JEWS AND JUDAISM IN CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OF THE SECOND CENTURY CE
Since the holocaust there has been an increased interest to delve into the history of the
Christianity in search of the roots of modern antisemitism. The extreme views of Chrysostom
or Cyril or Ephrem are
often portrayed as the embodiment of the Adversus Judæos
tradition.
Moreover, these writers are often portrayed as merely fitting the cast of Christian anti-Judaism
founded in the New Testament. The second century of the common era (CE) is thus made to
fit into this senario of early Christian/Jewish relations. Recent scholarship has, however,
begun examining and questioning the idea of a direct line of anti-Judaism from the first
through the fourth centuries CE. One of the reasons for this is that the sources are relatively
scarce and little is known of either their authors or their context - as compared to Chrysostom.
But by at least attempting to examine each of the sources available to us in its own context
and on its own merits a different picture emerges. Instead of a straight line of progression and
perpetuation, we see what is more akin to a mosaic of Christian views and opinions on the
Jews and Judaism.
When dealing with the second century it is helpful to put aside the idea of canon or a
closed collection of sacred texts outside the Hebrew scriptures (more specifically the LXX).
The early Christian world was a flood of competing texts and teachings. Certainly, Christians
had a sense of authority and the universal importance of some texts and authors, but
Christianity was mostly defined in local terms. There was not an ecclesial structure capable of
tight control over all the variations of the Christian faith. It is worthwhile then to give weight
to works based on their popularity, e.g. Proto-evangelium of James and its
particular message
about Judaism.
It is also important that classical categories of Judaism in the Diaspora be carefully
scrutinized. It is now widely accepted that the gap between Jews living in Palestine and the
Diaspora is growing smaller. The classic profile of the Diaspora Jew who is isolated by her
Jewishness and shunned because of it, but at the same time is trying to fit into Hellenistic
culture by syncretizing her belief to make herself less abhorrent to the surrounding culture is
unacceptable. Firstly, there is no such thing as a typical Diaspora Jew. Each Jewish
community must be treated locally. This is a fruitful endeavor in a place like Egypt where
Jewish literary sources are rich and information is more detailed. It is more
difficult in regions like Asia Minor or North Africa but new scholarship is seeking to interpret
the archeological evidence in spite of its patchiness. The effect this is having on the study of
the Adversus Judæos tradition is the re-evaluation of those
Christian texts which describe
Jews and Judaism.
One of the great enigmas of the Adversus Judæos
tradition is that we have no solid
evidence that any of this literature was answered or provoked by Jews who might have come
into contact with Christianity. Evidence for a Jewish polemic against Christianity is vaporous.
In the last few decades, scholarship has sought to paint Judaism as a real and vital contender
with Christianity and that they did not, according to Adolf von Harnack,
fade into insignificance
against the raising star of Christianity. The view of Judaism meeting Christianity blow for
blow until well into the fourth century CE when the Christian sources become ossified and
Jews are legislated out of discourse by the Theodosian codes of the late fourth century, is also
now coming under fire. Part of the problem lies in trying to define Greco-Roman Judaism
with Christian criteria, for example mission and proselytization. Even if there are signs of a
Jewish mission in the late third and fourth centuries CE, there is no firm evidence in the Jewish
sources to indicate an active Jewish mission to non-Jews before this time (see Goodman 1994
(no early mission) and Feldman 1996 (active mission long before Christianity) for both ends of
the spectrum). The natural question follows: Why were some Christians so preoccupied with
Judaism and all things Jewish? Answers to this question are understandably varied. To begin
to address this difficult question it is important to be familiar with the texts of this century and
their possible contexts. Then, and only then, can hypotheses be proposed
and discussed.
What emerges from these texts is a varied picture of Christianity. Each writer or
document had their own ideas about what constituted proper Christian belief and expression,
but for the most part there is evidence that some Christians saw no difficulty in, for example,
holding a dual-covenant theory of salvation for the Jews and the Gentiles. In the second
century at least, we can see only adumbrations of what would become in later centuries a
focused, immovable stance against Jews and Judaism.
The epistle of Barnabas is often looked to as a source for some of the church's most
virulent anti-Judaism. And, in fact, this early text does contain language which excludes
Judaism from God's Covenant. The idea of Covenant is one of its main
themes. The document
as a whole, however, is characterized more by disparity than consistency. Themes which are
explored in a cluster of chapters are immediately dropped and a new topic is picked up
without any apparent concern to whether it is cogent to the previous section. For example,
Barnabas contains a block of material on the Two Ways (18-21) which is almost certainly
lifted from the Didache or a common source (The two documents are roughly contemporary
so there is some question of primacy and dependence), yet it has little or no bearing on the
previous section. In this way, it can be seen as complicating his view of Judaism because the
Two Ways teaching is certainly of Jewish origin.
The occasion of the document appears to be that of a past teacher writing to a group
of followers on several issues that he is compelled to expound for their edification (1.5). The
raison d'etre of the document appears to be the author's fear that some members of this group
are being swayed by teachings which emphasize the lasting quality of the Jewish Covenant
with God. Much of the document, therefore, is taken up with dismantling this idea.
Barnabas does this by relating the story of the giving of the Law to Moses at Sinai
(Exod. 24 ff). The point of this is to discover "whether he has given it [to the Jews]"(14.1).
Barnabas then gives his own interpretation of the Sinai event. The Jews never received the
Covenant because when Moses descended from Sinai he found them worshiping a golden calf.
He threw down the tablets and, for Barnabas, the Covenant was forever broken (14.4). It is
implied that the covenant then becomes hidden in Jesus and later given to the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ. This is the reason he came to earth in the first place (14.5). There is no
Christian precedent for making the claim that the Jewish people never received the Covenant
at Sinai. (It is in direct contradiction to the Biblical account in Exodus 34.10.) Barnabas'
radical stance on the Covenant may indicate that there were Christians who thought quite the
opposite. It is likely that Barnabas was attempting to redress any claims that Jews still held a
covenant with God, or even that there might be two Covenants - one for Jews and one for
Gentiles. Barnabas draws a single line that does not allow for dual covenants. The teaching
of the Two ways (18-21) reinforces this dichotomy but only in a general way.
Barnabas also devotes several chapters to Jewish themes he is suspicious of. In
chapter 10 he allegories all the food laws by pairing each prohibited animal with a particular
vice. This was not an unusual idea in Jewish circles (see esp. Philo), but Barnabas takes the
additional step which radically separated him from any Jewish interpretation. He advocates
abandonment of food laws. (This may have been one of the ways early Christians separated
themselves from other Jews. It is certainly a preoccupation with Paul). It is somewhat ironic
that while he sees Judaism as never getting out of the gates he uses Jewish religious
paradigms: Temple sacrifices, allegorized food laws, circumcision of the ears instead of the
genitals (so that Christians can hear and understand the Scripture), the younger serving the
elder, the stories of Rebecca's children, and Ephraim and Mannasse (13). The most poignant
example of this is Barnabas' appropriation of the symbol of the Temple. Barnabas used
typology to infuse Temple sacrifices with Christology e.g. Jesus is like the goat that takes the
sins of the people and is sacrificed to remove them. He does not, however, believe the Temple
was ever meant to be physical. (It is worth noting that Barnabas does not take the view, which
became popular in later writings, that the temple was destroyed (70CE) as a punishment for
the crucifixion of Jesus). Barnabas views its destruction as a necessary step (16.6). He
explains that the true Temple of the Lord will be built one heart at a time. "Before we
believed in God the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, like a temple really built
with hands because it was full of idolatry, and was the house of daemons through doing things
which were contrary to God...Now give heed, in order that the temple of the Lord may be
built gloriously...This is a spiritual temple being built for the Lord" (Barn. 16.7-8,10)
Barnabas then goes on explain the two ways of living: that of light and of darkness. There is a
strong theme of regeneration and newness undergirding this theme. "Since then he made us
new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of
children, as though he were creating us afresh" (Barn. 6.11 see also v.19 for eating milk and
honey like children and coming into perfection).
In this epistle, there is a dichotomizing of us and them: us being the Christians and
them being Jews, us being in, them being out. Barnabas is unambiguous about the fate the
Covenant at Sinai and sees no room for two competing covenants. There is one covenant and
it belongs to the Christians. Moreover, the Temple and all the commandments are not to be
interpreted literally. But this is a far as the anti-Judaism seems to go (although this may be far
enough). On every other point of exegesis the worst that could be inferred about the Jewish
understanding of the Covenant or of Jewish ritual and practices is that they are misguided or
misinterpreted. There are no accusations of deicide, the Law is not condemned as inherently
evil or imposed on the Jewish people to curb idolatry. Although it is idolatry that causes the
covenant to be destroyed Barnabas makes no effort to extend the accusation beyond Sinai.
Barnabas is far more concerned with combating the idea of dual covenants (an idea unlikely to
have been generated from within Jewish circles).
In Barnabas we see the seeds of themes which later writers would take up and expand
(typological explanations for baptism, the cross, dietary laws, etc). But there are also themes
that are not picked up. Barn. 15.7-8 implies that the Sabbath should not be observed until the
coming of Jesus, because then "we will be able to keep it holy". There is also an incredibly
strained, if not amusing, explanation (Barn 9.6) of why Abraham circumcised his household of
318. Barnabas is an early example of the process of an early Christian writer trying to distance
Christians from Judaism. Its existence is a window into the kinds of teachings which might
have been circulating amongst Christians of the second century. Perhaps the dual covenant
represents a part of Christianity that lived beneath orthodoxy as this passage from Pseudo-
Clementine Homilies (c. III Century CE) may indicate.
The letters of Ignatius of Antioch, (seven are considered authentic) provide the reader
with a subjective and brief view of his opinion of Jews and Judaism. Writing c. 114 CE in
Asia Minor he is often utilized to provide much needed information on this region. Despite
the flow of ink (and now bytes) which Ignatius' few references to Judaism have encouraged,
in the end there is very little we really know about what was happening in these churches in
the first decades of the second century (see Lieu, 1996 for a helpful and detailed discussion).
Before examining the main concerns it is worthwhile to mention what Ignatius does not say
about Judaism. Firstly, there is only one mention of Jews in his corpus (Smyrnaeans 1.2) and
it occurs in a formulaic expression of praise. We have no idea what his concept of the Jewish
people were or how they fit into the Christian scheme (a major topic in later writers). He has
no agenda to explain the Jewish Law and how it fit into Christian understanding. Absent is
any accusation and blame for the death of Jesus (whom he is trying to hard to imitate). His
main concern is his impending martyrdom and unity within the church. More than anything
else he encourages Christians to unite under their bishop even if the bishop is considered too
young (Mag. 3.1). Any teaching that causes faction or schism is to be put down and
eliminated. He sees the problem in exclusive terms. One way leads to unity and the other to
variant Sabbath and Eucharist practice which, in his mind, was a baby step from schism. It is
important then to keep this concern for internal unity in mind when analyzing his view of
Judaism.
There are two passages which concern us here. 1)"If someone interprets Judaism to
you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear Christianity from a man with circumcision
than Judaism from an uncircumcised man. But if neither speak about Jesus Christ, they are
stones and graves of the dead on which are written only human names"(6.1). And 2) “For I
heard some people saying ‘If I do not find it the archives, I do not believe [it is part of ] the
gospel.’" (8.2) (explanation of this translation in Lieu, 1996 p.37). These two passages, more
so the former, have caused a great deal of speculation as to who these uncircumcised
interpreters of Judaism were. Are they gentile converts who have been attracted to Judaism?
Are they God-worshippers (previously sympathetic to Judaism) who are now imposing their
Judaistic practices on other Christians? Or are they docetic teachers who have adopted Jewish
themes which they are trying to introduce in the church? All of these options have been
entertained without any decisive consensus of opinion. In the end, there is probably more
rhetoric than reality in this construction but it should not be wholly discounted because of this.
The overall theme is that regardless of ethnic identity, Christianity should be preferred; the
lessor ethnic group (Jews) being paired with the superior teaching (Christianity) to show the
strength of Christian teaching (see S. Cohen). However, these combinations must not have
been wholly unfamiliar to his audience and there is other evidence in Ignatius which points to
this kind of group within the church. The next quote (8.2) shines a bit more light on a group
of people who apparently felt that only teaching which was in the Hebrew scriptures (the
archives) is authoritative. There is nothing to indicate that these are non-Christian Jews. The
context puts them inside the church and makes their identity most likely
Christian. This group
may be the same as those who are interpreting Judaism in 6.1.
Thus again, the link and overall
message of Ignatius is to preach Jesus Christ. His answer to these questioners is the assertion
that "To me the archives are Jesus Christ" (8.2). In this way, Ignatius is making a link
between Jesus and the Hebrew scriptures. It is a link that Justin and others will pick up and
use, interestingly, to oppose the antithetical argument of Marcion that the Hebrew scriptures
hold no authority at all (see MARCION).
There are three passages which are pertinent to this discussion: 1) "Do not be led
astray by strange teachings or by old fables which profit nothing. For if we, even now, live
according to Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace" (8.1). 2) "If then they
[Jewish converts] who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope [Christianity]...how
then shall we be able to live without him of whom the prophets were disciples in the Spirit and
to whom they looked forward as their teacher?" (9.1-2). And 3) "It is absurd to speak of
Jesus Christ and of Judaism. For Christianity did not believe [itself] into Judaism, but Judaism
into Christianity" (10.3).
In these three references to Judaism, it is possible to see the message Ignatius is
attempting to deliver to the Magnesians. It is a slightly different message than that to the
Philadelphians and thus may reflect his more intimate knowledge of the church at Magnesia.
In all of these statements, Ignatius is indicating the unidirectional quality of faith. This
direction is made clear in 9.1,2 and 10.3. It is not so much that Judaism is dangerous or
subversive, although 8.1 does imply that believing in the old fables of Jewish tradition is
tantamount to denying Christian grace, but once one becomes a Christian there is no turning
back, it is simply not the way it is done. For Ignatius, it is absurd, ridiculous, even impossible
to go back to what was before, which in this case is Judaism. These references only refer to
existing Christians or teachers who might have been open to Jewish practice or belief. It says
nothing explicit about non-Christians who continue to practice Judaism outside the church.
This is a group which Ignatius does not address in his letters. His over-riding concerns for
unity and respect for bishops, achieving his own martyrdom, and putting down false teachings
within the church prohibit us from drawing any firm conclusions about his opinions of Jews.
What is evident is that Ignatius saw no room whatsoever within Christianity for Jewish
practices (what he means by Jewish practice is also difficult to discern). Thus, in Ignatius, we
see only traces of what was to become a clear, prevalent, and slightly ironic message in later
Christian writers: 'Christians are not Jewish.'
This body of literature has suffered from years of neglect due mostly to the notion that
only 'orthodox' writings, and to a certain extent heretical writings, define what Christians were
thinking. One either had it right or wrong. Scholarship is beginning to wake up to the
benefits of examining the vast grey area between these two poles (see Wilson 1996). In many
ways, this material can give us a glimpse into what Christians were reading in the second
century or at least the kind of oral traditions which were being circulated. We are much closer
to grass-roots Christianity when looking at this body of literature. But this is not without its
difficulties. Many of these texts are very difficult to date. Only five such texts can reasonably
be dated to the second century CE. While there is not a wealth of information about Jews and
Judaism - it does not appear to be the preoccupation with this literature - there are several
instances where the reader can get a glimpse into the way these documents perceived Jews.
This literature is, like others of this time, marked by its ambivalent and idiosyncratic view of
Jews and Judaism (See Elliot for the translations of these texts).
This is a short account of the crucifixion and the resurrection which most likely
emanates from the latter half of the second century CE. In this account, The Jewish priests
and teachers are completely culpable for the death of Jesus, as in the gospels. But here we are
told that they realized their mistake, unlike the gospels. "Perceiving what great evil they had
done to themselves, they began to lament and to say 'Woe on our sins, judgement has arrived
and with it the end of Jerusalem'" (25). The Romans, on the other hand, are exonerated from
blame. Moreover, they are the ones who witness the resurrection itself (34-42). The gaps in
the resurrection accounts in the gospels are filled in by the picture of Jesus being raised by two
angelic beings in the form of a cross (the text's most striking image). Jews are portrayed as a
unified group defined only by the Jewish leaders and the picture is a consistently negative one,
pinning the blame for his death squarely on the lapel on the Jewish people.
This account sums up nicely the trial and passion of Jesus and
continues on
through the ascension and a short time after. This a narrative told from within the Jewish
leadership. The reader is taken behind the scenes to see how the Jewish leaders react to Jesus'
crucifixion and resurrection. Nicodemus, a Jewish follower of Jesus, is the vehicle for this
insider's look (This narrative is also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus). In this narrative,
Pilate is pushed from being ambivalent, as in the gospels, to being a loyal advocate of Jesus.
Pilate's turning point comes when his wife claims that Jesus has been troubling her dreams
(2.1). The complaint of the Jewish leaders against Jesus is summed nicely in 2.3. "Firstly, that
you were born of fornication; secondly that your birth meant the death of the children of
Bethlehem; thirdly, that your father Joseph and your mother Mary fled to Egypt because they
had no esteem among the people" (2.3). Any skeptical reader of the gospels could have
reached the same conclusion. These were probably common accusations put to Christians and
the point of this text seems to address these criticisms as well as to provide a dramatic
narrative in defense of the resurrection.
Yet there is not a unified picture of the Jews. In fact, one of the functions of the story
is to forward the idea that all Jews were not united behind their disbelief in Jesus. At this point
Pilate "looked and saw many of the Jews weeping, he said, 'Not all the multitude wishes to see
him die.' But the elders of the Jews said, 'The whole multitude has come for the purpose that
he should die'" (4.5). This internal split is widened when all the Jews whom Jesus healed
during his career stand up and give testimony to his power (5.2-8.1) Nevertheless, the leaders
persuade Pilate to crucify him after reminding him that this Jesus is the same person whom
Herod sought 30 years ago. Fearing political backlash, Pilate gives in to their wishes, but not
without first giving a small speech on the history of the Jews and their disobedience toward
God (9.2). Pilate then disappears from the narrative and the reader accompanies the Jewish
leaders as they hear of Jesus' resurrection from the Roman guards stationed at the grave (13).
Then the teachers are deeply disturbed when three rabbis - Adas, Phinees, and Angaeus -
witness his ascension from mount Mamlich (14). But it is not until Joseph of Arithmethea,
who miraculously escapes from their imprisonment by crawling from the building that the risen
Jesus had lifted up for him, gives his testimony that the Jewish leaders "became like dead men
and fell to the ground and fasted until the ninth hour." In the end, after much investigation,
the teachers conclude that "if his memorial lasts to the year called jubilee (50 years), he will
reign for ever and create for himself a new people" (16.7). Moreover, in the last section the
Jews are now transformed into the people of the Lord and they sing praises to God that are
thoroughly Jewish with no mention of Jesus at all. "May the Lord our God be with us as he
was with our fathers...[and keep] his commandments and laws which he gave to our
fathers...Save us O Lord and we shall be saved. For we are your portion and inheritance. The
Lord will not forsake his people for his name's sake...Having sung great hymns they all
departed, every man to his house, glorifying God. For his is the Glory for ever and ever.
Amen." Either the crowds are affirming their Judaism or, more likely, it is understood that the
crowd have been converted and now sing this praise as Christians. The lack of any specifically
Christian interpolation of what appears to be a Jewish hymn makes this ending dramatic and
enigmatic.
The Proto-evangelium of James is focused on the account of Mary's incredible birth
and her dedication to the temple as a life-long virgin. Most likely, it is an attempt to address
the accusations that Jesus was born from fornication and that Mary was not a virgin. The
popularity of this work in the second century CE, which was substantial, is often credited with
origins of the Mary cult. Its most extreme and incredible declaration comes in 19-20 where
two skeptical Hebrew midwives examine Mary after Jesus is born and find her hymen intact!
The picture of Jews in this account is perhaps more useful because it is not addressing
Judaism and the portrayal is more incidental and less polemical as is the case in the two
previous works. Here Jews show a natural mistrust of Mary's claim that she is pregnant yet
still pure. After Joseph, who is portrayed as a much older man with other previous children
(addressing the problem of Jesus' brothers), is convinced of Mary's purity by the heavenly
angel (14) he tries to hide her from the temple priests for he was given Mary to keep as a
virgin. The priests discover her pregnancy and accuse Joseph of consummating the marriage.
"And the priest said, 'Give back the virgin whom you have received from the temple of the
Lord.' And Joseph began to weep. And the priest said, 'I will give you both to drink of the
water of conviction of the Lord, and it will make your sins manifest in your eyes'" (16)' Of
course they pass this test, the priests are convinced and they are released. As previously
mentioned, the Hebrew midwives who confirm Mary's virginity after the birth, are deeply
moved by the event. The second midwife, Salome, even undergoes a kind of conversion.
"And behold an angel of the Lord appeared and said to her, 'Salome, Salome, the Lord God
has heard your prayer. Bring your hand to the child and touch him and salvation and joy will
be yours.' And Salome came near and touched him, saying, 'I will worship him, for a great
king has been born to Israel' (20)
This account of the Jesus's birth does not portray Jews as overly skeptical, or in any
way culpable. Quite the opposite. All of the Jews show a healthy skepticism but are
convinced either by an angel (Joseph and Salome), or by an act of God (the priests and the
first Hebrew midwife). As in the Acts of Pilate, and to a certain extent The Preaching of Peter
the Proto-evangelium of James involves Jews who are sympathetic to Jesus and his
supernatural powers. Whether, as Wilson (1996) hints, they represent those Jews who are
sympathetic to Christianity yet "remain Jews - a kind of two-covenant notion - is unclear, but
it is not out of line with other early Christian evidence"(94). What is certain is that Jews are
not subject to one overriding interpretation.
When approaching a text such as the Peri Pascha, the reader
must abandon the many
literary genres such as apologetics, epistolary writings, polemics, or even teaching. This
poetic homily, for lack of a better word, is a highly stylized piece of Christian worship which
utilizes antithesis, irony, oxymoron, duality and drama. This document, which is said to have
been produced in Sardis, Melito's residence, has enjoyed a great deal of attention since the
discovery of an impressive third century synagogue at Sardis in Asia Minor (see the seminal
work of A.T. Kraabel (1968) and later Kraabel and Seager (1983). The debate has
centered around whether or not the Peri Pascha is indicative of the
social relationships
between Jews and Christians in this city during the second century. How much of a window
the Peri Pascha or even the archeological evidence provides is not
conclusive. What is much
more clear is how Melito utilized Jewish imagery for his poetic and theological purposes.
Melito holds the infamous honor of being the first Christian writer to directly accuse
the Jews of deicide. It is his most radical and damning assertion in the
Peri Pascha.
The one who suspended the earth is suspended,
This is the pinnacle of a longer argument that sets out to understand the Jewish Passover and
the crucifixion in terms of typology and model. Typology is a principle which characterizes
both his stylistic technique and theological understanding.
For this reason a preliminary sketch is made of the future thing
But when that which is the model arises,
There was once a time for Judaism, but for Melito that time is over. It is not, however,
because of any divine necessity that Israel has now been rejected by God - although his logic
demands that Israel reject Jesus as the Christ. It is because of their culpability in the death of
Jesus which only indicated that:
You did not turn out to be 'Israel';
The mystery in this homily is centered on the event of the Jewish passover in Egypt
(Peri Pascha). Christ is the real passover lamb who was sketched out in the celebration. By
dating Jesus' crucifixion to coincide with the passover feast in Jerusalem, as in John's gospel,
he creates an effective contrast for those Christians who celebrated the pascha at the same
time as the Jewish passover (the Quartodecimans).
You were celebrating,
In trying to come to grips with his violent and absolute language, there are four factors
which must be taken into account. First, Melito was a confirmed Quartodeciman (he followed
the Jewish reckoning of Passover for the date of Easter). This would have put him and his
congregation in an uncomfortable situation. Celebrating Easter on the same day as the
Passover might well provoke the accusation of judaising. In reality, the reasons for this
practice expressed the opposite desire to ignore or usurp this Jewish festival for Christian
purposes. This is hardly judaising. The Peri Pascha may have
functioned as a refutation for
the Quartodeciman practice, although it must be said that there is very little direct evidence of
Quartodeciman practice in the Peri Pasha except what can be infered
from the dichotomous
relationship Melito creates in the above quote. Secondly, we must take into account Melito's
concern about Marcionism (see MARCION). The Peri Pascha addressed Marcionite
teaching,
even if by extreme rhetoric. Jesus was not just prefigured in the Hebrew scriptures, he was in
the Hebrew scriptures, suffering with the prophets, David, Moses, Joseph, et al (415-504).
Melito' graphic descriptions of Jesus's death would be in direct opposition to the docetic denial
of Jesus' material body. Moreover, Melito's modalism allowed him to affirm that God was in
all of these events and that he even suffered as the person of Jesus. Marcionites must have
found this link to the Hebrew scriptures course and distasteful. One must also take the Jewish
community into account, but with caution. It is tempting to overstate the strength of the
Jewish community in Sardis, although certainly it was healthy, and underplay the smaller
Christian community. For this is to portray Melito as an underdog who was simply fighting
for his vulnerable church in Sardis. In Melito's mind, which gravitated
to poetic extremes, the
Jews of Sardis may have appeared untroubled and offish. Nevertheless, it is the form of the
homily that drives Melito to make extreme and inappropriate suggestions. The very basis of
the homily is a juxta positioning of Israel against everything Christian. For every Christian
practice and virtue, there must be a corresponding Jewish practice which is superseded and a
Jewish vice opposite to every Christian virtue. Do these factors excuse or even fully explain
Melito's harshness? Absolutely not. As it is the Peri Pascha is a
painful foreshadowing of the
kind of thinking that was to characterize the later views of Jews and Judaism.
In the Dialogue we have the fullest expression of a Christian
making a case for
Christianity over and against Judaism in the second century CE. This long treatise (142
chapters!) is a supposed dialogue between Justin and a Diaspora Jew named Trypho. Trypho
is initially attracted to Justin's philosopher's robe (1.2), but after Justin gives a somewhat
satirical account of his journey through the philosophical schools of the second century, he
then goes on to claim that Christianity is the true philosophy. From this point, the
conversation takes a different course. Justin now proceeds to pull out every proof text
available from the Hebrew scriptures to prove the Christian version of the Messiah (See O.
Scarsaune). He also attempts to explain the Mosaic Law and circumcision.
The Mosaic Law, for Justin was a mixed bag (see Stylianopoulos, 1975). There were
those commandments and precepts which were established to curb idolatry (Dial. 45.3;
67.4,10). There were also those parts of the Law which had a mystical/typological meaning
behind them (41.1; 91.1). These were included by Moses to identify Jesus as the messiah.
There is also a positive aspect of the Law which Justin saw as being connected to Christ.
"Those who regulated their lives by the Law of Moses would also be saved. For what is in the
Law for Moses is naturally good, and pious, and righteous, and has been prescribed to be done
by those who obey it; and what was appointed to be performed by reason of hardness of the
people's hearts; these were also recorded and done by those who were under the Law. Since
those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God, they
shall be saved through this Christ in the resurrection equally with those righteous men who
were before them, mainly Noah, Enoch, Jacob and whoever else there might be, along with
those who have known this Christ" (Dial. 45.4-5). Jews living after Jesus did not, however,
have this luxury in Justin's opinion. This was Justin's way of retaining or reframing those
Jewish figures whom he felt were actual Christians. There is nothing inherently wrong with
the Law or those who followed it before Jesus, but since Jesus the Law has become
unimportant it can still be followed after conversion. "And again Trypho inquired, 'But if
someone, knowing that this is so, and after he recognizes that this man is Christ, and has faith
in him, wished, however, to observe these institutions [Jewish practices], will he be saved?' In
my opinion, such a one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men
[to practice them too]" (Dial. 47.1). The Law, for Justin, had become simply a cultural
accouterment with no eternal significance. This accepting attitude toward Jewish practice was
not carried forward by subsequent writers.
It is the Jewish teachers and their growing authority who present Justin with his
greatest challenge. Their rejection of the LXX as an acceptable translation (71.1), their
supposed alteration of key Christian passages, ( 84.3, see also 71.3), their particular
understanding of the Scriptures (110.1; 112.4), and the influence Justin feels they exert over
the Jewish people (103.3), and even Trypho (9.1), are all factors which threaten Justin. That
the teachers are Justin's true foes can be seen in a later chapter of the
Dialogue. In chapter
103, he makes the accusation that the Jews were corporately responsible for the death of
Jesus, but with a twist. Justin makes a differentiation within Judaism, implying that some were
more guilty than others. "As therefore, bulls are the begetters of calves, so your teachers were
the cause of why their children went out to the mount of olives to take him and to bring Him
to them" (Dial. 103.3). The image portrays the Jewish people as children. It is the teachers
who exert power over the young and vulnerable. This image is consistent throughout the
Dialogue. It is the teachers who are behind the Jewish reading of
the Scripture. It is the
teachers who exert power over the people. Justin felt the presence of the teachers even if
Trypho did not make more than a passing reference to them (38.1). "For it would be well if,
persuaded by the Scriptures, you are circumcised from hardness of heart [baptism]: not that
circumcision which you have from the tenets that are put into you. (137.1)" The picture of the
Jewish teachers that Justin paints is one of corruption, deceit, and power. It is almost as if the
Jewish people are being held against their will and the chief obstacle between them and
conversion to Christianity is these teachers. It is difficult to know who these teachers were. It
is too early to see any rabbinic influence outside of Palestine. The references in Justin do not,
in themselves, constitute proof of a rabbinic presence in Asia Minor. The truth of the Gospel
is so evident and plain to Justin that there must be some other reason for Jewish rejection of
the Christian faith. For Justin, the teachers provide part of that reason. This is somewhat
reminiscent of the Acts of Pilate which sought to show the split between the teachers and the
people. And while it is plain that he trying to get a wedge in between the teachers and the
people, he is not entirely consistent in this distinction and sometimes falls into generalization
and corporate polemic.
While Justin never accused the Jews of deicide (his Christology would not allow such a
statement), he does see both the destruction of the temple (70CE) and the Bar Kochba revolt (135CE) as results of their fallen status and proof of the bankruptcy of their faith. In
attempting to explain the reason for Jewish circumcision he draws the unusual conclusion that
"God, who foreknew, was aware that your nation would deserve expulsion from Jerusalem
and that none would be allowed to enter it" (92.4 see also 16.2). This may be a reference to
Hadrian's ban after the revolt of 135CE, but it is difficult to know if such inspections were
performed by the Romans. The Jewish defeats (115-117CE and 133-135CE) and destruction
of the temple (70CE) appear to be the pre-ordained in Justin's mind. (Against this see Melito
for the idea that Jewish history pivoted on Jewish participation in the crucifixion).
Justin is critical of what he sees as an over-dependence on the Jew's lineage to
Abraham. Yet he never attempts to divorce Jews from Abraham (Dial. 44.2; 140.2), even
though he claims that Christians are the true spiritual descendants of Abraham (Dial. 11.2-3).
Justin is not entirely clear as to his vision for the future of the Jewish people. In one instance
he sees that some Jews will "be found in the lot with Christ, while others who are indeed
children of Abraham would be like the sand on the sea shore, barren and fruitless, much in
quantity but without number indeed" (Dial. 120.5). Anther time he intimates that only those
Jews who persecute Christ (the meaning of this is vague) will be cut off (Dial. 26.1), and later
in the treatise Justin even hints at the restoration of Christians and Jews who "are all sons and
equal in dignity" (Dial. 134.4). These statements must also be viewed in the context of
Justin's more absolute language. For example: "Accordingly, He promises to him [Abraham] a
nation of similar faith, God-fearing, righteous, and delighting the Father; but it is not you, 'in
whom there is no faith'" (Dial.119.6).
Marcionism also plays an important role in the Dialogue and
Justin's treatment of
Judaism. Justin's tripartite division of the Law was a way to embrace the Law without the
cultic injunctions. His use of typology transformed the injunctions into mysterious
foreshadowing of Christian worship. But it is his use of the Logos doctrine that is the most
aggressive counter to Marcionite doctrine. More than a type, the Logos was the embodiment
of Christ himself who visited the patriarchs. Justin uses Abraham's angelic visitation at Mamre
(Gen 18) to make the bold assertion that one of the angels was, in fact, also called God. Since
God is totally transcendent, according to Justin, this can only mean that this was Christ who is
God yet numerically distinct from God (56.10). The effect of this argument is to reinterpret
scripture through a 'real presence' Logos doctrine and thus incorporate Christian belief and
practice through the Hebrew scriptures. He even goes so far as to claim the patriarchs as
Christian. The issue then becomes one of understanding and interpretation. For Justin, Jews
do not know how to read their own scriptures, and they are responsible for the punishment
they have incurred from God, both from their idolatrous behavior at Sinai and their treatment
of Jesus.
Overall, Justin addresses different issues and questions surrounding the Christian
problem of its Jewish heritage. He has strong language for Judaism but he also shows himself
to be quite irenic in many ways. He does not conflate Jews of the past with those of the
future. He makes no accusation of deicide. Moreover, his portrayal of
Trypho is not as brutal as
past scholars have thought. After all, one of the great riddles of the
Dialogue is that after 142
chapters of Christian proof texts and exhortations and scolding - Trypho and Justin part with a
handshake. Trypho thanks him for his time, urges him to think of them as friends and departs,
unmoved, unconverted.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For on this account Jesus is concealed from the Jews, who have taken Moses
as their teacher, and Moses is hidden from those who have believed in Jesus.
For, there being one teaching by both, God accepts him who has believed either
of these...Neither, therefore, are the Hebrews condemned on account of their
ignorance of Jesus, by reason of Him who has concealed him, if, doing the
things commanded by Moses, they do not hate him whom they do not know.
Neither are those Gentiles condemned, who know not Moses on account of
Him who has concealed him, provided that these also, doing these things
spoken by Jesus, do not hate him whom they do not know."(Ps.-Clem.Hom.
8:6-7 in Wilson 1995, 151-152)
The one who fixed the heavens is fixed firm,
The one who fastened the universe is fastened to the tree,
The master is insulted,
God is murdered,
The King of Israel is killed by an Israelite right hand.
(711-16)
out of wax or clay or of wood,
in order that what will soon arise taller in height, and stronger in power
and beautiful in form, and rich in its construction,
may be seen through a small perishable sketch.
that which once bore the image of the future thing
is itself destroyed as growing useless
having yielded to what is truly the real image of it;
and what was once precious becomes worthless
when what is truly precious has been revealed.
(ll 224-44)
you did not 'see God,'
you did not recognize the Lord,
You did not know, Israel,
that he is the first born of God.
(588-592)
He was starving;
You were drinking wine and eating bread,
He vinegar and gall;
You were bright of face,
He downcast;
You were rejoicing,
He was oppressed;
You were singing, he was being judged;
(566-575)
including the header and this copyright notice, remain
intact.
![[E]](../gifs/ecolent.gif){kind=small}
Timothy J. Horner![[Mail]](../gifs/mail.gif){kind=small}