"osephus, Bell. 7.45-53. 26 Bell. 2 . 4 6 3 , b ~$&$aimq&icldcpuhov kcpo$&i~o. 27 Josephus, Bell. 7.218. See SMALLWOOD 371-376. 2R C. Ap. 2.223; more references in TOMSON 2002 at 11107. 29 Cf BAUER, 11107below. For the dynamics of the NT canon see TOMSON 1998. 23 24
and his apostles kept the law of Moses30 and for this combined allegiance were considered heretics by both sides. Their precarious existence and that of the writings they must have cherished was prejudiced by the tensions between the two dominant bodies. We have disqualified the paradigm according to which these communities are perceived as totally separate entities, and sketched the contours of a more inclusive one that takes info account their common origins and their intereonnectedness. We must now try to document the contours, especially where we can find confirmation for the connections between the 'separate' histories. What we must look for are overlaps between the extant rabbinic and apostolic sources, reports of events within either corpus that can also be found reflected in the other and that thereby can serve as reference points for a historical synthesis. A word about our sources is in place. Of the early Christian writings, the letters of Paul predate the Great War and can be of little help, except for crosschecking our results. If our paradigm is correct, we would not expect them to reflect a breach between Christianity and Judaism. The Gospel of Mark is usually dated towards the end of the war period and in effect shows hardly any traces of the post-war situation. We must turn to the three post-war canonical gospels and to early Patristic writings. These must be compared with more or less contemporaneous Tannaic traditions. A relatively reliable grid for dating the latter is found in the succession of generations of Tannaim as preserved by rabbinic literature, in combination with the layered structure of the main Tannaic document, the Mishna.ll Far from claiming exhaustiveness, I would now like to sketch four distinct areas on the future map of common Jewish and Christian history.
The regime of Rabban Gamliel (Mt 6; Did 8) Matthew 6:7 puts the prayer Jesus taught to his disciples, also known as the Lord's Prayer, in opposition to the verbose prayers of the k0vt~oi. 'Gentiles'. Some mss. however read b n o ~ p ~ r a i ,which " in Matthew is the
"Ehnicity' (CAKI.E"ION PAGET 7330 is hardly a defining category in view of the For the definition problem see above n5 full possibility of proselytism, cf SCIIIFFMAN. and cf BAUCKHAM, VERHEYDEN, STOKI,and PRATSCI~ER in the present work. 3 1 For a clear summary of this approach see GOI.DBERG, integrating the ground work done by J.N. EPSTEIN and Ch. ALRECK. The teachings of one of our main characters, Rabban Gamliel the Younger (first generation of Tannaim), are incorporated in the second layer of the Mishna which was formulated by the second generation of 'Tannairn, among whom R. Akiva was a younger colleague (GOLDBI.XR ? l n ? ~ W T "...we majority of the p e ~ p l e " . ~This ' corresponds, one may add, to the varieties of meaning of the term min.72According to Flusser, the berakha might also have once been called birkar porshim or p e r u ~ h i m Justin's .~~ reports indicate that in the 2nd century, the berakha, which then would have mentioned minim, was understood as being directed against C h r i ~ t i a n sat , ~least ~ in the Land of Israel. 'That explains why the fragments of the prayer according to the Palestinian Byzantine rite which were preserved in the Cairo Geniza juxtapose notsrim to minim, to which we can add the explicit testimony of Jerome and E p i p h a n i u ~ Flusser .~~ admits that the exact process of Rabban Garnliel's reformulation can not be retrieved.76 This is where the evidence in the Gospel of John comes in.17 Three pasgests his 'forgetfulness' again concerned the agreed 'arrangement' of the berakhot. 69 yBer 4 (8a); y'raan 2 (65c). 70 mSan 10.1 ; SOR 3 (9a). 7' Cf 4QMMT 92: ...o ] ~ n211n u w ~ 9 [ w ..., as against Willel's saying: 5~ i i ~ In~w ~ni ~ l 'Do n , not separate from the community' (mAv 2.4). For the designation 0'0117~)I u w i l see ~ tBer 3.25; SOR 3, 9a and on these passages FLLISSER 1992, beginning, 25 34,4 1. Cf HORRIIRY 92. 72 In rabbinic literature 1% is mostly used for 'species'of cereals, etc. For the meaning 'heretics' cf mBer 9.5, minrm who fail to believe in the world to come (Sadducees, 'Epicureans', cf mSan 10.1); mRH 2.1, minim who disagree with the calendar of the Pharisees (Sadducees, Boethusians, cf mMen 10.3; but also Essenes); mSan 4.5, minim who believe in 'many powers in heaven' (Gnostics?); mWul 2.9, minim adhering to idolatrous practices; mYad 4.8, a 'Galilean min' who adopts Gentile ways of life. 73 The complicated meanings of o ~ w l i r are r treated by Fl.UsssR 1992: 27-34,41. 74 The meaning 'Christians' is unequivocal in phrases such as nn*n+ -pnn nt+n;r in the baraita which crept into the Mishna, mSot 9.1 5; ySot end; bSot 49a; bSan 97a; and in the tradition of Yaakov from Kfar Sikhnin (below). 75 FI,USSI:R1992: 16-20. 76 Ibid. 23f. 77 HORI~UKY 100. Cf also D 1 m 1990: 221f, 238, while trying to keep reading the extant John as inner-Jewish. 156- 160.
sages in this gospel announce that those who confessed Jesus would be "put out of the synagogue", if that is how we must translate c'rxoouvayoy~q.~"n Jn 9:22 and 12:42, this is presented as a 'decision'already taken by 'the J e w s k r , respectively, 'the I'hari~ees'.'~'I'he pluperfect 46q OVV&T&~ELVTO in 9:22, "they already had decided", clearly implies an anachronism vis-a-vis the events of Jesus' own day which are narrated. The tension within the narrative is even heightened when in spite of the 'decision' the evangelist has reminded his readers of, he has Jesus prophesy in 16:2, in the future tense:80 "They will put you out of the synagogue." ~ ' 'double Added to the much-discussed series of aporiae in the g o ~ p e l ,this anachronism" can hardly have flowed unknowingly from the evangelist's pen and doubtlessly was meant as a direct apostrophe to the readers in their bittcr experience. It is interesting to note that the 'decision' to oust the followers of Jesus is ascribed alternately to 'the Jews'and to 'the Pharisees'. 'I'he latter appellation contrasts with the usual designation of 'the Jews' as the adversaries in this Gospel, and historically it is fully in place, as we now understand. The Fourth Gospel apparently reflects the initiative of Rabban Gamliel, and two elements in its text enhance the profile of his measure. Firstly. the verb o u v ~ ~ d 8 ~ t vinz oJn 9:22, "they had decided", is equivalent to the Ilebrew technical term i]*pn;r which is used in similar cases.82 It corresponds to the verb 'adapt'used of the rephrasing of the Benediction of the IIeretics by Shmuel the Smaller. It appears we are dealing with one of the takkanot of Rabban Gamliel. Secondly, the uniquely Johannine irxoouvbyoyoqn3informs us about the content of the takkcmu. Going by the primary meaning of ouvayoyq, the word means "out of the community",84 and thus considered it is an exact equivalent of W 1 1 9 or W l l 9 , 'separatist'. or as a relevant passage has it: "one who separated from the ways of the n 1 9 W 7n.85Rabban (iamliel's decrce apparently community", TI~~IY* ~ i - rW --
Thus KJV and RSV. Cf Vulgate 9:22 ex synugoga; 12:42 clc. synugoga; 1 6 2 a h synugogu. But see below. 79 Jn 9:22, tjbq ydp ouvcrkeclvro oi 'IouSuiot i'vu t a v 71% a b r d v [ ' l q aoGv] bpokoyqog Xpiorciv ttxoouvayoyoq yhvqrul: 12:42,61d ~ o i ~a u;p i o u i ouq o b iupoiidyouv ~ I v a PI) Bxoouvciyoyo~y i . , v o v ~ u t . Noted also by SC~~RAC;L. 849. Cf TOMSON 2001b: 302. U2 An example involving a herakha formulation apparently addressed against Sadducees or Epicureans (cf mSan 10.1): "When the mrnrm confounded it and said: There is but one world, they decreed (i3rpn;r)that one should say...", mBer 9.5; tBer 6.21. 83 Later usage clearly developed from John. 2nd-3rd cent.: only Origen 2x: (Fragm. in I Cor. nr. 18; Frag. in Ps. 1 1811 191.152). 4th 5th cent.: 5 1 x, esp. Chrysostom (1 7x) en Cyril of Alex. (1 I x). &4 Thus also SCHRAGI847, taking in the link with the b i r k a ~ha-nrm~m. 85 SOR 3. 9a. 78
The wars againsr Rome
17
implied that as were Essenes and Sadducees, now also Christians were considered such 'separatists? or 'separated ones'. The above interpretation is confirmed by the peculiar syntagms used in the Greek: x o ~ ~ ;hxocruvv aydyouc, or ylv~oeathnoouvciyoyo~,'to make' or 'to become separated from the community'. This was a new situation. A perusal of the Pauline letters and of the Acts of the Apostles confirms that a similar possibility did not exist before the Great War. Among all the sanctions levelled in this period against followers of Jesus, there was none which declared them 'separated from the c o r n m ~ n i t y ' .It~ appears that Kabban Garnliel's initiative somehow came to fill the vacuum left by the downfall of the Sadducee priestly elite, whose mortal enmity to Jesus and his followers is spelled out by Acts. Although there had been Pharisees who sided with them - witness the young Paul, canying an authorisation from the Sadducean high priest - the standing disagreement with the Sadducees had prevented the Pharisees from all-out support. A considerable number of Pharisees, represented by Garnaliel the Elder, had even rejected the Sadducees' aggression against the Christians altogether. The times were a-changing. Just before the outbreak of war, the Pharisees apparently protested against the Sadducee high priest's summary execution of Jesus' brother James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, in line with the pre-war positions. When after the war Garnaliel's grandson stepped in the gap, both in his bid for authority and in his pursuit of the Christians, the majority of Pharisees - now officially called rabbis - did not see the possibility to disagrees7 It seems the Gospel of John preserves the oldest memories of the painful separation decree. The bitter reaction of the evangelist and his community can also be gauged when at its first mention he generalises and dubs the Pharisees 'Jews' (Jn 992). The phenomenon can be observed also elsewhere in this gospel, as also the replacement of the combination of 'chief priests and Pharisees' by the general appellation, 'the Jews'.g8 In efkct, the Gospel as a whole opposes Jesus and his followers to 'the Jews'. This extends to such curious cases as Jesus saying to his disciples: "As I said to the Jews" (1 3:33). Even if passages where Jesus himself is called a 'Jew" were lefi in place (4:9, 22), this has given readers through the ages the feeling that Jcsus was not a Jew after all. The thoroughly anti-Jewish oriens6 Cf MARTW 42 50. Cf the Pharisee Paul's conduct in Gal 1:13; 1Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phlp 3%: and the opposition he met having become a Christian, 2Cor 11:24; for Acts see next n. On I,k 6:22 hcpopiooa~vsee below n9 1 . Acts 4:6f; 5: 17f, 33f; 8: 1-3; 9: I f ; 22:30-23:9; Josephus, Ant. 20.200 201. For details see TOMSON1999. 88 Jn 8: 13, 2 1 f. See also the sequence 7:32 (Pharisees; chief priests and Pharisees), 35 (Jews), 45 (chief priests and Pharisees), 47 (Pharisees); and 1 1 :47, 57 il 18: 14; 18:3 11 18: 12 (chief priests and Pharisees = the Jews). On the whole issue see TOMSON2001 b.
ration of this most beloved of gospels is a painful but in my view ineluc-
table result of scholarship. The post-war circumstances may help understand and eventually accept it. The evidence also teaches us that Rabban Gamliel's initiative was not universally followed. This was not to be expected in the first place, given the opposition of prominent colleagues to the 18 benedictions as an obligatory daily prayer. Furthermore Justin in one of his relevant passages foretells a grim future to Jews who do not believe in Jesus, "most of all those who in the synagogues were and still are cursing the ones who believe in this same M e ~ s i a h " "This . ~ ~ suggests not all Jews observed the decree. As we saw it seems to have obtained mainly in the Land of Israel. Justin may either be referring to the practice he knew from his homeland or to his later experience in Rome. Another strong argument against uniformity, raised by Reuven Kimelman, is that for all his endeavours to vilify the Jews, the late 4th century Antiochian rhetorician Chrysostom does not mention the cu~tom.~ This provokes two further corollaries pertaining to the field of 'New Testament introduction" [Jsually, the final redaction of the Fourth Gospel is located around Ephesus. The above would imply that this redaction included the integration of a recent Palestinian element, or, more radically, that the later phase of redaction as a whole took place in the Land of Israel. Secondly, it is striking that for all his anti-Pharisaism Matthew does not cite the separation from the community either. Its final redaction should then either be pinpointed earlier than that of John, supposing that Garnliel's decree came somewhat later in his career, or, less likely, it must be located in a region where the decree was not yet endorsed - Antioch indeed?
Evidence of enduring continuity (Luke-Acts, 1Clement) Our third overlapping area, certainly not less important, concerns sources of the post-war period that document a view of Christianity that is not antithetical to Judaism but continuous with it. It is a clear reminder of the probability of regional differences in this period. Foremost are the two canonical NT writings which in view of their common authorship are called 'Luke-Acts'. We might as well call their author Luke, since the tradition to that effect has much to say for it and little against. Luke's Gospel is a remarkable document. As distinct from the authors of Matthew and John, there is no obvious anachronism in his 89 Dial. 47.4: ...aai pd;l~o~u tori< tv air ouvuyoyai~ a a ~ a Q ~ p a ~ i o a v z a 5 aal aa~a0~pazijovza~ 7065 6n' abrdv T O ~ T O V' I ~ VXplo~dvX ~ ~ T E ~ O V T ~ ~ .
* KIMELMAN240.
The wars against Rome
19
description of relations between Jesus or his followers and their oppon e n t ~ . ~Such ' clashes are often serious, but the descriptions are always nuanced and do not fit into an antithetical scheme. 'I'he same goes for Acts. While Paul's preaching in synagogues mostly provokes negative reactions, there are the exceptions of Beroea and, though here we are left in suspense, Rome (Acts 17: 1 1; 28:24). The question is why. The explanation explored by Harnack is that Luke wrote before the Roman war.92 However this is difficult in view of his prologue, where he states that he bases his account on written gospels that in turn rely on eye witnesses, which implies he himself belonged to yet a third generation. Indeed, Luke presupposes Mark's Gospel, at least in a primary form. Hence we are stuck with the accepted dating of Luke-Acts around 90 CE. If there are no obvious anachronisms in Luke's history, he does betray his views by his selection of episodes to be recounted and by the shaping of his narrative. It is hardly coincidental that he twice drops the name of Gamaliel (the Elder), once in the trial of the apostles Peter and John before the Sanhedrin and a second time in the apology of his hero, Paul, before the same court, where the latter states: "...At Gamaliel's feet was I educated in the nicetiesw of the ancestral law" (Acts 22:3). In the earlier episode Luke describes Gamaliel as "a Pharisee, a teacher of the law held in honour by all the people" (5~34).This description is striking, but it is even more remarkable that it resembles the positive description Josephus gives in his autobiography of Simon son of Gamaliel, even though the latter had behaved viciously towards him during the war.94 Steve Mason has established that as distinct from the Jewish War, Josephus' later works display a clear sympathy for the Pharisees. A somewhat similar sympathy is found in Luke's works, in roughly the same period. Rather than give in to speculative theories of dependence, we must think of a common setting, which in view of the prominent patrons both authors mention in their dedications apparently had to do with influential circles in Rome. In this setting, they both took care to portray the Pharisees and especially their influential representatives in a positive daylight.95 9' The meaning of Lk 6 2 2 Ctcpopiooo~v bpkg is not clear. I t is oAen adduced as hinting to the exclusion decree; if correct, the author otherwise shows remarkable selfrestraint in his descriptions. This would also explain why Paul's death is not mentioned. However the heartbreaking scene in Acts 20: 17-38 seems to hint at Paul's decease (v23-25!) and to contain his spiritual testament. Cf MARGUERAT1999a; 1999b. 93 Kard & ~ p l @ t a v706 IIQ'C@OU vdpou. Cf Josephus, Life 191: Simon son of Gamaliel was rfiq aaptoaiwv atp60~,og,of ncpi 7d narpta vbptpa SOKO~~CTIV roiv cixicwv & ~ p t p ~ LStaf~kpciv. q Cf MASONpassim on the term h ~ p i f l c l a . Vita 190-196,309. 95 See for the setting TOMSON 1999 and 2002.
Even if we must reckon with unknown quantities of sources having gone lost, it is striking that Gamaliel and Simon are the only two Sages known from rabbinic literature who elsewhere are identified as 'Pharisees". The profile and dating of the Acts Gamaliel clearly correspond to those of Rabban Gamliel the grandson of Hillel known from rabbinic literature, as do those of the Simon mentioned by Josephus to Gamliel's son, Shimon ben Gamliel. Hence it is likely that it was this Shimon's son Gamliel, i.e. Gamliel the Younger, who became the leader of the Pharisees or 'rabbis' at Yavne.% We get the impression that the writings of Luke, as also the later ones of Josephus, were published at a time when the star of the House of Hillel, with Gamliel the Younger as its prominent representative, was rising in Roman circles. In effect Luke's works, in sharp contradistiction to the Gospels of Matthew and John, testify to a Christian community that by the end of the first century was interested in presenting rabbinic Judaism in a positive light. The positive orientation of Acts towards Judaism was duly noted in Jakob Jervell's remarkable commentary. His conclusion that Luke must have been a Judaeo-Christian is attractive, but in my view it is an unnecessary hypothesis and therefore not advisable. It also fails to account for the remarkable attention Luke gives to Gentile Christians and for his emphasis on good relations between non-Jews and Jews in the churches. In this respect, Luke is fully consistent with what 1 (and Jervell) understand to be Paul's inclusive ecclesiology. The tradition that he was a God-fearing nonJew from Paul's entourage still seems to fit best.97 On the other hand, there can be little doubt that the letters of James and Jude were written in Judaeo-Christian surroundings. For their Jewish background I merely refer to Richard Bauckham's recent arguments.9RThough continuous vis-a-vis Judaism, these documents. however. do not offer a tangible historical overlap with rabbinic evidence. We do find something of an overlap in the First Letter of Clement which the church of Rome sent to the one in Corinth, apparently just after Domitian's death in 96.w Apart from such expressions as "our father and Esther and Judith appearing as J a c o b ' k d his "twelve-s~eptreship"','~ See material in HYMAN s.v , and c f Epiphanius, Pan. 30.4 on the tlillelite dynasty. Eusebius, Wist. eccl. 3.4.6 (following lrenaeus ihid. 5.8.3) identifies him with 'Luke the physician' whom Paul mentions apart from three fellow-Jews in Col 4:14, c f Phlm 24. See the discussion by FITZMYER 41 -47. 98 B A ~ J C K H A 1990 M and 1999; see also LAMWERS-PFTRY in the following paper; TOMSON 2001a: 336-353. Interestingly, ZAHN begins his discussion o f NT writings with the Jewish-Christian Epistle o f James (but c f below n106). Thus the dating by Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.3, which fits the few references in ICIem 1 . 1 . loo ICIem 4.8, b x u ~ t ) pilphv ' I a ~ h p3 ;1.4, 6&swao~tlnrpov (a hapax). %
97
*
The wars a ~ a i n s tRome
21
heroines of the church,101which remind us of a Jewish background, the author strikingly bases his reprimand of the Corinthian insurgents on the example of the 'orderly' temple service in Jerusalem (chs. 40-41). Were he displays spccialised knowledge on the technicalities of the temple that are best elucidated through comparison with the Mishnqio%n particular the tractates Tarnid and Middot which seem to embody eye witness reports of the architecture and ritual of the temple.Io3 The author might have been a Judaeo-Christian,'" even a kohen, but like Luke he may equally have been a God-fearing and well-informed non-Jewish Christian. The access he had to priestly traditions at the end of the first century runs parallel to the temple traditions being preserved in the Mishna. Not only 1 Clement but also Luke-Acts seems related to Rome.Ios This gives the impression that the exclusion decree was not adopted or not enforced by at least a number of synagogues in Rome and afiliated areas. We encountered this possibility already in relation with Justin. A somewhat later Roman document also evoking a continuous relation to Judaism and to Judaeo-Christianity is the Shepherd of Hennas (c. 150).IM Except for one important point, these data converge with Walter Bauer3 description of late second century Rome as the focal centre of apostolic 'orthodoxy', meaning faithfulness to apostolic tradition, to the teachings of Jesus, and to the Old Testament, as against the depreciation of these by the numerous Gnostic and Marcionite churches.107The breaking point is in the relationship to Judaism. While Luke-Acts and Clement seem to retain a positive attitude, later Roman authors display an anti-Jewish ecclesiology, as we shall see. Finally, there are rabbinic stories of contacts with Christians which exude a certain sympathy, in particular the case where "R. Eliezer was caught The Sage who floufor minut"', which here clearly means 'Chri~tianity'.'~~ I 0 l IClem 55.2, xoAAoti5 tv qpiv, 55.4 ' IouGi0 q pa~upiu,55.6 Esther saving rd t50.6~~cjlrpvAovTOG ' IopuqA. See also TOMSON2000. lo* See TOMSON 2000 on such terms as kv6&l&~t0pdELS, Textsttick in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2,' Z4C (2001); convenient translations are P.W. HARKINS, Saint John Chrysostom Discourses against Judaizing Christians ( I l e Fathers of the Church 68) Washington DC, 1979); and esp. the heavily commentated translation R. BRANDLF and V. JEGtiCR-BUCHFR, Acht Reden gegen Juden, (Bibl. d. griech. Lit. 41) Stuttgart 1995. 69 On Jewish Christians in Origen, see MIMOIJNI 1998: 129-135; N.R.M. DE LANGE, Orrgen and the Jews Studies in Jewish-Christian Relatronv in Thrrd-Century Palestrne, UP, Cambridge 1976, 35-36, 165; and the selection of sources in A.F.J. KI-IJN- G.J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (SupNovT 36) Brill, Leiden RFININK, 1973, 124-135. 1 was not able to consult Martiniano P. RONCAGI IA, *Origene e il Giudeo-cristianesimo, donrina e archeologia', Rendiconti 1021103 (1968) 473--492. 70 The masculine relative pronoun and the feminine participle do not match in gender. KLOSTERMANN decided in favor of male, NAUTIN of female addressees (see below). 71 My translation of the twelfth tiomily on Jeremiah, ch. 13 (GCS 3: 100) following NAUTIN'S suggestions in the appendix to the second edition of KI OSTERMANN'S GCS text. 72 This matches the immediate context, where Origen accuses some women of wrongly honoring the Sabbath by abstaining from washing themselves on this day and charges them with celebrating Passover 'literally'. He levels similar charges against women keeping the Sabbath and Passover in the Catena on Psalm 138. See Cateno in Psalmos 1 18:38 (SC 189,256: 1-3).
'Christians ' observing 'Jewish 'festivals
69
seems more probable, since a Judaeo-Christian community consisting predominantly of women is unattested.73 They were apparently part of Origen's community, since he could address them directly in his homily. ~ h e i e'dangerous ones in between' might have been Judaizing Gentile Christians,74 or converted Jews who had not discontinued earlier practices, or both (i.e. Christian God-fearers).75 A passage in Origen's tenth Homily on I ~ v i t i c u sshows that Caesarean Christians keeping Yom Kippur was not an isolated incidence. "Whence also we must say something now to those who think that i n virtue o f the commandment o f the Law they must also practice the fast o f the Jews (ludaeorum ieiunium).**76
In this context, Origen - at least as preserved by Rufinus' translation does not speak of women, nor does he connect the Christian fasting on Yom Kippur to other Judaizing practices. Quite the contrary, he quotes Galatians 5:3, "If anyone wants to preserve one thing from the observances of the law, he 'is subject to doing the whole 1aw""Yom Kippur seems to be singled out as the one particularly attractive Jewish institution followed by these Christians. The Judaizers seem to justify their practice by refemng to the Old Testament commandment to fast.77 Origen ridicules the festival commandments that cannot be fulfilled without Temple, altar and sacrifices but only on a spiritual level; for him, therefore, the commandment to fast is obsolete, too. For him, there is no 73 The preceding attacks against 'the Jew' cannot be directed against the women but must be understood in a rhetorical way since Origen speaks o f circumcision. SCHADEI. (1980: 144) translates 'der Judser' but this does not seem to fit this context any better than NAUTIN'S 'Juir, for Origen wants to distinguish between louduioi and Christians (who supposedly live in Judea as well). 74 See NAUTIN'S note in SC 238 (1976: 47, n5). 1 was not able to locate the article 'Origene et les pratiques judalsantes des chretiens' which he announces there. 75 Pace SUHOEPS1949: 140 n l , who assumes the addressees are Jewish Christians. Generally, it is likely that Origen was disturbed more by dissenters among his primary community, Judaizing Christians, than by Christianizing Jews. I n rum, Jews were more likely to be upset by Christianizing Jews adhering to the Christian Messiah than by Christians observing Jewish practices. However, in third-century Palestine, the distinction between Jewish converts to Christianity, Christian Judaimrs and Judaeo-Christians might not always have been very clear - if they attended the same worship assemblies. The issue is further complicated in the case o f Gentiles who became Christian but had been attracted to Judaism before converting to Christianity would they be Judaizing Christians or Jewish Christians? Translation by G.W. BARKLEYin Fathers of the Church 83, p204. Text (and French translation and commentary by Marcel Borret) in SC 287. 77 I.iomily on Leviticus 10.2.1: "All these things must be completed by you who want to observe fasting according to the precept o f the law."
-
70
Stdkl Ben Ezru
literal interpretation even for those rituals that can be performed without the Temple (such as the fast). Fasting with Jews jeopardizes the validity of the atoning power of Christ's self-sacrifice. In Origen's eyes, Christianity and Judaism are exclusive alternatives. Whoever wants to fast can do it throughout the year; indeed as in Hegesippus, Yorn Kippur can be any day: "When, therefore, is there not a day of humiliation for you who follow Christ...?"% Yet, unlike Hegesippus, Origen explicitly forbids joining the fast on Yorn Kippur - whoever fasts with the ./ews has neither understood nor accepted the atonement inherent in Jesus' death. Those 'in between' who cross the symbolic boundaries between Judaism and Christianity have become the 'dangerous ones in between' threatening the collective identities of both, orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, based on mutual exclusion.
'Abd al-Jabbiir and his Judaeo-Christian source: Jesus observed Yorn Kippur I began this paper with the assumption that most Judaeo-Christians continued to observe Yorn Kippur. 'This assumption is based on Phila's statcment about the importance of Yorn Kippur for Jewish collective identity. It also matches the general statement of the Christian heresiologists that Judaeo-Christians keep the Tora. However, Romans 14 makes it very probable that same Christian Jews stopped observing Yorn Kippur around 60 CE, and Hegesippus points to a certain devaluation of the annual Day of Atonement in a Jewish Christian circle around 120 CE. One wonders therefore if there is any specific source describing Judaeo-Christians observing Yorn Kippur. The earliest statement known to me that refers specifically to the Yom Kippur of a Judaeo-Christian group appears in the tenth-century anti-Christian treatise 'The Establishment of Proofs for the Prophethood of Our Master Mohammed"9 by the Mu'tazilite 'Abd al-
7"omily on Leviticus 10.2.3. 79 The Arabic title reads: Tathbit Dald '11Nubuwwut Suyyrdrnfi Muhammad The text was first discussed at length by Shlomo PINES,'The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source', PIASN 2 (1966) 237 310, republished in Guy G. STRQUMSA (cd.), The CoNecred Works of Shlomo Piner, Magnes, Jerusalem 1996, vol. 4, 21 1-284. The treatise has been partially translated by Samuel M. STERN in "Abd al-Jabbiir's Account of How Christ's Religion Was Falsified by the Adoption of Roman Customs,' JTS 19 (1968) 128-1 85, translation on p13 I - 153. STLRN 130 nl refen to a printed edition of the first 140 folios of 'Abd al-Jabbgr's book by 'Abd al-Karim ' U ~ I M A N (Beirut 1966) as the most convenient edition.
'Christians' observing 'Jewish 'festivols
71
Jabbar al-Hamadbi.80 While 'Abd al-Jabbl himself was a Muslim, Shlomo Pines has argued convincingly that he based his writings on JudaeoChristian sources.8' "They [the Christians] turn in their prayer to the east, whereas Christ, up to the time that God took him, always prayed turning to the west, Jerusalem, the direction of David, the prophets, and the children of Israel. Christ was circumcised and held circumcision obligatory, as did Moses, Aaron, and the prophets. H e and his disciples f a t e d on the day kept by the children of Israel, until the very time he lefi the world. H e never observed thesefifty doys on which the Christians f a t , the Fast of Nineveh, or the Fast of the Virgins; nor did he eat on thefmt the food which they oNow, or prohibit what they consider as prohibited. He did not observe the Sunday as a feast-day, nor did he build a
church, or for even a moment abolish the Sabbath. [...I In short, the Messiah came to revive the Torah and put it into practice, saying (Mi
'Abd al-Jabbar lived from ca. 935-1025 in Baghdad and Rayy. For further information, see the short entry on 'Abd al DjabbiZr b. Ahmad in the Encyclopaed~aof Islam. vol. 1 (1960) 59-60 and the remarks by S.M. STERN in STS 18 (1967) 34-57. P P I Nsuggested W that 'Abd al-Jabbilr is based on traditions of a Judaeo-Christian group dating to between the fifth and sixth centuries and translated from Syriac to Arabic by Judaeo-Christians in the tenth century; also, that the source, which includes an account of the origin of Christianity actually reflects genuine first- and second-century traditions (1996: 274f = 1966: 3000. This spectacular thesis sparked a fierce controversy between Pines and Stem. Stem argued against Pines mainly on the grounds that the existence of Judaeo-Christians as late as the tenth century was absurd. Instead STERN1968: 184f suggested that the treatise was based on a work composed by "a Muslim, most likely an ex-Christian, who took as his point of departure the New Testament account of the early church and of Paul's career [and] probably used some motives from a Jewish legend about Paul, but gave free reins to his scumlous fancy". Since then, Pines' spectacular discovery has been largely neglected. However, Patricia CRONE: ('Islam, Judaeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm,'Jerusalem Studies in Arabic R and Islam 1980, p59- 95, esp. 74-76 and 85 95), and most recently John G A G ~('Did - YOsttlKO REED,below n45) have Jewish Christianity See the Rise of Islam?' in BECKER reclaimed 'Abd al-Jabblir's text for the study of Judaeo-Christians raising three arguments against Stem's thesis. First, it is unlikely that a h4uslim would demand that Christians behave like Jews (CRONF'1980: 76, n91). Second, 'Abd al-Jabbk's source claims to give the real history of Early Christianity from an insider Judaeo-Christian perspective (ibid.). Finally, CRONI.provides evidence for the continuous existence of Judaeo-Christians after the seventh century. This is crucial, since "Stem's view was clearly dictated by his extraordinary reluctance to concede that the Arabic accounts are Judaeo-Christian in character" ((1980: 86, n156a). She refers e.g. to Jacob of Edessa attesting that the Sabbatians are still observing both the Sabbath and Sunday in Galatia and Phrygia (1980: 84f). This tenth-century Judaeo-Christianity does not have to be continuous with first-century Judaeo-Christianity; Judaizing "can ...reappear wherever Christianity exists, particularly where it coexists with Judaism" (CRONE1980: 93). Therefore, while Crone and Gager side with Stem in doubting that 'Abd al-Jabbar's source goes back as far as the fourth century, they side with Pines in ascribing it to a Judaeo-Christian author living after the conquest of Islam.
72
S ~ i i k Ben l Ezra
5:17-19 combined with Lk 16:17): '1 have come to act according to the Torah and the orders of the prophets before me; I have not come to abolish, but to complete. I t is easier in the eyes of God for heaven to fall upon the earth than to abolish anything from the law of Moses. If any man therefore sets aside anything of this, he will be called small in the kingdom of heaven."'82
The passage of interest is the statement (in italics) that Christ observed the Jewish day of fast (in the singular!) and not the fifty days' fast and other Christian fast days. This makes it almost certain that the Judaeo-Christian group(s) behind this source(s) followed the example of their master Jesus in observing Yorn Kippur and not the Christian fasts." Why was it necessary for the group to emphasize that Jesus observed the fast? Apparently, the reference to Yorn Kippur was part of a larger argument in a polemical context with those Christians who did not keep the fast.
Conclusions I have put forward the following five points. First, there is no explicit evidence in Paul or Hebrews for an appeal to abolish Yorn Kippur for Gentile and Jewish followers of Christ until the end of the first century. Yet Paul testifies to a shift from the all-embracing celebration of Yorn Kippur in Jewish communities or in Philo to an optional observance of the fast among some Jesus-followers. Second, the casual use of Yorn Kippur as a chronological reference in Acts 27:9 provides clear evidence that this community of Christian God-fearers living towards the end of the first century continued to observe Yorn Kippur. This questions the common assumption that it is possible to distinguish between Gentile and Jcwish Christians by referring to their attachment to the commandments of the Tora. Third, Hegesippus spreads the special sanctity of the Ilay of Atonement to all days. It is possible that this reflects a Jewish Christian group that ceased to observe Yom Kippur or gradually neglected it, though the general attitude is not unlike Philo's statement that the wise should live every day as if it were Yom Kippur. Fourth, there is evidence for Judaizing Gentiles joining the Jewish festivities of Yom Kippur not only in fourth-century Antioch (Chrysostom) but also in third-century Caesarea (Origen). Christian participation was therefore more widespread than is commonly assumed. Fifth, some Judaeo-Christian communities continued STERN1968: 132f, paragraph 3-4 (emphasis added). Some additions to the text - such as the specific prohibition of pork and getting drunk and the use of the term 'People of the Rook' seem to have been introduced by a Muslim hand - nevertheless, CRONEand GACERare right in emphasizing that a Muslim would not make that kind of propaganda for the Tora. 82
83
'Christians ' observing 'Jewish' festivals
73
to observe Yom Kippur, as 'Abd al-Jabbk's source suggests, probably mocking Christians who did not fast and trying to convince them to join their Day of Atonement. In a more general way, I suggest distinguishing three progressive stages in the perception of such religious behavior as the observance of Yom Kippur by followers of Christ: (1) normative, mainstream or acceptable; (2) peculiar, Judaeo-Christian but tolerable; and (3) un-Christian and prohibited. Chronologically, the second stage may be dated approximately to the years 100-160. In the first stage, authors of texts that were later defined as canonical mainstream could regard the observance of the Jewish fast as normative (Luke) or acceptable (Paul). In the second stage, some observances were characterized as 'Judaizing'and therefore strange but still tolerable if performed by Christian Jews (Justin Martyr). In the third stage, when some Christians continued to observe Yorn Kippur, such Judaizing behavior was considered un-Christian and prohibited (Diognet, Origen, Chrysostom). They were conceived of as 'dangerous ones in between'by orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism alike, threatening the distinct identity of cach by blurring the boundaries and proposing an alternative to the ideology of mutual exclusion. Finally, there is a clear difference between the first century and later times regarding the social status of Jesus-followers observing Yom Kippur. In the first century, some leaders regarded the fast as normative (Acts) or acceptable (Paul). In later times, those observing the fast were probably ordinary Christians while those who defined Yom Kippur as unChristian belonged to the leaders.
Vermeintlicher Antijudaismus und Polernik gegen Judenchristen im Neuen Testament Folker Siegerr
Das Problem Es yibt eine Sorte von ,,Antijudaismus" im Neuen 'I'estament, die nur dann als solche erscheint, wenn man vergisst zu fragen, wer die Adressaten der Texte sind. Im Folgenden sol1 die Rede sein von jenen ,,antijiidischcn" Polemiken - sie ziihlen zu den schiirfsten iiberhaupt -, die sich weder gegen das Judentum der Zeit dcs Zweiten 'Tempels richten noch gegen das rabbinisch neuverfksste Judentum danach, sondern gegen Judenchristcn. Solche Polemiken k o ~ t e numso leichter verkannt werden, als wir uns angewfihnt haben, die neutestamentlichen Texte, vom lukanischen Corpus allenfalls abgesehen, als ~ d k r u n g e nvon Juden zu lesen - nur eben Juden mit einer neuen Botschafl fir ihr Volk und fir alle VBlker. Im Folgenden aber soll unser BIick auf die Gegenseite, die Empfdngerseite, wechseln. Wo d i e s mit Ioltdaioi bestimmt oder angeredet wird. beginnt fir historisch-kritische IxktiIre die Frage: Was ficr ,,JudenWsind gemeint? Gerade im Neuen 'Testament kann mit diesem Ausdsuck - ein Begriff ist cs nicht; es ist in vager Weise ein Name - weit mehr als cine GemeinschaPl bezeichnet sein. Zuniichst bezeichnet das Wort ja ,,~ud$ier".' Darnit kann das jiidische Volk insgesarnt gemeint =in, dessen kultisches Zentrum in J u d h liegt; es kilnnen JudLr sein, ja bestimmte Jud?icr (s. unten zu Joh), und es kannen auch nur die Judenchristen sein. Ein eigenes Wort fir ,,Judenchristen" hat die ganze Antike nicht gekanntS2Wollte man sich missverstiindlich ausdflcken, sa miisste man umschreiben: ,,die aus der Reschneidung" (Apg 1 1.2; Tit 1,l o).'
' Zu diesern Forschungskonsens s
z B Corrt N, 'louda~os', 21 1 , Ifauvr Y, The True Anders TOMSON, ' The Names' Wenn MIMOUNIdie Wongruppe Juduer Chrlstrunl be1 H~eronqmushlefir rehlamlert (Lejud&chr~rantsme 62, aus Hieronyrnus, Suchuqakommerrfar 3.14 9), so verkennt er dac Syntagrna, in welchern Juciaer und C'hrrstranr keineswegs wle Nornen und Attrlbut vcrbunden sind; vielrnehr 1st Chrrstranl PrfWikatsnornen elnes folgenden Verbums Patristische Beiege hler~ube1 MIMOIINI, Le juddn-chrrrtranrsme. 47f Irrael, 9. 14- 18
Pdemik gegen Judenchristen
75
Es hat auch im Christenturn bis weit in patristische Zeit hinein keinen eigenen Ausdruck gegeben, der ,Judenchristen" separat bezeich.net htltte. Sie fielen mit unter Ioudaioi, jenen ohnehin missversthdlichen Ausdruck fiir ,Judger" und solche, die gar nicht aus J u d h kamen, sondern ihre ~udiiische"Religion oder Volkszugehbrigkeit anderswo wahrnahmen. Johanneisches
Im Johannesevangelium entsteht eine zusiltzliche, noch wenig beachtete Verwirmng dadurch, dass sich auf die genannten Undeutlichkeiten noch eine innejiidische Polaritlit l t s c h e n Judtlern und Galilgem legt, die religi6se und auch soziale Komponenten hat. Die Anhbgerschaft Jesu wird hauptstichlich in GalilL lokalisiert (Joh 4,4345; vgl. 11,7), die Gegnerschaf? hingegen in Jud@ wie unlbgst Eberhard Giiting deutlicher gezeigt hat (Joh 1,19 us^.).^ Mit 'lou6abt sind v.a. die Autoriuten zu Jerusalem gemeint, die hemchenden Familien und Sprecher des ~udentums.~ In 13,36 Bllt im Munde Jesu die Bemerkung: ,,wie ich sagte rr& soh< 'looliaioy"; hier muss unbedingt iibersetzt werden: ,JU den Judhrn". Denn Jude im weiteren Sinne ist Jesus schlieDIich selbst; das vergisst auch der vierte Evangelist nicht. Die ,Judiier" nun gelten als die treibenden W f t e hinter Jesu Kreuzigung (Joh 11,470, was in dem MaBe plausibel ist, wie das Wirken Jesu der Tempelhierarchie zuwider sein musste. Auch Josephus hestiitigt diese Sicht und spricht von einer ,,Anzeig" (Ev&I~Y)durch ,,die ersten Mtlnner unter uns" (Ant. 18:36), wenn denn die Worte des iiberlieferten Textes an dieser Stelle seine eigenen sind - worm aber kein Zweifel sein mlisste, dem wir haben es mil keiner der umstrittenen Qualifikationen Jesu zu tum6 Joh 8.30-59. Nun aher ist von einer noch engeren Venvendung des Wortes 'lou6a"w zu reden, in der spezifisch Judenchristen gemeint sind. Jener innerchristliche Streit, der im Vierten Evangelium ,,JudW zur Zielscheibe hat, aber christliche Juder meint, ist noch nicht hinreichend analysiert.' Mir selbst
'
GOTMG, 'Kritik an den Judaem'. Gntings Analyse gilt den Emhltexten des Vienen Evanpliums. Erst in den (offenbar jnngeren) Diskunpartien begegnet dann jene Verallgemeinemng, die ,Juden' Vertreter der unglflubigen Menschheit Oberhaupt sein 18sst. Joh 5.10.15--18; 7.13.15; 9.18.22; 18,12.14.36; 19.7.38; 20.19. GOTINO.'Kritik',
'
169. (...) ~ a abzdv l k v W i i 79v qxh~covhv8p&v 79v stolicFathers: A N e w Translation and Commenfary 3, (AF 3) Thomas Nelson, New York 1965 Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers I , Heinernann, London I Uarvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1912 Muilenburg, J., The 1.iterury Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Yale Dissertation, Marburg 1929 Niederwirnmer, K., The Didache: A Commentary (German ed 1989, ET by L.M. Maloney), (Hermeneia) Fortress, Minneapolis 1998 O'Connor, J. Murphy, 'La genbse litteraire de la R2gle de la CornmunautC', RB 76 (1969) 528-549 Polster, G., 'Der kleine Talmudtraktat Dber die Proselyten (Text und Cibersetzung)', Angelos 2 (1 926) 2-38 Robinson, J.A., Barnabus, Hermas and the Diduche: Being the Donnellan Lectures Delivered before the University of Dublin in 1920, SPCK, London 1920 Rordorf, W., 'An Aspect of the Judaeo-Christian Ethic: The Two Ways', in Draper 1996: 148- 164 - 'La Didache en 1999', in M. F. Wiles & E. J. Yarnold (eds.), Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford 1999, Studia Patristica 36 (200 1) 293-299 Rordorf, W. & Tuilier, A., L a doctrine des Dowe Apritres (Didache), (SC 248) Cerf,
Paris 1978 Schbllgen, G., Didache--Zwiilf-Apostel-Lehre. Einleitung, Ubersetzung und Kommentar, (FC I) tierder, Freiburg 1991 Seeberg, A., Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig: Deichert, 1903. - Die Beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, Deichert, Leipzig 1906 Streeter, B.El., The Four Gospels, 5th (rev.) impression Macrnillan, London 1936 Stuiber, A., 'Das ganze Joch des Henn (Didache 6:2-3)', in F.L. Cross (ed), Studio Patristica If', (TU 79) Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1961, 323-329 Taylor, C., The Teaching ofthe Twelve Apostles, with illustrufionsfrom the Talmud, Deighton Bell, Cambridge 1886 Trever, J.C., Scrolls from Qumran Cuve I : The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem 1972 Turner, C.H., 'The Early Christian Ministry and the Didache', in Studies in Early Church History, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1912, 1 -3 1 Vokes, F.E., The Riddle of the Didache. Fact or Fiction, Iferesy or Catholicism?, SPCK, London 1938 VMbus, A., Liturgical Traditions in the Didache, (PETSE 16) Estonian Theological Society in Exile, Stockholm 1968 Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief; Zweiter Klemensbrief; Schrifr an Diognet, (SUC 2) WissenschaAliche BuchgesellschaR, Darmstadt 1984
Syrian memories of Peter: Ignatius, Justin and Serapion Markus Bockrnuehl
Tradition, memory and the 'House of Peter' Mid-fourth-century pilgrims from the far comers of the newly Christian Empire were in for a surprise as they made their way from Jerusalem to the Sea of Galilee in quest of the home of Jesus and peter.' In the Iloly City, they had found the ruins of the New Testament period long since obscured under the rigorously Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina. Its thriving Christian community included no physical descendants of the church of the apost~es,~ although their Gentile successors laid claim to the inheritance of its worship and episcopal succession. What biblical sites remained were either, like the True Cross, newly 'rediscovered'(sometimes in competing locations) by a blossoming religious tourism industry, or else, like the Temple, reduced to unrecognizable piles of rubble. Jewish ruins and Jewish absence seemed to furnish plentiful grist to supersessionist mills that were busily grinding out the narrative of Christianity's Constantinian triumph. Capemaurn was disturbingly different. Here, pi1 rims came upon a bustling small town that had never been destroyed! and whose dominant Jewish population and culture continued to thrive4 A large synagogue and small Christian house church faced each other across the street. Rabbis condemned Capernaum as a centre of liberal heretics, while Christian authors downplayed it because its very prosperity seemed to pour scorn on Jesus' prophecy of its de~tsuction.~ Undeterred by such qualms, the tourists who did come here found Jews of rabbinic and Nazarean persuasion openly intermingling in commerce, culture and religion.
'
I gratefully acknowledge the British Academy's support of this project through one of its Research Readerships. Cf Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.4.14.6.4. Though it is possible that the original basalt synagogue under the fourth-century limestone edifice may have been destroyed during the Jewish War in AD 67. ~ p i ~ h a n i uPan. s , 30.1 1.9-10 even claims that Capemaurn's population included no Gentiles at all. Cf WALKER 1990: 157-59, 163, although his argument seems somewhat overstated.
'
'
Syrian Memories of Peter
125
And come they did. Arriving from a convent in Gaul or Spain around AD 382, Egeria saw the local s nagogue and noted that "a church has been made out of the house of Peter , whose walls stand to this day as they were then. There the Lord healed the paralytic...'" Hundreds of others had preceded her: for two centuries, people had been leaving mementos of their presence scrawled on the walls of the same house church that Egeria saw. The story of early Christian pilgrimage to the 'House of Peter'in Capernaum provides a graphic analogy to the role of human memory in attesting the historic 'footprint' of Simon Peter as he was remembered in the first two centuries. Not all pilgrims left graffiti; and even the marks of those who did are now often lost, illegible or highly debatable. The fact that many wrote prayers, including prayers to Christ, suggests that the place must have had a Christian religious significance. A Jewish Christian presence, however, is notoriously difficult to substantiate from the tenuous archaeological record.8 As for Peter's name, this appears only twice; and the reasons for its presence here might range all the way from Egeria's devout veneration of the 'prince of apostles'to the trivial banality of a passing tourist who happened to bear that name and recorded his presence for posterity. The interpretative difficulties surrounding the so-called House of Peter are remarkably analogous to the second- and third-generation memories of Peter that form the subject of this chapter. A good many of these memories date from the time when grmiti may have begun to appear on the walls of that house in Capernaum. No amount of scholarly stratification can conceal the sheer serendipity of what survives, and the difficulty of disentangling genuine memory from tradition's incorporation of devout imagination. How can we begin to classify this elusive evidence? In his major study, Christian Grappe (1 9-20) has rightly noted the unsatisfactory nature of the second-century sources from Syria and elsewhere: although a good many documents deal with Peter or are attributed to him, the evidence remains exceedingly piecemeal ("parcellaire"). All we have in the end, Grappe suggests, is highly contrasting images of Peter - in various, and variously overlapping, Gnostic, orthodox and Jewish Christian groups. To make matters worse, we appear to have rather more documents from the close of the second century and beyond than from the preceding decades, which seem largely silent. As a result, Grappe remains sceptical about the historical
2'
Lit. "of the prince of Apostles", apostolorum principis - the identification seems clear, but the phrase in question is usually thought to be that of Peter the Deacon, in whose work De Locis Sanctis this extract is preserved. See WILKINSON1981: 194 n7; ROWEKAMP1995: 336 1174. Peter the Deacon, De locis sanctis 5.2. See the excessively scathing critique of the Franciscan excavators'interpretation in TAYLOR1993.
'
126
Bockmuehl
usefulness of such second-century sources. And on a conventional, 'onionpeel' approach to early Christian history his assessment doubtless has some merit. The trick, however, may be to slice the historical onion rather than to peel it. Previous scholarship has adopted at least three diEerent approaches to the sources, each of them with its own advantages and disadvantages. Christian Grappe himself opts for a series of basically topical explorations in the material. Eie sorts their presentation into five time periods: the ministry of Jesus ("the circle of the disciples"), "the era of brotherhood" (the church in Jerusalem), "the apostolic phase" (until AD 70), "the subapostolic phrase"' and '?he second century". The result is a caleidoscopic treatment which, although conceptually fertile and impressively comprehensive in its treatment of the sources, seems analytically compromised by its somewhat arbitrary and uneven chronological divisions. Several of these divisions, in fact, would be exceedingly difficult to justify from the sources, and depend on more precise dating of texts than most scholars would be prepared to ~ e n t u r e . ~ One might have thought that a more workable chronological approach could be derived from the three 'generations' that our sources themselves imply: the apostles, their hearers, and those (like Irenaeus) who remember them. Even on this model, however, the dates we may assign will in many cases remain highly tenuous, and the inferences drawn from them correspondingly compromised or controversial. A third way forward might be to slice the onion in ideological terms, distinguishing between sources on the basis of their character as 'orthodox', 'gnostic', 'Jewish Christian? and so forth. Leaving aside the real or perceived apologetic benefits of such an approach, it could only constitute an unacceptably blunt tool of analysis. The categories are anachronistic and too imprecise to do justice to the material. No historically accountable study of Petrine tradition can escape difficult and controversial decisions about the date of certain key sources. My own study has led me to consider the time-scale of human memory as providing a fourth approach, which attempts to localize Petrine memories in their approximate geographical settings, and to interpret them dialectically. Peter was remembered above all in Rome and Syria, and to some extent in Asia Minor, Greece, and possibly ~ ~ ~To ~be sure, t . this ' ~ approach has its problems, too. But it may show a way out of a number of other familiar analytical cul-de-sacs, and should do justice to the often locally rooted nature of memory. Cf similarly the critique in CASUREI*I.A 1997. For a similar approach in a more general survey, see G~JIJARRO 1991, who also shows that the two main centres of Petrine tradition were Syria and Rome. lo
Syrian Memories of Peter
127
My suggestion in this study is that in asking how Peter was in fact remembered, we will gain valuable historical insights for a more inclusive appraisal of the man and his significance. By methodologically privileging the remembered Peter of the first two centuries, we may be able to move from a caleidoscopic to a cautiously historical evaluation of the sources. A fuller exposition of this proposal must be left for another occasion. For present purposes, a brief summary will sufiee. As Irenaeus and other writers clearly show," Christian memory did remain for 150 years an important point of reference for Simon Peter's public 'persona'in diverse and even competing Christian circles. The importance of such memory was indeed theological, in that it attached the young faith to the founding reality of those who had seen and known the Lord (cf already Acts 1 :2 122; 1 Cor 9:l). But it also contributes materially to genuine historical questions, sometimes precisely in its diversity: it is at least worth pondering which of the ambiguities and contradictions in Petrine tradition over the first two centuries may be traceable to analogous tensions in the character of the man or his message. Modem scholars too frequently overlook the extent to which posthumous memories of a person are indispensable for the sort of settled and reflected interpretation that the fragmented and preliminary impressions of contemporaries can never provide. And it remains one of the more formative facts of early church history that Christians of remarkably different stripes did place great considerable on the tradition of the apostles. A chain of 'living' memory of the apostles can be shown to have survived until the late second century. After that, a very different situation pertained.'2
Three named individuals This paper will address the question of Petrine memory in Syria &om the focussed perspective of three identifiable authors who wrote around the beginning, the middle and the end of the second century - Ignatius, Justin and Serapion. I propose to approach the evidence from back to iront, beginning at the end of the second century.
"
See especially his 1,etter to Florinus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.20.6); cf Irenaeus, liaer. 3.3.4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.5.8. IZ To be sure, this does not necessarily mean the complete disappearance of the earlier memories. One may rightly wish to draw on later writers like Eusebius and Jerome who attempted to collect scattered historical traditions about Peter. Their efforts, however, are much more clearly and explicitly archival, distinguishing between the valuable and the spurious solely on the basis of a critical sifting of evidence. Living memory ceased to exist after the year 200.
Bockmuehl
Serapion Our first author is a figure who stands at the very end of the period 1 have described as 'living memory', but he shows how it retained a certain vitality in the negotiation of competing interpretations of Peter. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch c. 190-2 1 1. Not a great deal is known of him; indeed his fourth-century Egyptian namesake is much more familiar, since he was a companion of Athanasius. Of our second-century Serapion, only few fragmentary writings survive, including a letter against Montanism and another to a certain Domninus who had fallen away during persecution. A further letter partially preserved by Eusebius addresses the church at nearby Rhossus in Cilicia (Hist. eccl. 6.12.3-6). In this document, Serapion retracts his previous acquiescence in a particular group's request to read the Gospel of Peter, on the grounds that he has now discovered it to be heretical. This letter has often been controversially discussed in relation to early Christian attitudes to pseudepigraphyi3 and to 'doceti~m'.'~Here, however, I am interested in the light Serapion sheds on the survival of living Petrine memory in Antioch - or rather on the lack of it. Serapion begins with a statement about the church's view about the relative merit of genuine and pseudonymous apostolic writings: "We, brothers, accept Peter and the other Apostles just as Christ; but as experienced people we reject the writings falsely written in their names, knowing that we did not receive such things.""
Turning then to his pastoral visit to the church at Rhassus, Serapion admits that he somewhat nalvely assumed everyone there (rod< xavrac;) to be theologically orthodox (bpefi xiorst). It was this assumption that meant he did not bother to read through the 'gospel in the name of Peter' which certain people in the church brought to his attention.I6 Evidently he felt this document was not likely to be a cause for concern: "I said, 'if this the only thing that lies behind your squabble," then let it be read."'The implil3
Cf DUFF 1998: 225-29; MI~ADI 1986: 187-88, 205; B ~ o x1975: 125 26; B R ~ X
1984. l4 BROX 1984, MCCANr 1984 and J ~ J N O D 1988 are among those who have rnghtly warned against presuming either that the Gospel of Peter is in any obvious sense 'docetic', or that we know whom Serapion means by the term Aorcqrai. l5 Q p c i ~y&p, &Gc;Cqoi, ~ a IIhrpov i at TOO< &licov< hxootcilooi; h n d c &q Epn~tpotxaput~ d p & &65 I Xpto~civ,r d Cji: bvdpart abroiv y~uG~niypacpa to6pe8u. y~vclio~ovreq 671 t d roiaijra olt napelckfbpev. l6 Td bx' abtoiv xpocpepbpcvov bvcipari nhrpou cbayykltov. Notc that while the lener is addressed to 'you', those who presented the gospel are called 'they' apparently indicating a group within the church, rather than the leadership as a whole. This impression is confirmed a few lines further on. " E\ TOGTO t m i v p6vov t d S O K O ~bpiv ~ V n a p k ~ e i v~ L K P O W U X ~ Q V .
Syrian ~ e m o r i e sof Perer
129
cation appears to be that he acquiesced in the private reading of the text by that group.'8 Significantly, Serapion concedes that he had not read that text for himself. Since then, however, Serapion has received further information about a heresy among that group at Rhossus. This has led him to change his mind and to attend to the matter urgently, both in writing and in person. He evidently regards the heresy as related to the more recent views of a certain Marcianus (or possibly Marcion), whose irrational and contradictory views he and his readers know only too well.'9 Serapion has now obtained a copy of this Gospel of Peter from people who had studied it and who had themselves inherited it from its originators - people whose views resemble those he calls the Docetae. He has gone through the text carefully and finds that "most of it does reflect the right teaching about the Saviour; but some things are additi~ns".~'Unfortunately Eusebius does not preserve for us Serapion's promised elaboration of this ~tatement.~' Several things stand out. Serapion's opening statement evidently affirms a fundamental distinction between authentic and pseudonymous apostolic writings, accepting the former and rejecting the latter for public reading. First and foremost, Serapion carefully affirms the authority of Peter, but denies this to any document that falsely claims to speak in his name22- as even the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Peter clearly do.23 Beyond the straightforward question of authorship, the criteria for assessing the authority of a text are complex. The bishop argues from the church's 'experience'(&~E p ~ ~ i p o ibeginning ): with the question of whether writings in the name of an apostle have been 'received' in the catholic tradition (*rota6~aol, xapc;A&$opav), he complements this by asking about the orthodoxy of their content. In the case of the Gospel of Peter, this is
l 8 UAUM1997: 105 rightly points out that a permission for public reading could, in the nature of the matter, only have been given to the leadership of the church as a whole, not to a group within it. He also compares Jerome, Ep 107.12. l9 Q p & i 6 ~k , & ~ E I ( P O~I a, ~ a I u f M p & v~o tX O I fjv U ~a \ p & o ~ bc ~M a p ~ l a v 6 ~ . & K onkpp a r o ~bv8pdq ~ a yiu v a i ~ d qycyevvqp6vov. 5' nitkiv 62 hpvoBvrai ~ l v a iai)rov &vOpoxov, 6fj0cv hxd TO?)Idyou o G e l p q ~ c vb a o ~ q pkv r@ h v a y y ~ h ~ v aa6r@ i 651 ihjod fi pqrqp oou ~ a ol i 66&k(po\ oou E50 Borq~dolv,671 r i pod ~ kori pqrqp ~ a i tlllickqoi; , ~ u 6t ~ rsivaq rqv p i p a Bnt toOq paOq~dqEqq. o6roi etoiv o i h6ekqoi pou ~ a i(l prjrqp K U ~(rSchqui oi x o t o h v t y rd Ockqpura to6 n a r p d ~pou. " This is 'questionable' according to KOCH 341, and also to Kt IJN who thinks that Epiphanius quoted from memory (75), which could account for the absence o f 706 6 v obpavoi q and the systematic use o f the plural in the parallel o f 12:50. 53 Some o f the differences are also attested in the MS tradition o f Mt, even though the text o f GE cannot be linked to one particular text-type. BER'IRAND (1980: 557) and KOI~LER (282 n l ) prefer the reading Bni rod5 p a B q t a ~rqv ~ c i p uin CE, as the lectio difficilior, to the text o f Ho1.1.. Most remarkable perhaps is o i X ~ ~ O ~ V~dT @eA?)pt~rU E ~ roc n a s p 6 ~pou, instead o f M t 12:50a, and the inversion o f the order o f v. 50 as in L k 8:21. M a s s ~ u x353 reckoned with influence o f M t only (diff. 13t:RTRAND 1980: 558 and KOEI1,ER 282). So also Kocu 34 1.
"
the Father as his kin. If the Ebionites would have propagated such kind of metaphorical kinship, which in itself is not impossible, Epiphanius ccrtainly has stretched the limits of this interpretation by concluding from this excerpt that they deny the human nature of Jesus. One has the impression that Epiphanius has anachronistically introduced some of the issues of later controversies on the nature and person of Christ into his presentation of Ebionite Christology. The effect, though, of the sharp contrast between 30.14.3-4 and 30.14.5 cannot be overlooked. The Ebionites are lost in their own speculations and hold utterly nonsensical views on Christ and Jesus. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the observation that, by leaving out the genealogy, they give away a good argument in support of their teaching that Jesus was born a mere man, and one that had been used precisely in this way by Cerinthus and Carpoerates (30.14.2).~' Were the Ebionites less instructed in the subtleties of exegetical reasoning? Or were they more radical even than Cerinthus? A strange and rather complicated combination of elements from various gospel passages and from the Book of Acts is found in the citation from the Ebionite version of the call of the disciples." Though there are verbal similarities, this version does not so much follow the pattern of any of the call stories in the canonical gospels, except for what is said about Matthew, as that of the election of the Twelve in Mt 10:2-4 and parallels.57 55 "It is Strange that the Ebionites did not follow the same exegesis, since they also were interested in demonstrating the humanity of Jesus" (Ktx'ti, 332). There IS no reason to assume that G E must have contained the genealogies because they were most useful (so VIGNI:33). 30.13.2- 3 bv T@ Y O ~ Vnap' U ~ T jO E~ ~ ) u Y Y E ~~ ~a( r~ dM u ~ 0 a i o vbvopqopkvy. o b d~k y 66 xhqpcorcit(p, &Aka vevo0copkvc; uui fiuporqplaopCvq ('Ep p a i ~ d vSi: roGro ~ a l o i j o l v )tpcpkperut (5x1 LyCvc~ci TI; hvqp bvcipa~l '1x1-
~ 0 6 5 ,~ a a ib r d ~cbr kr6v T ~ I ~ ~ K O V T6Uj. I : ~ ~ h C < u llpaq. ro uai kX0ojv c\; Kucpapvaodp ciofjh0cv c i rqv ~ o l ~ i a vZipovo; roi) I;n~~h@kvro;IlC~po\iu a l hvoikaj r o o ~ b p aabro6 c l n e v napcp~6pcvoq nupa rqv kipvqv T I P E ~ I ~ S O ~ , Zepc6aiot). KUI Zipova uai 'Avkt&3i&t&ptlv'I~odvvqv~ a ' iI a ~ o p o v uiodq Gpkav ~ a BuSiTcliov i ~ a Zipova i rdv jtlhorqv tcai ' Io66av rdv' Io~aplrSrqv, ~ a o6l rdv MarOaiov ~aO&[bp&vovhxi roc rcAoviou & ~ a A e o a~ a qiu d o l i i; roii Bqod; poi.' Y p i i ~o6v PoOhopa~c l v a ~6 c ~ a 6 i ) obnoorbhou; ~ paprOplov 'IopaqA. " The quotation opens with a 1,ukan-like introduction (cf. 1-k 1 :5 kykvc~o ...TLC, bvbparl) and combines elements that have a parallel in Lk 3:23 ( ~ u abrdq i fiv ' Iq006s ...&o&i BTGV TPIUKOVTU), and in Lk 6:13 (Kai i;Kh~~aprvo;; cf. also Jn 6.70) and Acts 1:2 (oGj k~chC{aro).'The reference to Jesus coming to Capernaum and to the house of Simon Peter combines 1,k 4:31a ( ~ u i~aOfjA0cvc\ j KacpapvaoOp; maybe also Lk 7:l par. Mt, as KOHI.ER 276 suggests) and 4:38a (clofjA01:v c i s T ~ \ V o i ~ i a v Z i p o v o ~ ) As . in Mt 10:2 (and 4:18) the double name Simon Peter is used, but in CiE it is expressed in a way that is typical for Acts (10:5.18.32; 11:13; so KL IJN 66, but diff. KOtiI.ER 276, who calls it an "eigener Zusatz", possibly after Mt 8: 14). Jesus opening his i 16 orcipa ub~oir,but with a ~ i m p l e mouth has a parallel in Mt 5:2 ( ~ a &voi:uc,
Epiphanius on the Ebionires
195
The text as it is quoted is probably incomplete, for the list o f apostles contains only eight names.58Matthew is mentioned last and that may have been a reason why Epiphanius quotes this passage when explaining that the
c i n ~ vfor Mt's B6i6uo~cvubrodq Akyov) and in 17:27. The introductory description of the location may contain an echo from the call stories in Mt 9:9 par. Mk 2: 14 ( ~ a p d y o v , and rrapa r q v Bdlaooav in 2: 13), in Mt 4:18 par. Mk 1 :16 (ncpinar6v 61: resp. ~ u rrupkymv, l nu@ r q v edhaooav rfis ruktkaia5), and in Lk 5:l (fiv kar d q ~ u p ar q v kipvqv rsvvqoup1:r, with a supplementary echo from Jn 2 1: 1 (knl rqq OdAaoaqq rqq ?'1~cpiuSoq, cf. Jn 6:1.23; difE KCIHLER 276: "eigene Bezeichnung"). The verb B c ~ k k ~ a p qmay v stem from the commission of the Twelve (cf. Lk 6:13, but is now part of Jesus' speech; so N ~ I R Y N C 752 K n196, diff. KOHLER273: "ohne Entsprechung bei den Synoptikern"; see further also Jn 6:70; 13:18; 15: 16.19 and Acts 1:2). The list of the eight disciples is given in the accusative as in Mk 3:16- 19 par. Lk, but in an arrangement that only partially agrees with Mt 10:2-4 par. Mk (Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, as in Lk 6: 15, and Judas the Iskariot, as in Mt). The order John-James is found only in Acts 1:13 (K0ti1FR 274). I'he reference to the call of Matthew (without 'Levi', as in Mt 10:3) is influenced by, but is not identical with, Mt 9:9 (for k ~ a k s o a , see 9: 13 and 4: 18 par. Mk). The final cause may contain another echo of Mt 10:2 par. ( r 6 v S u i s c ~ airnoo~6louq). It reminds one of Mt 10:s 6 (BERTRAND 1080: 553; KCI~~LER 275: "eine Sachparallele"and 276: "in eigener, abgewandelter Formulierung"), and maybe also of Mt 1928 par Lk 2230 (so Kt-IJN 66), and also contains an expression that is found repeatedly elsewhere in the gospels ( ~ i qpapr6ptov). According to KLIJN,"the quotation is a composite of words, expressions and phrases from the Synoptic Gospels. A slight preference for Luke emerges" (66). But not every one can accept such a conclusion. The procedure should perhaps not be called "a close literary conflation of the synoptic texts" (MAnl1,A 200 nS), but the elements from which this composition is assembled often have a quite literal parallel in one or another of the canonical gospels. K 0 w l . t ~has difficulties with the apparently unmotivated combination of literal citation and free rendering. He concludes, "so wenig und schlecht sich das oben besprochene Fragment als Zusammenarbeitung schriftlicher Vorlagen erklaren Itisst, so leicht und gut versteht es sich ohne Problemc als eine Darstellung, die auf den nach dem Gedachtnis benutzten Evangelien des Mt u. Lk fusst" (277; cf. 276). it is indeed difficult to find in this quotation, more than in any of the previous ones, "cine planm&sige Zusammenarbeitung der Texte der synoptischen Evangelien"' (276). In so far, GE is not a harmony in the usual sense (cf. NEIRYNCK 752: "not simply a harmony of parallel versions"; diff. HOWARD4039, who has no problem calling the composition "a harmonistic arrangement of various and sundry sections in the synoptic gospels"). Rut one should not exaggerate the number of texts that are involved. The overall picture is less chaotic than KONLER is inclined to believe. The introduction describing the situation and leading up to the direct quote from Jesus' words is composed of elements that have a parallel in similar introductory clauses, which stem from parallel stories (Mt 4:18 par. and Lk 5:l) or from the same context (Lk 4:31.38). The rest of the excerpt is clearly inspired by Matthew. He is the only one to link the Manhew of 10:3 to Levi-Matthew of 348). x Only in MI (10:5-6) is the list of the Twelve followed by a word of 9:9 ( M ~ s s ~ u Jesus about the mission to Israel (cf. KOIII.ER).And Mt emphasizes, more than Lk, that the romise of 19:28 is given to the Twelve. KLIJN66 suspects another lacuna after 6q k < ~ i k < a r u6piq.
'
196
Verheyden
Ebionites called their gospel after at thew.^^ But the fragment does not end with the call of Matthew. The final verse ("I wish you to be twelve apostles for the testimony of Israel") goes beyond the interest in the person of Matthew. This may be an allusion to Mt 10:5-6 (see n57). If one also reckons with influence of the saying in Mt 19:28 par. Lk 22:30, the explanation is somewhat more complicated. In the gospels Jesus promises the Twelve that once they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, while in GE "the apostles are held to be witnesses to ~srael".~'This may have been the real purpose of the passage in GE. It emphatically propagates that, by the very words of Jesus, the mission of the Twelve is limited to Israel only.6' It was not enough for the Ebionites to avoid every possible allusion to a failure of the mission to Israel, they also gave a p s i tive interpretation to the expression &\< papzrjptov which in the gospels has a decidedly more ambivalent, if not a negative, c ~ n n o t a t i o n . ~ ~ The longest excerpt from GE is quoted in 30:13:7-8. It is the Ebionite version of the baptism of ~ e s u s The . ~ ~primary source is Mt 3:13-17, but there have also been included elements from the two other synoptic accounts of this story as well as from other stories in the synoptic gospels 59 Being mentioned last, LLl'investit comme porte-parole de ses compagnons et comme redacteur de I'EE" (BERTRAND 1980: 553), though one could also conclude from the text (all the apostles are addressed) that it was called by others 'the Gospel of the Twelve' (cf. KLIM 66, diff. KOHI-ER 273). 60 KZIm 67. Cf. BERTRAND 1980: 554. Other peculiarities that are noted by BERTRAND may be less significant. GE turns the story into a word of Jesus, but there is an element of dialogue in all of the call stories. Peter is mentioned as third only, but was this meant to stress the collegiality of the Twelve as BERTRAND thinks? Afier all, Jesus first comes to the house of Peter. In GE the election of the Twelve is apparently the first event in Jesus' public ministry (BySvszo zrq dvqp), but so is the call story in Mk 1:16-20. There is no confession as in Jn 1:49, but neither is there in the synoptic call stories, and thus one can hardly say that its absence is due to the 'psilanthropist' doctrine of GE (554). 62 Admittedly there with the dative instead of the genitive as in Pan. 30. KOCH 325 considers papzrjptov to be a mistranslation of an original Hebrew ;rfY (meaning either 'congregation' or 'witness'), but the evidence he cites from LXX (Ex 16:34; 27:21; Jer 37(30):20; Job 15:34) is not conclusive (no cases of papz6ptov with gen.).
63-Kal pszd zo ~ 1 m i vnohha hntcp8pst 6 ~ ZOO t ha05 fla7ctto0Svzog fihesv wal 'Iqooiiq wal B$an.cioeq bnd zo6 'Imivvou. ~ a &q l dvfih0~v&no zo6 . GGazoq, Qvoiyqoav ot obpavol ~ a E lF ~ E V td nvsifpa zd &YLOV kv E I ~ E Intpto'c&p&&~aesh006oqg ~ a &toc;h006oq~ l riq aDz6v. ~ a cpovi( l hw 705 obpuvob l Gy6 XByouoa 06 pou &f b utd.5 b dyanqz6q, Bv oot qb66~qoa,~ a nahtvoqpspov yrykvvq~aoc;. wat eb0dq nsptShapy~szdv zonov cpkg pkya. 6 1 6 6 ~ . cpqoiv, 6 'Ioavvqg h6yst a h $ : 06 ziq s t , K ~ P L E ; at ndrhtv cpovrj obpavoO npog aCtz6v. oGz6g Bozw 6 ut65 pou 6 dyanqz65, hcp' 6v q Q 6 6 ~ y a~. a l z62&,cpqotv, 6 ' I d v v q q ?cpoo~so&vabz@ Ehsysv: GSopai oou, w6pts. 06 Banrtoov. 6 62 hwdhuoev abzdv hkyov- Bcpsq, Bzt o 6 . r ~Bozl npSnov nhqpMfjvat ncivza.
Epiphunius on the Ehioni~es
197
and possibly also from Acts and the gospel of John, and there is even one element that is not found as such in the canonical writings (the great light).@TWOfeatures are particularly to be noticed. GE has inverted the order of Mt 3: 13-1 7 and has placed the dialogue between John and Jesus after the baptism.65Moreover, it contains all three versions o f the heavenly voice proclaiming Jesus as the Beloved and the Son of God that are known
6" The introduction o f the fiagment ( p ~ r d TO E ~ X vE ~ o k h d is ) puzzling in a gospel that had omitted both the birthlinfancy narrative and the genealogy, for what can have preceded the story o f Jesus'baptism? One such episode may have been that of the election o f the Twelve, since Jesus is there still called 715 hvqp. Should one also include other stories about Jesus demonstrating that he was a virtuous man deemed to be called Son o f God as the Ebionites taught according to Pan. 30.18.6 (61a 62 hpcrqv Biov qrcov~uE\S T O r a k e i d l a t ui6v OEO~? The opening words have a parallel in 1k , 3:21 (kv T@ $anrioBfivat d x a v ~ aT ~ Vkadv real ' IqaoG...), but the two main verbs were taken from Mk 1:9. The omission o f &15 r q v ' Iop&&vqv is not surprising if this Fragment followed immediately after the one that is cited in 30.13.6. The next clause combines elements o f Mk 1: 10 par. Mt 3: 16 and Lk 3:22a, but GE has avoided the rather complex composition o f Lk and also the participle construction with which Mk and M t A E P I O T C ~ ~ ~(cf. G Lk, but now the dove is no begin this verse. The expression kv E I S C ~ longer an element in a comparison but rather "be sujet de I'action", as Bf RTRAND 1973: 46 and 1980: 557 calls it) is found in Pan. 28.1.5 (cf. 30.14.4) and also in lrenaeus (Haer. 1.26.1) and Hippolytus (Ref. 7.33.2 and 10.21.3) with reference to Cerinthus, but the V 3: 16 par. Mk) is unique. HOWARD (404 1 and 4047) points combination with E ~ ~ E(Mt to the "semantic-sonant chiasmus" in Mt (&f~ E V...rarafkXivoL) and Lk (~ara$fivat ...EISEI), but GE's "preference for harmony" apparently resulted in a quite different text. ' A v o l y o is used by Lk and Mt (the latter with the plural o i obpuvoi) and the ISoly Spirit is mentioned by Lk. The double participle ~aOEk~o60qq ~ a &i\ 0 E h O o r i ~ has ~ ~a parallel in Mt (rcarafki vov at kp~dpcvov,cf. Jn 1 :33 ~ a ~ a $vov a i ~ a pCvov), l but the order 'dove - descent' is Markan (HOWARD4041). The words o f the heavenly voice are introduced as in Mt (but without 1606 and with the singular obpuvdc), and quoted first in an almost identical way (the order o f pov) as in Mk 1 :1 Ib par. Lk 3:22b, and a second time as in Ps 2:7 (Lk D). I h e 'great light' has no parallel in the canonical versions o f the baptism (for nrpthdpno see Lk 2:9 and Acts 26.13). The motif occurs in different forms in the Old Latin MS tradition (a g') and was apparently also known to Tatian ('La mighty light ... flashing upon the Jordan"). Justin mentions "a fire" (Dial. 88.3). KIJJN reckons with influence from Tatian in GE (73). BERTRAND does not speculate about the possible connections between the I>iatessaron and GE (1980: 563: "qu'il surtise d'avoir montrk que de telles oeuvres ont pu exister"), but regards GE as the oldest known example o f a gospel harmony. For VIGNF 34 and 76-77, GE might be identical with Tatian's 'fifth source'. John questioning Jesus has a parallel in Mt 1 1 :3, but that may not be the first parallel (see below). 'I'he words from heaven are repeated after Mt 3:17b (but with kcp' dv for 69' 3) and with a slightly different introduction. The dialogue between John and Jesus that follows contains elements from Mt 3:14-15 (KI-IJN also refers to the dialogue in Jn 1:32 34, but recognizes that "the theological background is different"), but also from various other stories (see below). 65 "This order o f events is more logical" (KLIJN 72). Cf. K W H 339, for whom it also "strengthens an adoptionist explanation o f the canonical account".
198
Verheyden
from the synoptic accounts.% The baptism of Jesus is a core passage in Ebionite theology. It is at his baptism that Jesus becomes the Christ, as Epiphanius observes in 30: 14:4 (see above)." No wonder then that the proclamation is repeated thrice.68The Markan version and the variant 1,ukan form are quoted one after another after the Spirit has descended and entered in Jesus, as in the canonical accounts. The Matthean version is added ta the dialogue with John and addressed to him ( n p o ~aittdv) in answer to his question, 06 zlq ~ ( i ,~ 6 p t This ~ . expression has been com ared to John's question about the identity of Jesus in Mt 1 1 :3 par. Lk 7:g6! but the setting and the context are quite different. This is no longer the kind of dialogue or questioning that is found in Mt 3:14-15 or Mt 11:3, where Jesus is not yet called ~ 6 p t o 5and John even leaves open the possibility In GE that Jesus is not the Coming One (1 1:3 q Etcpov xpooSo~c;>p&v;). the dialogue follows after John has witnessed in Jesus an epiphany of the ~ord.?'This explains the differences between the Matthean version of the dialogue and that of GE. Jesus is addressed as the Lord and after John has again heard the heavenly voice, this time speaking to him personally, he falls to the ground (npoaarocliv) and instead of the question of Mt 3: 14 he Mt 3: 17, speaking about Jesus in the third person; Mk I: 1 1 par. Lk 3:22, in the second person; and the variant reading of I,k 3:22 quoting from Ps 2.7, which may have been known to GE either as part of the textual tradition or of an exegetical or catechetical tradition. It has repeatedly been suggested that, because it is the 'lectio dificilior', it may represent the original reading (see, e.g., BERTRANI,1973: 12- 13 and 131-132; Vlci~r 21-24 and 108 115; EIIRMAN 62-47; and most recently P F T E R S ~45 N 46). But it is also in a sense the most appropriate reading for the author of GE, and for that reason also perhaps more suspect than these scholars might think. "C'est au moment du bapteme que le Christ est constituk par I'union de JCsus ct de I'Esprit" (BER'TRAND 1973: 46). Cf. I-IliNNF 66: "Tout est dans I'adverbe oqpcpov: aujourd'hui le nouveau roi dalise les promesses messianiques; aujourd'hui, JCsus rev&tu de I'Esprit commence sa nouvelle mission." According to HENNEthe fragment is a carefully composed account with a double goal: it presents Jesus' baptism as an act of fidelity to God that also involves the people, and as the beginning of a new era (60). tle may be overstating his case, however, when arguing that fik0sv expresses both Jesus' will to be baptimd ("la volont6 propre du Christ") and his solidarity with the people coming to John (30.13.6). The gen. abs. (instead of Luke's I v s@ with inf.) would indicate that a new era had begun (60). HFNNEfurther notes that GE very much emphasi~es the reality of the event, which of course is not completely absent from the synoptic accounts. 68 'Wne des f a ~ o n sde preserver integralement ces oracles, specialement importants pour la theologie, 6tait de les combiner tous en triplant I'tvtnement" (BI R I K A N I ) 1980: 557). KOHLERrightly observes that the prime reason for the repetition is probably not a concern for harmonisation (2811, and B E R ~ R A Nseems D to agree: "Les dvangiles synoptiques sont utilises concurremment sans grand souci d'harmonisation" (1973: 45). 69 So KI.IJN7 1. 70 John thus receives an answer to his question, not from Jesus, but from God Himself (HENNE70).
Epiphanius on the Ebionites
199
now asks Jesus to be baptised by him: 66opai aoo, K ~ P I E , 06 p~ WRTIaov. It is not about Jesus coming to be baptised and John objecting to it (3: 14a b 62 ' I o a v v q ~Sts~uSliusv),but about John recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God and asking for baptism fiom Jesus and Jesus refusing it (b 6& k~uSliucrsv)with the same words as in 3:15b (&cp~S...).71 This is no longer the scenery of Mt 3: 14-1 5, or, for that, of Mt 1 1:2-6, but rather that of Mt 175-6 (with the disciples falling on their faces in v. 6, the bright and the repetition of the heavenly proclamation of 3:17 in v. S), and perhaps also of Jn 21:12 (with the disciples meeting the Risen Lord and asking him , though they very well realized who he was)73,or even of Lk 8:28 (where the Gerasene demoniac confesses Jesus as the Son of the Most High God and bids Jesus not to torment him, 66opat aoo, pij pa f3aaaviomq). Epiphanius has no further comment on this excerpt, except for the outcry, "See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, slanted, and nowhere straight!",74 and in a sense that may be the bottom line of his interest in the fragments from GE. The Ebionites can defend their views only by mutilating the gospels. " The use of ~ o k 6 o is perhaps not so inappropriate as KLIJN might think (73). Cf. BERTRANI) 1980: 557: "inverse le rapport de subordination". On the other hand, the omission of x6oav bi~atoo6vqvis remarkable indeed and has led some to suggest that GE might depend on a pre-Mt version of the dialogue. Thus KLIJN73, ctr. MASSAUX 352 and KOHLER 280 ("deutlichster Hinweis auf das Zugrundeliegen des Mt"), who repeats K o t s r k ~ ' sexplanation that Stuatoorjvq may have dropped out because it waq "recht ungew6hnlich in this context. However, both MAS~A~JX and KQHl.ER are in turn then too hesitant for the first half of the excerpt (280-28 1: "kaum schriftliche 'Tischvorlagedes Mt", but rather "ein frei auf den synoptischen Evangelien basierender 'Eigenbericht"'). By relocating the dialogue between John and Jesus at the end and Jesus refusing to baptize John, GE h a s created a most dramatic effect. 'The reader might have wondered why Jesus came to John to be baptized by him. The voice liom heaven declared that the baptism of Jesus served other purposes than John's baptism of repentance. HFNNEis probably wrong when he once more invokes Jesus' solidarity with the people (71: "il Ctait poussk par un mouvement de pidtrf largement rCpandu'7. Jesus'baptism has changed the meaning baptism had in John's preaching. This may explain why Jesus then refuses John to be baptized by him. The baptism of Jesus is an act of divine intervention, and this is perhaps also reflected in the final ~AqpcdIfivatndvta (HEME 74). 7 h h i c h for KWH might have been the source of the 'great light' motif (339). Compare t3t HTRANU 1973: 46: "Ie prodige souligne la transfiguration et la transformation exceptionnelle du baptise", which is perhaps rather more correct than his later comment (1980: 557: "simple expansion du merveilleux"). HENNErather emphasizes the contrast between the function of the motif in GE (68: "signale une intervention divine") and in Mt 17:2 and Acts 9:3 ("elle enveloppe le Christ et manifeste aussi sa divinite'"). " Of course one cannot fail to note that a) ...& inIGE takes up the words of the heavenly voice of Mt 3:17. In Jn 1:19 the same expression was used by the Pharisees to question John himself, but with negative result. 74 30.14.1 (Ipa 61: tdv nap' abroii; napamnotqptvqv xavta~b0svStiiuo~a-
Alav. x k xdvra ~ o l i a ko4d , ~ a lobbsplav , bpe60qra E~ovta.
200
Verheyden
Epiphanius does not say whether he knew of other fragments, but the assumption clearly is that the Ebionites must have rewritten other parts of the gospels in a similar way to support their teachings.75 Besides this gospel they would also have possessed a variant version of the Acts of the Apostles (30.16.6)~~ Though nothing is said about it, they must probably have rejected all of Paul's letters, for it is hard to imagine how a group that propagated the kind of base rumours about the apostle that are reported in 30.16.8-9 could still have any interest in his writings. It may be the reason why Epiphanius refrains from arguing and quoting from Paul's letters.77 Epiphanius does not tell the reader where he got his information on GE from. There is no reason to think that it was mediated to him by Joseph the Jew of Tiberias who is his source, and the hero of the long story in 30.412. On the contrary, in this story it is told, in a way that is both elegant and ironic, how a prominent Jew, who was acquainted with the patriarch and stood in the service of the emperor, eventually is converted to Christianity after secretly having read a Hebrew translation of the gospel of Matthew and of John as well as of the Book of Acts. These books he had found hidden in the archives of the patriarch who himself died a Christian. The contrast with the GE fragments that are quoted immediately after is obvious. The Ebionites do not accept the very writings that were cherished, be it secretly, by some from the leading classes of their people.78
Confronting Jesus and the Law In chapters 19 and following the polemics against the teachings quoted in the fragments from GE is further supported by a more or less systematic defense of 'oi-thodox' Christology. Thus Epiphanius explains at length that Jesus was not born a mere man, as the Ebionites contend (30.20.5-7 and 30.29.10-11), and that he was born of a virgin, which they deny (30.20.175 There are a couple of instances where he refers to an incorrect interpretation of Scripture without quoting the text (see 30.26 on Peter and 30.29 on the virgin birth). 76 Two other writings are mentioned in 30.15.1 (IlspioSot nk~pou)and in 30.16.7 ('Av@aQpol 'Ia~dfbu),but it is debated whether these stem from Ebionite circles. These writings have not been preserved as separate works and Epiphanius does not explicitly quote from them. Xt has been suggested that both works made up two of the sources of what became the Pseudo-CIementine corpus. See the brief assessments in KLJJNREMMK 32-38 and MIMOUNI 1998a: 277-285. In 30.23.1-2 Epiphanius refers to several other forged books in the names of the apostles. In 30.25 he takes up the defense of Paul, arguing that he was born a Jew. On the anti-Paulinism in the 'Ava$aQpotand in one other source of the Pseudo-Cfementines 2002. (the Kqp6ypaza Ilezpou), see VERHEYDEN 78 On this episode, see, a.o., KocH 374-383 and THORNTON. THORNTON emphasizes the belletristic aspects of the story, but tends to underestimate its polemic dimensions within the context of Pan. 30.
Epiphanius on the Ebionites
20 1
4.9-1 1; 30.30-3 1). 'fie gospels also contradict the Ebionite teaching about abstaining from meat. This is argued in 30.19.1-5, with reference to Mt 1 1:18-1 9 and also to Lk 24:42-43 and Jn 2 1:13 (about eating fish!), and the comment, "He is a glutton and a wine-bibber" can mean only the eating of meat and the drinking of wine (30.1 9.3).79 However, the absurdity of Ebionite practices and teachings reaches another level and indeed a climax in the eyes of Epiphanius, when it appears that some of the basic tenets of Jewish Law that are still held by them are refuted by and in Jesus according to the evidence of the gospels. Now the problem is not that the Ebionites alter the Scriptures or that they propagate singular thoughts on the person of Jesus, but that they force themselves and others to preserve certain practices that were mandatory according to Jewish Law, yet were no longer kept by the large majority of Christians on the explicit authority of Jesus. The Ebionites stand in conflict both with the Law, for they defend what in other matters they had criticized, and with Jesus himself. Three issues are mentioned in particular (see the list in 30.32.1): the concern for upholding (some of) the purity laws (30.21-22). gractising circumcision (30.26-28), and Sabbath observance (30.32-33).8 In these sections polemics and rhetoric often go hand in hand. The three are not unrelated, as Epiphanius illustrates in his comments. As to the first, Epiphanius deals with the Ebionites'preoccupation with purification and with stipulations regarding food. Their claim that Peter
r" Epiphanius does not seem to have noticed that the counterpart of his comment with regard to John turns the Baptist into a vegetarian! Observance of the Law, above all for these three issues, and the more or less acute forms of anti-Pauline polemics that result from it, is still widely regarded as the core feature (so MIMOUNI1998a: 70: KAESTLI249), in any modem definition of ancient Jewish Christianity. CAKI.ETONPAGET sees three difficulties with such a "praxis-based definition". Ile wonders how one should define this praxis. Furthermore, it is not clear how to distinguish on the basis of this criterion alone between Jewish Christians and Judaizers (74 1 : "more haphazard and unstructured"). And third, one should also consider the theological questions that were raised by such groups. But CARLETON PAGETnevertheless also concludes that it best meets the conditions of a definition that is "sufficiently narrow to refer to something we can call an entity, and sufiiciently broad or open-ended to take account of a range of evidence, almost all of which is Iiterary"(740). MlMOrJNl still mentions two other components in his definition: Jewish Christians are (ethnic) Jews who have come to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Faith in Christ is what singles out Christian Jews from non-Christian Jews, but it did not prove to be a unifying factor as Epiphanius amply demonstrates by comparing the views of Cerinthus, the Nazoraeans, and the Ebionites. According to Pan. 28.2- 3, Cerinthus firmly opposed Peter's mission to the Gentiles, and the GE fragment about the election of the Twelve speaks of their testimony for Israel (30.13.3), but Epiphanius does not say whether this included only Jews or also 'Judaizers'.
202
Verheyden
was fond of bathing rituals (30.21.1-2)*' is countered with a reference to Scripture and with an argument ad hominem. For Epiphanius it is no wonder that the Ebionites need these purifications, "since they are defiled themselves and often have much to do with sex" (30.21.2). The observation that Peter, of all people, should be the last to be suspected of such practices, because it was he who opposed to have his feet washed by Jesus (30.21.3-4) is rather farfetched, if not somewhat ridiculous. The citation from Mt 15:20 in 30.21.6 is appropriate of course (Jesus concludes the discussion with the Pharisees and scribes on purification by proclaiming that "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man"), and is given its full weight by combining it with the quotation from Isa 29:3 in Mt 15:8-9 that discredits the opponents as people whose "heart is far from God" and who cling to "the commandments of men" (30.21.5).'~ Peter is the hero also of the part on food laws. The vision of Acts 11:7-9 is quoted to demonstrate that God had declared clean all food (30.22.6). The Ebionites on the contrary thought they had found evidence in Peter's objection in v. 8 that he was referring here to his custom of abstaining from meat (see also 30.2 1.1). Epiphanius replies that this is an incorrect interpretation (30.22.9). Peter's objection, understandable as it is for a law-abiding Jew, is overruled by the Lord and he consents to it. So, far from being an icon of Ebionite theology, Peter is the model of the Jew who converted to Christianity and was able to leave behind the commandments of the Law. By way of conclusion, Epiphanius emphasizes once more that, though the vision obviously is about the call of the Gentiles ('We uncircumcised"), it is equally obvious that it is also about "the foods prohibited by the Law" (30.22.11 x ~ p iz6v kv z@ v6pq &zqrlyop~upCvov). Chapters 26 to 28 deal with the Ebionite teaching on circumcision. They would have argued for it, following Cerinthus in this, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of Mt 10:25, where it is said that "it is enough for the disciple that he be as his master". This verse they applied to the circumcision: "Christ was circumcised; you be circumcised too!"83 The text that follows is corrupt, so the purpose of the citation from Job 38:11 is somewhat obscured, but the point seems to be that, like the waves of the sea, the Ebionites destroy their own principles by their teaching on circum-
''
Epiphanius gives no source for his information here (but see 30.15.3, when referring to the H ~ p l o h i ) . The Ebionite interest in purification rituals is further illustrated in the story in 30.24 about the meeting of John the apostle and Ebion in a bathhouse. This rather amusing story that is known through Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.4 (with Cerinthus in the role of Ebion), serves to demonstrate that Ebion was already confronted by the apostles, as was also the case with Simon Magus in Acts and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. See KKH 257-259. 83 30.26.2 n&p~&~p?j@q, ( ~ q ~ ibv X , p t o ~ o ~ , a 06 i n&przp?j0qzt.
Epiphanius on the Ebionites
203
~ i s i o nEpiphanius' .~~ reasoning here is double and rather strenuous (or subtle, if one prefers). On the one hand he shows that the Ebionites' position on circumcision is contradicted by their own teaching on Jesus. On the other hand he argues from the gospels that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and its requirements and brought about a new and higher form of circumcision. It should be reminded, Epiphanius observes, that Jesus was circumcised as a child and did not himself decide to be circumcised (30.26.8). Hence, those who like the Ebionites hold that Jesus was born a mere man cannot say that Jesus demanded circumcision. Things would have been easier for them if they had accepted that he was born "from heaven as God", because then circumcision could have been considered as part of God's plan (30.26.9). That Jesus "came to fulfil the Law and the prophets, not to destroy them" (Mt 5:17, quoted in 30.27.2)'~ is to be understood in two ways. By truly being circumcised on the eighth day he really complied to the Law. However, by accepting also uncircumcised Greeks among his followers, Jesus put an end to the Law and introduced "a greater circumcision in truth" (30.27.8). That is how Epiphanius interprets the wish of some of the Greeks "to see Jesus" in Jn 12:20-22 and Jesus' reply, "Now has come the glory of God", which is not found as such in Jn 12 but may be a free rendering of v. 23 (see 30.27.7-8). Thus Epiphanius can say that, at the same time, "the Law was fulfilled, one that had stood until his time, and was abolished and yet brought to fulfilment in him."86 Epiphanius then goes on explaining why Jesus was circumcised. It appears that his circurncision served many purposes and can be used as an argument against various other heresies too. It was proof that he really was born a man, that his divine and his human nature are to be distinguished (30.28.2-3.8-9), and especially it was meant "to deprive the Jews of an excuse", for the$ could certainly not have accepted "an uncircumcised Christ" (30.28.4). Moreover, by declaring that circumcision is irrelevant for discipleship (so Jn 12:20-22) Christ finally took away the doubt of Abraham that had led God to impose circumcision upon him (30.28.67). Christians do no longer need this visible mark "to keep them from forgetting the God of their fathers", and so Epiphanius sees no reason why the Ebionites would be proud and boast of their circumcision (30.26.1). He comes back to the This is described in an even more plastic way with an example taken fxom the wildlife, as Epiphanius also does elsewhere (see 30.26.4 on the adder eating itself and the conclusion of the chapter in 30.34.7). See above 1115. '* Note that Epiphanius here quotes 'correctly' a verse that the Ebionites had used in a corrupted form in GE (see above). 86 30.27.3 t.nt z o d q yydp tnkqpofito TO t v vdpq ~tpqpGvov,Em5 abzoi, 706 ~p5vouGtapuCoav uai Bv abz@ hyto~dp~vov, & i g nhfipmfia 62 p&Bioza-
pEVOV. Cf. 30.28.9, with a nuance: because he was circumcised, he was entitled to abolish the practice.
issue in 30.33.1-3, in connection with the Sabbath observance, and adds two more arguments against circumcision. The second of these is the often-repeated observation that the Jews do nothing but imitate practices that are customary among other nations whom they despise.88 The first argument is somewhat unexpected. Since only male persons are circumcised, it cannot be a sign of salvation, for women would then be excluded from it (30.33.2). Of course, the terminology that is used is Christian ("if the former circumcision had been for sanctification and the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven"), and perhaps it is not ap ropriate to describe the purpose of the practice as it was seen in the Torah.9! The third issue is about the Sabbath observance. Again a double reasoning is followed. This time the first reasoning depends on what Jesus has said about the Sabbath. The other confronts the Ebionites with a contradiction in the Law. With rhetorical exaggeration E iphanius claims that "Jesus did his best to heal mostly on the Sabbath."' Jesus did so in two ways: he healed a paralytic (Jn 523-9) and a blind man (Jn 9: 1 4 1 ) from their illness, and he "healed them from the Sabbath, for he explicitly performed a kind of work that was forbidden on Sabbath (9:14 making clay) and even ordered the healed paralytic to carry his bed ( 5 3 ) . It is from Jesus that the disciples learned that "the Sabbath was abolished" and that it was allowed to pluck grain on a Sabbath (30.32.3). Jesus had proclaimed that "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Mt 12:s par.). Epiphanius here takes up the reasoning he had followed before when dealing with circumcision. The Sabbath was temporary. In Jesus "a greater, eternal Sabbath" has come, "of which the lesser, temporary Sabbath was a type."91 The Sabbath prescribed by the Law was "abrogated and fulfilled" in Jesus. People have now found rest in But it is not only the disciples who broke the Sabbath. Even the priests themselves did so when offering the daily sacrifice or when circumcising children on that day. For Epiphanius, one cannot uphold the whole of the Law, for it contains inconsistencies. In sovereign disregard (or ignorance) of what Jewish or rabbinic tradition might have to say about this, he concludes: either one observes the Sabbath and postpones circumcision until the next day, or one keeps to the require-
= 30.33.3, why boast on circumcision, "when both idolators and Egyptian priests have ityY,as well as other nations. It is "a senseless custom". 89 Cf. also 30.34.2, where one fmds yet another nuance. The greater circumcision does not save "one portion of the people, males only", and is not performed on "one member only, but by sealing the entire body and cutting it off from sin". 90 30.32.1 kv yap cra$$&zqcpthoztpsizat za nhsiaza Ospanc6stv ' IqooGg. 9' 30.32.9 06205 Guzt zo psyd oa$flazov ~ a &i6tov, i 06 ~6x05fiv zd pt~ p d v~ a xfiowatpov l oaflI3azov. * 30.32.9 wai RUVTFS &VOPWZOL &ylot kv abzq &v&na6uavzo.
ment that a child be circumcised on the eighth day and breaks the Sabbath rest (30.32.1 1-12). After this Epiphanius takes up again the quotation from Mt 10:25 that in his opinion was the basis for the Ebionites to practice circumcision. The saying certainly is about imitating Jesus, but, as Epiphanius observes, it is about imitating him in suffering persecution from the hands of the Jews (30.33.6)! He then takes the polemics one step further yet by addressing Ebion in person, twice calling upon him to "stop mimicking Jesus in circumcision" (30.34. I .3), and instead to begin imitating Jesus in the many and great miracles he has performed (30.34.3-4). But of course, Epiphanius adds, this would be impossible, "because of your wrong belief" (30.34.4). Indeed, the Ebionites would not even be able to heal in the name of Jesus Christ, for it would mean that they would have to perform healings on the Sabbath (30.34.5)! Epiphanius briefly concludes the chapter by reminding the reader once more of the strange variety of teachings about Jesus that are held by this group, some arguing that he is born a mere man, others transforming him into a heavenly power only (30.34.6; cf. already 30.1 9), and by comparing the group to all sorts of poisonous fish that is left on the beach after a flood (30.34.7).
Conclusion Epiphanius has written a biased account of the Ebionites, but that was to be expected from a heresiologist. Several elements in it are most probably inaccurate or simply historically incorrect. One should mention here in particular what Epiphanius has to say about the 'leaderbf the sect and its origins. However, this does not make his presentation completely worthless. Epiphanius has preserved some interesting and probably reliable information on Ebionite doctrines and teachings for which he is our only source (the GE fragments). Moreover, by focusing on Christology and on the Ebioniteskoncem for observing the Law he has certainly pointed out the two most important features of their theology. Pan. 30 offers an important illustration of how a fourth-century Church Father thought about (earlier) attempts at reconciling belief in Jesus as the Christ with continuing observance of certain aspects of the 'Torah. By the time Epiphanius was writing the Panarion Jewish-Christian movements had long become a marginal phenomenon, and they certainly represented no threat for the Great Church. It may explain why he is not that well informed about these groups. On the other hand, it is striking that he still spends so much pages on refuting the Ebionites (and with them all similar kinds of movements and theologies). The reason may well be that he is
206
Verheyden
fully aware of the importance of the issues that are addressed by the Ebionites and the likes. Yet in Epiphanius'opinion, their attempt at reconciling Christian faith with Jewish practice must necessarily fail. It is a failure not only because of the particularities and the ambivalence of Ebionite teachings on Christ, but above all because it is simply made impossible through what Jesus did and said. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil and to transform it. In Epiphanius' understanding this means that for the Christian "all things are pure, when they are received with thanks and praise to God"(30.22.10: a strange conflation of Rom 14:20 and 1 Tim 4:3). A new and far greater circumcision is performed, without blood and for all (30.27.7-8; 30.33.2). And a new rest is found in Christ (30.32.8-9). The very nature of Sabbath observance, circumcision, or purification has been transformed. The Ebionites failed to see that for Christians these requirements of the Law have now received a new meaning as words of Jesus.
Bibliography Bertrand, D.A., Le baptPme de Jesus. Histoire de l'ex&>se our deux premiers si2cles, (Beitr. aus d. Gesch. d. bibl. Exeg. 14) Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1973
- 'L'tvangile des tbionites: une harmonie 6vangtlique anttrieure au Diatessaron" N7S 26 (1980) 548-563 Blanchetikre, F., 'La secte des Nazartens ou les ddbuts du christianisme', in id. - M. Herr (eds.), Aux origines juives du christianisme, Cerf, Paris 1993,65-9 1 - Enquste sur les racines juives du mouvement chrktien (30-1351, (initiations) Cerf, Paris 2001 Bludau, A., Die Schri$t/dlschungen der Hdretiker. Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik der Bihel. (NTAbh. I 1) Aschendorff, MUnster 1925 Boismard, M.-h., 'kvangile des hbionites et probltime synoptique (Mc 1,2-6 et par.)', RRB 73 (1966) 321-352 Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity', in W. Horbury et al. (eds.), The Cambrrdge History of Judaism, vol. 3, UP, Cambridge 1999, 73 1-77.5 Danielou, J., Thdologie du Judbo-Christianisme, Desclee, Paris / Tournai 1957 de Boer, M.C., 'The Nazoraeans. Living at the Boundaries of Judaism and Christianity', in G.N. Stanton - G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, UP, Cambridge 1998, 239 -262; an earlier version of this article appeared as ' ~ ' h v a n ~ i lde e Jean et le Christianisme juif (nazorten)', in Marguerat, Le cikchirement, 179-202 Dechow, J.F., Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity. Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen, (Patr. Mon. Ser. 13) Mercer, Macon GA 1988 Dorival, G., 'Un groupe judbo-chdtien mtSconnu: les Htbreux', Apocrypha 1 1 (2000) 736 Dummer, J., 'Ein naturwissenschaflliches Handbuch als Quelle f i r Epiphanius von Constantia', Klio 55 (1 973) 289-299 Ehrman, B.D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Eflect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Oxford UP, Oxford - New York 1993
Epiphanius on the Ebionites
207
Fraenkel, P., 'Histoire sainte et hdrdsie chez S. Bpiphane de Salarnine', RTP I2 (1963) 175-191 Grant, R.M., Heresy and Criticism. The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature, Westminster - J . Knox, Louisville KY 1993 - Early Christians and Animals, Routledge, London / New York 1999 Henne, P., ' ~ ' ~ v a n ~des i l e~bionites.Une fausse harrnonie. Une waie superchdrie', in A. Kessler et al. (eds.), Peregrina Curiositas. Eine Reise durch den orbis antiquus. FS D. Van Damme, (NTOA 27) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Universit&tsverlag, Freiburg CH / GGttingen 1994, 57-75 Holl, K. (ed.), Epipkanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), I (GCS, 25) Hinrichs, Leipzig 1915 Howard, G., 'The Gospel af the Ebionites', ANRW 11.25.5 (1988) 4034-4053 Kaestli, J.-D., 'Ou en est le debat sur le judeo-christianisme', in Marguerat, Le de'chirement Klijn, A.F.J., Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, (VigChrSup 17) Brill, Leiden 1992 Klijn, A.F.J., - Reinink, G.J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, (NTSup 36) Brill, Leiden 1973 Koch, G.A., A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius' Knowledge of the Ebionites. A Translation and Critical Discussion of Panarion 30, Ph.D. diss. U of Pennsylvania 1976 Le Boulluec, A., La notion d'he're'sie duns la litte'rature grecque, 2 vols, ~ t u d e auguss tiniennes, Paris 1985 Lilhrmann, D., Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache, (Marburger Theol. St. 59) Elwert, Marburg 2000 Luttikhuizen, G.P., The Revelation of Elchasai. investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of fhe Second Century and Its Reception by Judaeo-Christian Propagandists, (TSAJ 8) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1985 Manns, F., Le Jude'o-christianisme. Me'moire ou prophe'tie? (TH 112) Beauchesne, Paris 2000 Marguerat, D. (ed.), Le de'chirement. Juifs et chre'tiens au premier si2cle, (Le Monde de la Bible 32) Labor et Fides, Genbve 1996 Massaux, E., Influence de l'kvangile de saint Matthieu sur la litte'rature chr8tienne avant saint Ire'nke, Publications Universitaires - Duculot, Leuven - Gembloux 1950; repr. (BETL 75) UP - Peeters, Leuven 1986; ET: The InJuence of the Gospel ofMatthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, (New Gospel Studies 5/1-3) 3 vols., Mercer - Peeters, Macon GA - Leuven 1990-1993 Mattila, S.L., 'A Question Too Often Neglected', NTS 4 1 (1995) 199-2 17 Metzger, B.M., The Canon of the New Testament. Ifs Origin, Development, and Significance, Clarendon, Oxford 1987 Mimouni, S.C., 'Pour une definition nouvelle du JudCo-Christianisme ancien', NTS 38 (1992) 161-186 - Le jude'o-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques, (Patrimoines) Cerf, Paris 1998 [1998a] - 'Les nazordens. Recherche Btymologique et historique', RB 105 (1998) 208-262 [1998b] Moutsoulas, E.D., 'Der Begriff 'Haesie' bei Epiphanius von Salamis', Studia Patristica 7 (1964) 362-371 Neirynck, F., 'The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark', in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Christianity, (BETL 86) UP / Peeters, Leuven 1989, 123-175; repr. in id., Evangelica II, (BETL 99) UP 1Peeters, Leuven 1991,715-772 Nodet, 8. -Taylor, J., Essai sur les origines du christianisme, (Initiations bibliques) Cerf, Paris 1998
208
Verheyden
Petersen, W.L., 'The Genesis of the Gospels', in A. Denaux (ed.), New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. FS J . Delobel, (BETL 161) UP / Peeters, Leuven 2002,33-65 Pourkier, A., L 'hkrbiologie chez kpiphane de Salamine, (Christianisme antique 4) Beauchesne, Paris 1992 Pritz, R.A., Nazarene Jewish-Christianity. From the End ofthe New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, (SPB 37) Brill, Leiden 1988 Schoeps, H.J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Mohr Siebeck, Tffbingen 1949 Taylor, J.E., 'The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity. Reality or Scholarly Invention', VigChr 44 (1 990) 3 13-334 Thomton, T.C.G., 'The Stories of Joseph of Tiberias', VigChr 44 (1990) 54-63 Verheyden, J. 'The Flight of the Christians to Pella', ETL 66 (1990) 368-384 - 'The Demonization of the Opponent in Early Christian Literature. The Case of the Pseudo-Clementines', in A. van der Kooij (ed.), Religious Polemics in Contexts (Papers o f the LISOR 2000 Conference: forthcoming) Vigne, D., Christ au Jourdain. Le Baptame de Jksus duns la tradition jude'o-chrktienne, (GB) Gabalda, Paris 1992 Williams, F., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, (NHS 35-36) Brill, Leiden 19871994 Young, F.M., 'Did Epiphanius Know What He Meant by 'Heresy'?', Studia Patristica 1711 (1982) 199-205
Les elkasaltes : Ctats des questions et des recherches
Cette pdsentation des elka(;ai'tes, un groupe de chretiens d'origine juive se caractirisant par des traits baptistes, va se dtrouler en plusieurs temps : aprks un titat des questions et un etat des sources, vont &re examines, dans les grandes lignes, les probl6mes de I'origine et de I'histoire du mouvement ainsi qu'un de ses krits, ci savoir I'Apocalypse d'Elkasai' ou Revelation d9Elkasdi.
tat des questions Cet dtat des questions sera en fait un etat de la recherche sous une forrne programmatique - autrement dit, on y trouvera une presentation de I'ensemble des dossiers relatifs a w elkasdites. 1 2 juddo-christianisme elkasdite est un mouvement religieux document6 de mani&re indirecte a partir du IIIe sikle et ce jusqu'au X sikle. I1 s-it apparemment d'un mouvement interstitiel de chrdtiens d'origine juive qui a emerge au Ile siecle et a disparu A une date dificile a determiner. I1 est attest6 aussi bien dans 1'Empire romain que dans I'Empire iranien, mais il pdt bien etre plutGt originaire du I%re iranienne, notamment des regions de Babylonie ou d' Assyrie. Definir le judelo-christianisme elkasdite est un exercice dificile et pdrill e u , du fait m&medes multiples facettes qui ont dQ marquer ce mouvement religieux, du moins au regard de la documentation. lJne ddfinition du judCochristianisme elkasai'te doit, en eRet, envisager au moins trois aspects : le premier releve du judai'sme general (en rapport avec les rituels) ; le dewieme du judaisme nazorden (en rapport avec les croyances) ; le troisikme a la fois du judai'sme general et du judasme nw,o&n (il s'agit du phenom6ne baptiste qui o t r a v e d I'un et I'autre).' Voici done une definition du judeo-christianisme elkasdite qu'il est actuellement possible de proposer : (( le judb-christianisme e 1 h " t e est une formulation plus ou moins dcente designant un mouvement religieux dont les traits caracteristiques de la doctrine et de la pratique paraissent originaires de certains groupes baptistes relevant aussi I La plupart des critiques, plutbt que de parler du judarsme gkneral et du judaSsme nazorkn, pdRrent parler de judabme et de christianisme sans autre prkision. I1 semble qu'une tellc formulation est dificile, du moins pour le 11' siecle et surtout en Orient iranien.
bien du juddisme gdndral que du juddisme nazoden, ct dont les membres reconnaissent comme fondatew un personnage qu'ils nomment Elkasdin. Cette ddfinition prt4sente I'avantage d'dviter de se dkider s w la question fort ddlicate du caracten: prophktique ou messianique de I'elkasbisme. Elle dispense aussi de se prononcer plus p k i d m e n t sur les relations entre d'une part, I'elkasziisme et d'autre part, le judai'sme gdndral et le judaisme nazorkcn. Elle Cvite enfin de choisir entre le caractere historique et reel ou le caracdre littdraire et fictif du personnage d'Elkasdi. Elle insiste uniquement, en revanche, sur la perspective eminemment baptiste de I'clkasjisme, au sujet de laquelle tous les critiques sont d'aillews d'accord. Le judb-christianisme elkasaj'te est une question relevant aussi bien du juddisrne gkneral que du juddisme nazorikn, voire meme, mais dans une bien moindre mesure, du mazdeisme. Cette question touche done directement ou indirectement d'assez nombreuses (( religions N. Parmi les dossiers concernds, on peut citer ceux de I'Iran arsacide et sassanide, cornme cew du mazdeisme, du judaysme general et du juddisme n d n coexistant dans une Babylonie au demeurant fort ma1 eonnue, du moins pow les deux premiers sikles de notre ere. I1 convient aussi de citer, pour les sikles suivants, toujours en Babylonie, le judaisme et le christianisme se considdrant, I" et I'autre, comme (( orthodoxe )) - sans oublier d'autres groupes matginaux prdsents dans la region A cettc epoquc, les marcionites par exemple. Le dossier historiographique de l'elkasdisme est relativement imposant, malgrd la raretd des delles monographies sur ce sujet. En effet. outre le fameux ouvrage (( fondateur N de Wilhelm Brandt paru a Leipzig en 1912,2an ne peut relever ici que les ktudes de Luigi Cirillo parue a Cosenra en 1984l et de Gerard P. Luttikhuizen parue B Tiibingen en 1985.J En revanche, d'assez nombreuses contributions, sous forme d'articles de dictionnairesbt d'etats de la question.6 ont Ctd publicks. W BRAND1, Elchnsor, ern Relrgronsstrfter und ~ e r nWerk, Lerp~rg19 12 L. CIRII 1.0, Elchusar e glr elchusartr Un confrrhuto alla ~torrodelle communrtu giudeo-crrstrane, Cosenza 1984 G P. LIJITTIWIJl7FN, The Ra~elatronafElchmar Invcvtrgatrons infothr Evrdc~ncrfiro IIesopotamran Jewrsh Apoca(vpse of the Second Century and 11s Reception hr Judect Chrrsrran Propagandrsts, Tobingen 1985 G . RNU.II,LT., cc ElchsaTtes )), dans D~ctronnatrede the'ologre cutholryue 4R ( 191 1 ), col 2233-2239 ; W BKANDr, (c Elkesartes i ) , dans En9~clopaedraof Rel~gronand Ethics 5 (1 9 12) 262-269 , H 1,I CILRCQ, tc ElcksaRes n, dans Dictronnurre d 'arche'ologre chrktrenne er de Iihugre 4 0 (1921) col 2609 , G BARDY, cc ElchasaTtes D, dans Catholrclsme 3 (1952) 1504 -1 505 ,G STKECKf K, (( ElkesaT w , dans RAC 4 (1959) 1 17 1 1 186 ( G S I Rl CKt K, tc Elkesai i), dans Eschafon und Htstorte Aufsatze. Gettingen 1979, 320 -333) , J P A\MIICSEN, cc Alchasai t), dans Encyc(opaedra lranrca I (1985), 824 825 , Ci STRI C K L R. (t The Baptist Sects )), dans The Anchor Bible Drctronary ii (1992) 430-43 1 ti En dernter Iteu, voir K RlJ1X)L PFI, (< The Baptist Sects; )>, dans W ~ i 0 K I I I 1 R Y W I1
Mimouni
21 1
Le judhhristianisme elkasdite peut Ctre abordd de plusieurs points de w e , dont Ies principaux sont dkrdre doctrinal ou rituel. L'approche doctrinale de I'elkasdsme est capitale, I1 serait vain cependant de tenter une synthkse de la doctrine elkasdite, la documentation actuellement disponible ne le permettant gukre. En revanche, l'etude de quclques thematiques est envisageable, notamment celle du (( couple de I'ange et de Iksprit )),7 celle du (( sceau des proph6tes )),8 celle du cc vrai proph6te )kg et celle dc la cr &mission des pdchds )).'O L'approche rituelle de l'elkasaiisme est egalement possible partir de I7etude des rites baptistes juifs et des rites baptistes chrdtiens, voire mCme des rites lustraw mazdtjens ; et peut4tre aussi par une comparaison de ces rites avec les rites baptistes mandkns qui pdsentent a la fois des similitudes et des diffdrences.I I Bien d'autres dossiers inttressent tgalement de pks et de loin le judtochristianisme elkasalte. Mentionnons au passage ceux des villes dc Harran, dans le Nord de la Mdsopotarnie, et de Hira, dans le Sud de la Mbopotamie, qui ont servi de rehges aux judhhriitiens d'avant et d'apnls l'kmergence de I'islam - tout comme elles I'ont Ctfjd'ailleurs pour les demiers tenants des philosophies et thdosophies ntoplatoniciemes issues du paganisme et pour toutes une foule de minoritCs religieuses dites (( hettrodoxes )), c'est-&-direen rupture avec leurs autoritds se qualifiant dbrthodoxes.
DAVIES - J. STURIIY (M.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3 The Early Roman Period, Cambridge 1999, 483-492 ; L. CIRII,L,O, (( Courants judko-chdtiens D, dans I,. PIETKI (kd.), Histoire du christianisme,t. I Le nouveau peuple (des origines a 2501%Paris 2000, 308-3 17. Encore plus &emment, voir C. JtILLIEN - F. JULLIEN, Apdtres des conjin.7. Processus missionnoires chrhtiesn dam I 'Empire romain iranien, Paris 2002, 137- 1 5 1. I1 est possible que cette thkmatique, que I'on rencontre par ailleurs dans le nazo&isme, releve aussi du dossier du manichtisme. A ce sujet, voir G.G. SIROUMSG (( IR conflit de I' Ange et de 1'Fsprit : traditions juives et chdtiennes n, RB 88 (198 1) 42-6 1. 11 est possible que cene thkmatique relkve aussi du dossier du manichkisme. A ce sujet, vou G.G. SIROUMSA, (( Seal of the Prophets. The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor B, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986) 61-74 (= (( "Le sceau du prophtte" : nature d'une mktaphore manichkenne 14 dans idem, Savoir et Salul, Paris 1992,275-288). 11 est possible que cette thtmatique, que I'on rencontre par ailleurs dans I'kbionisme, releve sussi du dossier du manicheisme. A ce sujet, voir E. PETERSON, tc IR traitement de la rage par les elktsaltes d'apds I-lippolyte t), dans RSR 34 (1947) 232-238 ; E. PETERSON, (( Die Behandlung der Tollwut bei den Eichasaiten nach Hippolyt (Ein Beitrag m r Geschichte des Ritus und der Theologie der altchristlichen Taufe) n, dans Fdhkrche, Judentum und Gnosis, Freiburg 1959,221-253. l o Cette demikre inthresse aussi Iknsemble des p u p e s baptistes plus ou moins marginaux par rapport aux judarsme et christianisme institutionnels. En ce qui conceme le baptisme, vou K. RUDOLPH, ct Antike Baptisten. Zu den Clberlieferungen [fber frilhjlidische und frilhchristliche Taufkekten B, in Si&ungsber. d Sdchs.Ak. d Wiss. zu Leiprig, Phi-hbt. KI., t. 12114, Berlin 1981, 1-37.
2 12
Les elkaratfes
Au regard de cet inventaire, est-il encore besoin dc souligner I'extreme diversit4 et Ctendue des dossiers touchant de prks ou de loin au judeo-christianisme elkasdite, mouvement religieu dont I'importance demographique a cite pourtant somme toute, vraisemblablement, assez rkduite. II est cependant important de considcfrer I'importance ideologique - c'est-a-dire philosophique et thbsophique - de ce mouvement religieux, qui semble avoir Cte fondamentale, surtout quand on songe que des religions comme le manicheisme et le manddisme, sans parler de l'islam d'avant les Abbassides, en sont sans doute issues ou en tout cas ont subi partiellement son influence, de manikre directe ou indirecte. En ce qui conceme I'islam, il s'agi! Cvidemment d'une hypothese, acceptde par certains, contest& par d'autres. A I'origine, il semble que ce soit plutiit 1'6bionisme qui ait e x e d une certaine influence, pour ne pas dire plus, en la matiere, mais, il n'est nullement exclu que I'elkasdisme ait aussi exerce une certaine influence, notamment apds I'arrivke de I'islam en Babylonie et en Assytie.12
tat des sources La documentation sur le judeo-christianisme elkaWte est presque uniquement indirecte. Elle provient principalement des traditions chdtieme, manichkenne et islamique, mais aussi dans une mesure bien moindre des traditions judiiiquc et mazdknne. I1 existe aussi, selon toute apparence, une documentation directe mais qui est transmise de maniere indirecte : il s'agit principalement de 1'Apocalypse d'E1kasdi ou RCvtSlation dX1kasdi (= Livre d'Elkasal). Le caractere indirect des attestations sur le judh-christianismc clkasaYtc rend particulierement ardue leur approche a cause de leur caractere partial et partiel. Par codquent, on convient de se rdsoudre, faute de mieux, a ne pouvoir atteindre les elkasaites que par I'intermkdiaire de ieurs ddtracteurs chretiens, manichdens, islamiques, voire mazdeens et Cventuellement juifs. D'ores et dejA, il est important de relever que les sources juives babyloniennes sont apparemment silencieuses sur les elka.saites.i3 Ce silence ne cioit pas Ctre jug6 comme etonnant, car les sources juives babyloniennes, a la difTkrence de leurs homologues palestiniemes, sont t d s discretes quant aux elkments etrangers au judalsme. A moins qu'il soit possible d'identifier dans certains passages du Talmud de Rabylone des traces de I'elkasdisme. comme M.P.RONCAGl,IA, cc klements ~bionitesct ElkCsaRes dans le Coran. Notes et hypot h h a, Proche-Orient ChrPlien 2 1 (1 97 1 ) 10 1-1 26 ; J. DORVA-HADDAD, cc Cordn, predication naziu&nne)t, Proche-Orient Chrktien 23 ( 1973) 148- 1 55. l 3 Voir cependant I . STERN, tc Elisha und Elxai. Ein Beitrag zur thalmudischen Cieschichte )), dans Ben Chananja (Szegedin) 1858,35-37, qui a proposk de voir dans tltsha bcn Abouya la figure d TIkasaF.
cela pourrait etre le cas notamment en Kiddushin 71b (a Babel la solitaire est en sante, la Mddne est a la mort ))), ou il est question de I'inimitie entre dew communautt5s, I'une vivant en Babylonie et I'autre en Md&ne, cette dernitre etant accustSe, par I'autorite de I'exilarcat, de professer une doctrine diffdrente et de diffuser une croyance dCvib.14
La documentation sur I'elkasdisme rel&vesurtout de la tradition chrdtienne, qui lui est bien kvidemment hostile Ctant donne son caracthe presque exclusivement hdrdsiologique. I1 s'agit des tdmoignages contenus dans ITlenchos (= ReFutatio) d'Hippolyte de Rome et dans le Panarion d'Gpiphane de Salamine. Auxquels, s'ajoute I'important thoignage d'Orig&nevia E&be de Ce&e dans son Histoire eccl&iastique. Tous les temoignages cidtiens psttfrieurs a la fin du IVe sickle dependent directement ou indirectement d'Epiphane de Salamine. Irippolyte de Rome est le premier a mentionner, dam son Elenchos d i g 6 a Rome vers 235, les elkasdites, 3 propos desquels ils rapportent de prkieuses informations qui semblent remonter aux a n n k 220 (Elenchos 9.13.1-1 7.2 et 10.29.1-3).'6 kpiphane de Salamine, dans son Panarion compod en Palestine de 374 a 376, parle des elkasaites a plusieurs reprises, mais en les dbignant non seulement sous ce nom mais aussi sous celui d?cc Osseens )) (Panarion 19) et sous celui de tt SampscSens )) (Panarion 53). I1 est t5galement question des elkasa'ites dans deux passages de la notice consacnk aux ct Ebionites )) (Panarion 30.3.1 6 et 17.4-8). Cette tenninologie diversifit%ne va pas sans poser de probl&mes aux critiques.l 7 En relation avec ces notices, il serait important de ne pas omettre en arnont les sommaires de I'Hprnnesticon de Joseph de Tibdxiade et en aval ceux de 1,'Anakdphalaiosis d'un auteur inconnu (a moins qu'il faille considdrer Epiphane de Salarnine c o m e I'auteur, m a l e les apparentes contradictions y figurant - lesquelles se comprendraient A condition de considkr le Panarion comme une auvre antdrieur a 1' Anakdphalaiosis).
l4 Voir A. BOCHI.ER,cc Les Dosithkns dans le Midrasch )), REJ 42 (1903) 220-232; 43 (1 903) 50-7 1. I S A.F.J. KI,IM - G.J. REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Leyde 1973, 54-47. On les trouve Pgalernent rtfunis et traduits dans F. BOVON - P. GEQ1.TRAIN (ttd.), kcrirs apvcr~pheschrktiens, t. 1, Paris 1997, 843--864. l 6 Voir S.C. MIMOUNI, Le judbo-christinnisme ancien. EYsais historipes, Paris 1998, 293-304. l 7 Voir CIRILLO, op. cit. (n6) 313-315, qui estime qu'~piphane a dispose5 de deux sources pour rtfdiger ses notices : I'une orale et I'autre &rite.
I1 ne faut pas oublier aussi une liste hCdsiologique qui figure dans IXncoratus, autre oeuvre dTpiphane de Salarnine presentant I'avantage d'etre anterieure au Panarion.
La documentation sur le judko-christianisme elkasditc releve aussi de la tradition manichknne avec la Vita Mani, retrouvk dans le Codex Manichkn de Cologne, et avec quelques autres attestations, en copte et en parthe (pour la tradition directe), en syriaque et en arabe @our la tradition indirecte). La Vita Mani, intitulke (( Sur I'origine de son corps n, relate les premi&resanndes de Mani au sein d'une communautC baptiste dc MCdne.IYLes chercheurs ne sont pas d'accord q u t B I'identification elkasditc ou non de cette communaute, au point de parler de complexitd des formes religieuses du baptisme elchasdfte w.20 I1 parait pdftrable cependant de considerer, du moins dans I'ttat actuel de la recherche, le caractere elkasdite de la communaute baptiste dans laquelle Mani a passt! ses vingtquatre premieres anndes, tout en reconnaissant que la diversit6 sans doute e x e m e du point de vuc rituel ct doctrinal du mouvement elkasai'te. Les te'rnoignages isiamiques el mmde'ens.
Dans un texte arabe du si&cle,le Fihrist al-Ulh, cc Catalogue dcs Sciences )) d"bn an-Nadim, on trouve, dans le cadre d'une notice hkrisiologique sur le manicheisme, des informations relatives au milieu d'origine de Mani et de ses parents - c'est-&dire sur les elksasdites. Dans cet dcrit, qui cst une vtritable encyclopcidie sur la culture islamique, on peut en effct lire trois passages sur les elkasaftes designds par le mot arabe mughtusilu, qui littiralement signifie cr ceux qui se lavent n, correspondant au mot grec Baxtiorat (baptistes) - B la diffkrence pds que le terme arabe connote la pratique des ablutions et non pas celle de I'imrnersion comme c'est le cas pour le terme grec.2' Globalement, les donncSes rapportees par Ibn an-Nadim confirment celles de la Vita Mani : (1) la communautd des rnughtmila correspond a cellc des bapristes dtablie dans Ies environs de Seleucie-CtCsiphon ; (2) le chef des
l a On trouve dans BOVON - GEOL:PRZIN, op. cit. (n15) 864 -872, les attestations sur les elkasanesdam la Vita Mani du Codex manichten de Cologne. l 9 Voir MIMOUNI, op. cit. (n 16) 308- 3 16. 20 Voir par exemple JULLIEN - JULLIEN, op. cif. (n6) 143, qui acceptent, pour la communautC baptiste de Mmi, la rtfkrence B EIkasaI mais semblent refuser le caractere ekasaYte du mouvement qui utilise sa figure. 2i Pour le texte arabe, voir G. FLOGEL, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schrijien, Leipzig 1862, 328,340,341, pour une traduction franpise, voir M . TAKDIEIJ, L.e Munic-heisme,Paris 1981 1997~,5-6 et G . MONNOT, Penseurs muMllmuns el religions iraniennes. 'Ahd ulJabbar CIses dmanciers, Le Caire - i3eyrouth 1974, 3 1 6- 3 1 7.
',
mughtasila, al-Khasayh, correspond au fondateur des baptistes, Alkasaio~.~~ Ces attestations semblent &re les dernieres concernant les e l W t e s . On trouve encore de parcimonieuses mentions concernant les e l b " t e s dans la tradition mazdbnne : il s k i t essentiellement d'une mention dans I'inscription de Kartir, qui remonte au dgne de Vahram I1 (277-293), laquelle ferait kference a ce groupe mais sous le nom de (( nazokns )).=
Le probleme de l'origine du mouvement elkasaite Les chercheurs sont exMmement divids au sujet de I'origine du mouvement e l k a t e . Outre des Clements sur la question de son fondateur, on va pdsenter quelques hypotheses sur la genese de ce mouvement. Plusieurs critiques, sans doute avec raison. ont estirnt! possible de distinguer entre dew formes d'elkasalisme : I'une, la plus ancienne, s%tant d) - selon les indications m h e s que donne giPhane de Salamine en Panarion 19.2.2 et 53.1.2. Les diffdrentes orthographes grecques peuvent alors aidment s'expliquer par la translittkraue qui ne rend pas de r n a n i k uniforme le n aramten pour des raisons de phondtique - la forme grecque ' A A ~ a o a i stransmise par la tradition manichknne, est sans doute la plus pmche de la forme aramknne origi1mle.2~ En dtpit de I'opposition de certains savants, I'existence historique d'un personnage que ses disciples oat appelt! en a m d e n 701, '/*n et en grec W A ~ a a a iayant , v k u au IF sihle en Transeuphratene, dans I'Empire parthe, est une these envisageable en I'absence d'arguments contradictoires.25
*'
L'hypothk avan& par M.-J.LAGRANGE, ic La gnose rnandhne et la tradition CvangClique D, RB 36 (1927) 501-503, qui propose de voir dans le norn d ' E h r I'expression hdbraYque -3 5 ~ cc,dieu cache u, un hapax, devenu 'HI~aoa\chez Hippolyte et 'II-Igai chez kpiphane, n'est guke convaincante au regard des diffdrentes translinhtions grecques (n = esprit doux .t &fa). 25 Parmi les critiques favorables B I'historicitk, voir principalernent BRANDT, op. cit. (n2) 8 ;J. THOMAS, Le mouvement baptbte en Palestine et Syie ( I S 0 av. J . X . - 300 up. J.-C.), Gembloux 1935, 154, n2 ;G. STRECKER, op. cit., R4C 4 (1959) 1171-1 186. Patmi ceux qui sont dkfavorables B I'historicitd, voir principalernent BAREILLE, op. cit., Dictionnaire de thkologie catholique 4/2 (1 9 1 1) 2233- 2239 ; KLUN - REMRJK, op. cit. , VigChr 28 ( 1974) 283,11245(voir aussi KLlJN - REINRJK, op. cit. nl5,54-67) ; H.J. SCtiOEYS, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristemms, Tnbingen 1949,325-327 ;TARDIEU, op. cit. (n21) %-12.
21 7
Mimouni
L'appui principal de cette hypothtse se trouve maintenant dans le Codex manichkn de Cologne oh Mani, citd par ses disciples imxnckiiats, parle d'cc Elkhasay )) comme d'une personne delle et d'un fondateur de mouvement religiew. Ue toute faqon, que I'on tienne ou non pour I'historicitt! dXElW-, on ne voit pas la difference 9 considerer que ce nom puisse renvoyer 8 un personnage historique ou ti, un personnage anonyme, d'autant que dans les deux cas, il est fait tout simplement njference au fondateur du mouvement e l b i t e , qui, en tout etat de cause, s'est fait appeler ainsi par ses disciples, mCme si son nom a pu Ctre tout autre B I'origine - le nom est de toute evidence symbolique, il a kt6 port4 cependant par un personnage historique dont le patronyme veritable demeurera a jamais dans I'anonymat. I1 est fort probable que la dimension historique d'Elkasai' demeure ddfinitivement en un clair obscur, accessible seulement travers la conduite des membres de son mouvement qui, elle, n'est connue que par des documents en provenance de I'adversite - c'est dire le caractere hypothetique de tout ce que l'on peut avancer en la matiere. D'apds kpiphane de Salamine, Elkasdf est un juif de naissance et de croyance, devenu fondateur d'un nouveau groupe apds avoir rejet6 le fondement cultuel et social du judai'sme, B savoir, le sacrifice sanglant i n s t a d par les patriarches et p e e t u 6 dans la pratique pascale, au cours de laquelle la victime animale est egorg& puis consumtte par le feu sur I'autel. Ainsi, au sang et au feu des sacrifices, Elk& oppose I'eau, qui devient ainsi I'instrument thaurnaturgique du mouvement. I1 convient de noter encore que, d'apds ce mCme gpiphane, E-"l aurait eu un hire du nom de 'Ic;IEU, ibid 9, par exemple, EUrasaf est cc un personnage mythique qui a historicist2 - audelii de cette affirmation aucune d6monstration n'est cependant avanck. )),
(St&
218
Les elkasaaes
elksdiste dans le temps et dans l'espace, elles se fondent rarement sur les Clhents f o e s par l'ensemble de la documentation. C7estle cas notarnment de G.P. Luttikhuizen qui, en s'appuyant principalement sur des elements provenant de l'Elenchos, au sujet d'une prophetie enonde a une dpoque ou les Parthes vaincus ont tte obliges de se sownettre a 17empereur Trajan, a souligne la perspective dans laguelie aurait pris naissance L'Apocalypse d'Elkasai, a savoir : vers la fin de la guerre de Rome contre les Parthes (I 14-1 17), au moment oh la defaite de ces derniers est apparue comme in6luctable, en 116 selon toute vrai~emblance.~6 Ainsi, selon ce critique, en Babylonie, la defense du territoire et de l'identite parthe aurait kte trtis nettemat marquee au sein des communautds juives, dont les insurrections successives montreraient suffisamment leur engagement politique aux ciitks du pouvoir arsacide. Les rdvoltes juives contre les envahisseurs romains, celle du temps de Trajan mais aussi celle du temps de Marc A d l e , attestent en effet d'un tel sentiment en faveur des Parthes, qui semble avoir fortement animC les communautes juives de la Diaspora iranienne. Pour ce critique, d7apresles informations de i7Elenchosmais aussi ~ Ctk (( regues )), redigks et du Panarion, les (< RkvClations d 7 E)) auraient diffusks dans un milieu proche de la cause parthe, sow influence juive et probablement sous la mouvance des communautes de Babylonie, milieu dans lequel cette oeuvre aurait 6te produite. En bref, les conclusions de G.P. Luttikhuizen sont les suivantes : 17Apocdypsed'Etkasai, qui reEverait du genre apocalyptique, aurait Ctd utilike par des propagandistesjudh-chrdtiens qui 17auraientchristianist - d'ailleurs, est-il prtcisC, la nature syncrbtique de cette oeuvre, d& nombre d'observances typiques, ne presente pas une doctrinejuive (( orthodoxe >). La Wse de G.P. Luttikhuizen a et6 severement rnalmenk par les critiques de F.S. Jones et de L. Cirillo.27 Sans entrer en matiere, outre 17existenceindeniable d'un profond sentiment antiromain dam les milieux juifs de la Diaspora babylonienne, d i m qu'il est dans tous les cas difficile de considerer avec G.P. Luttikhuizen que 1'Apolcalypse d7Elkasai ait 6te a l'origine un texte issu du juddisme babylonien, par la suite recupkre et christianid par des comunautes judb-cbdtiennes de Transeuphrathe - il apparait plutiit comme un texte, ou le texte, de fondation du mouvement elksdite.28
26 Voir LU'MKHUIZEN, op. cit. (n4). 27 VOUla recension de F.S. JONES, dans JAC 30
(1987) 200-209, B laquelle a rkpondu G.P. LUTTKHUIZEN, (( The Book of Elchasai: A Jewish Apocalypse P, Ada Orientalis 5 (1987) 101-105. Voir aussi L. CIRILLO, (( Elchasai e la sua "Rivelazione" )),Rivista di storia e letteruttirareligiosa 24 (1988) 31 1-330 ;L. CIRILLO, L'Apocalypse d'Ellchasai:son r6le et son importance pour l'histoire du judailsrne n, Apocrypha 1 (1990) 167-179. 28 A ce sujet, voir plus bas.
Malgre toutes les difficultes et les risques, il semble toutefois possible d'avancer une hypothkse au sujet de l'origine du mouvement elkasai'te. Au regard d'une documentation,on peut penser que ce mouvement religieux a ete fond6 par un personnage n o m C IJl a > W ~ K D~?Y* rnmn , V ~ ' I D 5w ~Y aipn 5~1131-1 v5yn i ~ 1 7 ; 1:;mn ~ 7127 5y rni3yw ,num 712-15~ Inosnli ,~IKI;-T~ ~ :iniK i t ~ " '1 7 ~2 7 7 ~-1 .11 75793 ~755r-1~721 73 ,71773n n 5~ ~ nil3 DTK K X 051~5 .i1y735 nn17;1In1 1 1 ~ 7 x In 1
It once happened that R. Eliezer was arrested for heresy, and he was brought to the tribune to be tried. The governor asked him, How can an elder like you occupy himself in such things? He replied, I acknowledge the Judge as right. That governor thought that he referred to him, while his intent was rather to his father in Heaven. He [the governor] said to him, Because you have acknowledged me as right, I will act in similar manner: I said, It is possible that these gray hairs should err regarding those matters? Dismissed you are acquitted. When he lee the tribunal, he was saddened at having been apprehended for heresy. His disciples came in to console him, but he would not accept this. R. Akiva entered and said to him: My master, may I say something to you so that you will not be distressed? He replied, Speak. He said to him, Perhaps one of the mrninr told you some heresy that pleased you. He said to him, By Heaven! You have reminded me that one time I was walking abaut in the highway [Bavli version: the upper market] of Sepphoris when i came across Yaakov of Kefar Sakhnayya. He told me a heretical teaching in the name of Yeshua ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. So I was arrested for heresy, for I transgressed the words of the Tora: Keep yourself far away from her; do not come near the doorway of her house, for she has caused many to fall slain. For R. Eliezer taught, One should always flee from what is disreputable and from whatever appears to be disreputable.
3. GenR 7.2 (p50j) [cf. yYev 2.6 (4a); yKid 3.12 (64d); PesdRK 4.3 (p63); PesR
.*
14.61; TanhB, hukat 15.15 (p112t); Tanh, hukat 6.6; EcclR 7.31 (a) Kn :R+ R ~ W ,,In '1 yaw .nmw 1711~~ n7a-t : T Y ;111;1 ~ 7~1131 193 W ~ K3 ~ ~ 7
26 1
The house ofLeontis
tnvr :inK... ?Kn*rnKt~ * ;pr n :;r+ i n K ?*?5Knv*iinIn ~ n 5 inn K t w r K 13 :VK I qirn lu3n . ~ 1 9 5 iK ~ 5~ KU ~ - ,lorn
Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya taught in Tyre, Fish requirc ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard this, he said to him, Come and be whipped. He replied, Should a person who states a Tora law be whipped? He asked, How is this from the Tora? [...I He said, Hammer away your hammering [is., beat me], for you have taught well.
w ,*m'1ynw . n m 3 n*i3115w213 +in5 inin : ~ 311;1*~1131193 3 W*K 3 7 ~ 3 ?*i7L) Kn"71K7 Knk3 lnK? W3 13 :lnK K n :;1*5 :;I+ 1 n K ?Kn*qlK'TK T I In1 :CI"K ;tvii?;IYK UK mswn ,mown n*ii? 3~ nnown - n n i x n735 unmown5 5y i+n7i .15 ytin K J K ~y ~:n*5 i i n K 175 ytin n K 1*1ni: n 5 Ynn ,nim nriin ~5 : 5 " .mmn ~ inK .*;~wY* niin3in:Inn 2rn3;li :n+ i n K ?*1?5n;InK n 5 3 p tni,*ln:n3 7nK [...I ~ 5 1:7nni* " p liynw 731 uw3 lmi**lni n ~mnn t p :;r+ i n K m i n ;Il*Kn:;t+ 733 1 * ~,113 i *lipn + ~ i w nK ~ 713 Z .-riinnn 733 nK TV* 73- ?nn 739n ":111 lnnnn 79x7 q i n i ,~37ipa K ~ ~V7 7 lu3n 7 rn3n :n+ inK .in rn? o*33i3n t ~ i v n ~ 3 3 .~3951K ~33 UK n t
(b) h
.*+
Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya taught in Tyre, It is permitted to circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard this, he said to him, Come and be whipped. He replied, Should a person who states a Tora law be whipped? He asked, How is this from the Tora? He replied, "They declared their pedigrees aAer their families, by their fathers' houses" [Num 1: 181 - the family of the father is considered to be the family, while the family of the mother is not considered to be the family. He answered, You have not ruled well. He retorted, How can you prove this to me? He responded, Lie down and I will prove it to you. [...] He objected, Will you whip me on the basis of a tradition? He replied, This very text continues, "Let it be done according to the Tora" ((Ezra 10:3]. He asked. But according to which [verse in the] Tora? He answered, According to the one that R. Yonatan quoted in the name of R. Shimon bar Yohai: "You shall not intermarry [...I" [Deut 7:3]. Why this [prohibition]?"For they will turn your children way from Me" [Deut 7:4] your son who comes from an lsraelite woman is considered to be your son, while your son from a Gentile woman is not considered to be your son. He said, Hammer away your hammering [i.e., beat me], for there is benefit in receiving it, for you have taught well.
4. EcclR 7.3 .K71121133 W*K 3?Y*; I T "KUlM" , ~ T Y '1~ 31K "3lU" :n13%3 3**1plU9 l*lU*i7t7U7K '1 13 K731n;lT "31U",K"t .KDKD 193 VK 3?Y9 31 "KUlm" ,Knf 12 11+K 31 "31W ,K"l ~UU11" ,YWl;l*'1TlK 11)~ "KUlnl",KUlP3 ;If l3*31 "31W ,KUt.DW3 193 133 1 5 "K . Y ~ P * ~7ll K "KtnM", ~ T Y +'1 K; I T "3lV ,K"t .D*37D;T R. Issi of Caesarea explained the verse [He who is good before God escapes her, but the
P
sinner is taken by her, Eccl 7:26] referring to heretical teaching: "Goodn is R. Eleazar; "but the sinner" is Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya. Another interpretation: "Cood is R. Eleazar ben Damma; "but the sinner", this is Yaakov of Kefar Sama. Another tnterpretation: "Cood" is Hanina the son of R. Yoshua's brother; "but the sinner", these are the people of Capernaum. Another interpretation: "Good" is Yuda ben Nakosa; "but the sinner", these are the minrm. Another interpretation: "Goodn is R. Natan; "but the sinner" is his pupil. Another interpretation: "Good" are R. Eleazar and R. Yoshua; "but the sinner" is Elisha.
5. Ecc~R1.4 [note: section (a) reflects the second century] (a) 2 r 3 n*n* ~ p 5 ~ ,n5n i *~3m n75 pmyi ,urn3 7x1nttn5 ~ T ywin* K '1VK 13K I * I ~ 73 lYn*K'I11735°K .*nU*Kln W I j *l5YIl*;t*,X*3*lmYw;t* 37315 ~ T .Kn3PII K Klnn
Inn 7nn 5335 p n p n*5m . 5 ~ i v -Kr
Y ~ *iw K ~5733 nK
n*5, K Y * W ~~1nn-r Kinn .;r*n5w>
kianina the son of R. Yoshua's brother came to Capernaum. The minim placed a spell on him, and had him riding an ass on the Sabbath. He went to his uncle Yoshua who anointed him with oil, and he recovered. [R. Yoshua] said to him, Since the ass of that wicked person [= Jesus] has roused itself against you, you may not reside in the Land of Israel. He therefore went down from there to Babylon, where he died in peace. (b) n
* m~ * l m prhw .niwwK 1 3 nm3w~i ~ %K,p;r*x5*i-r*nhp m
Inn* '1
mrr mni *.ihi35nm*m n U*D ,1173in3 5rrn 1 5 i i :3*n3 ~ 13K%:m5 pnK 73
U'i7lWY lKYa115n .Knh K7n5 K l W 5lnl KVlK 7 3 1 :;1* VnK .Xr\n3 1mlD E,l*Kl 15111- :;nina a*m13~ 5 :n+ 1 rim * ~ n n *p7n r t n ~13 :p5 inK .nnK ;rm3 .~;POKII n m n n 5 ~ ~ 3TY - nqn3 r Imrr p r ~nirr i n v i a.yuiu*:, i l ~ i n 357sn ,p n53nu*~i n3rr;r 157~7,pn53nu*~ ~ 5mrrn i ~ 5 i 7n ~ 1152 5 5 q ,~p l * :rinK .pna mi9 nrln ,71173pmrr 1~in-1 nn p ini*
One of R. Yonatan's pupils deserted to them [i.e. the minim]. He came and found him rich.54 The minim sent the following message after him: Is it not written: "Throw in your 1: 14]? He fled and they pursued lot with us; we shall all have a common purse'"Prov him. They said to him, Our master, do an act of kindness to a certain bride. He went and found them violating a girl. He said to them, Is this the way for Jews to behave? They replied to him, But is it not written in the Tora, "Throw in your lot with us; we shall all have a common pursen? He fled and they pursued him until he came to the door and shut it in their faces. They said, R. Yonatan, go tell your mother that you have not turned and looked upon us; for if you had turned and looked upon us, more than we pursue you, you would have pursued us! ~ ' L I KJ ~ K ~ mi W iniK n*5~iw 1-3 ,inY r?uunn a*rn;r i7;r ;r.oip 13 n t m &i ,nrlm nYn WJ 'U 537 ,11*1*3 7 7 3 ~ IinK 3 qyrla 1inK l.ra 5~ :li5 inK . w n i *>I .1*yvrr pnSnn*~t7~ pn'nin yxoi ,p5 nu) ~ i n.u3ni?3 i 3 7 7 3 nmin ~ 75trrn7i '135.pn S Y ~:1i5 in^ . m l i umwn ~nliy**u*3i:rl-r*n+nn* l r \ n ~, ~ n ~ - r ' I W ~ SIK Y ,ni*5nnini3iu ~ 7 1 n3 ~~5 m*nw n n n m mi^ 5m m n iniK 5~
(c)
YYD KV
r~v9
.pnnrr n ~ 5 n
The minim used to have dealings with R. Yuda ben Nakosa. They would constantly ask him questions that he would answer. He said to them: You bring your arguments in vain? Let us agree among ourselves that whoever bests his opponent [in debate] shall split his head open with a mallet. He bested them, and rained blows on their heads until they were filled with wounds. When he returned, his pupils said to him, Our master, You were aided from Heaven and you were victorious! He replied to them, In vain?! Go and pray for that person, and for that sack that was full of precious stones and pearls, but is now filled with ashes.
6. GenR 8.8 (p61)
m51m nn i ~ i n3i n 5 ~m3 :?~5nw 3 3 1 nK n*1mnI ~ K W The minim asked R. Samlai: How many divinities created the world?
"
According to S. LIEBERMAN, Studies in Palestinian Talmudrc Literature, Jerusalem 1999, 63f (Heb.). The midrash in LevR 12.1 (p244) also explains this verse as dealing with sexual maneo. The accusation is that Christians not only speak share property, but sin by sharing women as well. This is a typical accusation against communal groups, and the Israeli public can remember similar claims against kibbutzim or communist groups.
263
The house of Leontis
7. GenR ibid. 53 nwyn > n u n v m n n mi3 nwln nmw nyw3 :ln117 nw2 p m 135 ~ i n w'i nnK m ,o5iyL7w 11im :inK , *iai D ~ nwyi K :D*;I~K inK*i:piu~5 Y * ~ W p*>.017101* .;~Yw n i y h frnuiin ,ainr, :if inK ?n'~1'135n9 Imno Inu R. Samuel ben Nachman said in R. Yonatan's name: When Moses was occupied in writing the Tora, he wrote the work of each day. When he came to the verse, And God said, Let us make man... [Gen. 1 :26], he said, Master of the Universe! Why do you give a pretext to the minim? He said to him, Write, whoever wishes to err, let him err.
8. GenR 25.1 Cp239)55
...i11r-b ;In% nwmn IM I*K :15 iinK , i n a ~i nK D*i*n3i 5 ~ w
The minim asked R. Abbahu, saying: We do not find that Enoch died.
9. ExodR 19.4 11K '(*K 1*5imUK15*Kl;t:U*lnlK~ K Y W *~ y W l D*I?XllTT* 1 K ~ -3 W
:>*313'11 b K .mn725 urn17
R. Berekhya said, So that the minim and the wicked ones of Israel would not say, Since we are circumcised, we will not go down to Gehennom.
10. hShab 116a-b
~~)iui5*3 inn ; 1 i n . * ~ i ; 1 5 ~pit 3 n ~n*nnKiry.15~*>itinn727 ~ i 5 wK D ~ K K ~ ;IS) W K ~ * * Y K.n*27 3 1 ~ 1 ~ 5~ .Kmiw 2 53pn ~ 5Knw t 57pw nint n*ni211w3 in^ .12153 :in5 i n x .*WI -33 m313+ 7r155171tK I * Y ~:;I*+ ninK .n*np55 n ~, i~ a ; r t t -I Knir p :n+ inK .nii*n~5 ~ n i ~31 5n) i p 2 3*n3:;l+ n+mn*x I ~ Y ~ K fin*5n itn -.lini*Km, nn,=i n u - :a72 2*n=ig 3 2 lily nm*n*Ki. n w t nnviK n*t)*Dw:in5 inK .nai5 inn i ; l * 3 ~6 5 " ~ ~5 KIK :n*aan31 p + ~l ~ i mn*~*u5 :n*33in3i .minx nwnt KnwiiK 5~ * D D I K ~[ K ~ *n*nK I ] nwn7 KnniiK p nna*n5 : 5 ~ + nlln l n+ inK -.nnw3 i*iin1i i n r :m5 ninK .nii*n ~5 ~ n i K3 Y oipna ~ . ~ nm h i inn KnK
mk
:11)
lmma (mother) Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamliel's sister. A certain philosopher who lived in his vicinity had the reputation of not accepting bribes. They wished to make sport of him, so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him: I desire that a share in my father's estate be given to me. He ruled, Divide it. He [R. Gamliel] said to him: It is written for us, Where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit. He replied: Since the day that you were exiled from your land, the Tora of Moses has been superseded, and another book given, in which it is written: "A son and a daughter inherit equally." The next day, he [R. Gamliel] brought him a Lybian ass. He said to them: Go down to the end of the book, in which it is written, '"I have come not to abolish from the Law of Moses, [nor] to add to the Law of Moses." And it is written in it: "A daughter does not inherit when there is a son." She said to him: Let your light shine forth like a lamp. R. Gamliel said to him: An ass came and knocked over the lamp!
S".T.
L~ors,'Rabbi Abahu and the Minim', JQR 60 (1969-70) 197-212.
Copyrighted material
Copyrighted material
fig 3: the (damaged) fivebranch menora (courtesy Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem)
Copyrighted ma@rial
Magical means for handling minim in rabbinic literature Gideon Bohak The study of the ancient Judaeo-Christians is beset by many problems, the gravest of which is the paucity and problematic nature of the available sources. Very few texts and artefacts may securely be ascribed to JudaeoChristian circles, and most of the evidence we have about them comes fiom groups and individuals who viewed them from the outside, and with great hostility. Rabbinic literature is no exception. It does contain quite a few references to minim, but these are mostly hostile, and - what is perhaps even worse fiom our perspective - the term min itself is wide and slippery. In some cases, it can be shown that the min or minim referred to are likely to have been Judaeo-Christians; in others, they seem to have been Gentile Christians; in some cases they may have been Gnostics of one type or another, and in other cases they seem to be none of the above.' Thus, if we tried to define whom the rabbis included under the category minim, we are likely to conclude that most minim were people who were quite like the rabbis in some ways (and especially their commitment to Scripture), and quite unlike them in many others (and especially their interpretation of Scripture, and their ensuing halakhic position^).^ In light of this situation, it would be quite futile to try and isolate from all the rabbinic references to minim only those that seem to relate to groups that we would call 'Judaeo-Christians'. Instead, one is better served by adopting the rabbinic term minim and examining what the rabbis relate of such persons. Of the many different aspects of the rabbinic dealings with minim, only one will be discussed in the present paper, namely, the use of ritualistic and magical procedures in rabbinic conflicts with them. This is not a new topic, but recent scholarship, taking its cue from Evans-Pritchard's anthropological studies of witchcrafl accusations and their social contexts, and P
For earlier attempts to disentangle this knotty term, see BACHER1899; HERFORD 1903, esp. 121-123, 361-397; BOCHLER1956; ALON1980: 288-307; SIMON1986: 17920 1 ; KIMELMAN198 1, esp. 228-232. See bflLlER 1993; KALMRJ 1994; K.ALMlN 1998: 68-74 and 138-140; GOODMAN 1996; CARETONPAGET1999, esp. 771-774. And cf SAFRAI'S and TOMSON'S papers in the
*
present volume.
Bohak
from Peter Brown's application of such insights for the study of late antique magic, seems to have focused mainly on the use of 'magic'and 'magicians'as accusations hurled at each other by Jews, Christians, 'Pagans', and Gnostics in the first few centuries of the Christian era.3 While this certainly is a fruithl perspective from which to examine rabbinic attitudes to early Christianity - witness the 'Jesus the Magician" stories of the Babylonian Talmud and of the Toledot Yeshu traditions4 - it should not prevent us from noting that magic practices actually played a part in the inter-communal struggles of late antiquity, so that sometimes the rabbis admitted that they too employed magical tactics upon their minim opponents. Moreover, whereas recent scholarship has paid much attention to Birkat ha-Minim and its historical significance, the present study seeks to demonstrate the rabbis' use of other, less formal and more individualistic means of cursing and harming minim. It is to a group of rabbinic stories concerning the use of magic against minim, and to the broader implications of such stories, that the present study is devoted.
Stereotyped stories One of the most common types of rabbinic references to minim are the stereotyped stories of how 'some minim'or 'a certain min' (often unnamed; sometimes receiving the stereotypical name 'Jacob') 'met rdbbi so-and-so' and asked him a provocative or embarrassing question. In most cases, these heretical challenges involve the interpretation of a problematic biblical verse, or the elucidation of a thorny theological issue. In virtually all these cases, the Jewish rabbi has the upper hand, proving himself more ingenious, honest, and consistent, especially (but not exclusively) in the .~ the encounter turns violent, and the min interpretation of S c r i p t ~ r eOften, is physically harmed. In one case, for example (bBer %a), we learn that the Babylonian Rav Sheshet, who was blind, was pestered by a certain min, and the story ends by asking "And what happened to that min?," and responding, "Some say that his fkiends blinded him, and some say that Rav Sheshet put his eyes upon him, and he was turned into a heap of bones." "e first option sees BROWN 1970; for the subsequent trend, see, e.g., AUNE 1980; SEGAL, 198 1; PHILLIPS 1986. For which see SMITH 1978: 46-50; cf SEGAL 1987: 102: "The early charge of magic against Jesus is not so much clear proof that Jesus was a magician as a clear example of the social manipulation of the charge of magic." See, for example, the list of incidents in KALMIN 1994: 163, n3 1 and 164-165, n37. For other stories where the minim end up badly, see bHag 5b (the min is executed by the Roman authorities); bSan 39a (the min is devoured by wild beasts). EcclR 1.8 (p87 HIRSHMAN)(the minim have their brains blown out); and cf the following note.
'
Mogicol meonsfor hondling minim
269
the min punished measure for measure, for mocking a blind rabbi; the second has Rav Sheshet's magical powers come into action and annihilate the impertinent min. Such powers, however, of turning living creatures into heaps of dead bones with just one angry glance, are commonly attributed in rabbinic literature to many different sages, and are part of their image as holy men, possessing the divine power brought about by the mastery of Torah.' Rav Sheshet, we may note, used no special procedure to h a m the offensive min, only his innate powers. This, however, was not always the case, as can be seen from the foliowing story: "A certain min said to Rabbi [i.e., R. Yehudah ha-Nasi], He who made the mountains did
not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not make the mountains, for it is written 'For here is/are8 the maker of mountains and the creator of winds*(Amos 4: 13). He said to him, You fool, go down to the end of the verse, 'the Lord of Hosts islare his9 name' (ibid.). He said, Give me three days' time and I shall bring you back an answer. Rabbi sat for three days in fasting; when he wanted to bless (over food), he was told, There is a min at the door. He said, 'They gave me gall for food, [and vinegar for my thirst]' (Ps 69:22). He (the min) said to him, Rabbi, I bring good tidings - your enemy could find no answer and fell from the roof and died.'"'
In this story it is interesting to note that the narrator's faith in Rabbi's ability to defeat his opponent in the interpretation of Scripture is far from complete. In addition to coming up with a clever solution to a supposedly problematic verse, the famous sage is depicted as fasting for three days, the length of time which the min has asked for to provide a winning argument. Moreover, Rabbi is depicted as fearful of the min's return, whence his anguished cry upon hearing that a min is standing at his door three days later." Unlike Rav Sheshet, who defeated his opponent by unleashing his innate powers, and unlike all those sages who defeated their minim opponents solely by way of offering winning arguments, Rabbi seems to have felt it necessary to undertake a specific ritual action which would enhance his chances of defeating his opponent. There is, of course, nothing magical about the praxis involved - fasting being a common For the recurrent expression "He set his eyes upon him and turned him into a heap of bones," see, e.g., bShab 34a (R. Shimon bar Yohai); bRB 75a = bSan lOOa (R. Yohanan); in Pesikta de-Ruv Kohano 18 (p298), R. Yohanan's victim is labelled as "a min". The Hebrew could be understood both in the singular and in the plural, whence the min's claim that the reference is to two different powers. In singular, hence the reference is to God and God alone. bHu11 87a. Was Rabbi aware of the Gospels' use of Ps 69:22? (Mt 27:34; and cf KRAUSS 1902: 44, 77, where the Toledot Yeshu texts make use of this theme). If he was, his use of that verse in this context was no doubt highly ironic!
''
"
Bohak
rabbinic technique for increasing the chances of divine help for one's endeavours - but the need for even this praxis already is quite telling. For an excellent example of a rabbi who did use his magical expertise to defeat his rnin opponent we may turn to the famous story of Rabbi Yoshua and the min of Tiberias. It is found in the Palestinian Talmud, and runs as follows: "A story: R. Eliezer and R. Yoshua and R. Akiva went up to bathe in the public bath-
house in Tiberias. They saw a certain min. He said what he said, and the vaulti2 caught them. R. Eliezer said to R. Yoshua, Yoshua ben Hanmia, look and see what you can do. When this min came out, R. Yoshua said what he said, and the door caught him, and whoever went in would bang him with the door-knocker, and whoever went out would bang him by forcing the door open. He said to them, Annul what you have done. They said to him, You annul (what you have done), and we will annul (what we have done). Both sides annulled (what they had done). When they came out, R. Yoshua said to that rnin, Is this how wise you are? He said, Let us go down to the sea. When they went down to the sea, the min said what he said, and the sea was split asunder. He said to them, Did not Moses your master do just that to the sea? They said to him, But do you not admit that Moses our master (also) walked in it? He said to them, Yes; they said to him, So walk in it. He walked in it. R. Yoshua commanded the Minister of the Sea, and he swallowed him up."13
This amusing account has received quite a lot of attention recently, and Our own analysis may therefore be From several different perspe~tives.'~ brief. First, we must note that it is embedded within a sugiya (talmudic discussion unit) that explicitly deals with magic, or, to be precise, with the mishnaic injunction concerning the treatment of magicians: "The magician: he who performs a deed is liable [to death by stoning], but not he who creates an optical illusion" (mSan 7.1 1). As both the min and R. Yoshua ben Hanania are not merely creating some clever optical illusions, but performing real magical deeds, it is clear that the narrator of these tales has no qualms about depicting a famous rabbi as a powerful magician - in fact, he seems to relish that description. Unlike Rav Sheshet, whose looks alone can kill, R. Yoshua uses some common magical techniques. In the first story, we learn that "he said what he said" (amar madeamar), which is a common manner in rabbinic literature to refer to the use of magical incantations without actually quoting them.15 In the second story, we find a more technical term, when
''
73-3 = W;ioS? (an equation apparent, but in a different context, in SCIWRSHAKED 11, p146, where W 3 = +in). For gluing things to the WXq of the bath-house,
XXXV1.74. For bath-house magic in general, see BOWER 1932; see PREISENDANZ DUNBABIN1989: 32-46. See also S~H&ER-SWD 111, 69 lbl8-13, with the editors' notes (p I5 1). l 3 ySan 7.19,25d. l4 See VELTRI 1997: 3 1-33; JACOBS1998: 298-303. l 5 See, for example, the story of Shimon ben Shatah (below, 1118). where the witch
Magical meansfor handling minim
27 1
R. Yoshua 'ordered' (gazar 'a0 the Minister(ing angel) of the Sea to drown the hapless min. This very root is often found, precisely in that usage, in late-antique Jewish mystical and magical texts.16 To the narrator of these stories, the use of magic certainly was legitimate, at least when it fell under the rubric of giving a pernicious magician his just deserts, as the Hebrew Bible says one must do (Exod 22:17, a verse quoted earlier in the sugiya). To execute a magician, one occasionally had to resort to magical practices, and in this context we should mention not only the famous story of how R. Yoshua caught and punished a witch in the city of Rome, but also R. Yohanan's famous dictum that the members of the Sanhedrin must themselves be experts in magic (ba 'alei kshapm), presumably for similar reasons.17 In commenting on the R. Yoshua story, we may also stress that in terms of its literary genre, this is a typical folkloristic story of the competition between two powerful magicians, not unlike the biblical story of Moses and Pharaoh's wizards (Exod 7ff).18In fact, Moses' own parting of the Red Sea is explicitly referred to here, and in this connection too it is important to stress that the Parting of the Sea was a favourite theme in late-antique Jewish mystical and magical texts.19 It is also quite likely, however, that a min trying to cross the Sea of Galilee without drowning was following not only Moses, but also Jesus, who had walked over the very same waters (Mk 6:48-51, etc.). If this is true, then we have here at least some indication that the rnin whom our three rabbis encountered was a follower of Jesus of one type or another. Other than that, the story provides no clues to the min's identity, as the encounter between the two sides is physical, not intellectual, and the min is not depicted as promoting some nonrabbinic message or some non-rabbinic interpretation of S ~ r i p t u r eBut . ~ ~a "said what she said." Note also the parallel expression, "He did what he did," which refers to a magical praxis without specifying what it was (e.g., bBM 107b, Rav in the cemetery). l6 See, e.g., SCHAFER-SHAKED 11, p70. In ySan 7.19 (25d), right after the story under discussion, there is another story where R. Yoshua 5~ 711 the Minister(ing angel) of the Sea - in this case, he commands it to produce the magical implements thrown into the sea by a ernicious witch. l P R. Yoshw: See previous note. R. Yohanan: bSan 17a. l8 See YASSIF1994: 178. For other rabbinic examples of this genre see the famous story of Shimeon ben Shatab and the eighty witches of Ashkelon, in ySan 6.9 (23c) (=yHag 2.2 [77d]), or the stmy of Yannai and the innkeeper (bSan 67b). l9 See, e.g., SCHAFER1981, 340; NAVEH-SHAKED 1985: 222, 224, 237; cf Fodor 1978. For walking on water without drowning, see also the recipe in Harbade-Moshe p45 HARARI. For a late-antique Cretan Jew who tried to cross the sea, see Socrates Scholasticus, HE 7:38. 20 Most scholars (e.g., VELTRI 1997: 31) take the min's reference to "Moses your master" (p21 nwn) as demonstrating his non-Jewish origins, but that can hardly be
272
Bohak
min is always the rabbi" opponent, and the rabbi will beat him in his own game, be it the interpretation of shared sacred texts or the manipulation of angels and demons. R. Yoshua ben Hanania, we may add, seems to have had quite a reputation as a min-buster.21
Unusual stories While the adventures of R. Yoshua ben Hanania in the bath-house of Tiberias had been the subject of many different studies, two other stories, which I find much more intriguing, seem to have gone almost entirely unnoticed. The first of these is found in two different locations, with some significant textual differences. Let us begin with the version of Midrash Tehillim:22 '"Sinners shall cease from the earth, and the wicked are no more, my soul bless the Lord, Hallelujah' (Ps 104:35)... R. Meir had a certain min in his neighbourhood, who used to annoy him with biblical verses. He (R. Meir) asked mercy upon him [i.e., cursed him] that he should die. But Bruriah his wife said to him, Are you thinking of 'Sinners shall cease'? But does it say 'Sinners': it says Let the sins cease, and immediately 'and the wicked are no more'! He asked mercy upon them [sic] that they would repent. At that hour, 'my soul bless the Lord, etc.""
This story also appears in the Babylonian Talmud (bRer IOa), whose version is identical to the one of Midrash Tehillim, except that R. Meir's opponent is identified not as 'a certain min' (hahu mina), but rather as 'some thugs' (hanhu biryonei), which might explain the shift from the singular to the plural in the version quoted above. But regardless of the exact label affixed to R. Meir's opponent(s), the reference to the citation of biblical verses should make it clear what kind of disputes R. Meir had with the person(s) here mentioned.24 Before analyzing R. Meir's action, however, and the overall tone of this story, let us look at a similar, but much more elaborate, story. It is found in three different places in the Babylonian Talmud (AZ 4a-b; Ber 7a; San considered a sound proof, just as minim who say "It is written in your Torah..." (e.g., need not be non-Jews. Such phrases tell us more bAZ 17a = EcclR 1,8 [p79 HIRSHMAN]) about the ways these minim were seen by the rabbinic narrators than about their views of themselves. 21 See, e.g., bHag 5b, and esp. the story (EcclR 1,8 [p83--84 HIRSHMAN, with his commentary ad loc.]) of R. Hanina, the nephew of R. Yoshua, who was bewitched and beguiled by minim; R. Yoshua healed him with an ointment, but then sent him out to Babylonia. 22 MidrTeh 104.27 (p448). 23 The word play is based on the fact that the Hebrew word, differently punctuated, means both 'sinners' and 'sins'. 24 For minim as 'Bible-reading heretics', see KALMIN 1998: 68-74.
Magical means for handling minim
273
105b), always embedded in a longer unit, whose exact contents vary slightly from one text to the next. I cite here the version of AZ 4a-b, while noting in the footnotes all the significant divergences in the other versions: "Our Sages taught: 'And God rages every day' (Ps 7:12) and how long is his rage? A moment. And how long is a moment? One of 56,888 of one hour?' that is one moment. And no creature can aim for that time except for the wicked Balaam, of whom it is written, 'and he knows the mind of the Most High' (Num 24:16) ...And when is he (God) angry? Abaye said, In the first three hours (of the day), when the comb of the cock is white. But it is white in every other hour too!26 In every hour there are red veins in if but at that hour it has none. R. Yoshua ben Levi had this min in his neighbourhood, and he (the min) would annoy him with biblical verses.27 He took a cock, and went and tied it to the feet of his bed,28 and examined it; he thought, When that hour comes, I will curse him. When that hour came, he fell asleep. He said, Learn from this that it is not a proper thing to do. It is written 'Even for the righteous it is not good to punish' (Prov 17:26).~~ It was taught in the name of R Meir: At the hour when all the kings of the nations of the world lay their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, immediately he (God) is angry."
Let us begin our analysis of this passage by stressing the unique nature of the story of R. Yoshua ben Levi and his neighbour, which deserves far more attention than granted it by previous scholars.30First, unlike all the other rabbinic stories of encounters between a rabbi and a min, only in the above-quoted story about R. Meir and in this one the rabbi does not get the upper hand.31 In the first part of the story, we learn that the mzn used to 25 bBer 7a has "One of 58,888 of one hour"; bSan 105b provides no number; see also yBer 1.1 (2d), where Samuel says that there are 56,848 moments in an hour. And cf SCHAEER-SHAKED 1, 17 1d30-32 and ibid. 11, 49 ld17-19, both of which assume 88,888 moments in an hour. 26 bSan 105b is identical, but bBer 7a has "when the comb of the cock is white and it stands on one leg. But every hour it stands like that!" 27 This is the reading in the Spanish ms of A2 published by ABRAMSON1957: 7, and cf Dikdukei Sophrim, a d koc.; bBer 7a has "would annoy him greatly with biblical verses"; bSan lOSb has "would annoy him". 28 bBer 7a has "and stood it between the feet of bis bed"; bSan 105b has "and tied it by its feet". 29 bBer 7a has, "It is written 'And his mercy is upon all his doings' {Ps 145:9), and it is written 'Even for the righteous it is not good to punish' (Prov 17:26)." This last verse really means "It is not good to punish the righteous," but is interpreted here as, "Even for the righteous it is not good to punish." 30 See the brief discussions in BACHER1896: vol. 1, 147-148; HERFORD 1903: 332; URBACH 1975: 102; MAIER 1978: 71-72; ROSENFELD 1982: 449-452; ROSENFELD 1997: 180-182. 3' Cf such stories as bAZ 4a, where (the Babylonian) Rav Safra gets the iower hand in his debate with the minim, but R. Abbahu saves the day, or GenR 82.10 (p988 THEODOR-ALBECK,in the apparatus) where R. Yannai cannot respond to the min, but R. Yonathan saves the day. In such stories, one rabbi may fail, but another rabbi must then succeed.
annoy R. Yoshua ben Levi with scriptural verses, and it is implicitly admitted that the rabbi - one of the most famous rabbis of the first generation of Palestinian amoraim (early 3rd cent CE) - could not beat the min in the interpretation of Scripture, and therefore resorted to other means. Such an admittance is virtually unparalleled in rabbinic literature.32 In the second part of the story, we are told that even the magical practices used by this sage did not prove successful, although here we are at least told why: not because the min was an expert magician himself, and made sure our hero would fall asleep at the right moment, but because God does not approve of the use of such methods. "Even for the righteous it is not good to punish'' his opponents - this, at least, is the lesson we are explicitly told to derive from the unfortunate incident, just as the story about R. Meir teaches that it is sins, and not sinners, which should be annihilated. Given that in other rabbinic stories sages curse their opponents without any qualms being expressed by the narrators, it would seem as if R. Yoshua ben Levi was considered to have gone a bit too far.33 A second point that is unique about this story is that unlike the stories about R. Yoshua ben Hanania, which depict a competition between two powerful magicians, in this story it is the Jewish rabbi, and the rabbi alone, who resorts to magical procedures, and he performs them in the secrecy of his own home, unbeknownst to his opponent. It could even be argued that from reading the sugiya as a whole, R. Yoshua ben Levi might emerge as a distant follower of (of all people!) Balaam the wicked, which would be quite an inversion of standard Talmudic p r a ~ t i c e . Unlike ~ Balaam, however, who knew offhand the precise moment of God's daily bouts of numinous rage (itself an interesting theological concept, but one which will not detain us here), R. Yoshua ben Levi needs quite an elaborate praxis to detect it. I must admit that I am still baffled by the ritual described here, for while the uses of white cocks for magical purposes, including curses, are well-attested,35 it seems that here the cock was not destined to be ritually slaughtered for the Sun-god or some other deity.36 32 The closest parallel might be EcclR 1.8 (p87 HIKSHMAN), Where R. Yehuda bar Nakosa defeats his min opponent but apparently sees it as a Pyrrhic victory. 33 For rabbis cursing and harming people, see, e.g., bBer 56a (Rava curses a dreaminterpreter); bMeg 5b (Rav cursed a man who sowed on Purim); bBB 22a (Rav Yosef admits that he had cursed R. Adda). And cf the recurrent phrase, "The curse of a sage, even when unmerited, is fulfilled" (bBer 56a; bSan 90b; bMak 1 la). 34 For B a l m ' s image in rabbinic literature, see BASKIN1983:75-93. For its possible use in the rabbis' anti-Christian polemics, see HERFORD1903: 63-78; URBACH 1956. 35 See, e.g., P R E I S ~ A11.73; N Z 111.693-701; IV.35-58 etc. And cf mAZ 1.5 with MARGALIOTH 1966: 12, 34, 75. For a white cock used in a cursing ritual, see also the 1999. intri uing bowl published by LEVENE 3' And note that the cock's solar connections were not lost on whoever added R.
Magical meansfor handling minim
275
Rather, it seems as if the cock was used by Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi solely as an indicator of the precise moment of God's wrath. And while the use of cocks for divination also is well-attested:7 I know of no close parallel to the kind of praxis suggested here, and am not even convinced that the praxis itself makes sense (is a cock's comb ever entirely white?). It must be noted, however, that this intriguing talmudic story - which flies in the face of the rabbis' own prohibitions of various techniques of birddivination as 'Ways of the A m o r i t e ~' ~clearly ~ exercised the imagination of later Jewish magicians and pietists.39 This issue, however, exceeds the scope of the present paper. As for the identity of the min whom R.Yoshua ben Levi tried to annihilate, nothing is known about his religious or social proclivities, although he is described as someone who used to "annoy [Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi] with biblical verses.'*O Elsewhere in rabbinic literature, we hear of several unfriendly encounters between R. Yoshua ben Levi and minim whose allegiance to Jesus is explicitly mentioned, but this does not tell us much about our specific case.41 Nor are we aided by the fact that Lydda, where R. Yoshua ben Levi is elsewhere in rabbinic literature said to have lived, is shown both by the literary and by the archeological evidence to have been a mostly-Jewish city at the time, but with a strong Christian and 'pagan' presence?= Our min's identity remains quite elusive. Both the story of R. Meir and that of R. Yoshua ben Levi depict famous rabbis who, apparently unable to refute all the arguments adduced by certain Bible-quoting heretics, and unable, in the mixed cities of Roman Palestine, to avoid meeting such heretics, were tempted to resort to other m e a n ~ . ~ ~ S cases u c h may have been quite common in late-antique Palestine, Meir's note right after the Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi story. 37 For different types of alectryomancy, see BOUC&-LECLERCQ 1879: 144-145; STEMPLINGER 1922: 56; HONEMORDER1998. 1 have not had access to LORENTZ 1904. See also SCHAFER1981: 7 13. 38 For the rabbinic prohibitions of ornithomantic practices, see, e.g., tShab 6.5 @23 LIEBERMAN), with LIEBERMAN'S commentary ad loc. 085). 39 For possible echoes of this rabbinic tradition in the Cairo Genizah magical texts, see S~HAFER-SHAKED TI, 37 lb/l-4. For its reverberations in Ashkenazi pietist circles, see the sources adduced, and misinterpreted, by TRACHTENBERG 1939: 21 1-212 and 306, n6. 40 But cf above 1127. See yAZ 2.2 (40d) = yShab 14.4 (14d), where a min (presumably Jewish by origin, and hence acceptable to Jewish patients?), heals R. Yoshua ben Levi's grandson in the name of Jesus, a fact which the rabbi finds exceptionally infuriating. 42 See SIMON1986: 185, 197-198; SCHWARTZ 1991: 87, 106; ROSENFELD 1997: 174-183. 43 The close connection between the too stories was not lost on the editor of Midrash ha-Gadol, who combined both in his exegesis of Num 23:8 (pp. 3 14-3 15 U B ~ O W I T Z ) .
Bohak
and the cursing of minim probably was not limited to Birkat ha-Minim and similar synagogue rituals, which were too general and too public to aid in the fight against one specific min. And yet, the narrators of both stories take great pains to discourage members of the rabbinic class from taking the road of individual curses and elaborate cursing rituals against their min opponents. In fact, it might even be claimed that it was precisely in order to stem the rise of anti-min magical initiatives that such stories were told and retold.
Conclusion To end my paper, let me briefly summarize what we have seen. First, we saw several rabbinic stories about encounters between rabbis and minim during which one side or both had recourse to magical praxis in order to harm the other side. Such stories clearly reflect the inter-communal tensions of late-antique Palestine, at a time when rabbinic Jews and minim often lived side by side but the kingdom itself had not yet 'turned into minut,'so that the Jewish sages were not yet playing in a field that was inherently biased against them. Second, we saw that in spite of the triumphant tone of most rabbinic stories about the challenges posed to the rabbis by the minim, rabbinic narrators sometimes admit, albeit implicitly, that in the intellectual encounter between rabbis and their opponents the rabbis did not always get the upper hand. In light of these difficulties, it is quite understandable that some rabbis would want to resort to nonintellectual means, including the employment of aggressive magical techniques, to defeat a stubborn opponent. Presumably, such events were not that rare in late-antique Palestine, and the religious disputes between and within the Jewish, Christian and Jewish-Christian communities resulted not only in magic accusations hurled by each group at its rivals, but also in the actual use of magical techniques to get an edge over persistent opponents. And yet, the story about R. Meir, and especially the story about R. Yoshua ben Levi, convey the message that the use of magical means is no solution, and that "Even a righteous man may not punish."Punishing a magician of the type encountered by R. Yoshua ben Hanania was acceptable and even desirable, but cursing every min in town just because his exegetical acuity was too annoying to face certainly was not an option.
Magical meansfor handling minim
Bibliography Abramson, Sh., Tractate 'Abodah Zorah of the Uabylonian Talmud: Ms. Jewish TheologicalSeminary of America, JTS, New York 1957 (Hebr.) Alon, G., The Jews in their L a d in the Talmudic Age (75-640 C.E.), (1952) tr. and ed. by G. Levi, 2 vols., Magnes, Jerusalem 1980-1984 (repr. Harvard UP, Cambridge Mass., 1989) Aune, D.E., 'Magic in Early Christianity', ANRW 11.23.2 (1980), 1507-1 557 Bacher, W., Die Agada der paldlrtinensischen Amorder, 3 vols., Strasburg 1892-1 899, repr. O h s , Hildesheim 1965 - 'Le mot "Minim" dans le Talmud', REJ 38 (1899), 38- 45 Baskin, J.R., Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic liadition, (Brown Judaic Studies 47) Scholars Press, Chico CA 1983 Bonner, C., 'Demons of the Bath', in Studies Presented to F. LI. Gripth, Egypt Exploration Society, London 1932,203-208 Bouchd-Leclercq, A., Histoire de la divination dans I'Antiquitd, vol. I, Paris 1879, repr. Culture et Civilisation, Brussels 1963
Brown, P., 'Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity From Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages', in M. Douglas (ed.), Witchcraji Confessions and Accusations, Tavistock Publications, London 1970, 17--45,repr. in P. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age ofsaint Augustine, London 1972, 1 19- 146 Bllchler, A. 'The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third Centuries', in I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz (eds.), Studies in Jewish History: The Adolf Uilchler Memorial Volume,Oxford UP, London 1956,245-274 Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity', in W. Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3 (The Early Roman Period), UP, Cambridge 1999,731-775 Dunbabin, K.M.D. 'Baiarum grata voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths', Papers of the British School at Rome 57 (1989), 6-46 Fodor, A., 'The Rod of Moses in Arabic Magic', Acta Orientalia Acodemioe Scientarum Hungaricae 32 (1978), 1-2 1 Goodman, M., 'The Function of Minim in Early Rabbinic Judaism', in H. Cancik, &I. Lichtenberger and P.Schtlfer (eds.), Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion: Festschrifi fiir Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, 3 vols., Mohr Siebeck, Tllbingen 1996, vol. 1, 501-510 Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, Williams and Norgate, London 1903 HllnemZlrder, Ch., 'Huhn (Hahn)", in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly, vol. 5, Metzler, Stuttgart 1998,749-75 1 Jacobs, M., 'RUmische Thermenkultur im Spiegel des Talmud Yerushalmi', in P. SchBfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, (TSAJ 71) Mohr Seibeck, TUbingen 1998,2 19-3 11
278
Bohak
Kalmin, R., 'Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity', HTR 87 (1994),155-169 - The Sage in Jewish Society o f l a t e Antiquity, Routledge, 1,ondon 1998 Kimelman, R., 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity', in E.P. Sanders, A.1. Baumgarten and A. Mendelson (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2 (Aspects of Judaism in the CiraecoRoman Period), Fortress, Philadelphia 1981,226-244,39 1-403 Krauss, S., Das Leben Jesu nachjudischen Quellen, S. Calvary, Berlin 1 902 Levene, D., '"...and by the name of Jesus...": An Unpublished Magic Bowl in Jewish Aramaic', JSQ 6 (1999) 283-308 Lorentz, B., Kulturgeschichtliche Beitruge zur Tierkunde cles Alterturns. Die Ndhner Y e e l , (Jb. Kgl. Gymn. Wurzen), 1904 , Buchges., Maier, J., Jesus von Naareth in der talmudischen t i b e r l i e f e r ~ n ~Wiss. Darmstadt 1978
Margalioth, M., Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period, Yediot Achronot, Tel Aviv 1966 (Hebr.) Miller, S.S., 'The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered', HTR 86 (1993), 377-402 Naveh, J., and Shaked, S., Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incuntution.~ofLute Antiquity, Magnes, Jerusalem 1985 Phillips, C.R., 'The Sociology of Religious Knowledge in the Roman Empire to A.D. 284', A N R W 11.16.3 (1986), 2677-2773
Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicue. 2 vols.. Teubner, Leipzig 1928-3 1, rev. ed. by A. Heinrichs, Teubner, Stungart 1973--74 Rosenfeld, B.-Z., Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: His L$e and Iiis Public /fctivib, unpubl. Ph.D. diss. Bar-[Ian U, Ramat-Gan 1982 (Hebr.) Lad and Its Sages in the Period of the Mshnah and the Talmud, Ben-Zvi, Jerusatcm 1997 (Hebr.)
-
Schtifer, P., Synopse zur Hekhalof-Lireratur, (TSAJ 2 ) , Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 198 1 Schtifer, P., and Shaked, S., Magische Texre aus der Kairoer Geniza, (TSAJ 42, 64, 72) vol. 1-3, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1994, 1997, 1999 Schwartz, J., Lod (Lyddu), Israel: From Its Origins through the Byzantine Perlad. BAR, Oxford 1991 Segal, A.F., 'Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definitions', in R. van den Broek & M.J. Vermaseren (eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, [EPRO 9 I], Leiden, Brill, 1981, 349-375 (repr. in Segal, A.F., The Other Judaisms of /,ate Antiquity, [Brown Judaic Studies 1271 Scholars Press, Atlanta 1987, 79- 108) Simon, M., Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Behveen Christians und Jews in rhr Roman Empire (135 -425), (Piiris 1964) ET by H. McKeating, UP, Oxford 1986 Smith, M., Jesus the Magician, Harper 62 Row, New York 1978 Stemplinger, E., Anriker Aberglaube in modernen Auvstrahlungen, Leipzig, Dieterich, 1922
Magical means for handling minim
279
Trachtenberg, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Stu@ in Folk Religion, Behrman's Jewish Book House, New York 1939 (repr. Atheneum, New York 1977) Urbach, E.E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, (tr. by Israel Abraham), Magnes, Jerusalem 1969,2nd. ed. 1975 - 'Homilies of the Rabbis on the Prophets of the Nations and the Balaam Stories in Light of the Jewish-Christian Debate', Tarbiz 25 (1956) 272-289 (Hebr.) Veltri, G., Magie und Halakha, (TSAJ 62) Mohr Siebeck, Ttibingen 1997
Yassif, E., The Hebrew Folktale, Bialik, Jerusalem 1994 (Hebr.)
The depiction of Judaeo-Christians in the Toledot Yeshu William Norbury
Toledot Yeshu The Toledot Yeshu circulated from early in the mediaeval period in Aramaic and other Jewish vernaculars, and in Hebrew. The relatively elaborate title Sefer Toledor Yeshu hints at Gen 5:1, D7K n1751n 19D, "'the book of the generations of Adam"", and at the first words of Mt 1 :1, which were quoted by I title is found mediaeval Jews in the Hebrew rendering IWV nit[.nn 1 ~ w . 'This in mediaeval and later copies in Hebrew, and also in Yiddish copies.* It became the standard description of the work, for the text was mentioned under this name by the fathers of Christian Hebrew study in Germany, notably Johann Reuchlin and Sebastian Milnster, and the first copy to be edited in Hebrew with a Latin translation (by J.C. Wagenseil, in 1681) bore this title.3 In the manuscript tradition, however, an at least equally widespread title, found especially in oriental and Italian copies, is the simpler IWV ;IwYn, "Story of Jesus". These texts give a connected account of the rise of Christianity in a legendary style and in widely varying forms. They resemble the apocryphal gospels and acts of the apostles handed down in Christian tradition, but their standpoint is of course that of non-Christian Judaism. They are distinct from the scattered passages on Christ and Christianity in the Talmud and midmsh, although sometimes these have influenced the textual tradition of the 'Toledot Yeshu. %he rise of Christianity is presented in the Toledot Yeshu as a movement
' For a twelfthcentury instance see Judah ROSEN r11.41, (d.), Jacob ben Rtuhen, Mtlha-
mot ha-Shem, Jerusalem 1 %3,14 1 .
*
A dated Hebrew example is found in the Bodleian MS. Opp. 749, copied in Prague, 1630 from an exemplar of 1615; see M. BEIT-ARIE, ed. R.A. M A Y , Catuko,que r,f Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Supplement of Addenda and Corrtgendu lo 1'01 I (A Neubauerk Catalogue), Oxford 1994, p406 no. 2172; for other copies with this title, inclu-
ding the Bodleian Yiddish text Rawlinson Or. 37, see E. BISCII-IOFE in S. KRAUSS, Das Leben J m nachjudischen Quellen, Berlin 1902, repr. Hildesheim 1977, 27 30. J. REUCHI.M, Augempregel, TLlbingen 15 1 1, 'Ratschlag', ,la: Tolduth [sic] Jeschu hu notri; on Mllnster, J. BUXTORF senior, and WAGENSEl1,'s text see KRAIJSS, Dar Leben Jesu, 8, 16; BISC11OFF in KRAUSS, ihrd., 27f.
Judaed'hristians in the Toledot Yeshu
28 1
within the Jewish community, and sometimes it has been suggested, perhaps most notably by H.J. Schonfield, that these texts may reflect or rebut traditions current among Judaeo-Christians.4 In what follows the presentation of the first Christian Jews in the Toledot Yeshu is considered as a non-Christian depiction to be set beside that attested in Talmudic material, and with reference to its possible links with Christian tradition. In this connection the suggestion of a link with tradition which was current among Judaeo-Christians in particular is kept in view. Such Christians are understood here as those who followed Jewish customs which were not widely observed by Christians; Judaeo-Christians would then include, but would not be restricted to, the Ebionites mentioned by Irenaeus and others."
Images of the followers of Jesus Among the earliest extant copies of the Toledot Yeshu are fragmentary Cairo Geniza Aramaic manuscripts of about the eleventh century. The form of the narrative in these Aramaic texts can be compared with the extended indirect attestation of the Toledot Yeshu in the Latin writings of A g o b d and Amulo, who were successive archbishops of Lyons in the early ninth century; treatises of the years 826-7 (Agobard) and 846 (Amulo), respectively, witness to names and scenes also attested in Aramaic Geniza copies.6 In fourteenthcentury Spain the converso Alphonws of Valladolid, known as Abner of Burgos before his baptism, gave the title and summary of one version of the story current in Aramaic, corresponding to that found in surviving Aramaic texts, and another in Hebrew, corresponding to that found in many extant Hebrew texts.7 The earliest clear attestations of the latter form are From the thirteenth century, but internal evidence suggests that it is considerably older. In the Hebrew texts as they are now known, additions following the main narrative include substantial reference to the legend of the Invention of the Cross and to the heresy of Nestorius, but do not mention the capture of the cross by the Persians in 614, or the rise of Islam. The city of Tiberias is important in both Aramaic and Hebrew Toledot Yeshu.8 These indications H.J. SCHONFIELU, Accordimg to the Hebrews, London 1937.
A broad working definition on these lines is suggested by J. CARLtTON PAGET, 'Jewish Christianity', in W. HOKBUKY, W.D. DAVIES & J. STUKDY (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, Cambridge 1999,73 1-75 (739-42). The texts are summarized and discussed by R. BUJMENKRANZ, Les auteurs chrktiem latins du moyen dge sur lesju* el iejudabme, Paris 1963, 163--7,195-200. For the relevant passage, as quoted by Shem Tob ibn Shapmt in an answer to Alphonsus's Christian apologetic, see KRAUSS, D m Leben Jesu, 146-9. A link with the long-standing association with Galilee of traditions concerning Joshua son of Nun as well as Jesus of Nazareth, rather than the late-Roman and Byzantine impor-
suggest that forms of the work approximating to the best-known mediaeval Aramaic and Hebrew texts had probably taken shape in Ryzmtine Palestine and Syria, between the fourth and the seventh centuries. At a still earlier period, the account characteristic of the Toledot Yeshu ha5 substantial antecedents in the narrative of Christian origins attributed to a Jew by the late second-century pagan Celsus, in his Greek attack on Christianity which survives through quotations by Origen. The presentation of the Christians in the Toledot Yeshu naturally varies somewhat in the different text-forms, but in general it is hostile. The assumption is that Christianity arises in the Jewish community, and that Christ and his followers are inimical to the main body of Jews. In the Toledot Yeshu it is the Wise (D'nX) who take the l a d , with their colleague Judas (who feigns allegiance to Christ) as their loyal agent, in the condemnation and execution of Christ and his main associates; the same Jewish authorities, again acting through a loyal agent who feigns Christianity, bring about the subsequent separation of Christ's followers from the Jewish community - a separation which is hailed as a happy deliverance for the Jews. 'Ihe primacy of the Jewish community in the Toledot Yeshu recalls the fizlgmentary Talmudic narratives of Christ and his teachers and disciples, wherein the teaching and execution of Christ are comparably treated in a Jewish context. The presentation of the followers of Christ in the 'roledot Yeshu may be exemplified first from a Cieniza Aramaic text, which deals with events from the time of the work of Yeshu down to the display of his body in confutation of the claims of his followers that he had risen. This scene is important in all types of Toledot Yeshu, but many texts continue the story after this point to describe the separation of the Christians from the Jews. In the relatively short Aramaic text under review, mainly published by Louis Gimkrg, the disciples of Jesus are "his disciples whom he had deceived"' - but despite this possible mitigation, they are shown in a bad light.9 I h e leading tive among them, together with Jesus and John the Baptist, "caused the whole world to err''. In this version of the Toledot these five are identified with the five disciples whose execution is described in the Babylonian Talmud. 'fhe relevant passage tance of Tiberias as a Jewish city. is suggested by E. REWER, 'From Joshua to Jesus: the Transformation of a Biblical Story to a Local Myth. A Chapter in the Religious Life of the Galilean Jew', in A. KOFSKY & G.G. STROLIMSA (eds.), Shuring the Sacred: Religiom Contacts and Conflicts in the tfo'oly Land, Jerusalem 1998, 223-7 1 (256). The associations indicated by Reiner can perhaps best be understood as influencing the Taledot Yeshu in conjunction with the historical impartance of Tiberias as a centre of Jewish population. Cambridge University Library, MS. T . 4 . Misc. 35.87 (formerly T.-S. Laan 87), edited with introduction, commentary and a shorter parallel text by L. GINZHERG, 'Ma'aseh Yeshu', in L. GMZBERO, Gime Schechter, vol. I, New York 1928, 324-38; for additional text and some revised readings see the present writer, 'The Trial of Jesus in Jewish 'Tradition', in E. BAh4MEL (4. The ). Triul of Jesus, London 1970, 103-12 1 (1 1 6 - 1 2 1).
Judueo-Chrisriuns in the Toledot Yeshu
283
tiom Sanhedrin 43a is incorporated into the Toledot Yeshu narrative (without any express reference to the Talmud), and it then appears that these five principal followers are put to death before Jesus and his teacher John the Baptist, both of whom are charged with sorcery. This form of the text has been influenced, perhaps towards the end of the seventh century or later, by the haggadah incorporated in the Babylonian Talmud; but it touches old themes in its representation of the disciples (as well as Yeshu) as deceivers (Mt 27:64; Jn 7: 12,47) and its assumption that the Baptist and Christ were executed together (Celsus in Origen, Cels. 1.4 1). In the longer Hebrew forms of the text the presentation of the followers as deceivers tainted by sorcery is amplified by invective implying more general evildoing and violence.'"eshu himself boldly steals the secret Name of God from the temple, and works his seeming miracles by its power. Particularly influential is the regular designation of his disciples as DVY779, "violent ones" or "robbers", from the prophecy of Dan 1 1:14 "the children of robbers from thy people (7nY 7~7797111)shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall". This text was applied to Christians by Jewish authors from Saadia in the tenth century onwards. In the elaborate Hebrew Toledot Yeshu edited by J.J. Huldreich in 1705 Yeshu kills his faiher, Israel withdraw from association with him, and he is joined by men of naught and men of violence (DVY?9), including finally a bandit chief. Here again there is development of an old theme. In the synoptic tradition Christ called sinners (Mk 2:17 and parallels). In the Epistle of Bamabas the disciples are "lawless beyond all sin" (5.9), and within the Christian tradition this text impressed Origen as a possible source of Celsus's denigration of the disciples (Origen, Cels. 1.62-63), and was used by Jerome against Pelagius (Jerome, Adv. Pelag. 3.2). The theme was taken up again in elaborations of the penitent thief, Demas, as a successful bandit. In the apocryphal Greek Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea, which is intended to encourage Jews to believe in the miracles of Christ and forms a reply to the Toledot Yeshu, the misdeeds of Demas (including theft of the mystic deposit of Solomon from the holy place) are said to have been maliciously debited to Christ." In ancient anti-Christian polemic the most striking treatment of this theme is the allegation recorded by Lactantius (Div. inst. 5.3.4) that '"Christ, ...driven out by the Jews, gathered a band of nine hundred men and committed acts of lo
Examples of these longer Hebrew forms are printed and translated by KRAUSS, Dm
k b c m Jesu.
C. von TISCNENDORF, Evangeliu Apoctypha, 2nd ed Leipzig 1876, 460-1 (Demas's misdeeds, and the plot to charge Christ with them), 470 (Joseph writes so that all may believe in the crucified, no longer serving the law but believing in Christ's signs and wonders). The importance of this text for the Toledot Yeshu was brought out by Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, 95-7.
brigandage" (Chrisfurn...a ludaeis jkgatum collecra nongenforzm haminum munu latrocinia ficisse). This probably, like broadly comparable passages in Celsus on the disciples as beggars, reflects an early Jewish narrative which formed an a n t d e n t of the Toledot Yeshu.12 Lastly, of special note in the present connection is the famous Toledot Yeshu narrative of events after the display of Yeshu's body.13 The followers of Yeshu cause disturbance and bloodshed in the Jewish community. In order to bring this to an end, the Wise ( D v n x ) depute one of their number to pose as an apostle of Yeshu and to separate his followers fiom the Jews. In one widespread form he is called EIijah and is from the Beth Din of Tiberias. In the guise of an apostle he lays down ordinances for separate Christian festivals, prayers and customs, and for peace with the Jews. The Christians in the simplicity of their hearts obey his commands and revere him under the name of Paul, but in fact he remains a pious non-Christian Jew. Other versions of the story vary it or add to it so as to include the names of Peter and John. Illis narrative exemplifies a widespread class of legend, found far beyond the sphere of the Toledot Yeshu, which displays (to quote Wellhausen on the story of Jacob) "undissembled joy in all the successful artifices and tricks" of a folk hero.14 With aims closer to the explanatory enterprise of the Toledot Yeshu, similar and possibly connected legends are told about the foundation of Samaritanism and Islam by faithful Jews in disguise. The Toledot Yeshu m t i v e of Christian origins is evidently also related, however, to Christian narratives. The disturbance and bloodshed c a d by the followers of Christ recalls early Christian presentation of Jewish charges against the Christians, in which Paul is a pestilent faction-leader (Acts 24:s) and the disciples are evil-doen who want to set the temple on fire (Gospel of Peter 7:26). The ordinances of the supposed apostle recall the Christian tradition of apostolic ordinances prescribing avoidance of Jewish customs, a tradition represented for example in the sixth book of the Apostolic Constitutions and in a number of the Apostolic Canons. The fact that it is a false apostle who gives these new ordinances in the Toledot Yeshu has especially suggested some link with the particular viewpoint of Judaeo-Christians, such l 2 See the present writer, 'Christ as B r i p d in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic', in in. BAMMEI. - C.F.D. MOULE (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of lfis Day,Cambridge 1982, 183-
95. I 3 On this narrative see S.M.STERN, 'Abd Al-Jabbar's Account of how Christ's Religion was Falsified by the Adoption of Roman Customs', JTS ns 19 ( 1 %8) 12-5 (1 76-43); R. Di SEGNI, If Vffngelodel Ghetto, Rome 1985, 203- 15, with hvther literatwe discussed by H.I. NEWMAN, 'The Death of Jesus in the Toledo1 Yeshu Literature', SIS ns 50 (1 999) 59- 79 (60 n7). l 4 J. WELLWUSEN, Prolegonterm z w Geschichte Israels, 6th ed Berlin 1905, 318; ET Edinburgh 1885,32 1.
Judaea-Christiam in the Toledot Yeshu
285
as the Ebionites who called Paul an apostate from the law, according to Irenaeus (Waer. 1.26.2) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.27.4). Yet just here there is also a link with more widespread Christian development of the legendary theme just noted. The daring deception practised by the Jewish teacher for the sake of his people in the Toledot Yeshu recalls legendary Christian tradition of bold pious b u d in the apostolic preaching. A famous example from the Clementine romance, in a portion of the text which can reasonably be held to reflect Judaeo-Christianity at the beginning of the third century, is the depiction in Rec. 1.27-71 (65-8) of Garnaliel as deliberately concealing his Christianity for the benefit of the Christians.ls Especially notable, however, in comparison with the Elijah legend of the Toledot Yeshu, are two Antioch-centred accounts of Peter and Paul. In another part of the Clementine romance Peter causes Clement" father Faustus or Faustinianus, whom Simon Magus has turned into his own likeness, to impersonate Simon, now in the Christian interest; here a narrative current by the fourth century is incorporated into the story of Peter's apostolic journey from Caesarea Stratonis to Antioch.16 Again, in a narrative current in Syria at the end of the fifth century, Paul collaborates with Peter in Antioch by playing the part of a pagan who performs miracles - ostensibly as a pagan, secretly by the name of Jesus - but is eventually converted when Peter outdoes him.'? The famous opinion that Paul's rebuke of Peter at Antioch as described in Galatians was feigned and prearranged, a view presented in the fourth century by Chrysostom in Antioch and advocated by Jerome, who cites earlier sponsors of it, fits well into the tendency of thought seen in apocryphal narrative.18 The account of the separation of Christians from Jews in the Toiedot Yeshu can then be connected with widespread Christian legend which was current and still developing in the fourth century. The Toledot Yeshu may indeed have some contact with narratives known to Judaeo-Christians, but this contact seems likely to have been mediated through versions which, like the Clementine romance in its surviving forms, circulated in the church more generally .
I5
For a sketch of debate on this section see CARLETON PAGET, 'Jewish Christianity',
762f.
Horn. 20.1 1-23, Rec. 10.52-72; on these passages as not sharing the anti-Pauline polemic discerned in Rec. 1.27 71 and elsewhere in the Clementine romance see H.-J. SCHOEPS, Theoiogie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tubingen 1949, 13 1 f, n3. Jacob of Sent& discussed by W. BAUER, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Eculi~stChris~ianiry, 2nd ed w. supplements by G. SWCKER (Tubingen 1964), ET Idndon 1972,37. l a Chrysostom, Homily on In faciem ei restiti [Gal. 2:11] 16-20; Jerome, Epist. 112.4, discussed with other sources by J.B. LIGHTFOOT, The Episrle to the Galatians, London 1896, 128-32.
Reflections of Jewish-Christian relations The presentation of the Christians has been considered, as envisaged at the beginning, with reference to links between the Toledot Yeshu and Christian tradition, including the possibility of links with Judaeo-Christian tradition in particular. There is indeed ample indication that, as Krauss, Schonfield and others have shown, the Toledot Yeshu are intertwined with Christian tradition, sometimes inspired by it, and sometimes reflected in it. There is also much to suggest that the Toledot Yeshu preserve early Jewish polemical tradition on Christianity, often post-Constantinian but developing material already known in connected forms in the second century. Sometimes, as with regard to the portrait of Gamaliel in the Ciementine Recognitions, there arc touches recalling narratives which were probably current both among JudaeoChristians and more widely; but it seems less clear that there is a special link with narratives peculiar to Judaoo-Christians. More obvious is the deposit of continuing contact and exchange between Jews and Christians in general, probably above all in Palestine and Syria. This presentation of the first Christians has emerged as stylized by hostility. They are the dregs of the Jewish community, well symboli7ad by the Dmielic phrase "the children of robbers among thy people". There is some contrast here with material on Christianity preserved in the rabbinic tradition, which can offer on occasion a less stylized description, for instance in the account of a Christian whose words, in a conversation in Sepphoris, are said to have been esteemed by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (ttiul2.24). The presentation in the Toledot Yeshu has far less immediacy than this passage, but it reflects a viewpoint a l d y met in Celsus's source in the second century, and it has considerable significance for any reconstruction of the varying attitudes taken in the course of Jewish-Christian relations in the Roman empire.
Modern Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism Dan Cohn-Sherbok
Modern Missions to the Jews Although there were numerous Jewish converts to Christianity through the centuries, few attempts were made to spread the Gospel among the Jewish people. In 1809, however, the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (LSPCJ) was established, and a number of Christians were actively involved in missionary activity. In 1813 the Children of Abraham was created under the auspices of the LSPCJ. Simultaneously, in the second decade of the nineteenth century the first translation of the New Testament was made in Hebrew. In the quest to bring Jewish believers to Christ, England played a pivotal role. On 9 September 1813 a group of 4 1 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews Chapel. These Jewish Christians met in prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening. In addition, they daily visited any sick member to pray and read the Bible to him. In 1835 this group became known as the Episcopal Jews'Chapel Abrahamic Society; its aim was to visit Jewish converts and inquirers. The Hebrew Christian Prayer Union, founded in 1882 by Dr. H.A. Stern, also sought to unite Jewish Christians in spiritual fellowship. Every Sunday prayer was offered privately by each member, and there were general worship meetings as well. From 1883 to 1890 its membership increased from 143 to 600. In addition, branches were established in Germany, Norway, Romania, Russia, Palestine and the United States. In 1865 an attempt was made by Dr. C. Schwartz, minister of Trinity Chapel, Edgware Road, London to unite all Jewish Christians with the creation of the Hebrew-Christian Alliance. In the following year he launched the first Jewish Christian journal, The Scattered Nation. Later in the year, a circular letter was sent to all Jewish Christians, announcing that a meeting of all Jewish Christians was scheduled for May. Eighty Jewish Christians met together at the Conference, convinced that this was the first gathering of converted Jews to be held since the days of the early Church. The next year a public meeting was held at Willis' Rooms, King Street, St James, under the presidency of Dr. Schwartz. At this gathering it was
288
Cohn-Sherbok
resolved that although the members of the Alliance belonged to different Churches, they were united in Christ. Alongside the developments that were taking place in Great Britain, Christian missionaries were also active in Europe. In 1882 the first Jewish Christian mission was established by Joseph Rabinowitz. Returning to Kishinev after a visit to the Holy Idand, he gathered together numerous adherents of his doctrines. This new group, calling itself 'Israelites of the New Covenant', was set forth in twelve articles modelled on Maimonides' Principles of the Jewish Faith. Rabinowitzk endorsement of a Jewish lifestyle combined with an acceptance of Jesus'messiahship was shared by another Jewish Christian, I. Lichtenstein, a Hungarian rabbi. In opposition to Rabinowitz and Lichtenstein, some Gentile Christians maintained that these Jewish followers of Christ had distorted Jesusmessage. Anxious that these believers might form their own Hebrew Christian organization, they sought to persuade Jewish Christians to remain within the Church. At meetings this potential schism was frequently discussed. Such figures as Mark John Levy pressed for the Church to allow its members to embrace Jewish customs. Arguing along similar lines, Philip Cohen in South Africa, Theodore Lucky in Galicia, and Paulus Grun in Hamburg argued that there should be a separate alliance of Jews who had accepted Christ.
Hebrew Christianity Anxious to ensure that the Jewish Christians in the United States acknowledge the importance of Jewish customs, Mark Levy convened a group of believers in Boston on 22 May 1901. This gathering - the Boston Conference of the Messianic Council - agreed that a national conference take place to organize the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America. Under the leadership of Arthur Kuldell and Louis Meyer, a circular was sent out in November 1902 to all Messianic Jews living in the llnited States; after receiving 437 replies, the committee began to formulate plans for such a gathering to take place at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland. It was not until 1913 that further steps were taken to create this body of Jewish Christians. One of those who attended the Mountain Lake Conference in 1903 was Maurice Ruben; in 1913 he convened a conference of Hebrew Christians in Pittsburgh to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the New Covenant Mission. Those who attended this gathering agreed that the Hebrew Christian Alliance should be formally established. From 6 to 9 April 1915 delegates met at the Assembly Hall of the United Charities Building in New York to ratify a constitution for the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America.
Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism
289
The creation of the Hebrew Christian Alliance provided a framework for Jewish believers to unite together. Yet, despite such an enthusiastic beginning, the HCAA was subject to repeated attack from Jewish leaders as well as from the established Church. The creation of an organization of Jewish believers conflicted with the beliefs of those Christians who maintained that the Christian community was the true Israel. In their view, no distinction should be made between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ. According to these critics, the efforts of Jewish believers to establish their own body, undermined the foundations of Christian belief in Christ. It was the Church, not the synagogue, which had received God's blessings. In response to such criticisms, the HCAA stressed the need for Jewish believers to unite together in service to Yeshua. In a statement published in the Organ of the New York Evangelization Society in 1920 a committee of the Alliance asserted that the HCAA is nether a church nor a denomination. There was no intention of the part of Jewish believers to rebel against the Church. Rather, the aim of the Alliance was to evangelize the Jewish nation. While the Hebrew Christian Alliance underwent considerable growth in the United States, the mission to the Jews continued apace. By 1927 there were over 10 missionaries, and missionary bodies were established in England, Scotland and Ireland with sizeable Jewish populations. These British societies, however, did not confine their efforts to the United Kingdom; on the continent there were missionary groups in France, Germany, Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary; similar missions were also established in the Middle East and Asia. However, following the Holocaust, missions to the Jewish people ceased to function in those cities where the Jewish population had been largely eliminated. Alongside the developments that were taking place within the HCAA, Hebrew Christian congregations were actively engaged in evangelistic activities. By 1955 there were Hebrew Christian churches in seven North American cities as well as London. These congregations engaged in outreach programmes and also served as centres for Jewish believers who wished to express their Jewish identity. In some cases, they provided second and third generation Jewish believers with a sense of continuity. Within these Hebrew Christian churches, the background of Jewish believers was accepted. Yet there was little attempt to encourage loyalty to the Jewish tradition. Many of these Jewish Christians married Gentile Christians, and their children generally lost any connection with Judaism. Among those who married other Jewish believers, their children frequently retained some connection with their Jewish background, but such sensitivities gradually faded with the next generation.
290
Cohn-Sherbok
Even though those who belonged to Hebrew Christian churches were largely accepted by the Christian community, Jewish believers faced extraordinary hostility From Jewry. Regarded as apostates, these individuals were perceived as traitors to the faith. In general it was felt that these converts to Christianity had forfeited any connection with Judaism and had ceased to be Jews even though rabbinic Judaism declares that a person is Jewish regardless of any act of apostasy. Pressure was also applied from the Christian community on these converts to the faith to desist from retaining a Jewish identity. In the view of many Christians, once one had accepted Christ that person was no longer a Jew. From the early 1970s a considerable number of members of the Iiebrew Christian Alliance were committed to a church-based conception of ffebrew Christianity. The YHCA (Young Hebrew Christian Alliance), however, was forging a new conception of the movement rooted in the counterculture of the early 1970s. In particular, the Jesus People movement provided momentum for a revision of previously held notions about the lifestyle of Jewish believers. At the 1973 Conference of the HCAA Martin Chernoff was re-nominated President of the Hebrew Christian Alliance; with the support of a number of moderates, he was elected despite the opposition of traditionalist members of the movement.
Messianic Judaism At this time a constitutional amendment was proposed to change the name of the HCAA to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. Such a change was more than semantic; the majority of delegates were aware that such an alteration would initiate fundamental changes in the movement. When the amendment failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority, its supporters did not despair. The following year the YHCA held their awn conference at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. This conference stressed the importance of a Jewish lifestyle and featured musicians and music groups which played Messianic music with a Jewish flavour. Unlike many of the older members of the movement, these young people were determined to identify with their Jewish roots. In their view, the acceptance of Yeshua should be coupled with a commitment to the cultural and religious features of the Jewish faith. Among the leaders of the youth was Manny Brotman who served as President and first Executive Director of the YHCA. Through his influence the earliest Messianic literature was produced which stressed the Jewishness of faith in Yeshua. Another important figure was Joseph Finkelstein, formerly President of the YHCA and Executive Director from 1972 to 1975. Through his influence many young Jews were brought into the movement; in addition, Finkel-
Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism
29 1
stein organized a singing group which wrote their own music and also introduced choreographed dance worship as well as testimonies from the singers. Other leaders, such as Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Barry Leventhal, encouraged the study of the Bible. The 1975 HCkA Conference, chaired by Manny Brotman, was the largest held for years and combined a week of teaching with music and dance. At the business meeting, the issue of changing the name of the movement was debated and carried. Previously the Alliance had been composed of Jewish believers from various Christian denominations some were from a Presbyterian background; others from a Baptist or an Anglican milieu. Most were unprepared for the revivalist emphasis championed by young believers. At this conference, charismatic forms of worship were introduced including raising of hands, clapping to the Lord, and singing in the Spirit. Even though the biblical background of these practices was acknowledged, a number of older members of the Alliance were dismayed. Another issue which divided the movement was the question whether Jewish believers should live a Jewish lifestyle. Some members believed that it was desirable to follow Jewish traditions as long as they were in accord with Scripture, such as wearing a kippa (skullcap), a tallit (prayer shawl), tallit katan (undergarment with fringes), and tefillin (Phylacteries). In addition, these members stressed the importance of davening (chanting daily prayers from the traditional prayer book), lighting candles on the Sabbath, and reciting the traditional kiddush prayer on the Sabbath and at festivals. Some followed kosher food laws and rested on the Sabbath day. In general those who were drawn to the tradition were not from Jewish homes, yet wished to identify with Jewish practice. To many older members of the movement, such a return to Jewish observance had overshadowed faith in Yeshua. Another topic which divided Jewish believers was the ideology of Messianic Judaism. By 1974 Messianic congregations existed in Philadelphia, Washington, Cincinnati, Chicago and Los Angeles. The earliest congregation, Beth Messiah, was founded by Martin and Yohanna Chernoff in Cincinnati in 1970. The young people in his congregation including his sons Joel and David encouraged him to adopt a variety of Jewish practices such as lighting Sabbath candles, reciting kiddush and wearing kippot during services. Eventually the congregation celebrated the Jewish holidays, and Joel Chernoff wrote contemporary music which was sung by the congregation. Beth Messiah also sponsored an outreach programme attracting both Jewish and Gentile students. As time passed similar congregations were established elsewhere which reflected the ideological changes that were taking place within the
292
Cohn-Sherbok
movement. As a result, a clear division emerged between those who wished to forge a new lifestyle and those who sought to persuade older members of the need to embrace Jewish values - they remained unconvinced and left the Alliance. Within the Christian community, there was similar opposition to the Messianic movement. In the view of a number of Protestant evangelicals, the change of name from Hebrew Christian Alliance to Messianic Jewish Alliance indicated a rejection of Christianity and a return to the Jewish faith.
Critical reactions The change of name of the movement to Messianic Judaism signalled a fundamental change of direction. Any return to Hebrew Christianity was ruled out, and a significant number of older members leA the Alliance. As a result, the average age of members was significantly reduced. Increasingly worship services became Jewish in orientation even though they included dance, music and extemporaneous prayer. From outside the movement hostile criticism of Messianic Judaism was voiced by such bodies as the Fellowship of Christian Testimonies to the Jews. At their annual conference Erom 16 to 19 October 1975 a resolution was passed condemning the movement: "Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism strives to be a denomination within Judaism alongside of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism, thus confusing law and grace, we of the FCTJ afirm that Christian faith is consistent with, but not a continuation of Biblical Judaism, and is distinct from rabbinic Judaism. "Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism encourages Gentile Christians to undergo a conversion to Judaism, we of the FCTJ affirm that this violates the tenor of the New Testament in general and the Books of Galatians and Hebrews in particular for it involves converting to a religion that clearly denies the messiahship of Jesus. "Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism adopts the practices of rabbinic Judaism, e.g. kosher laws, wearing skullcaps and prayer-shawls, et al., we of the FCTJ affirm that any practice of culture, Jewish or non-Jewish, must be brought into conformity with New Testament theology. "Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism isolates itself from the local church rebuilding the 'middle wall of partition', thus establishing a pseudo-cultural pride, we of the FCTJ affirm the necessity of the Hebrew Christian expressing his culture and his spiritual gifts in the context of the local church thus edifLing the Body of Christ as a whole, and not an isolated pseudo-culture. "Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism opposes the usage of terms such as 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Christian', 'cross', et al., and insists on using the I..tebrew term exclusively, we of the FCTJ afirm that although we endorse tactfulness in witness, we rejcct a presentation of the Gospel which is a subtle attempt to veil and camouflage the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Whereas segments of Messianic Judaism, by portraying themselves to be synagogues with rabbis for the purpose of attracting unsuspecting Jews, employ methods which are
Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism
293
unethical, we of the FCTJ affirm that Jewish missions must be honest and Biblical in their message and approach, and reject the concept that 'the end justifies the means'.."'
Despite such criticism, Messianic Judaism continued to grow, thereby evoking considerable consternation within both the Jewish and Christian communities. In some cases direct action was taken against the Messianic community by Jewish activists. In Febraury 1980, for example, two members of the Jewish Defense League stole the Torah cross from a Messianic congregation, Ahavat Zion Synagogue in Los Angeles. The next month a group from the Jewish Defense League picketed the synagogue and hurled rocks through a window. According to Rabbi Kenneth Cohen of Young Isrctel congregation who accompanied this protest, Messianic Jews mislead Jews and engage in idol worship. In his view, the synagogue should be called a church. In Philadelphia similar events took place and numerous articles were written opposing the local Messianic congregation. Attempts were made to prevent Messianic Jews from buying a congregational building in a Jewish neighbaurhood. In addition, an advertisement was taken out by opponents of the Messianic Jews in the classified section of a local newspaper designed to foment contempt for the movement. Giving the names of several women belonging to the congregation as well as the address of the congregation's ministries, the advertisement read: "THREE RAVISHING WOMEN-- blonde, brunette and redhead. Blonde (Susan) for straight sex. Brunette (Linda) submissive to masterful men. Fiery Redhead (Debbie) for all S/M fantasies. All replies answered. A religious experience."'
While deploring such tactics, officials within the Jewish community generally regarded Messianic Judaism as a pernicious influence. In the view of many, it is simply impossible for Jews who believe in Jesus to remain members of the faith. As Rabbi Marc H. Tannenbaum, national inter-religious affairs director of the American Jewish Community stated: "Jewish tradition allows that Gentiles can believe in theTrinitarian concept, termed in Hebrew as shi~tuf(parternship).Belief in shittuf, Judaism affirms, does not constitute idolatry for non-Jews, but does so for Jews. Jews, born of a Jewish mother, who become so-called Messianic Jews, are bound by the Covenant of Sinai, which explicitly excludes the possibility of any belief that God shares his being in any partnership with any other being (Exodus 20:2 -6; Deuteronomy 4:15-21). While humanely one might empathize with Messianic Jews who wish nostalgically to retain some cultural linkages with the Jewish people - whether for guilt or other emotional reasons - in point of fact, re-enacting Jewish rituals of the Sabbath, the Passover, the bar mitzvah, without commitment to
'
R. WWER,The Calling: The History of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, 1915-1990, Wynnewood PA 1990,53. David RAUSCH, Messianic Judaism: Its History, Theology and P o l i ~ ,Lewiston, New York, 1982,230.
294
Cahn-Sherbok
the convictions they symbolize soon make a mockery of their sacred meanings."'
According to Tannenbaum, when such Jewish observances are used to persuade Jews of the authenticity of Messianic Judaism, this is nothing less than deliberate deceit. Leading figures within the American Jewish Committee have also emphasized the inherent dangers of Messianic Judaism. In an article by Rabbi A. James Rudin and his wife Marcia entitled "Onward (Hebrew) Christian Soldiers: they're Out to Grab Your Kids", they explained that Hebrew Christianity or Messianic Judaism is not new; rather Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews operated in the nineteenth century. Initially these evangelical bodies attracted few Jewish converts, yet in recent years the movement has undergone a major transformation. According to the Rudins, "The (Hebrew Christian, Messianic Jews) attempt to lull the Jew into belief that he is not actually changing his religion, when in fact the ultimate goal is to convert him to Christianity and have him join an established Christian c h u r ~ h . ' ~ In another article in the New York Times the Rudins explained what should be done to counter the cults. Among various suggestions, they recommended that laws regulating proselytization should be tightened; in addition, they proposed that laws barring conversion of minors should be passed and that cults could be prosecuted for interfering with family relati~nshi~s.~ Discussions between leaders of the Jewish community and Messianic Jews have also led to considerable misunderstanding and friction. After meeting with Dan Juster, Rabbi Arthur C. Blecher of Beth l'ivah congregation in Rockville, Maryland stated: "As I have emphasized to you in person and on the phone, I object to your allowing individuals to believe that you are a rabbi. I object to your deceptive use of language to mask the Christian nature of your congregation. I have only with great difficulty succeeded in beginning a healing process with two of my own families that were tom apart by your proselytizing efforts. You could have told me on several occasions that you intend to convince Jews to accept the New Testament and to be baptized. You have admitted to me that you are aware that the Jewish community considers Jews who have accepted the New Testament and been baptized to be Christians. I am dismayed that you make it a policy to withold these facts from the individuals you counsel.'*
'
Marc TANNENBAUM, 'NO, They Have Forsaken the Faith', Christianity Today, 26 (24 April 1981) 25. A. James RUDIN and Marcia R. RUDRJ, 'Onward (Hebrew) Christian Soldiers, Present Tense', The Magazine of World Jewish Affbirs 4 (Summer 1977) 18. STERN,Messianic Jewish Manifesto, Clarkesville, Maryland, 1997,61. "avid RAUSCH, op. cit., 236-7.
Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism
295
In reply Juster stated that Blecher's letter "to me exhibits a type of dogmatism and an unwillingness to put oneself in the position of the other". ?-Ie continued "Please allow me to respond to a few of your gross misconceptions reflected in your letter despite repeated attempts to correct misconceptions as well as to prove the sincerity of our stance. In defence, Juster stated that he neither sought nor encouraged his congregants to refer to him as a rabbi; in addition, he pointed out that Jewish believers do not accept the traditional boundaries between Judaism and Christianity. ...If a Jewish person reads the New Testament and comes to conviction of the truth of its teaching, it can cause disruption."'
Continuing this exchange, Rabbi Blecher questioned why Juster could not understand the severity of the issues he raised. He then cited the case of a severely disturbed patient at a mental hospital whose illness included guilt about the death of a parent. This person accidentally called Beth Messiah, believing it was a traditional synagogue. Beth Messiah sent a car to bring her to the congregation, and the person suffered an extreme setback when she found herself in a Christian setting. Juster, however, professed total ignorance of this event.* 'I'his was followed by an exchange between Rabbi Matthew 11. Simon of congregation B'nai Israel. In correspondence with Juster, he wrote: "What prompts this letter is a second case of deceit which I encountered this past weekend. An Iranian Jewish student in need of support, both legal and person, has a friend who is amember of your congregation ...The young man is not familiar with Christian missionary techniques and your evangelical outreach to Jews. He was brought to Beth Messiah a couple of times and explained that this was a 'form of American Jewish practice.' At no time was he told that he was participating in a Christian church, with Christian believers, where the ultimate goal was to bring him to Christianity. 1 am familiar with the many sophistries used in explained that Beth Messiah is different, but it surely is not ~ewish.*'~
Within the Christian community, Messianic Judaism has evoked similar hostility. Many evangelical Christians are opposed to Messianic Jews because they are regarded as too Jewish: they are viewed as rebuilding a wall of partition. A considerable number of mainstream Protestant movements are also opposed to the Jewishness of Messianic Jews, but are even more contemptuous of Hebrew Christian 'Jews for Jesus'evangelism. In 1980, for example, the Long Island Council of Churches condemned certain groups, including Messianic Judaism, declaring "that certain groups are engaging in subterfuge and dishonesty in representing the claims of their faith groups".'0 As Revd Lawrence McCoombe, chairman of the
' lbid., 237 238. ' Ibid., 239. Ibid ' Ibid., 244.
296
Cohn-Sherbok
Episcopal Church's Diocese of the Long Islam Commission on ChristianJewish Relations stated with regard to Hebrew Christian - including Messianic Judaism - missionizing: "It is upsetting to Jews because it impugns the integrity of Jewish belief. It is alarming to Christians because it misrepresents Christianity. It is disturbing to both Jews and Christians because it undermines the basis of mutual respect which it has taken so long for us to establish.""
Responding to criticism Responding to such criticism, Messianic Jews insist that Messianic Judaism is the legitimate heir of biblical Judaism. The New Testament, they argue, is the only divine revelation after the Torah; hence it is only through the New Testament that the Tanakh can be understood. As Walter Riggans explained in Messianic Judaism and Jewish Christian-Relations: "It is the New Testament which actually determines what is true faith in God. Therefore the idea that the faith centred on Jesus is somehow a child of Judaism, in the sense of being essentially derivative, is rejected summarily."'*
As B.Z. Sobel explained in his sociological study of Messianic Jews, this belief was shared by Hebrew Christian societies throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: "The basic contention put forward by the Hebrew Christian movement was that the only legitimate expression of Jewishness was infact Christianity, in that it constituted the fblfilment of the promise vouchsafed in the Old Testament faith of Israel ... The assertion is in fact made by Hebrew Christianity that the true tradition has been destroyed or obscured by a fsaudulent development, and that modern Judaism is, as it were, a living lie.w13
Such a contrast has continued within the modem Messianic movement: Messianic Jews similarly contend that by accepting Yeshua as their Messiah they have found true biblical Judaism. In Everything You Need to Know to Grow a Messianic Yeshiva, Philip Goble stressed that biblical institutions and observances have been transformed through Yeshua's sacrificial death. Messianic Judaism, he stated, maintains that in the death of Yeshua the Torah's demand for blood sacrifice has been fulfilled. In addition, Messianic Judaism also preserves the true significance of such Jewish institutions as the high priesthood, the sage, and the prophet and
Ibid., 245. WaIter R[GGANS, Messianic Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations, unpublished PhD thesis. l3 Ibid., 245-256. l2
Hebrew Christianip and Messianic Judaism
297
such doctrines as concerning the Messianic King, the Holy spirit and sa~vation.'~ Messianic Jews thus see themselves as completed Jews, in contrast to the other groups within the Jewish community which are rooted in rabbinic Judaism. Nonetheless, in recent times Messianic leaders have drawn attention to the abiding significance of traditional Jewish customs. Unlike the early Hebrew Christians, Messianic Jews have rediscovered the spiritual insights of traditional Judaism. As David Stem explained in Messianic Jewish Man festo: "Jewish history is important... because Judaism has preserved better application of biblical truth to many specific ethical decision-making situations than the usual Christian arrangements, which tend to be more ad hoc and therefore less well designed for preserving wisdom. Moreover, phenomena such as the sanctification of time in festivals and Shabbat, and the introduction of holiness into daily life through repeated activities such as laying tejillin, reciting prayers in a synagogue, and even seeing the mezuzah on the door, express in practical ways the imminence of God. Thus modem Jewish history and the Judaism it has produced helps us Messianic Jews to understand our faith.'""
Despite such a recognition of the spiritual significance of traditional Jewish observance, Messianic Jews are faced with the perplexity of determining the extent to which they should observe the Torah. In Messianic Jewish A.lan$esto, Stern pointed out that individual Messianic Jews, as well as Messianic Jewish congregations, currently work out their own ways of relating to the teachings and legal rulings produced over more than three millennia by the Jewish people. According to Stern, there are five major approaches to this issue within the movement: "I. Orthodox Jewish law should be observed in its entirety. Such a stand is arguably supported by New Testament teaching. Thus in Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua declares that he did not come to abolish the Torah, and that anyone who disobeys its least commands and teaches other to do so will be counted least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Further, when castigating the religious establishment, Yeshua did not denigrate any part of the Torah. Again, in Matthew 23:2-3, Yeshua states that the Torah teachers and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, implying that they have authority to determine how the law should be applied. Finally, Paul in Romans 7:12 refers to the Torah as holy, just and good. Yet, even those Messianic Jews who insist on the observance of traditional Jewish law are convinced that salvation is based on God's grace and mighty acts rather than strict observance of the Torah. "2. It is desirable, though not essential, that Messianic Jews observe traditional Jewish law. Biblical law, they argue, was given by God to the Jewish people and never abrogated; therefore it is obligatory. Further, those who are knowledgeable about Jewish history are aware of the importance of the legal tradition. It has been God's will that the Jewish people be preserved: the law has served as a vital means of ensuring Jewish
'"
Philip E. Goot:,i., Everything You Need to Know to Grow a Messianic Yeshiva, Pasadena CA 1981,2 1. l5 STERN, op. cit., 6 1 .
298
Cohn-Sherbok
survival. Added to these arguments is the conviction that by keeping the law, Messianic Jews will be able to identify with fellow Jews. "3. Keeping Jewish law is a totally subjective issue. Whether Messianic Jews obey the law is a matter of individual conscience. The New Testament, the Church and Christianity have nothing to say on this subject. Those who hold to this view insist that obedience to Jewish law is in no way essential for salvation. Rather, salvation is based alone on faith, repentance from sin, and turning to God through Messiah Yeshua. "4. It is actually undesirable for Messianic Jews to observe traditional Jewish law. While it is not prohibited, Messianic Jews should recognize that they are liberated from the law and instead alive in the Spirit. "5. Messianic Jews should not observe Jewish law at all. The fear is that they will regard the Torah, rather than trust in Yeshua, as the means of ~alvation."'~
Messianic Jews thus approach the Jewish tradition in a variety of ways. Yet while accepting that such individual decision-making is essential to the life of a Messianic Jew, a number of leaders in the movement have been anxious that Messianic Judaism embarks on the task of constructing a legal framework for Messianic living. Discussing the resources for such a n endeavour, David Stern wrote: "What might Messianic Jewish halakhists wish to consult as they prepare for the~rtask'? ...the New Testament is one such source, and it should go without saying that the Tanakh is another. In addition to the Bible, Messianic Jewish halakhists must know how to deal with the vast amount of halakhic material that has arisen within Judaism. This includes not only the Mishnah (220 CE) and the two tiamurus each of which the Mrshnah equals a Talmud - the Jerusalem Talmud (4th century) and the Babylonian Talmud (5th century) but also the Tosefia (composed of 2nd-3rd century codifications similar to the Mrshrrah), the halakhic midrushim (Mekhilra on Exodus, Sfra on L*eviticus,Srfrer on Numbers and Deuteronomy, all complied in the fourth or fifth centuries) and the opinions of the Suvoraim (6th-7th centuries), Gaonim (7th-10th centuries), Poskrm (I lth- 14th centuries), Rishonim (14th-17th centuries) and Acharonlm (18th-20th centuries) continued in codes, responsa (case law) and other writings...other Jewish materials touch on hulakhoh from without rather than from within. For example, there is Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics (musar), and an interesting literature on raamev ha-mitmor, 'the reasons for the commandments." We should research the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist writings on halafiah since these movements have had to explain to their own constituencies why they adopt a view different from that of the Orthodox, and have therefore pioneered some paths we should explore.""
Hence, Messianic Jews see themselves as firmly rooted within the Jewish tradition. Dedicated to living in accordance with Scriptural teaching, they are open to the insights of the Jewish heritage despite criticisms made by both Jewish and Christian opponents. Determined to distance themselves from the Gentile Church, they insist they are faithful Jews, holding firm to the principles of the faith as manifest in the life and teaching of Messiah Yeshua. l6
l7
Ihid., 14&143. Ihid., 162-163.
Christians and Jews after the Shoa and the Mission to the Jews Simon Schoon The organisers of the colloquium have asked me to reflect on a theme that involves two hotly debated questions. While no one will deny that we live after the Shoa, this insight does not have the same meaning for Jews and Christians. For most Jews, everything has changed; the whole world has changed. Christians reactions to the Shoa are more diverse. For some, nothing has changed in relations with the Jews; the same issues are on the table after the Shoa as before it, first of all the question of the Messiahship of Jesus. For others, everything has changed, and after the Shoa nothing in church and theology has remained the same. Correspondingly, there are diverse Christian positions on the mission to the Jews. Many are convinced that it is something of the past, something we have left behind and regard as a totally inadequate response to the delicate relations between Jews and Christians. Other Christians will, however, maintain that the mission to the Jews is and remains the most important or even the only legitimate Christian approach to the Jews, a holy and God-given task. Therefore the theme that I was given plunges us into the debate: How do we live as Christians and Jews after the Shoa? And what is our position on the mission to the Jews, after the Shoa?
Christians after the Shoa It is still too little realized in church and university that the context of Christian life in general and of theological study in particular - at least in Europe and North America - is marked by the indication 'after the Shoa'. Many Christians live and believe as if nothing has happened and nothing has changed. It is also too little acknowledged that the historical and theological dimensions of the people of Israel are linked and can not be separated. If there is still a trace left in Christian thinking of the biblical conviction that God is the God of history, then it must be clear that the historical and theological aspects, even if they must be distinguished, are inseparable.
3 00
Schoon
Many Christians have not yet grasped that the attempt of Hitler's murder-machine to destroy the whole Jewish nation was - in theological language - also aimed at breaking God's faithfulness to his covenant people, Israel. Furthermore, the Christian community which seeks to rely on that same unfailing faithfulness of the God of Israel has scarcely begun to realize that herewith also the foundation of their own existence was under threat. The painful questions which are raised by the Shoa about the power and faithfulness of God are not just questions for the world-wide Jewish community but are equally burning questions for the church and for Christian theology. So, if we hope to continue Christian theology a@er Auschwitz, this must be conducted in a spirit of repentance and humility, and in a readiness to listen to 'the other'. Because it is undeniable that Christian theology was at least co-responsible for thoughts and attitudes that led to the horror of the Shoa. It is impossible to come to a new theological paradigm and a renewal of the relationship between Jews and Christians as long as Christian theology sees the event in the 20th century that carries the name of 'Auschwitz' as something of no relevance for its thinking. A number of Christians hold the view that a new vision of the Jewish people and Judaism must be drawn purely and simply fiom the New Testament as the foundation text of Christianity, thereby dismissing nearly 2000 years of church history. Even when this intention is rooted in the Reformation principle of sola Scriprura, the project is fated not only to fail but to offend the Jewish victims and other victims of Christian history. In order to come to a renewal of the Jewish-Christian relationship, the Wirkungsgeschichte of New Testament texts in a long and often dreadful history must be scrutinized in critical research. In fierce resistance to this type of research, the sincere at.tempts to read New Testament texts differently and to interpret them in the terrible light cast by Auschwitz are condemned as 'hermeneutical intimidation', and the murder of 6,000,000 Jews is dismissively compared in cold statistical terms along with other attempts at genocide in the dreary catalogue of human crime.' Perhaps there are few who propound such a view, but many have shrugged off the tough questions posed by Auschwitz and happily continue to repeat traditional Christian answers as though nothing has happened. Many theological essays pass over the fundamental shock which the Shoa brings to all Christian thinking.
G . KILN, '"Christiicher Antijudaismus". Bemerkungen zu einem semantischen Einschnchte~ngsversuch',ZTK 79 ( 1 982) 4 1 1-450.
30 1
Christians and Jews afier the Shoa
Few have called for a theological re-thinking as dee ly and intensely as the German theologian Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt. He went so far as to question the whole endeavour of theological reflection. Is it not, after all, better to keep silent about God than to continue with verbal theological violence in the face of the victims? If we yet have to speak out theologically, it is because of the fact that keeping silent means a betrayal of the victims. According to Marquardt, the effort of theology can only be endeavoured in the awareness of the crisis caused by the Shoa and in the readiness for a total Urndenken. This renewed attempt at a theological vision is born out of the search for practical ways to give structure and content to the relationship with the Jewish people and is not intended to refine a theoretical definition of 'others'. In Christian thought, Jews should no longer, as in the past, be treated as strangers but should be considered and encountered only from a standpoint of shared experience and solidarity. Christians have to learn "to let the other live in his otherness, and to loosen the stranglehold of the craving for religious and theological definiti~n".~
P
A new paradigm? In recent decades - it must be recognized - more has changed for the better in Jewish-Christian relations than in nearly 2000 years. As proof of this statement, one can point to a stream of official church statements and a library of theological studies. Even so, Christian readiness to change is not primarily based on theological considerations. New studies yielding biblical insights about the Jewish people have not been the most important instrument in shaping the fundamental Christian review of its conception of Jews and Judaism. Historical factors, far more than theological ones, have powered the church's far-reaching reconstruction of its ideas in this vital matter. The shock-waves caused by the Shoa and the great impression made by the establishment of the State of Israel are the prime causes that set in motion the change in Christian views on Jews and Judaism. I-Iowever, one must honestly ask: Has so much really changed in the teaching and life of the Church that Jews could risk the possibility of an open dialogue with Christians? Or must we recognize that the amended conception of Jews and Judaism has still barely touched more than a small part of Christendom? Do not these ideas provoke strong resistance, proving that the new concept is yet to strike root in our churches and theoloF.- W. MARQIJARDT, Yon Elend und Heimsuchung der Theologie. Prologomena t u r Dogmatik, Chr. Kaiser, Milnchen 1988, 53-148. F.-W. MARQ~IARDT, 'Terug in Amsterdam', Ophef(bijlage "Afdwalen" 1997), 7 .
302
Schoon
gical faculties? Do Christians and churches really live after the Shoa, and beyond the mission to the Jews? Can we already speak of a new theological paradigm in the views of churches and Christians on Jews and Judaism? Is Judaism really recognized theologically as a living tradition and is the ongoing theological significance of the Jewish people in the post-biblical period accepted in Christian thinking? Have the consequences been drawn from these convictions for the basic tenets of our faith and doctrine? These questions cannot quickly be answered and must be left open for the moment.
Church documents In the past half century, a lot of work has been done to amend the theory and doctrine of the Church on Jews and Judaism. Various attempts have been made on the side of many churches in official documents to break away from supersessionism and substitution theology and to develop a different perspective on the relationship of Church-Israel. More important than the groundbreaking studies of individual theologians are these official church documents, although theological studies have prepared the ground for the official church statements. In this respect, the declaration Nostra aetate (no. 4 ) of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 must be seen as a milestone. Looking back from the 21st century, it is scarcely imaginable how that first careful statement forshadowed a tectonic shift in the theological thought of the Roman Catholic Church towards to Jews. The declaration begins thus:4 "As this sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the church, it recalls the spiritual bond linking the people of the new covenant with Abraham's stock (...) The church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy deigned to establish the ancient covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that good olive tree onto which have been graAed the wild olive branches of the Gentiles."
Nostra aetate was developed further in important statements in 1975 and 1985." In contrast, apart from a brief reference at its establishment in 1948 in Amsterdam, the World Council of Churches has never dared to come out with such a fundamental statement, at the highest level, about the theolo-
"
In: E. J . FfSIiER, L. KIkXiCU, In Our Time. The Flowering of Jewish-Christian Dialogue, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1990, 27. Ibid. 29-50.
'
Christians and .Jews uper the Shoa
303
gical significance of the Jewish people.6 In the introduction to the 1948 Declaration on The Christian Approach to the Jews it was indeed recalled that the delegates were meeting in a country from which 1 10,000 Jews had been deported and murdered in the so-recent war, but it continued with a blunt call to the Church to resume its missionary task amongst the Jews. Remarkably, the text includes a comment on the State of Israel, established that same year, which the WCC could not bring itself to repeat in all its years since:' "We appeal to the nations to deal with the problem [i.e. of the State of Israel] not as one of expediency - political, strategic or economic - but as a moral and spiritual question that touches a nerve centre of the world's religious life.'"
Coming now to the 'eighties, we see a virtual flood of declarations, statements and pastoral letters appear, issued by bishops, synods and other church assemblies. These pronouncements, of varying significance and quality, signalled a remarkable shift in Christian views on the Jewish Until 1980 the Dutch Reformed Church was practically the only Protestant church in the world that addressed the subject of the Jews and the relationship of Church-Israel as a serious matter of faith. This church also repeatedly placed the theme on the agenda of international ecumenical meetings. In 1949, it instituted an annual 'Israel Sunday' on the first Sunday of October, in the season of the Jewish High Holydays. And in 1959, its Synod published the study Israel en de kerk ('Israel and the Church'), whereby Israel's enduring election and involvement in the Covenant was affirmed. Furthermore, the State of Israel was identified as a sign of Gods faithfulness towards his people, as a sign that - in spite of all human betrayal and unbelief - the Jewish people had been given a new chance to give expression to its election in history. After the Council of the Evangelical (Evangelische) Church in Gerrnany published its wide-ranging study Christen und Juden ('Christians and Jews') in 1975, it was the 1980 decision of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of bineland that sparked intense discussion. After that, more publications and declarations were published in Germany and elsewhere. The confessional statements of 1980, a few of which I shall quote, got to -A. BROCKWAY, P. VAN BUREN, R. RENDTORFI:, S. SCI~OQN, The Theology of the O1hurches und the Jewish People. Statements by the World Council of Churches and its member churches, Geneva, WCC Publications 1988, 5-46, 123-140, 181- 186. Ibid. 8 Collected in: R. RENDTORFF, H. H~WRIX (Hg.), Die Kirchen und dus Judentum. Dokumente von 1945 bis 1980, Bonifatius I Chr. Kaiser, Paderborn I Mnnchen 1988; H.H. HIINRIX,W. KRAUS (Hg.), Die Kirchen und d m Judentum. Dokumente van I 9 8 6 2000, CD-ROM / Band 11, Bonifatius / Chr.Kaiser, Paderborn I Mnnchen 2001.
'
3 04
Schoon
the roots of the issue and betokened an important theological change in the German c h ~ c h e s : ~ "1. We confess with dismay the co-responsibility and guilt of German Christendom for the Holocaust. (...) "3. We confess Jesus Christ, the Jew, who as the Messiah of Israel is the Saviour of the world and binds the peoples of the world to the people of God. "4. We believe in the permanent election of the Jewish People as the people of God and realize that through Jesus Christ the church is taken up into the covenant of God with his people. (...) "6. We believe that in their respective calling Jews and Christians are witnesses of God before the world and before each other. Therefore we are convinced that the church may not express its witness towards the Jewish People as it does its mission to the peoples of the world."
A remarkable document was also issued by the Presbyterian Church in the United States. In 1987, it completed six years of study with a declaration at Synod level, entitled A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Christians and Jews, of which the main professions of faith are as follow^:'^ "1. We affirm that the living God whom Christians worship is the same God who is worshipped and served by Jews. We bear witness that the God revealed in Jesus, a Jew, to be the Triune Imd of all, is the same One disclosed in the life and worship of Israel. 2. We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, Christians have not replaced Jews. 3. We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world, and that the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both. 4. We aftirm that the reign of God is attested both by the continuing existence of the Jewish people and by the church's proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence, when speaking with Jews about matters of faith, we must always acknowledge that Jews are already in a covenantal relationship with God."
A worldwide change 'The many official declarations in the last decades of the 20th century, often the result of years of debate in committees and councils, strongly reflect the change in the attitude of the churches to Judaism and in the relationship between Jews and Christians. For a long time, the issue of Jewish-Christian dialogue had been almost exclusively a transatlantic concern of Europeans and Americans. Christians From other parts of the A. BKOCKWAY,el al., o.c., 93. In German: Zur Erneuerung des Verhdlrnisses von Christen und Juden, Handreichung nr. 39, MUhlheim 1980, 10. 'O A. BROCKWAY el al., o.c., 105-1 20.
Christians and Jews after the Shoa
305
world had little connection with what they saw as a mainly 'western hobby'. They understood that this special European and American fascination sprang from the western Christians' guilt feelings about the centurieslong persecution of European Jewry and from their recognition of Christian co-responsibility for this history. From various places, in recent years, a change has come about. An institutional dialogue has been set in motion by representatives of Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. After the Iron Curtain came down, many East Europeans have rediscovered the rich Jewish heritage in their countries. New Councils of Christians and Jews have been established here, which encouraged churches to catch up with the times and to fight anti-Judaism in theology and in religious practice. Also churches in the Middle East, especially through the discussions in the Middle East Council of Churches, have become interested in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, on account of its obvious implications for the political tensions between Israelis and ~alestinians." In an extraordinary development, many theologians from third world countries have made trips to Israel or have actually studied there for longer periods, thereby discovering that encountering living Judaism can be immensely rewarding. Thus to some extent the Jewish-Christian dialogue slowly spreads into various contexts of the world. It is no longer limited to the North-Atlantic region, where the memory of the Shoa plays a vital role. Nor is western theology the only instrument to mediate Jewish-Christian dialogue in other ecumenical contexts. It is found to be more fruitful to create separate, bi-lateral dialogues between Jewish partners on one hand and Christians in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa or Asia on the other. Sometimes these discussions have become trialogues with Muslims as third party,12and many times the Jewish-Christian encounters have been widened to become a multi-religious dialogue with members from various religions. Apart from this, the internal debate between Christians from different confessional backgrounds on the impact of Jewish-Christian dialogue on church and theology is of great importance, a discussion that, though difficult and exhausting, must not be broken off. Jewish questions directed towards the heart of Christian identity always give Christians reasons for reflection. Perhaps this could be seen as 'the Jewish mission' to the Church and the Christians. For example, the theological implications of " See a publication %omthe time of the first intqada: N. A ' t ~ E l i , M.H.ELLIS,R.R. RUETHER(eds.), Faith and the Intifada. Palestinian Christian Voices, Orbis Books, Maryknoll 1992. Cf. S. SCHOON,'Op weg naar een christelijke theologie van de triaioog', Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdrchrzj? 101 (2001), 7 1-76.
''
306
Schoon
the Jewishness of Jesus and of the continuing election and existence of the Jewish people will always be an impetus and a challenge for intraChristian reflection.13 We may register real progress in Jewish-Christian encounters in the last quarter of a century. Perhaps we also can agree that the greatest achievement of this dialogue is the fact that Jews and Christians fiom many and various backgrounds are ready to join hands in the struggle against all forms of anti-Semitism and racism around the world. It is of fundamental significance that Jews and Christians are now more likely to see each other as allies than as opponents or even enemies, This was clearly expressed in A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity signed in September 2000 by more than 150 rabbis and Jewish scholars in the United States, England, Canada and Israel:14 "Jews and Christians, each in their own way, recognize the unredeemed state of the world as reflected in the persistence of persecution, poverty, and human degradation and misery. Although justice and peace are finally God's, our joint efforts, together with those of other faith communities, will help bring the kingdom of God for which we hope and long. Separately and together, we must work to bring justice and peace to our world. In this enterprise we are guided by the visions of the prophets of Israel."
Forms of dissent Change calls forth dissent. Many Christians feel threatened in their identity by the altered views on Jews and Judaism. In reaction, old theological standpoints can be fiercely defended. Even the old supersessionist theology can be refurbished and given a fresh look. One should not, of course, dismiss all dissent out of hand. In different circumstances, dissent can take different forms. It is too easy, coming from a western background, to accuse Palestinian Christian theology of anti-Judaism, without giving attention to the specific conditions to which this theoiogy forms a reaction.'' In an intra-Christian theological debate with Palestinian Christians, Westerners may indeed j3 A few examples: P.M. VAN B W N , A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality. Part 3. Christ in Context, Harper & Row, San Francisco 1988; F.-W. MARQUARDT,Das christliche Bekenntnis zu Jesus, dem Juden. Eine Christologie, Bd. 1-2, C h . Kaiser, Mtinchen 1990-9 1. l4 T. FRYMER-KENSKYet al. (eds.), Christianity in Jewish Terms, Westview Press, Colorado - Oxford 2000, xx. l5 E.g. N.S. ATEEK, Justice, and only Justice. A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, Orbis Books, New York 1989; cf. also S. SCHOON,'Vergeving tussen Joden en Palestijnen', in C. HOUTMAN,A. JELSMA,H.C. VAN DER SAR(red.), Ruimte voor vergeving, Kok, Kampen 1998, 115-132.
Christians and Jews a)er the Shoo
307
explain what after centuries of anti-Judaism they have learned at last about Jews and Judaism. Rut they must also be expected to remain acutely aware of the exceptional circumstances in which Palestinian Christians experience Israelis and which have shaped their theology. Living 'after'the Shoa should not mean that Christians in dialogue with Jews are silenced as soon as they express their anxiety and criticism regarding Israeli policies toward the Palestinian people, so as not to endanger the carefully built-up dialogue. The context of Latin American liberation theologians is again completely different. In their position, the anti-Judaism of western Christendom is often uncritically adopted and an image is formed of Jesus as a Liberator in sharp contrast with the 'legalistic Pharisees' of his time. These serve as prototypes of the exploiters and oppressors of Latin America past and present, in the church as well as in the ruling c ~ a s s . ' ~ A great ability and willingness to change such insights has been shown by feminist theology. In its initial phase it pictured Jesus as 'a feminist avant la Iettre' in sharp contrast with the patriarchal Judaism of his time, thus making Judaism the scapegoat for all the later discrimination against women in Christendom. Moreover, biblical Israel was held responsible for the suppression of the cult of the Earth-goddess and thereby accountable for the patriarchal structure of the later Church. There was a lot of traditional anti-Judaism in the early years of Feminist Theology, because new movements often unconsciously accepted lots of old ideas without careful study. Thus also, Jesus was supposed in his words and deeds to have broken with the established pattern of Jewish tradition and to have left the patriarchal Judaism of his time far behind. Through careful questioning of the Jewish partners, many feminist theologians have come to realize that such conclusions can only result from an uncritical and actually fundamentalist reading of the New Testament.'' A historical-critical reading, coupled with a profound study of Jewish writings from the time of the Second Temple, allows other aspects to come to light. In this research, a common error is to compare, or contrast, different periods of history. Jesus' teachings and sayings cannot be simply set beside rabbinic sayings from the 'Talmudic period. Objective research would compare the sayings of the Church Fathers about women with those of Talmudic sages of the same era. In recent years a concrete solidarity came into being between representatives of Jewish and Christian feminist movements, which led to mutual recognition and assistance in the l6 See for example: L. KI.ENICKI,L. BoF)', 0.MAUURO,M.H. EL.uS, et al., 'Jews, Christians and Liberation Theology: A Symposium', CJR 21 (1988) 3-60. l7 See K. Vm KEWBACH, 'Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Feminism and Religion', CJR 1912 (1986) 33-40.
opposition to patriarchal structures which exist both in Judaism and in Christianity.
Beyond the Mission to the Jews? We have seen that great changes have taken place in Church and theology after the Shoa. But the question remains whether encountering the living Jewish people will cause a paradigm shift to break through in the whole realm of Church and theology. Many Christians profess the end of substitution theology with their lips, but in their thoughts and actions show that this theory is still very much alive. So far there has not been much reflection on what could replace the substitution theory in Church and theology. It is still uncertain whether repentance caused by the shock of the Shoa will bring about lasting change in theological thinking, certainly so when in the 2 1 st century the memory of this honor will slowly fade away. Anyhow, anti-Judaism and the mission to the Jews cannot yet be called phenomena of the past. There is nothing for Jews that casts so much doubt on the officially expressed Christian readiness to listen to living Judaism as the activities of the missions to the Jews. Ongoing attempts by Christians and Christian organizations to convert Jews to the Christian faith are regarded as the very expression of Christian triumphalism. In the worldwide evangelical movement, frequent declarations are issued in which Christians are called upon to promote the mission to the Jews and even to give it priority. More than once the reproach is made from the evangelical side that churches, being stimulated by pressures from Jewish organizations, wrongly deviate from their biblical task to call all people to Jesus Christ, including and even especially Jews. According to these Christians the memories of complicity and passivity of Christianity in the times of persecutions of Jews may never lead to the consequence of giving up the great commandment to proselytize the whole world. because that would mean abandoning 'Christian truth'.I8 Often the mission mandate to the Jews is linked with the expectation that Jewish Christians will realize the special task of bridge-building between Judaism and Christianity. Since the Second World War, Jewish Christians, especially in Protestant and Evangelical circles, have shown a clear preference for names like 'Messiah Confessing Jews' or 'Messianic
'90 A.F. ( 1992) 36-49.
GLASSER,'Evangelical Objections to Jewish Evangelism', hlishkan 16
Christians and Jews after the Shoa
309
~ e w s ' . 'These ~ Jewish believers in Jesus are regarded - by themselves and by other Christians - as bridge-builders par excellence, because by their very existence the special link between the Christian community and the Jewish people has taken concrete shape. But this possible function of Jewish Christians is fiercely rejected by the great majority of the Jewish people. It is the result of many centuries of church history that precisely this group, that by its descent and background would seem to be most qualified for bridge-building, cannot realize this calling. Conceivably, in the first centuries of the common era this could still have been possible, but there is no historical continuity between 'the Church from the Circumcision' of the first centwries and the present Jewish Christians or the movement of Messianic Judaism. Jewish Christianity - or 'JudaeoChristianity' - as a community with its own character, liturgy and doctrine, has disappeared from the stage of history in the 4th-5th century. Most modern Jewish Christians are marked and shaped by church history and by centuries of Gentile-Christian theology, just like the Gentile Christians. It is an anachronism to try to copy the situation of the first century into the 2 1st century.20
The 'Parting of the Ways' In this context I will be brief on the 'Judaeo-Christians' in the first centuries and the process of the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians. Other contributions of this book will approach this theme from various angles, and I can restrict myself to a few remark^.^' It would be better to speak of several different processes than of a single 'process of the parting of the ways7,because in the first centuries a variety of processes were simultaneously active and were inter-acting with each other. Nor is it possible in these centuries to speak of 'the Church' and even less of 'The Synagogue' as a proper term. Neither 'Judaism' nor 'Christianity' in this period designated a fixed and exact entity. The manner in which the separation between Jews and Christians was brought l9 The latter name could raise misunderstandings and annoyance, since many other Jews believe in a (coming) Messiah and could call themselves therefore 'MessiahConfessing-Jews'. More correct would be the name 'Jesus-as-Messiah-Confessing-Jews'. See a very mild and moderate approach from the Jewish side: D. COHN-SHERBOK, Messianic Judaism, Cassell, London - New York 2000. An earlier study is sharper and more apologetic: B.Z. SOBEL,Hebrew Christianity The Thirteenth Tribe, John Wiley 62 Sons, New York etc. 1974. 20 Cf. S. SCHOON, Christelijkepresentie in de Joodse Stoat, (dissertation) Kok, Kampen 1983, 13-20,6066,84-102,232-234. See especially the contribution of Peter TOMSON.
about is difficult to reconstruct with historical precision, because many original sources have been lost and developments have been coloured by comments of later rabbis and church fathers. In mutual processes of accusations and denunciations, charges of heresy were not made between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' in general, but more specifically between 'Judaeo-Christianshnd 'Gentile Christians' and between 'Judaeo-Christians'and representatives of early rabbinical Judaism. Therefore, at the end of the first century there is still not a definite schism between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity', but there are many varied developments under way, each in its particular context. This means that a multitude of 'separation processes between Jews and Christians' is a more adequate description of this complex event.** The most important separation processes took place on two levels: on the one hand, between the mainly Gentile 'orthodoxhtapostolic' church and the Judaeo-Christian churches and, on the other, between JudaeoChristians and Early Rabbinic Judaism. The phenomenon of 'JudaeoChristianity'is not simple to describe and its borders are far from clear. In the majority of the literature on the subject, different names are used and conceptions are not u n a m b i g ~ o u s As . ~ ~we are obliged, in the interest of understanding, to use certain names and definitions, it is most important to bear in mind that nobody in the first century called himlherself a 'Jewish Christian' or a 'Christian Jew' or a 'Judaeo-Christian'. There is not yet a consensus on a historical reconstruction of the 'Judaeo-Christian movements". There is, however, a growing consensus that it was not mainly theological factors that were decisive in the 'parting of the ways', but much more the political upheavals of the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 Cf;. Before and after 70 there were various 'Christian' or 'Jesuanic' Jewish groups that understood themselves as part of the Jewish people, but which
*'
See in particular: B. WANDIIR, Trennungsprozesse zwischen Friihem ('hristentum und Judenrum im I . Jahrhundert n. Ckr. Datierbare Abfilgen zwischerr der tfinrich~ung Jesu und der Zwstlirung des Jerusulemer Tempels, Francke Verlag, 'IXbingen - Basel 1994, 4-53; also J.D.G. DUNN, The Parting c l f the Wuys Befween ('ltristiunity und Judaism and their S i g n ~ ~ c a nfor c e the Chmacter o/C'hristianity. SCM i Trinity, London I Philadelphia 1991, 230- 259; also D. BOYARIN, Dying /or God. hlurtyrdom und the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford 1999. 23 A few examples: R.A. KWT, 'In Search of "Jewish Christianity" and its "Theology". Problems of Definition and Methodology', in Judbo-Christianisme. Recherches his~oriqueser thkologiques ofer1e.s en hommuge au Cardinul Jtiurr DaniPlou, Paris 1972, 37-54; R. %FWACKF:NBIJRC~, 'Das Urchristentum', in J . MAIIIR. J . WI~REINIIR (tig.), Li~eraturund Religion des Fruhjudentums. Eine Einfuhrung, WUriburg, Echter Verlag, 1973, 284-309; P.J. ' T O W N , 'If this be from Heoven... '; Jesus und the New 7'estament Authors in their reln~ionshipto Judaism, AcPr, Shefield 2001, chapter 8.
Christians and Jews afrer the Shaa
31 1
held highly divergent conceptions about the person and significance of Jesus and about his distinctive role for Jews and Gentiles. On such important 'Judaeo-Christian' movements as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites we have almost nothing but the reports of the Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius, who saw them as dangerous heretics and who could therefore not be expected to paint more or less 'objective'pictures of what inspired these groups. Ultimately, the 'ChristianYews were caught right between a rock and a hard place. In these early ages both large movements, rabbinic Judaism and the 'orthodox'or 'apostolic' - mainly Gentile - Christian Church, wanted to strengthen their identity and could not tolerate dissidents. As compared with the Gentile Christian church, the 'Judaeo-Christianbovements held fast to a more or less strict observation of the Torah, and in that way showed their loyalty to Jewish tradition. But their Jewish compatriots marked them down as heretics and ultimately no longer saw them as part of the Jewish people. It is tragic that in their 'orthopraxy" they undoubtedly stood close to the Jew Jesus of Nazareth yet were as unwelcome in the Church as within the Jewish people, being condemned by both sides as 'heretics'.
Jewish Christians today In our times, Jewish Christian groups often refer to and regard themselves as the historical continuation of the 'Judaeo-Christians'of the first centuries. 'They look at themselves also as the 'eschatological sign'that the final phase of history has started and the 'end of times'is near. Remarkably in some circles, mainly of evangelical Christians, 'Messiah-JesusConfessing-Jews'are held up as a sign of the great harvest that will swiftly come. They are treated as 'twice elected', because they are both Jews and believers in Jesus as Messiah. Their presence in the Christian community encourages eschatological hopes for great numbers of Jews to accept the Christian faith and ultimately to fulfil a great missionary endeavour over the whole In some ecclesiologies, 'Jewish Christians-lay a vital and important role, particularly when it is expressed that in any age the Church is only the real community of Christ when it consists of both Jews and Gentiles. The logical result of this view would be that we must zealously strive to win Jews for the church, otherwise the true essence of the church is in
24
see for example: K . KJER-WANSEN
salem, Caspari Center, 1996.
(ed.), Jewish Identity dl Faith in Jesus, Jeru-
312
Schoon
danger.2s In my opinion, it is not theologically necessary to project the conditions in which the church began in the first century into an absolute nola ecclesiae for all time. The modern phenomenon of mutual conversion between Judaism and Christianity should be judged soberly and objectively. In countries where many points of contact exist between Jews and Christians, there will always be individual conversions. It is not fair to endow the phenomenon of conversion of Jews to the Christian faith with high eschatological expectations, and it is repellent to be looking forward to a spiritual Endlosung of Judaism. In the modern State of Israel, more Christians go over to Judaism than vice-versa. It would not be advantageous for the Jewish-Christian rapprochement if Jews were to react to this phenomenon with triumphalist conceptions and with the idea of the eventual disappearance of Christianity. The specific context of a particular time and place will always play a role in mutual conversions between different religions that coexist. In the present day, a revived Judaism exercises a strong attractian to Christians who struggle with their identity and have difficulty with the many different institutional churches. The pioneers of the 18th century mission to the Jews were forerunners in their love for the Jewish people, taking up the struggle against the ever-present Christian anti-Semitism in church and theology.26 On the borderline of the 20th and the 21st century, however, the defenders of the mission to the Jews are fighting a rearguard action in the mainline churches, as against the majority opinion that regards Judaism as a living religion and therefore wishes to abolish all forms of mission to the Jews. But in large parts of the growing evangelical movement inside and outside the churches, the mission to the Jews is still seen as a high priority. So it was said, on the one hand. in a declaration of the evangelical Lausanne Movement: 'We deplore the discrimination and suffering that has been done to the Jews in the name of Jesus Christ.But at the same time it was emphasized: "If the bygone history is used to make the church keep silent in its witness to the Jewish People, we must protest; it would be an act o f grave discrimination to withhold the Gospel from the Jewish ~eople."'"'
25 See for example: R. MAOZ, 'Jewish Christianity: Whither and Why?'. in '1.. E~.(~vIN (ed.), /srael and Yeshua, Caspari Center, Jerusalem 1993, 119-127. Also recently: E. VAN DER POLL, De messiaanse beweging en haar betekenrs voor chrrstenen, Shalom Books, Putten 200 1. 26 See W. PHILIP,'SpZitbarock und Frtihe Aufiltlrung. Das Zeitalter des Philosemitismus', in: K.H. RENGSTOW, S. von KORT;~.FLEISC~# (Hg.), Kirche und .Tynagogge, Band 2 , Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, MLlnchen 1988, 23-86. 27 'Lausanne Letter on Jewish Evangelism', Current Dialogue Dec. 1986, 33 -35.
Chris~iamand Jews ufier the Shoa
3 13
Both supporters and opponents of the mission to the Jews accuse each other mutually of anti-Semitism. Its supporters reproach the opponents that they actually commit anti-Semitism if they do not want to show Jews the way to salvation. Opponents reproach them in return that the mission to the Jews feeds on the old Christian ambivalence, whereby an antiJudaic view of Judaism is coupled with a philosemitic approach to the Jewish people. Why, they ask, should the mission to the Jews strive to draw individual Jews out of their people, and estrange them from the specific Covenant of God with Israel, to make them members of 'a Gentile-Christian enterprisehuch as the church? It was and is not easy for Christian theology to accept the challenge that is so strikingly put by the Jewish feminist Susannah ~ e s c h e l : * ~ "Now it is clear, obvious, to all of us that we have to abandon Christian mission to the Jews because that would mean the end of Judaism, but maybe it is not so clear to everyone that an end of Judaism might also be an end to Christianity. Where would Christians be if there is no more God of Israel? But how can there be a God of Israel if there is no more Judaism, if there are no more Jews to affirm the God of Israel?"
The position of Jewish Christians or Messiah-Jesus-Confessing-Jews is often brought into the theological discussion over the theme of the mission to the Jews. Whoever rejects the mission to the Jews, it is maintained, simultaneously denies this Christian group its right to exist. Sometimes it is suggested that churches have all too readily given up their task to reach out to all mankind, but in the first place to the Jews, this being done in order to meet the demands of Jews and in order not to obstruct the JewishChristian dialogue. In light of this suggestion I think it is insufficient for a Church to decide against the mission to the Jews on purely historical and psychological grounds 'after the Shoa'. In the long term, only a firm theological basis could be strong enough to support such a decision. In taking up this challenge we must make a distinction between, on the one hand, the refusal on theological grounds for Gentile Christian churches to conduct missions towards Jews, and on the other, the recognition that Jewish believers in Jesus have the perfect right to express their specific identity. This may sound as a paradox. But theoiogically, a distinction must be drawn, as Heinz Kremers already did in 1979, between an internal Jewish debate about messianism - a frequent phenomenon in Jewish history! - and the continuing attempts of Gentile Christians to
Z8 S. ~~F-.:,FcHI:I, 'Original Shame and Naive Optimism: The Politics of JewishChristian Relations', Ecumenical Trenk 2513 (1996) 41.
isolate Jews from their own people and to make them members of a Gentile church by means of the mission to the ~ e w s . ~
"9 So H. KREMERS, 'Der I m e g der christlichen Judenmission', in idem, Liebe und Gerechtighit, G e m e l t e Beitrtige (Hg. A. Weyer), Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1990,73-83.
Index of sources The index also shows single occurrences of a work's title by way of an index of ancient works, but listing only (partially) preserved works. In order for the index to make sense, passages treated extensively over a number of pages are listed as single entries in bold print.
Hebrew Bible Genesis 5: 1 8:11 12:3 18:18 22 Exodus 3:14 7f 16:3 1 16:34 19:6 20-23 20:2-6 22: 17 27:21 28:39 33:13f Leviticus 6:3 19:2 19:6 23:29 Numbers 1:18 6:3 6:5 6: 1-7 11% 23:8 24: 16 Deuteronomy 4:15-21 7:3 7:4 18:15f 18:19
280 253 93 93 99 234 27 1 190 196 93 169 293 271 196 149 234
27 27:26 30:20 Judges 13:4 13:7 13:14 13:18 I Kings 10:6 18 18:3-16 18:4245 2Kings 17:30 2 1:4 Isaiah 1-5 1:ll-16 3:10
8:23 149 93 93 173 261 150 150 65 190 276 273 293 26 1 26 1 173 173
29:3 53:ll 54:llf 56:7 57: 1 Jeremiah 4:4 7: 12 37(30):20 Ezekiel 44 44115-17 44:17f Amos 4: 13 Obadiah I Psalms 1 1:5f
95 95 24 150 150 150 239 190 157 157 65 232 232 176 176 155
77 202 155 152, 156f 149 155 83 232 196 149 149 64 269 157 189 155
Index of sources 2:7 2:9 7: 12 37:9 37: 11 37:22 37:29 37:34 69:22 104:35 I18 118:19 118:20 118:21 141:2 145:9 Proverbs 1:14 17:26 Job 15:34 38:11 Song of Songs 6:8f Ecclesiastes 7:26 Daniel 6:11 11:14 Ezra 10:3
Septuagint Ezra 8:9 ]Kings 18:3 1Chronicles 3:21 7:3 4Maccabees Tobit 12:s Wisdom 7:27 Siracides 50: 1-6 24:7 Daniel
OT Pseudepigrapha Apoc. of Abraham I0:9 Aristeas, letter of Ascensio lsaiae 1:7 4:2-3 2Baruch 1Enoch 69: 14f 4Ezra Odes of Solomon 39:7 Sibylline Oracles Test. 12. Patr.
225 233 234 238 141 225 233 225 232 234 112
Qumran Texts 1QS 3: 13-4:24 9:4f 1 QM 14:7 4Q171[Psa] 2~9-12 2:lO 3:lO 4Q174 [Flor] l.l:3f 1.1:6f 4Q400-407 44400 fi 2:7 4Q403 fi 1 2:26 4Q503 4QMMT 92
112 114 11 179 179 179 179 1I 11
11 11 11 11 15
Greek Jewish Authors Artapanus fr. 3
233
Ezekiel the Tragedian 234
Philo De conf. linguarum 146 De migr. Abrahami 86-126
236 235 94
Index of sources
Quis ref. div. heres 170 De mut. nominum 11 Vita Mosis 1.75 De specialibus legibus 1.186 2.163f 2.193-195 Quod omnis probus 41-50 Quaest. in Genesim
234 234 234 54 94 66 35 94
Josephus Bellum 1.152 2.250-270 2.463 7.218 Antiquitatesjudaicae 7.4 1 7.44-53 7.54-62 7.100-104 7.108 8.329 12.43 12.157 18.36 20.173 20.197-203 20.200f Contra Apionem 2.173f 2.223 Vita 19&196 309
New Testament Matthew 1-2 1:1 1:4a 1:5 1:16 2:3
43 192 282 190 192 174 190
Index of sources
Mark 1:4f 1:9 1:lO I:ll 1: 1 6 2 0 1:16 1:36 2:I3f 2:17 2: 18-22 3:13-19 3:I6-I9 3:16 3:17 3:3 1-35 6:s 6: 13 6:48-5 I 7:24-30 8:s-13 9:s 10:17f
Luke 1-2 1:5 2:9 3:2f 3:11 3:22 (1 D) 3:23 3:24 4:9-12 4:3 1 4:38 5:1 5:s 6:13 6:15 6:22 6:42 7: 1 712-10 7:9 8:I9-21 8:24 8:28 9:33 9:49 11:2 1 1:7-9 12:2-4 1256 13:6-9 13:15 16:17 17:13 19:38 19:46 20:17 22: 1
Index of sources
John 1:1-1 8 1:19 1:21 1~32-34 1:32 1:38 1 :47 1:49 2: 1-1 1 2:l-12 2:23-25 3:2 3:25 3:26 3:36 4:9 4:22 4:3 1 4:43-45 5:8f 5: 10 5:15-18 6: 1 6:23 6:25 6:70 7 7:l-13 7:2-13 7: 13 7:15 7: 19 7:32 7:35
Index of sources Acts 1:2 1:13 1:2 1f 2:6 2:13 2:32 3: 1 3:14 3:15 3:22f 3:25 4:6f 4:32 5:17f 5:32 5:33f 5:34 6:lf 6:14 7 8:l-3 8:lO 9: l f 9:3 1Of 10:s 10:18 10:32 10:39 10:41 11:2 11:13 11:22 11:26 12 12:l-18 12:2 12:17 13:1-4 13:15f 13:3 1 13:38f 13:44 15 15:6-2 1 15:20 15:24 15:29 16:3
Romans 3:lf 3:25 4 4:lO-12 4: 15 7: 12 8:3 9:4 9:30-33 11113-24 13:s 14:l-15:6 14 14: 1-5 14:5f 14: 15 14:20
Index of sources
1 Corinthians 1 :22f 2:6 3:11 7: 17-20 7:19 8:7-13 8:8 8:13 9: 1 9:5f 9:20 10:29 115 11:lO 12:7 12:28 14:34 15:3-7 155 15:7
Ephesians 1:22-2:22 2:20 Philippians 2:6 2:9-10 3:5 3 :6 3:20
Galatians 1:l 1 :6-9 1:llf
Colossians 1:15f 2:16f 4:14
Index of sources
1Thessalonians 2:14-16 5:2 1
1John 2: 1 2:2
1Timothy 4:3
Titus 1:lO 1:14 Hebrews 5:7 6: 1 6:5f
7 9:2 9:3 13:15 13:22 James 1:l 1:18 1:21 1:25 2:2 2:12 2: 14-26 2:18 2:20-26 3:lf 5:6 5:14 5:16-18 1Peter 2:5 2:9 3:18 4:3 4:16
Jude
37f
Revelation 1:s 2:9 2:lO 2:14 2:20 2:25 3:9 3:14 4-5 5:s 7:4-10
NT Apocrypha Gos. of the Ebionites 43f fr 1 164 fk 2 167 fr 3 164 fi-4 164 fr 7 167 Gos. of the Hebrews 44 Gos. of the Nazoraeans 42f Gos. of Thomas 46 12 154, 158 Acts of Thomas 11 46 27 239 Apocal. of Peter 2:5f 173
Nag Hammadi Texts Apocr. (Epistle) of James NHC I, 2 44,48
Index of sources
2.7 48 Gospel of Truth 239 NHC I, 3 38.639.6 (41.3) 240 Tripartite Tractate NHC I, 5 fol. 65f 240 Gospel of Thomas NHC I17Z 46 Gospel of Philip NHC 11, 3 54.5-14 24 1 56.3-4 24 1 Bk. of Thomas the Contender NHC 11, 7 46f Dialogue of the Saviour NHC 111, 5 47 Eugnostos (Epistle of) NHC 111, 4; V, 3 47 Sophia of Jesus Christ 47 NHC 111, 4 1st Apocal. of James NHC V, 3 49 32.3 154 36.16-18 159 2nd Apocal. of James NHC V, 4 49, 155 44.14 154 60.20-23 159
Patristic Literature (alphabetically) Aristides Apologia 14.4 Augustin Contra Faustum 19.17 De haeresibus 32
66
256
Basil Ep. 258 Canones Apostolorum (= Constit. Apost. 8.47)
can. 70
67
Carmina Nisibensu 42.lf
45
Clement of Rome 1Clement 1.1 4.8 5.4 31.4 41.2 55.2 55.4 55.6 59.2
20 20 141 20 21 21 21 21 237
(Ps. -)Clementina 2Clement 7 Epistula Petri 2.3 Homiliae 2.52.3 7.8.1 11.28ff 20.1 1-23 Recognitiones 1.27-71
216
183
1.6548 1.33-71 1.43.3 1.68 1.70.7 1.73.4 10.52-72
Index of sources Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 1.1 1.13 2.9.45 5.14.96 7.17 Excerpta ex Theodoto 22.4 26.1 31.1
9 9 115 115f 237 115 107 115 115 115 113 115 I1 lf, 115-118, 121 115 115 9, 115 108 121 111 111 107
37 48 44 44 131 24 1 24 1 24 1
Constit. Apostolorum 2.61 137 6.3.14 137 6.16.1 131 6.25 137 6.81 248 109f 7.19-23 8.47.8 137 Cyril of Jerusalem Procatechesis 6.14
133
De centesima 132-135
109
Didache 1-7 1-6 1-5 1.1-6.1 1.1-3.1 I .1 1.2-6 1.2 1.3-6 1.3 4.13 6.1-7.4 6.1-8.1 6.1 6.1-3 6.2-3 6.3 7-15 7-10 7 7.1 7.2-3 8
227 121 107f, 111 108 11 l f 111 3 107 118 118 118 107 115 109f 107 106 3,104-121 34, 112 107 108 l l l f , 118 108,115 115 8
Didascalia Apostolorum 26 ( S Y ~ ) 168 Didymus of Alexandria Comm.in Pss. 34 44 Diognetus 1.1 3.1 4.1 5.17
24 66 66 2
(Ps.)Dionysius Areopagita De divinis nominibus 1.6 239 Doctrina Addai
45
Doctrina Apostolorum 6.1 6.1-16 6.4f 6.5 6.6
111 109 114 111 114
Index of sources Epiphanius Panarion (Adv. haereses) 1.26.2 19 19.3.5 19.3.6 19.5.4 21 26.17.4-9 28-3 0 28.1.5 28.2f 29 29.4 29.4.3 29.7.2-6 29.7.3 29.7.5 29.7.6 29.7.7f 30 30.2.7 30.3.1-6 30.3.2 30.3.5 30.4 30.1 1.9-10 30.13.7 30.15 30.16.6f 30.16.8f 30.17.2 30.17.4-8 30.17.5 30.18.1 37-3 9 40.1.6 42.1 1f 47.1 5 1.6.6 52.1.6 53 61.1 74.2-10 78 78.13f 78.14 Ancoratus
12.7-13.8 65.1-73.9 De mens. et pond. 15 De gemmis Anacephalaeosis (sp.) 15.5 30.3 59.1.7
182 183 182 185 182 2 13,22 1 215 255 255
Ethiopic Church Order 52 109 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastics 1.7-10 1.7.13 1.7.14 1.8 1.13.4 1.13.1 1 2.1.3-5 2.1.3 2.1.6 2.13.3 2.23 2-23.4-18 2.23.4-7 2.23.5f 2.23.7-23 2.23.19 2.23.20 3.4.6 3.5.3 3.1 1 3.11.19f 3.1 1.23 3.12 3.19f 3.19.1-3.20.7 3.22 3.25 3.27.2 3.27.3 3.27.4 3.32.4 3.32.6 3.35 3.36 3.36.2
326 3.36.1 1 4.4.1-4.6.4 4.5 4.5.2 4.6.4 4.8.4 4.22.1 4.22.2f 4.22.4f 4.22.5f 4.22.8 5.1.26 5.5.8 5.8.3 5.20.6 6.6 6.12.3-6 6.30 6.38 Praepar. evang. 9.27.1-37 Demonstr. evang. Evagrius Kephalaia Gnostica Fides 318 Patrum Hermas, Pastor of Sim 9.14.5 Hegesippus Hypomnemata Hippolytus Refutatio (Elenchos) omn. haeresium 5.2 7.33.2 7.35.2 9.1.31 9.13.1-9.17.2 9.14.2 10.21.3 10.23.2 10.29.1-3 10.29.3 11.21.3
Index of sources Zgnatius Ephesians 3.1 12.2 Magnesians 8.1 8.2 9.1 10.2 Trallians 3.3 5.2 7.4 Romans 3.1 4.3-5.1 4.3 Philadelphians 6.1 Smyrnsteans 1.2 3.1-3 3.3 3.2 11.1-3 to Polycarp 7.lf to Mary 4.1 5 Tarseans 3.3 lrenaeus Adversus haereses 1.14.1-9 1.21.3 1.23.4 1.24.2 1.26 1.26.1 1.26.2
Index of sources
3.21.2 4.14.3 4.15.lf 5.1.3 Ep. ad Florinus
43 169 169 43, 163 127, 132
Jerome Adv. Pelagium 3.2 43, 147,283 De viris inlustr. (illustr.) 2 148,154 3 42 16 137, 139 In Matthaeum 12.13 42 In Philemon 23 88 In Zachar. 3.14.9 74 Epist. 107.12 129 Epist. 1 12-1 13 156 Epist. 112.4 285 Epist. 112.13 186 John Chrysostom Adversus Judaeos 1.5 4.7 Hom. in Gal. 2:11, 16-20 Hom. in St. Ign. 4 5
137 137 285 137 137
12 Dialogue 7f 12 13 16.2 18 22.1 27.2 40.4f 43.1 44.1 45.3 45.6 46f 47.1-4 47.4 51.2 67.8 88.3 100.4 101.3 102.5 103.6 103.8 104.1 105.1 106.1 106.2 106.3 106.4 107.1 120.6 137.2
John Damascene De haeresibus 53
256
John Malalas Chronografia 10.246 10.252
137 137
Lactantius Divinae institutiones 5.34
Julius Africanus Ep. ad Aristidem
173
Martyrium S. Ignalii 5
114
Murtyrium Polycarpi 19.2
114
Justin 1Apology 26 26.2 31.6 33.5 67.5 2Apology
25 133 133 22 134 134
Nurses (Narsi) of Edessa Homilies 22 232
Index of sources TertulEian Adversus Iudaeos 14.9f Adversus Marcionem 3.7.7 De came Christi 14 De praescript. haer. 33.1 1
Origen Contra Celsum 1.6 1.2 1 1.25 1.41 1.47 1.62f 1.67 2.13 5.61 6.40 7.37 De principiis 1, praef. 8 praef. 4.3.8 4 4.3.8 In 1Cor. fiag. 18 In Jerem. Horn. 12.13 In Joh. Comm. 2.12 In Levit. Hom. 10.2.1 10.2.3 In Matt. Comm. 10.17 16.8 79 In Lucam Hom. 6c In Rom. Comm. 7.3 In Psalmos fiag. 118[119].152 138
67 67 163 163
Theodorefof C p s Haer. fabularum cornp. 2.7 216 256 2.1 I
Rabbinic Literature
Petrus Diaconus De loc. sanctis 5.2
125
Polycarp 1Philippians
137
Socrates Historia eccl. 6.8
137
Tatian Diatessaron
130
Index of sources
Tosefta tBerakhot 3.1 3.8 3.25 4.16 6.2 1 tShabbat 6.5 tSota 15.8 tTaanit 2.4 2.5 2.8 tYomTov 2.12 tMoedKatan 2.16 tHu1lin 2.2 2.24
Palestinian Talmud yBerakhot 1.1 (2d) 4 (8a) 4(8~) 5(9~) yShabbat 1.4 (3c-d) 14.4 (14d) yTaanit 2 (65c)
4 (68d) yMegilla 3 (73d) yMagiga 2.2 (77d) yYevamot 2.6 (4a) yNedarim 9 (41c) ySota end yKiddushin 3.12 (64d) ySanhedrin 6.9 (23c) 7.19 (25d) yAvoda Zara 2.2 (40d) Babylonian TaImud baerakhot 7a 10a 27b 28a 28b 29b 53b 56a 5 8a 61b bShabbat 13b-17b 34a 1 16a-b 130b bSota 49a 49b bRoshHashana 24a bYoma 53b bTaanit 24b bMegilla 5b bWagiga 5b
330
Index of sources
bKiddushin 71b bBavaKama 83a bBavaMetsia 10% bBavaBatra 22a 75a bsanhedrin 17a 38b 39a 43a 67b 90a 97a 1OOa 105b bMakkot 1l a bMenahot 28b bHullin 87a bAvodaZara 4a-b 16b17a 17a 27b
Avot de-R. Natan (ed. Schechter) a14 (29b) 13 b28 (29b) 13 Targum Neojiti
237
Mekhilta
298
Genesis Rabba (ed. Theodor-Albeck) 1.10 (p9) 7.2 (p50f) 8.8 (p61) 2 1$9(p204) 25.1 (p239)
254 260 262 253 263
Exodus Rabba 19.4
263
Leviticus Rabba (ed. Margulies) 9.3 (p179) 12.1 (p244) 22.8 (p517f)
253 262 176
Shir (Song)Rabba 1.63 1.65 2.6 4.6 5.8
2 52 252 253 25 1 2 53
Ekha (Lam.) Rabba 2.4
23
Kohelet (Eccl.) Rabba 1.4 1.8 7.3
257 262 2 1,268,272,274 260f
Tanhuma ed Buber hukat 15.15
260
Tanhuma naso 19 hukat 6.6
2 53 260
Pesikta Rabbati 5 14.61
253 260
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (ed. Braude) 4.3 (p63) 260 18 (p298) 269 Midrash Tehillim (Ps.) 104.27 (p448) 272 113.2 (p235) 253 136 (p260) 253 Seder Olam Rabba 3 (9a)
15f
Index of sources Derekh Erets Rabba
1 12
Massekhet Gerirn 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.5 3.3
118 119 119 119 119 119
Shiur Qorna
243
Merkava shelema 39b
243
Toledot Yeshu
269
Dio Cassius
Fihrzst al- Ulum
Other, & ancient mss.
Ibn Ishaq, Sira
Abd al-Jabbar Tathbit
70f
Lydus De mansibus 4.53
Bodleian Opp. 749 Rawlinson Or. 37
280 280
Memar Marqa 1.4 Papyrus Bodmer V
Cambridge . T-S Misc. 35.87
282
Cologne Manickaean Codex 48.16 222
50.8
222
Suetonius Vita Claudii 25.4 Vita Domitiani 12
Vita Mani
Index of modern authors
Not included are those merely mentioned as translators or editors of ancient sources, nor, for the modern period, those cited as actors not authors. Abramowski, L. Adamson, J.B. Albeck, Ch. Alexander, P. Allison, D.C. Alon, G. Amersfort, J. van Archambault, G. Asmussen, J.P. Assmann, J. Ateek, W.S. Audet, J.-P. Aune, D.E. Aviram, J. Avi-Yonah, M. Bacher, W. Bagatti, B. Baltzer, K. Bammel, C.P. Bammel, E. Barclay, J.M.G. Bardy, G. Bareilte, G. Barnard, L. W. Bamikol, E. Barrett, C.K. Bartlet, J.V. Baskin, J.R. Bauckham. R.
Bauer, W.
Baum, A.D.
135,140, 143 36 8 3,27,55 9f 3f, 7, 13, 23f, 27, 1 11,267,277 22 1 135, 143 2 10 239 305f 11lf, 116f, 122 268,277 252 245f 256,267,274, 277 26f, 55,249 157 136, 143,282f 84, 103, 108, 122, 60f 210 210,216 134f, 143 116, 122 61, 136f, 143 116, 122 275,277 8,20-22,27, 36, 38,40,43, 139, 141,143, 149f, 152,154-1 56, 159f, 173f, 180, 185 7,21,27, 42, 130, 143, 156, 161, 285 129, 143
Baur, F.C. Becker, J. Bell, C. Bellinzoni, A.j. Ben Ezra, D. Benoit, A. Ben-Shammai, H. Bernheim, P.-A. Bertrand, D.A.
Betz, H.-D. Beyschlag, K. Bickerman, E. Biderman, S. Bietenhard, H. Black, C.C. Black, M. BlanchetiGre, F. Bludau, A. Blurnenkranz, B. Bockmuehl, M.N.A. Boer, M.C. de Boff, L. Boismard, M.-E. Bonner, C. Bottrich, C . Bouch6-Leclerq, A. Boulluc, A. le Bousset, W. Bovon, F. Boyarin, D. Brakke, D. Briindle, R. Brandon, S.G.F. Brandt, W. Bregman, J. Brian4 J.G. Brockway, A.
Index of modern authors Brooke, George J. Brown, P. Brown, R.E. Brox, N. Bruce, F.F. Buchanan, G.W. BBchler, A. Bultmam, R. Buren, P. van Byrskog, S. Campenhausen, H. Cardman, F. Carleton Paget, J.
Carter, W. Casurella, A. Cerfaux, L. Chadwick, H. Cirillo, L. Cohen, S.J.D. Cohn-Sherbok, D. Comolly, R.H. Conzelmann, H. Cox, S.L. C o g R. le Crone, P. Cullmann, 0. Danielou, J. Dar, S. Davies, W.D. Dechow, J.F. Denker, J. Dibelius, M. Dodd, C.H. Dorival, G. Dormeyer, D. Dronseiff, F. Dorva-Haddad, J. Draper, J.A. Drijvers, H. Duff, J.N. Durnmer, J. Dunbabin, K.M.D.
Dunn, James D.G. Eben-Shushan, A. Eckey, W. Edwards. M.J. Ehrlich, U. Ehrman, B.D. Eisenman, R. 5
Eisler, R. Elbogen, I. Elgvin, T. Ellis, M.H. Epstein, J.N. Eshel, E. Evans, C.A. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. Fairchild, M. Fenton, P.B. Fischer, E. Fischer, J.A. Fitzmyer, J.A. Fleischer, E. Fluegel, G. Flusser, D.
Fodor, A. Fornberg, T. Fijfster, N. Fossum, J. Fraenkei, P. FrankemGlle, H. Frymer-Kensky, T. Gager, J. Gaster, M. Genequand, C. Geoltrain, P. Gero, S. Giet, S. Ginzberg, L. Glasser, A.F. Gobel, P.E. Goethe, J.W. Goetschel, R. Goldberg, Abr. Goodman, M. Grant, R.M.
333
334 Grappe, C. Green, J.B. Greeven, H. GrGzinger, K.E. Gruenwald, I. Guijarro, S. GUting, E. Haenchen, E. Haeuser, P. Halton, T. Hanson, RP.C. Harkins, P.W. Harnack, A. [von]
Harvey, G. Hayward, C.T.R. Heckel, T.K. Heimgiirtner, M. Heinemann, J. Hellholm, D. Hengel, M.
Heme, P. Henrix, H. Herford, R. Travers Herr, M.D. Heschel, S. Hilgenfeld, A. Holl, K. Hoimes, M.W. Horbury, W. Horsf P.W.van der Houtman, C. Howard, G. Huldreich, J.J. Hlinembrder, Ch. Htibner, R.M. Hyldaht, N. Hyman, A. Irshai, 0. Isaac, I.
Index of modern authors Jacobs, M. James, M.R. Jaubert, A. Jefford, C. ~ e ~ h e r - ~ u c hV. er, lelsma, A. Jervell, J. Joly, R. Jones, F.St.
Juel, D.H. Jullien, C. Jullien, F. Junod, E. Kaestli, J.-D. Kahin, R. Kaplan, Ch. Keck, L.E. Keel, 0. Kelhoffer, J.A. Kimehan, R. Kittel, G. Kjaer-Hansen, K. Klauck, H.-J. Klausner, J. Kfein, G. Klein, 6. Klenicki, L. Klijn, A.F.J.
Klinghardt, M. Klostennann, E. Knopf, R. Koch, G.A. Koester (KGster), H. Kofsky, A. Kbhler, Kortzfleisch, S. von Kraabel, A.T. Krauss, S. Kraft, R.A.
Index of modern authors
Kraus, W. Kremers, H. Kriegel, S. Krieger, K.-S. Kuhn, T.S. Kilchler, M. Kllmrnel, W.G. Lachs, S.T. Lagrange, M.-J. Lambers-Petry, D. Lamont, M. Lampe, P. Lange, N.R.M. De Lawlor, H.J. Layton, B. Leclercq, H. Ldgasse, S. Levene, D. Levi, M.A. Levine, I.L. Liebeman, S. Lieu, J. Lightfoot, J.B. Limburg, A. Lindemann, A. Linder, A. Logan, A.H.B. Lohse, E. Lorentz, B. Lfidemann, G. Lilhrmann, D. Lull, D.J. Luttikhuizen, G.P. Luz, U. Mach, R. Maduro, 0. Maier, J. Manns, F. Maoz, B. Marcovich, M. Marguerat, D. Marquardt, F.-W. Marshall, J.W. Martyn, J.L.
Mason, S. Massaux. Mattila, S.L. McCant, J.W. McKay, H.A. Meade, D.G. Meeks, W.A. Meier, J.P. Mdnard, J.E. Merkelbach, R. Metzger, B.M. Metzger, M. Meyer, A. Meyer, M.W. Miller, S.S. Mimouni, S.C.
Momigliano, A. Monnot, G. Moo, D.J. Mortley, R. Moule, C.F.D. Moutsoulas, E.D. Moxnes, H. Muilenburg, J. MUller, H.-P. Mailer, K. Munck, J. Munier, C. Mmster, S. Nautin, H. Naveh, J. Neirynck, F. Netzer, E. Neusner, J. Newman, H.I. Newsom, C.A. Nicklas, T. Niederwimmer, K. Nodet, E. Norelli, E. O'Connor, J.M. Olson, D.T.
Index of modern authors Osborn, E.F. Oppenheimer, A. Ozen, A. Painter, J. Paulsen, H. Pedersen, S. Perczel, I. Perrone, L. Pesch, R Petersen, W.L. Peterson, E. Philip, W. Phillips, C.R. Pietri, L. Pilhofer, P. Pines, S. Poll, E. van der Polster, G. Pourkier, A. Pradels, W. Pratscher, W.
Prawer, J. Pritz, R.A. Prostmeier, F.R. Quispel, G. Rappaport, U. Rausch, D. Rebell, W. Reif, S. Reiner, E. Reinink, G.J.
Roloff, J. Roncaglia, (M.)P. Rordorf, W. Roselli, A. Rosenfeld, B.-Z. Rosenstiehl, J.-M. Rosenthal, J. Roth-Gerson, L. Rtiwekamp, G. Rudin, A.J. Rudin, M. Rudolph, K. Ruether, R.R. Safiai, S. Saffai, 2. Sagnard, F. Salo, K. Sanders, E.P. Sandt, H. van de Sar, H.C. van der Schiifer, P. Scharfstein, B.-A. Schenke, H.-M. Schiffman, L.H. Schiller, E. Schlarb, E. Schlatter, A. Schmithals, W. Schnackenburg,R. Schneemelcher,W. Schnelle, D. Schoedel, W.R. Schoeps, H.-J,
Renan, E. Rendtorff, R. Rengstorf, K.H. Rese, M. Reuchlin, J. Richardson, P. Riesner, R. Riggans, W. Ritter, A.M. Rius-Camps, J. Roberts, C.H. Robinson, J.A.
Scholem, G. Schtillgen, G. Schonfield, H.J. Schoon, S. Schrage, W. Schramm, T. Schreiner, J. Schilrer, E. Schwartz, E. Schwartz, J. Schweitzer, A.
Index of modern authors Schwemer, A.M. Seeberg, A. Segal, A.F. Segni, R,Di Seirn, R.K. Seland, T. Shaked, Sh. Sherwin-White, A.N. Shiffman, L. Siegert, F. Sim, D.C. Simon, M.
Taylor, J.E. Taylor, M. Telfer, W. Thoma, C. Thomas, J. Thomassen, E. Thornton, C.-J. Thornton, T.C.G. Tischendorf, C. von Tomson, P .J.
Skarsaune, 0. Smallwood, E.M. Smit Sibinga, J. Smith, J.D.D. Smith, M. Smith, R. Sobel, B.Z. Stanton, G.N. Stauffer, E. Stemplinger, E. Stern, D. Stern, I. Stern, S.M. Stokl, D. Strecker, G.
Streeter, B.H. Stroumsa. G.G.
Tongerloo, A. van Torrey, C. Totti, M. Trachtenberg, J. Trever, J.C. Trevett, C. Trobisch, D. Tsuji, T. Tuilier, A. Turner, C.H. Turner, J.H. Tyson, J. Yoshiko-Reed, A. Uehlinger, Ch. Ulfgard, H. Uthman, A.A. Urbach, E.E. Vaganay, L. Vanderkam, J.C. Veltri, G. Verheyden, J.
Stuhlmacher, P. Stuiber, A. Sturdy, J. Suck-Scbroder, A. Sundermeier, T. Swaine, S. Tannenbaum, M. Tardieu, M.
Vermes, G. Vielhauer, P. Vigne, D. Vinzent, M. Vogel, M. Vogt, H.J. Vokes, F.E. Voltaire Vbbbus, A. Voorst, R.E. Van
Taylor, C. Taylor, J.
Wagenseil, J.C. Waitz, H.
lndex of modern authors Walker, P.W.L. Wallis, R.T. Walter, N. Wander, B. Ward, R.B. Weijenborg, R. Weiss, J. Weiss, 2. Wellhausen, J. Wengst, K. Wiles, M.F. Wilken, R.L. Wilkinson, J. Williams, F.
Winer, R. Witulski, T. Wrede, W. Yamold, E.J. Yassif, E. Young, F.M. Zahn, T. Zeitlin, S. Zrnijewski, J. Zori, N. Zuckschwerdt, E.
List of contributors Richard BAUCKHAM, FBA, FRSE, is Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. His most recent books are; The Fate of the Dead (1998); God Crucified. Monotheism and Christology in the N e w Testament (1998); James. Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (1999); God and the Crisis of Freedom. Biblical and ContemporaryPerspectives (2002); and Gospel Women. Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (2002). Markus B O C W H L is a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College and Reader in New Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge. Recent books include a commentary on Philippians (1998), Jewish Law in Gentile Churches (2000) as well as The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (ed., 2001). His book on Simon Peter in Lhing Memory is due to appear in 2004. Gideon BOW is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Jewish Philosophy and the Program in Religious Studies at Tel Aviv University. His most recent book is Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (1996). He is currently writing a book on Ancient Jewish Magic.
is Professor of Judaism at the University of Wales and is the author Dan COHN-SHERBOK and editor of over 60 books including Messianic Judaism (Continuum, 2000), Yoices of Messianic Judaism (Lederer, 2001), Interfaith Theology. A Reader (New York UP, 2001), and Anti-Semitism (Sutton, 2002). Jonathan A. DRAPERis Professor of New Testament at the School of Theology, University of Natal, South Africa. Recent books include The Didache in Modern Research (ed.; 1996) and, with Richard A. Horsley, Whoever Hears You Hews Me: Prophets, P e e mance, and Traditions in Q (1999). is Professor of Jewish and Early Christian Studies in the University of William HORBURY Cambridge, a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Fellow of Corpus Cbristi College, Cambridge. Recent books include: Jewish Messianism and the Cult ofChrist (1998), Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy(1998), and The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3 (volume editor, 1999). Work in preparation includes a book on the Toledot Yeshu.
ist Lehrbeauftragte flk Geschichte und Literatur des Zweiten Doris LAMB-Y Ternpels und Patristik sowie Assistentin im Fach Neues Testament an der FUTP/ UFPG in B W e l . Sie bereitet eine Dissertation vor iiber die Verwmdten Jesu und ihre Bedeutung in der fiUhen Kirche. Ver6ffentlichungenUber Josephus (Josephus-Projekt Mfinster). Simon C. WOW est directeur d'btudes i la Section des sciences religieuses de 1'~cole pratique es Hautes etudes et directeur de la Revue des btudesjuives. Ouvrages rkents : La dormition et l'assomption de Marie; Histoire des traditions anciennes (1995); Le judbo-christianisme ancien; Essays historiques (1998); Le judio-christianisme duns tous ses ktats; Actes du colloque de Jirusalem 6-10juillet 1998 (2001 - avec F.S. Stanley Jones); La formation des communautis religieuses duns le monde grkco-romain (2003). Wilhelm PRATSCHER. Professur am Institut fir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Evangelisch-theologische FakultZLt, Universiat Wien. Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (1987). Mitherausgeber von, u.a.: Die Kirche als historische und escha-
340
List of contributors
tologische Grope. FS K. Niedenvimmer (1994); Quaestiones Theologicae. Gesammelte Aufiatze K. Niederwimmer (1998); Wiener Juhrbuchfur Theologie (2000,2002). Zeev SAFRAI is full Professor in the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University, Israel, and Vice-Rector of this university. He specialized in the history and archaeology of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Among his books are: The Economy of Roman Palestine, The Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period (in Heb.), and The Missing Century. Simon SCHOON is minister of the Reformed Church at Gouda and Professor of JewishChristian Relations at the Theological University at Kampen, Netherlands. He has been a minister in the Christian village of Nes Ammim, Israel, presided the Dutch Council of Christians and Jews, and been a member of the Executive Committee of the International Council of Christians and Jews. He recently published Onopge&aar verbonden; Op weg nuur vernieuwing in de verhouding tussen de kerk en het volk Israel (1998). Folker SIEGERT ist Professor flir Judaistik und Neues Testament an der Universittit Manster und Direktor des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum. Buchver6ffentlichungen u.a.: Drei hellenistisch-judischePredigten, Ubersetzungaus dem Armenischen und Kommentar (2 Bde., 1980, 1992); Argumentation bei Paulus, gezeigt an Rom 9-11 (1985); Zwischen Hebraischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einfuhrung in die Septuuginta, 2 Bde. (2001,2002). Daniel S T WBENEZRAis currently Golda Meir-Fellow in Jewish History and Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. From 2003 he will be Mandel-Scholar at the Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University. His dissertation The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity is going to be published in WUNT. is Martin Buber Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew Guy G. STROUMSA University of Jerusalem, and Director of the Center for the Study of Christianity there. Among his recent works, Barbarian Philosophy: the Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (1999); with David Shulman, he is the editor of SelfandSeljlTransformation in the History of Religions (2002). Peter J. TOMSON is Professor of New Testament and Patristics at the UFPG, Brussels and General Editor of Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Movum Testamentum. Recent publications: 'Ifthis befiom Heaven...'; Jesus and the NT Authors in their Relationsh@to Judaism (2001; FT 2003: Jdsus et les auteurs du NT duns leur relation au judabme); De zaak-Jezzis en de Joden (200 1;ET forthcoming: The Jesus Cause and the Jews; FT 2003: L'afaire J6sus et les Juifs). Joseph V E R H Eis ~hofessor of New Testament at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Recent include The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed., 1999), 'Silent Witnesses. Mary Magdalene and the Women at the Tomb in the Gospel of Peter' (in FS J. Lambrecht 2002), 'The Conclusion of Q. Eschatology in Q 22,28-30' (in A. Lindemann, ed., The Historical Jesus and the Sayings Source Q, 2001), and 'Assessing Gospel Quotations in Justin Martyr' (in FS J. Delobel2002).
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament AIphaheticul Inde,~of the first cmd SwonJ Seri~~s
4clncr Jorrern Jcsu Stellung nim lcmpol 2000 I crlrmrt~11)I I Y ~ (Fd ) 171c 4dtw ./o\ri>rn and K ~ u l b t w/fun\
Mtsston of the Farly Church to J c ~ \ d n d Cienttlcs 2OOO Volunre 127 Alhirr .\rt,/uw Wunder und Wtrklt~hketttn clen Isneten de\ Ap\tels Paulus 2001 CirIunrtn134 .Inde*rson, I'utrlN
rhc Chnstolog) of the l ourth Gospcl 1996 Ci1111mcl l V # , l p p ~ / dwurk / rhc (>ncnc% Motif rn the Fourth Ciorpcl 1976 b'olumc / I / / trnolcl ('lrnron f. The Colox\rnn Syncretr\n~ 1995 l4iliirnr IN77 /I\c orrglr Hit hurd J Paul's Macedonran Axsoctatton\ 2003 C.irlumc.I I / I 6 I .f sri~il~r-l'c~yrii/r. Murrrn Johanntne Sabbath C onfltcts A\ Jundrcal( ontrovcny 2001
Rcirrrrr It mrn l>utrrc,l Pseudepigraphte unci Itterartwhe f dlwhung rm fruhen Cfin\tentutri 2 0 I Cohmrt. / / / I 3 8 11u1c,t /kin\ I rrtdrrc h Jews' Prcdtcttons of
Vtndrcattoti and Ro\urr~rtton 1986 I.irlunrc, 11 20 1jc.c kc,r Mrc Ituc.1 U under und Wundertater 1111truh-rdbhtnt\chen Jucicntutii
2002
lolurnt, / / / I 4 4 Ilc,ll Hrt /rur(Ill Proboked to Jc.rlou\y 1094 V ~ I L I I I II I ~ ,n3 No One Seek\ for (rod 1998 Volrrme, 106 Nt~rtrrmrr~u Cbrtrc~lrc I he Power of Savrng \-C rdom '(HI2 I olrmnre 11 14X Nt*tynrcrn Jcrtt \ec h'rc.ffi.r, Ncrrr Mrt~t?it~rrr Holunil Uas G c x b im Romerbrrcf
untl aridere Studren nmm Netren Te\tanicnt 2000 l o l t t m ~121 Nrr: Orro Je\us, der Mc\sra\ I\r,lel\ 1987
Iirlrtnrc~11,1.1? A~~c~rtroric~ Errc~drrc/I rlie Taufcrililungcti cler I olurrrc~42 Apirstelge.;chichte 9002 Ci,ltrmc~I3Y Jc\ur. dcr ficrr der Kirchc I990 C'olrirrrc*52 Alr rnoncp 1 rrc.drrch and Ile~rmcmttI rc lrrc,nE~t*~~i~r HIXIe l hlug Kcirlnrunn Stn~oriMagu\ und die (Fd ) Aufentehung R~?isurc?ron2001 chn\tlrcheGriost 1974 li)Irmtc~16 ~ ~ i l r rI.?m5 ~ ~ Hirrt~rv Uol/gungJ Jew Lctchen in1 JohannesI~c.murrc. Lrrt'drrch and f ~ m u n n e\ angelturn I 087 I.t)Ii,lumc*11/26 I rc hrclnbqp~t(Fd ) Bund und lord 1996 BIC~IA~IIOIII (it11J Tduta rgetiet~ 1987 I blumc. 92 I blrmtc~I 0 Nuc Irmcinn, MIlumr 11/64, (ilrson, D.A..O'Brien, Peter 7: and Murk
.Sefid(Ed.): Justification and Variegatetl Notnism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul anit Second Tcrnplc Judaism. Volume 1 : The Complexrtres ofSecond 1emplc Juda~zni Chlume I / / / 40 C'icimpu. ROYI:' I he Prc\encc 'tnd tunctron of
Scripture in Cialat~ans1 and 2 1998 C'cllume I / / /02 ( Iur\c,n, Cilrl./ouc him KIictorrcal( ritrc\rn 01 the New Testanlent 2000 bi.i,lrim~128 C'olpr Cizrrren lranier Ararnaer tlebAer tiellenen 2003. Cblume 154 ('ramp (krrrd Jesuc the Intercc\\or 1992 Ci)lume11/4V I h h l , Nils AI\triil) Sti~drec111 Ephe\ians 2000 1irlrime 13 I Ilc*me\ Rolund Jiidrcche Ste~ngefakund phans a ~ r h F6mm1gkeit. e 1993 Colrinir 11/52 Drc PllansBer 1997 Cbhimc*101 I)c*ttwtier, A n d m u and Jeun Lurntr1,iti (1,d /
Kreuzesthcolog~erm Neuen Rstament. 2003. lblumr 151
n i t k\on. John I' Mrssion-< omrnltment in
Anc~cntJuda15mand rri the Paulrnc Communit~e\2003 C'oltmrr 11 159 l>iecft~lhrngo.C 'lrr 1\triJn Ilcr Abxliled des Kommenden I997 ICrlurn 2002 I'ohimc, 149 knnultrr An~ln.c~\DIC'M~norAgrccrnent\' 1904 l'ohirnr 11/62 Ln\or l'isrc~rIY Jews and tlrr 'Work\' 1096 I'olrtnie 1/185 I,tkolu, Tinto iMc\\rah and the I lirone 200 I l/olumc 11 142
l'heotl~cyand Prede\tlndtlon In Paulrne Soterrology I008 Li>lurneI1 100 I urehi t f t ~ h d u d1he Sprr~t'\Rcl,tt~onto ttic Riben L ord In Paul ZiHX) Ihlimrr 11 l.?X 1i~Iilmt.rc~r Krrnliurtl Ihe Krislr tics Crottes\ohnes 1087 lolrirni~lli21 I)ie < Iin\ten ale I remde 1992 Colurnt*bJ I.i~ldnirrc,r Rcrnhur 11antl ( It it 11t/t,i ht.1 ( I ci ) I l ~ tlc~den c 1904 1.oliintc~iO I Ic*rc htv-lotrir ( rr\pin 11 T I ukc-Act\ Angel\, C'hn\tology ilnd Soterrology 1997 I olunrc~11 YJ
I or\tc.t Nit lo\ Mnrct~\Mayu\ 1099 1 O/N~IIC' 114 /-or bt*\ ( htitro~~)hcr Nriurr Prophec) ant1 In\p~rcdCpeecli In Larly C hrrst~anitj,tnd ~ t \ tiellcn~~trc I-n\ lronmcnt 1995 loluwic~11 7 i
Ibrnherg Tod r ~ 1urrdrrt h\c.n, 4nton f i ~ ~ t u nJurl r . t I'he Name of God and the Angel of the Lord 1985 lblttme 36 Eotol~)ulo\,John Food Offered to ldolr rn Ronian Corrnth 2003 Cblumc l I / l 5 / Eivnti hlow ski, hlurr-o Off enharung und Fpiphame Volume 1 1095 lolumr>11/79Volume 2 I997 h h t m e 11/80 1'rt.e Jorx F u p n Drcwermann und die blblrrhc Fxegcsc 1995 I'i,ltrnrnc~11/71
Dre johannersche Fschatologre Volume I 1997 b$)lrmmc. 96 Voltrmc l l I998 Ci~lume110
Voltm>eIll 2000 Volume 117 l - n ~ y n uJc~un Calrlec and Cospcl 2000 I&lunrc, 12 5 I rrdrrc hserr. Anton L xegetrcal Writing Ecirted by C C Caragounis and T Fornberg 1994 li)lrtmt~76 Gurlrngtorr I>orr R ' rhc Obedrcncc of Farth' 1991 bolumc~I L 38 -
Faith. Obcd~ence,and Pcw\er;incc 1994
I'olunr~.79 (;arnet I'uul Sdl\dtron and Atonement rn the Qumran Scrolls 1977 &)lrtmc, 1/13 ( i c t r , i\.!rchurl Dar Vermachtnrr der Apostel\ 1097 Colume ll/Y9 ts 1'~~trus J The Power of Cod in Paul'\ 1 cttcn 2000 li)lrtrnr IN123 (;ru/.kr: trrc h Ucr Alte Bund im Neuen 1985 li,lrtnre 15 1 orschungen zur Apostclgewhrchte 2001 b/r,lrrtr 1 17 (;rt'~rr .loc4 B I he Death of Jcrur 1988 Colrmnre 11/33 (;unilr, brrlf Judrth iM I'aul and Perseverance 1990 L;)lrtnrc* 11137 Ilu/i~munnS c otr .l Suffering and the Sprrit 198(1 Lolrtmc~/ / / I Y
- Paul, Morc3, and the f Irrtory ot Irrael 1995 Volrtme XI I1~1hnJohatrnrt ( L J ) Lcntorungeil des J e r u ~ k m e rempclr r 2002 1 o/umtp147 Ilunnuh, D a r d I) Michael and C hnst 1999 Volume INIOY IlcrmtJ-Khahanr .Sa~rd Relevation and Concealmcnt of Ctmrt 2 0 0 Ci)lurnc~ 11~20 I-furtmun Lur \ re'eut-Centered New Testament
Studtor Ed \or1 l) Hellholm 1997 Colltlrl~.102 Ikrrtog I'irul Polycarp and the New Icskimcnt 200 1 Ci)lrmnrr I / /1-34 I f t kel. ~ 7hc.o k Der lnncrc Menrch I'?)? I/ohtnrc, 11)7 3
- Vom Evangeliumdes Markus ntm vrerge'italtlgen Evanychurn 1999. bt)lume 120 I f e c k l , Ulrrch KrdA in Schwachheit 1993 N~lumellJS6
Der Segen rm Neuen Testament 2002 Cidurne 150
-
see l.eldmc.rer, Remharcl - see llmgel. Murtrtr ikthgenthrr/, Roman Werke als 7eichen 1983 Volunre 1/19 Hellholm. 11 see llurtmun. Lurv Ilemrr, C'olrn J The Book of Acts rn the Setting of Hellcnrst~cHrstory 1989 I.i,ltune 49 Hengc~l.Marfm Judenhun und Hcllenrcmus 1969, '1988 k l u m e 10 D Ijohannersche ~ Frage 1993 Vrdume 6 7
Judarw et Iiellenistrca. KIernc Schnfien l 1996 h l u m r YO - Juda~ca,Hcllcnratca ct Chrrstrana Kleine Schrrfien ll 1999 C?)lumcIOY PauluP und Jakobus KIeine SchnRen 111 2002 khlttme I 4 1 I l ~ ~ n g rMurtm I, and Ulnc h llcr kt,/ (Ed ) Pairlus und das ant~kcJudentum 1991 H>lumeSN Ilc~ngrl.Murtm and Ilurmut Lohr (Ed ) Schr~Rauslcbpngim antrkcn Judentum und rm llrchrr~tentum1994 Vr)lume 73 Ilengul, Murtrn and Anna Murru Sc huemer Paulus nv~schenDamasku5 und Antrochrcn 1998 I.i,ltime I 0 8 Der messranische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfange dcr Chnstologre 2001 fhltrme 138 l l c ~ r r g ~Murtrn ~l. and Anna iMorru Schw~mt*r (Ed ) Kiinrgshemchafi Gottcs tmd hmimlrscher Kult 1991 bblumc. 5S Ilre Septuaginta 1994 C"crlume 72 Ilc~ngel,Murfm, Src*xfr~e~il Mtttr~runnand Anwu Maria St.hwemrr (Ed ) La Cite de Dreu i D I Stadt ~ Goner 2000 C'cllumc~129 Ilern*nhruck, F r r a Jesus und die Z6llner 1990 &)lumr 11/41 Ilt*rzc.r. J m Paulus oder Petrur" I 998 k l u m e 103 Ilot~gen-Kohls.lumc9 1/14 1he 'Son of Man "' a\ the Son of Ciod I983 bolttrnr 30 Kluuck. I l u n ~ - J o s ~Reltyron ~f und Cieu.ll\chafl rm fmhen Chnstenhtm 2003 C'olirme I f 2 K l f ~ ml,l u m .rce Ormn Jumr\ 1) (I Klc*rnknr.t hi. k i r r l Th Der lerdcndc (rercchtfcrttgte 1984, '1 988 C.i)lunrc11/13 KlinghurJt, Mi~rthrus Gel~.tzund Volk Ciotte\ 1988 Ci-,It~rnr11/32 Kohlec H t ~ l / - l ) t i ~ tt rht Re7eptlon dcr Matthau\-
'
"
evangel~um\rn dcr Le~tvor IrenBu\ 1087 Cbhtme Ili24 k o r n A!unfn,c/ Die Geichlchtc Jew In veranderter Lert 1'903 Cblumt*N T I k;,shrnnrr*mr. trkkr Apollonlos \on lyana In
der neutcstamentl~chentxcge\e IcN4 N11ume 11/61 Kruus Thomut J Sprache, Strl und hrstorlscher
Ort dcs zweltcn Petm\bnefe\ 2001 C;)hmreIN136 Krurr, CCitljXun~ [>as Volk (totter 1996 Cblume 8.5 scc U'ultt~zi V r k ~ i h ~ c Kr(*plrn,M~rtthruc 1h\Selh\t\eritandn~\Jew 200 1 i+tlrrme 111141 Kuhn, Kurl (i' Achtz~hngehetund Vateru~iscr und der R e ~ m1950 l+)lurnr I Kr~ulk*m.Ilunr s e &/nu Josrrm Luuntmu Jon I Will Glve You Rest I 997 Vi,ltime IIfi,X / u h ~ h n,tltc.hurl . Offenbarurrg rn Lc~chcnund Wort 2000 &>lutni>11/117 Lum/wr\ -Ptw 1k)rtc \ce 7itmson lJc,rt,r J I ~ ~ n g eArmtn -, we I-qo. Hc*utr
1unrpc. I'vrt*r lhc \tadtromr\chcn C tir~\tent r i
den cnten herden Jahrhundertcn 10x7. 1089 C'olrimr I / / /N Itrtrtlnti~eccr.( ht rero/ Wahrhe~ta14 Ctn~niihcgnKne~~te\~mcntl~cher Wt\\cnwliaR I'HO Iolttmc. 113
Jiingrherufung und luwcndung ru (rcttt 2000 l'c)lt~me.1 ? 1 l i ~ r rAndrtw Manrtcst In I le\h 1006 Columc. 11/86 I ~ u w nc,t Loui\t~ An t thnography of thc (io\pel of Matthew 2003 Inlumi, I1 165 1i.c~l'rk hut^ I he Ncu Jeru\alcm In the l3twk of Relc\atron 2(W)0 Citlumc, 11 l2Y I rr hrc~rth~~tyi~r Ilc~rntcrnn we l~cwut rcx 1-r r i ~ ~ l/Ir ~ c Ltc*ri .b~ntcit~l "r M~dnlcIiae~\m In the I atcr Romari trnplre and Wedre\ al C hlna 1992 I i ~ l r i r63 i~ l o u r k r I.1'drum H ( I Jc\u\' Attttudc l o ~ a r d i the 1 am 1997 lolumc 11 9 7 l o h r (rrtrhurd \.'crhcnl~churip(tofie\ durcli I'hllo\ophre 1007 Ioltrme, Y 7 Loltr: Ilzr-nrut \ce llcngc~l l4urrin lohr: Fbinric h .Il/trc.~lB,lr~lldc\und \ttnc Schule 1995 bolttmc*X.3 I riomcmm. I'tw~f.ntcnng the Krngdom of I fcd\cn I99X loluntc, 11 I111 I 14: 1 'Irrt 1 \CC 111itrtt Jirttrc>\ I ) (1 rlfuirr C~rrhurdMcn\ch und trcrcr Wrllc 107 1 I blutnr I 2
Dre Johdnneu>ffenbarungund d ~ Klrc e hc I O X I I/trlttrttc*2 5 Murk\( hrcjc. ( hrr\ro~ph Valerittnu\(ino\trcu\ I 992 I r ~ l u r c6, 5 hfur,htrll I'r.ter L rnnlty In ( orrnth 'iocl,~l ('on\ient~on\tn Paul'\ Rel'attons u ~ t htlre ('onnthrans 1987 C.i~lrimc~ 11/23 &lurr~r.Inni,rnurii~ Sprache der t cnhc~tIm tphewrhnef und In dcr dhuniene 2002
'
Cblunri, / I / / 5 0 hlc 1k)notrgh. .kun M Y I IW t l ,at I',itmos
Rev 1 4 tn ~ t ctlellcnl\trc arid I arly Jcm~\h Settrng IIWY lolrimc~11 107 rC4~(iltnn. mobn nu DI\ tne Judgcmcnt and I)t\lne Renetolenee In the Bcwh of Wr\don~ 2001 1i)lrimc~11 I TY 4!t8odtpI)cl\ id ( r P\eudon)mtt) ant1 C,lnon 1 086 Colrinti, 3V Cfe,uclr>r\. I.dwi~nll' Jcsu\ the Me\\l,intc tlcraltl of Sdlcatron 1995 loltinrc~ll 72 ZIc~t~nc~t Jr~.futt Dre Iferniholunp dc\ Ketlen 1 906 Volume, l l / 8 7 Wedl I lric h Dre ..,tndercn" Wlrircr Ic>')4 Colrtnrr 77 itfengrl Hrrrholtl Studlcn zutn I'h~l~pperhrtcf I 982 C.olritni~11 X
hic*rkc.l, Ilelntrrr: Die Widerspriiche zwischen den livangclicn. 197 1. Ci>lrimc~ 13. Merklc~in,Ilelmir~:Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. Volume I 1'187. Cblrime 43. Volume 2 1918. tblumc, 105. Mcrzl~~,: Ktir?tl: I>ergriechische Begriffdes Verreihens. 190 1 . I'olritne 11~34. t%,krt:ntpr: Huinzr: Die Rczcption dcs Matthluscvangeliunis irn 1. Pctnlsbricf. 1995. I~~lrime~ 11/74, Das Vcrstlndnis der Siititle in1 Johannesevarigeliuni. ZoW. Citlrirnc 122. ;\.liltcx*.Cir.\rle: see I~rirtn.Jumet I).(;.. itlinetlrigc~,Kivo.thi. Besitzverziclit und Alnioscn hei 1,ukas. 2003. I'olunrc~ll/l63. Mi~~mrnrrt, Sit~~fric~tl: see Ilc,ttgel, blurfin. i\lirrmar~r~-Hic~I~c~r~, Cllrikr: Magnifikat urid Bencdiktus. / YY6. C.irhmntc.IL'YO. Mtr/Jnc,r. I.rtrn:: Jcs~rsvon Na~arethim limf'eld lsraels und der llrkirche. Ed. vori M. Theohald. 1908. Cbluntr I l l . Nic~hult,:K~irl-I.r'ilhc~lnr: iicsetz und f3ardncsc. I 987. C'olumr Il;2.!h. l{eidcnapostel aus Israel. 1 092. Cblrimr 62. Nicbrn. Antlers E.: "Until it is fullfillsd". 2000. 1 >J/li!Ils. 2000. litlrirnc*Ili 118, I'tiul.si~n. 1k~nnir1,q:Studicn rur I.iteratur und C;csch~chtciles Kilten ('linsttntur~is.Ed. voti lltc E. Eisen. 1997. Ci)l~tnrr99. f'irct. 1 ) i t ~ ~I).:: i J Acts ant! the lsalanic New tixndus. 2000. I i~lunrr11/1.1~1. I'urk. l : ' u t ~(%rtn. ~ l'hc hliss~on1)iscounc in Matthew's Interpretation. 1995. Cbltinr~~ Il,SI l'urk. Jorc,/~ltS . i'oncept~onsof Afterlife in Jewish Insriptions. 2000. I'olutttr 11/121 I'u~r~, (' ~blur-vrn:The Reverse of the ('ursc. 2000. l.i)lumc~11/1/4. I'hilotrmko. Mt~t-c. (Ed.): Le l'rtine tie diet^. 1 993. klrimc 69.
I'rlhtrfer; Peter Presbyteron Kre~tton1900 C+>krme11/39 Philippi. Volume 1 1995 li~lume8 7 Volume 2 2000 t+>lumt,l l Y Die fruhcn Chnsten und ihre Welt 2002 fi.i,ltrmeI45 w e /.go. Beure I'crhlmunn I++>l[qung I k r Verlorene Sohn und das tlaus 1993 Ctdume 68 I'rthornv I'm and Jmef B .(K)u?c'h Btbclauslcgung als 1 heolog~c 1997 Iblttme 100 Pokot nv Perr and Jun Hotkot~c>c [Fd ) Ph~losophicalHcnneneuttcs and ntbilcdl Fxegcsts 2002 lirhtrne 153 I'orr~r Srunler l: The Paul of Acts I W ) Ci)lumr 115 I'rri~rir Alc,~unrk,r Ilte Verkundrgung dcr Gotteshcrnchafl 1996 ~olunrell/hY I'r-oh\l Ilc~rmunn Paulus ttnd dcr Brtcf 1901 Coltimr 11145 Kuitcinen IIerkb Paul and the Ldw 1083, ' I987 Ct~lume29 Ui4tAopf I rrcdric h Die lukan~scheSondcrquelIc 1959 Ci>l~ime 5 Kern, liurrhrut Die H e ~ l ~ mdc4 g Bl~ndgcbon.nen (Joh 9 ) 1')OS Ittltit~re11/73 Hi~mnrurhLt Xurt Pxudo-Phtlo und I ukar l i)")4 I.i~lnmc.74 K o t r r d4urru.c Syntax urid St11dcs Markuse\angcllums 1984 h l u m r 11 I / Hit htirzlt I, Huntlolph The Sccretarq In the 1 ettcr\ of Paul I99 1 Cblrimr 11/42 Nrr\rrer Hurrter Jerus als 1-ehrer 108 I . ' I 988 I olumc*1/17 DIG I ruhrcit dcs Aposteh Paulus 1094 Colunte 71 Hr\tt l.kllhrc~\ Dte Theologte des t lebrderhr~et\ 1 087 l itlume 41 Hot korrc Jiin see I'ohnrrtr /'err Kolrcer (~tmter Metaphor~kuntl I'crsonttih~it~ori der Sunde 1987 Volrime 11'2 5 Hotr ( hrtrtrurr Die Woike der 7cugcn 1994 14Jrtmt~11/60 /tuc~g,qc~ //un\-b'/rrt It Ver~tehen.wa\ Marhus crzahlt 2002 Iblrtnre 11 155 Huger f lutit I't~rer [ h e Weishett.ischrtA dus der Kdlrocr (ien17a 199 1 Cbhtnte 5 3 Sunqer 1 ) t ~ t t ~Antrhes, r Judcntum und dte Mysterien I980 I'o/rinrtn1/15 Dte Vcrlundtgung dcs Gckrnuzigtcn und l ~ r a e l1 YM l/i,l~intc~ 75 x e Burr hord Chrrrrttph Su1:nrunn .lo% Clhntrrun Lchren und Ermahnen 1904 I.i,htme 11/59 Surrdne\, Karl Olut Paul - One of the Prophets? 1991 Cblrinie 11/43
.%to, Mrguku Q und Prophette 1988 l41lumu 11/29 SLhupes J m r hrm Eschatology In the Greek Psalter 1995 Volume 11/76 Sc Itrmunon tkr. lume50 - Volume ll 1999 &)hrmc 116 a Schr~figelehrS~udelmcmn,tk.Ige Ben S ~ r alr ter 1980 &i/ume 1/16 Stem hke C'hrrstoph W Luke's Portratt of Gent~lesPrtor to rhclr Comtng to Fatth &)lrtme I l l 1 OX Stettlec Chrrstrun Der Kolosserhymnus 2000 I.i)lume 11113 I Stetrler: ffunnu Ule Chrlstologte der I'astirralbnefe 1998 Cblumt~IIIIOF
Srrcthc~l.Iugutr Ute Stundc dcr Wahrhe~t I980 l.i,lume -7 1 Srmumtu Gut