|
The
Brownstone Journal >>
Issues >> Vol.
X Spring 2001
The Jewish Anti-Christian Argument
Georgiana Cohen (CAS XX) is a senior
in the College of Communication, majoring in journalism with
a minor in religion. She hopes to become an arts and entertaimnent
writer for a print or online publication. Her paper was written
for Professor Paula Fredriksen's Early Christianity class, which
the author deems the best class she has taken at Boston Unibersity.
Being Jewish herself, Cohen views her experience writing this
paper as a way of connecting an academic inquiry with her own
personal interests. Georgina thanks Professor Fredriksen for
her guidance during this project. She also thanks her suitemates
from the Spring 2000 semester for their moral support, in spite
of her large stacks of books and biblical quotations.
The Jewish anti-Christian polemic, exhibited
by Christians toward the members of their parent religion as
the fledgling faith came into its own, lacks in explication
mainly because little primary-source material exists (Go. 6).
The Jewish points of contention include the following: Jesus
and his followers were criminals; the manner of Jesus' death
precludes his characterization as Messiah; by forfeiting the
laws of the covenant as punishments, Christians forsake Israel;
the Christians misinterpret the Scriptures (Ga. 158). But what
is the primary validation of these summary arguments?
The main first-century voices of Jewish activity in the Christian
world, such as Josephus, Philo Judaeus, or Justus, do not record
anything concerning Jesus or the Jews' reaction to him (Go.
9-10). Because Christianity in the first century was still in
its early stages and not fully extricated from Judaism, a basis
for comparison between two separate and established religions
cannot be accomplished until at least the second century. The
earlies compilation of Jewish rabbinic discourse, the Mishnah,
was not compiled until 220 C.E., and it contains no distinct
reference to Jesus Christ (Go. 19-22). To obtain a semblance
of the Jewish critique of Christianity, it is necessary to utilize
non-Jewish texts. The two texts which accomplish this task most
sufficiently are primarily the Dialogue with Trypho, as described
by Justin Martyr, and secondarily The True Doctrine, a dialogue
and commentary by the pagan philosopher Celsus. These accounts
both utilize some form of dialogue to illustrate their respective
points and were not conceived as means for conveying the Jewish
anti-Christian sentiment. But through the authors' critique
of Judaism, especially as a result of the structure in which
Justin and Celsus set up their respective arguments, we clearly
see the charges which Judaism holds against Christianity. The
authenticity of these sources as accurate representations of
this Jewish sentiment has been called into question, but given
the lack of primary Jewish sources, the Jewish characters in
these dialogues and the authors with whom they converse must–and
do–serve as suitable and accurate substitutes for relating the
Jewish anti-Christian argument.
Scholars view these texts, even though they do not originate
from Jewish sources, as accurate portrayals of Jewish opinion
in the period, Philip Sigal argues that according to the text,
Justin was well-versed with Jewish practices, exegetical devices,
and arguments against Christianity (S. 444). Given Justin's
astute awareness and knowledge of Judaism, Justin provides an
acceptable substitute in the absence of primary sources. Gager
quotes scholar Theodore Stylianopoulos in saying that the Dialogue
reflects the sentiment that "a remnant of the Jews remains
to be saved in Justin's own time." Gager adds Stylianopoulos'
belief that Jewish participation in such debates was missionary
in nature, in an attempt to "restore observance of the
Mosaic commandments" (Ga. 164-5).
Similarly, Celsus, though neither Jewish nor Christian, also
serves as a suitable alternative, given that in the text, he
argues that Christianity was not continuous with its parent
religion, Judaism (F. 197). This argument assumes that he was
aware of the Jewish problems with Christianity.
Both of the second-century texts structurally echo each other.
Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho circa 155-160 C.E.,
but the dialogue probably occured twenty or twenty five years
earlier at the time of the Bar Kokhba messianic uprising, 132-135
C.E. (L. 103). After Justin explains his studies in philosophy
to Trypho and how he came to accept Jesus Christ, the two men
begin their dialogue, which consists more of Justin's polemic
than Trypho's. Celsus' Doctrine was presumably authored in the
last quarter of the second century, approximately in the later
170s C.E. (H.33). Chapters II and III recount a discussion between
a Jew and either Jesus Christ himself or a Christian. Celsus
facilitates his critique of Christianity through the mouth of
a Jew, crafting the one-sided and fictitious discussion to present
only the Jewish questioner's opinions. Justin's Dialogue, on
ther other hand, may represent several dialogues Justin actually
had with Jews over the years (L. 104). In sum, the structures
of these dialogues are biased toward their authors; Justin's
monopolizes the bulk of the discussion, and Celsus does not
allow Jesus or a fictitious Christian to answer his fictitious
Jewish mouthpiece. The text of Celsus' Doctrine is comprised
only of portions from the original text quoted by Origen in
his work, Against Celsus. It is thus estimated that approximately
70% of the original text has been preserved and subsequently
compiled (H. 44-5). Nevertheless, the questions Justin defends
himself against and the nature of Celsus' critique of Christianity
reveal the Jewish argument against its offshoot religion.
The tone in the texts echoes the bias of the structures. In
Justin's Dialogue, Trypho's and Justin's opinions of each other
are evident throughout the text. Trypho notes that his teachers
have "laid down a law that we should have no intercourse
with any of you... for you utter many blasphemies" (J.
xxxviii). Justin takes every opportunity to assert his own and
the Christians' superiority to the Jews. Justin chastises the
Jews because "not only have [they] not repented after you
learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you
have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to
proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one
Jesus" (J. cviii). He adds that even though the Jews lost
Jerusalem and face the destruction of their land, “[they] do
not repent, but dare to utter imprecations on Him and all who
believe in Him.” But Justin exhibits an early sort of Christian
charity, tempering those harsh accusations with assurances that
“we do not hate you… but we pray that even now all of you may
repent and obtain mercy for God” (J. cviii). Justin, contrary
to Trypho’s position, asserts the role of Christians as the
chosen people, saying that God promised to Abraham descendants
“a nation of similar faith, God-fearing, righteous, and delighting
the Father; but it is not you, ‘in whom is no faith’” (J. cxix).
Justin even goes so far as to call the Jews the agents of the
Devil when he notes that the Christians “for our piety, [have
endured] punishments even to death… inflicted on us by demons,
and by the host of the devil, through the aid ministered to
them by you” (J. cxxxi). Nevertheless, Justin feels that he
is “through fear, very earnest in desiring to converse according
to the Scriptures,” as he does with Trypho, because of God’s
admonition to Ezekiel, “If the sinner sin, and thou warn him
not, he himself shall die in his sin; but his blood will I require
at thine hand” (J. lxxxii). Therefore, Justin’s dialogues with
Jews are the product of his Christian obligation to right the
wrongs of the non-Christian world.
Celsus’ tone in Doctrine is not only critical, but extremely
harsh as well. He makes no apologies for his Jewish interlocutor’s
tone towards Jesus, to whom he asks, “Why—though a son of God—do
you go about begging for food, cowering before the threats of
the people, and wandering about homeless?” (C. ii) “A fine God
indeed who fears what he is supposed to conquer,” Celsus himself
comments in Chapter III (C. iv). His criticism also extends
to Christians in general, as he states that their teachers are
“charlatans” (C. iv) who “pitch their message to the uneducated,
the slaves, and the ignorant” (C. vii). This tone conveys Celsus’
intense and bitter skepticism concerning the Christian faith.
Trypho, on the other hand, though Justin sometimes angers him,
remains congenial enough and parts from him “particularly pleased
with the conference” (J. cxlii). Yet Trypho, during this conference,
does not avoid the Jews’ criticisms of Christianity, its followers,
and its teachers. His first arguments, in response to Justin’s
initial comments, utilize some of the strongest language that
he will exhibit in the entire discussion. He says that Christians
are “deceived by false words, follow the opinions of men of
no reputation.” Trypho wonders when someone had “forsaken God,
and reposed confidence in man, what safety awaits you?” In addition,
Trypho calls the story of Jesus becoming the Christ a “groundless
report,” chastising Justin’s people for “invent[ing] a Christ
for yourselves, and for his sake… inconsiderately perishing”
(J. viii). For Trypho and the Jews, the true Messiah must be
anointed by Elijah, but “Elijah has not yet come” (J. xlix).
Holding the Jewish view that the Messiah has not yet come, Trypho
accuses Christians of falsely esteeming Jesus as the Christ.
Trypho distingueshes between the Christ of the Gentiles and
the yet unannounced Christ of the Jews. He asserts, “Let Him
be recognized as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures
declare, by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been
all called Christians, but we who are servants of God that made
this same, do not require to confess or worship him” (J. xliv).
This statement indicates attitudes of the time: the distinction
between Jews and Christians has become more refined. Christianity,
no longer a Jewish sect, is a Gentile religion. There are “Christians.”
The dissolution complete by the second century, two distinct
religions now exist.
Trypho explains his doubt that Jesus is the Christ, calling
it “paradoxical and wholly incapable of proof,” as well as “foolish,”
to say that “Christ existed as God before the ages, that He
submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man
of man” (J. xlviii). Trypho addresses two aspects of his argument;
the incarnation of the Messiah and Christ as a pre-existent
being. Again, in Chapter 87, Trypho questions the validity of
Christ’s pre-existence when He is “filled with the powers of
the Holy Ghost… as if He were in lack of them” (J. lxxxvii).
Even Justin has problems responding to this, answering somewhat
evasively. “That this man is the Christ of God does not fail,
though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son
of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by
the Virgin” (J. xlviii).
For Trypho, the problem of the incarnation of Christ is linked
to the problem of the Virgin birth. He thinks it “paradoxical”
that Christians believe Christ “submitted to be born and become
man, yet that He is not man of man” (J. slviii). He repeatedly
implores Justin to “prove that He submitted to become man by
the Virgin, according to the will of his Father” (J. lxiii).
Trypho calls it “an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing
that God endured to be born and become man” (J. lxviii). Trypho
also argues that God said, “He gives not His glory to another,
speaking thus, ‘I am the Lord God, this is my name, my glory
will I not give to another, not my virtues’” (J. lxv). The Christians’
faulty reasoning concerning the Virgin birth stems from a variance
in the interpretation of Scripture. He says, “And the Scripture
has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’
but ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son’”
(J. lxvii).
Trypho introduces a point of contention that will be brought
up throughout the dialogue. Contrary to Justin, who cites the
passage in reference to Jesus, Trypho claims that the passage
refers to Hezekiah. He slights Justin by comparing the Christian
interpretation of the Scripture to the Greek myth of Perseus,
who was born of a Virgin, and says, “you ought to feel ashamed
when you make assertions similar to theirs” (J. lxvii). In a
debate between two monotheists, comparison of one’s beliefs
to a pagan myth is a low blow. Justin returns Trypho’s criticism
of the incarnation of Christ via a Virgin birth, asserting that
his version of the coming of Christ “is truly a sign, and which
was to be made trustworthy to mankind—namely, that the first-begotten
of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin’s womb,
and be a child” (J. lxxxiv). While Trypho cannot believe that
the Messiah would submit himself to the degradation of becoming
man through the Virgin birth, Justin says that the nature of
His coming assured the world that Jesus was the true Christ.
Aside from the nature of Christ’s birth, the two men also discuss
the nature of Christ’s death—the crucifixion. Trypho challenges
Justin to “prove to us whether He must be crucified and die
so disgracefully and so dishonourably by the death cursed in
the law, for we cannot bring ourselves even to think of this”
(J. xc). Justin attributes the Jews’ lack of faith in the crucificxion
of the Christ to their misinterpretation of the prophecies.
Speaking to Trypho, he says, “And will not as many as have understood
the writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that
He was crucified, say that this is He [the Messiah] and no other?”
(J. lxxxix). Celsus, like Trypho, incredulously denies that
the high God would deign to descend to earth as a man. “A fine
god indeed who must pay a visit to the regions below,” he remarks
in the indignant tone which characterizes his Doctrine (C. v).
In the first chapter, Celsus calls the Virgin birth a “fable,”
and allows his Jewish voice to question Jesus, “Is it not true,
good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a
virgin to quiet rumours about the true and unsavory circumstances
of your origins?” (C. ii) Celsus backs up his assertions with
an evidently pagan mentality, since he says, “Accordingly, it
cannot be the case that God came down to earth, since in so
doing he would have undergone an alteration of his nature” (C.v).
This statement echoes the general concept of an immutable high
God. The incarnation of the high God on earth would violate
this definiting principle. Ultimately, Celsus casts a scandalous
and incredible shadow of doubt on the incarnation and Virgin
birth of Jesus Christ much more than does Trypho, who assumes
a more theological approach.
Trypho also addresses the Christians’ negligence in adhering
to the laws. In the beginnning of his discourse, Trypho says
that the Christians, who are “professing to be pious and supposing
[themselves] better than others, are not separated from them,
and do not alter [their] mode of living from the nations, in
that [they] observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have
the rite of circumcision” (J. x). When Justin asks Trypho to
tell him “some things which can be observed,” Trypho replies,
“to keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months,
and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses,
or after sexual intercourse” (J. xlvi). He reproaches Justin,
asking him, “Why do you select and quote whatever you wish from
the prophetic writings, but do not refer to those which expressly
command the Sabbath to be observed?” (J. xxvii) These passages
convey the Jewish view that Christianity is inferior because
its people are not separate from the rest of the world and because
they have displaced the yoke of the covenant. Trypho notes that
Justin “admitted to us that [Jesus] was both circumcised, and
observed the other legal ceremonies ordained by Moses,” yet
the Christians have forsaken these ordinances (J. lxvii). Celsus
takes a different perspective, indicating that the Jews “maintain
these laws among themselves to the present day and observe certain
rites and practices which, though peculiar, have a grounding
in ancient tradition,” but that the Christians “rebelled against
the Jews” (C. vi). Trypho’s point is once again more theologically-based,
while Celsus derives his view from a social and communal standpoint:
Trypho criticizes Christians for forsaking the yoke of the commandments,
while Celsus critizices them for forsaking the yoke of community
obligation. In his reply to Trypho’s criticisms, Justin justifies
the Christians’ departure from the Old Testament covenant laws.
He says that God created the covenant and “laid all such ordinances
upon you on account of the hardness of your people’s hearts,
in order that, by the large number of them, you might keep God
continually” (J. xlvi). But “yet not even so were you dissuaded
from idolatry,” says Justin to Trypho, adding that “those of
the seed of Abraham who live according to the law”—as Trypho
considers himself and his people to be living—“and do not believe
in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved” (J.
xlvi-xlvii). Christians, thus, are absolved from the yoke of
the commandments because they have accepted Christ, while the
Jews remain “foolish sons” (J. xxxii).
The law of circumcision merits the most discussion in the Dialogue.
Trypho rebukes the Christians for being “not in any particular
separated from [others].” He inquires whether Justin has read
that a “soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not
have been circumcised on the eighth day” (J. x). Justin characteristically
turns Trypho’s argument against him, asserting that the Jews
were marked as separate not because they were the chosen people,
but “that you may be separated from other nations, and from
us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly
suffer.” Christians, Justin says, have received “not carnal,
but spiritual circumcision” (J. xliii). Justin views circumcision—a
practice in which Trypho takes pride as a Jew—as the shame of
an excluded people. Though Celsus may rhetorically use a Jew
to espouse his beliefs, he does not necessarily favor Jewish
beliefs, since he notes that the Jews’ rite of circumcision
showcases their “foolishness” by “excluding the other names
of their highest god” (C. ii). Here, Celsus’ discourse weakens
Trypho’s critique and finally supports Justin’s argument.
The use of Scripture connects every issue that Justin and Trypho
discuss. Trypho criticizes Justin’s interpretation of certain
Scriptural passages, exasperatedly stating, “All the words of
prophecy you repeat, sir, are ambiguous, and have no force in
proving what you wish to prove” (J. li). Justin’s return to
Trypho’s point implies that the Jews misread the texts, because
they “are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will
of God” (J. lxviii). The Dialogue also addresses one of the
main Scriptural points of contention, whether a “young woman”
or a “virgin” will conceive. Justin makes the bold claim that
the Jews have edited Scriptural texts. Justin states that the
Jews’ teachers have “altogether taken away many Scriptures from
the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with
Ptolemy… but… I am aware that this is denied by all of your
nation” (J. lxxi). Trypho seems baffled by the claim, but does
not deny the incident, saying that “whether the rulers of the
people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm,
God knows; but it seems incredible” (J. lxxiii). Justin claims
that the edited passages, concerning the wood of the cross,
were from Jeremiah and Psalm 95 (J. lxxii-lxxiii). Although
it seems odd for Justin to quote from passages that he claims
have been excised from the Scriptures by Jewish teachers before
him, this problem might be resolved by Justin’s claim that the
powers of prophecy have been transferred from the Jews to the
Christians—the new chosen people. Justin proclaims that the
“[prophetical gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred
to us” (T. lxxxii). He reproaches the Jewish teachers, exclaiming,
“O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by
all these passages” (J. cx). He argues that the Jews “do not
catch the spirit” that is in the Scripture and that “the great
wisdom of God… is hid from [them]” (J. xxix, xxxvi-ii). Again,
Justin turns Trypho’s argument against him, retorting that Trypho’s
Jewish teachers extracted passages that may confirm the Divinity
of Christ. Celsus’ argument concerning the Christians’ command
of Scripture refers not to the Septuagint, to which Trypho and
Justin limited their discourse, but to the New Testament and
the sayings which Christians ascribe to Jesus Christ. “Not only
do they misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even
stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to Jesus,” he writes,
saying that the words of Plato have been inaccurately placed
in the mouth of Jesus (C. vii).
The Dialogue with Trypho and the work of the pagan Celsus elucidate
the Jewish perspective on Christianity in the second century,
a period in which the two religions had sufficiently distinguised
themselves from one another. The Dialogue, though written from
a Christian perspective, is important because of Justin’s validity
as a source for regestering the Jewish attitude of the time.
The frustrating lack of primary Jewish texts in this crucial
century, forces the drawing of conclusions from wherever they
can be ascertained, including from pagan texts, such as the
material scholars have gleaned from Origen’s critique of Celsus’
Doctrine. Celsus demonstrates an awarenesss of both of the religions
he discusses, and while he does not speak for the Jewish people,
his concerns often commiserate with theirs. In this regard,
his voice is a necessary component in a study of second-century
Jewish response to Christianity. The Jews, the sources indicate,
found fault with Christian interpretation of the Scriptures,
citing much of it as incredulous. They rejected Jesus Christ
as Messiah, and in turn rejected the concepts of his virgin
birth, incarnation, and death by crucifixion. They also criticized
the Christians’ shirking of convenantal obligations, namely
circumcision and Sabbath observance. Such differences, elucidated
and explored in these texts, are irreconcilable, and explain
how Christianity, so early in its inception, became—and would
so remain—markedly different and distanced from its parent religion.
TBJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Celsus. On the True Doctrine. Tr. R. Joseph Hoffmann. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1993.
Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semiticism. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1983.
Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1950.
Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/-ANF-01/just/justintrypho.html#Section1.
Lieu, Judith. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the
Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1996.
Sigal, Philip. The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism. Pittsburgh:
The Pickwick Press, 1980.
|
|
