ISSUE NO 34

Is the New Testament anti-Semitic? According to Krister Stendahl it is. In my judgment it is not. Our divergent responses, however, are not necessarily incompatible. Depending on the context the answer could be yes or it could be no. Regrettably, as the New Testament functions in the thinking of many Christians and congregations it is anti-Semitic. The New Testament is understood to teach that in rejecting Jesus as Messiah the Jewish people have in turn been rejected by God. Thus, in the context of gentile Christianity, far removed from its Jewish roots, utterly estranged from its original ethnic and religious context, the New Testament is potentially anti-Semitic.

On the other hand, a compelling case can be made that argues that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic in its original context. We are faced, of course, with a problem when we speak of the New Testament "in its original context." What is meant by this? In a certain sense such a statement is anachronistic. The "New Testament" implies a fixed and recognized canon of writings and that did not emerge until the Christian Church had become overwhelmingly gentile. If the original context of the New Testament canon is, say, the fourth or fifth century, when the canon as we know it reached its final form, then it might very well be correct to speak of the presence of anti-Semitic features. Perhaps some of the books it now contains were included because of their harsh polemic directed against Jews and Judaism - at least as such polemic was understood by Christians then. Certainly many passages were interpreted in an anti-Semitic sense. But if "original context" refers not to the collective whole (i.e., to the canon itself), but to the individual writings that make up the canon, I do not think that it is appropriate to speak of anti-Semitism. In fact, to describe the criticism and polemic in the New Testament writings as anti-Semitic is anachronistic and without regard to their social and religious context.


The Importance of Context
I believe that much of the debate concerned with New Testament polemic tends to assume that first-century Christianity is basically gentile and that the New Testament itself is largely a gentile book though perhaps dressed in Jewish garb. Seen in this light New Testament disagreement with, and criticism of, particular Jews and forms of Judaism appear anti-Judaic (i.e., opposed to Judaism as a religion), perhaps even anti-Semitic (i.e., opposed to the Jewish people). Consider the bigoted tone that the following passages have if we assume that the New Testament is a gentile book expressing criticism of Jewish people:

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father;';for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt 3:7-10)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to people, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:27-33)

Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some of whom you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of the innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. (Matt 23:34-36)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. (Matt 23:37-38)

Jesus said to them [i.e., the "Jews"], 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him ... He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.' (John 8:42-47)

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. (Acts 7:51-53)

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, 'It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles . . . .' And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad . . . . (Acts 13:46-48)

And when [the Jews] opposed and reviled [Paul], he shook out his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.' (Acts 18:6)

So, as [the Jews] disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one statement: 'The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: "Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand . . . ." Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.' (Acts 28:25-29)

As regards the gospel, [Israelites] are enemies of God . . . . (Rom 11:28)

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved - so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Thes 2:14-16)

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you. (Rev 3:9; cf. 2:9)

After surveying many of these passages and others like them the late Samuel Sandmel, a Jewish New Testament scholar, concluded that "the New Testament is a repository for hostility to Jews and Judaism. Many, if perhaps even most, Christians are completely free of anti-Semitism, yet Christian Scripture is permeated by it." Some theologians and biblical scholars agree with Sandmel; others do not.


Jewish Polemic
Is the assessment of Sandmel and others accurate? Is the New Testament "permeated" with anti-Semitism? What is it about these passages that makes them anti-Semitic? Is it the harsh criticism that they express? Is it their dogmatic exclusivism? If we affirm either of the last two questions, we then have to explain the same dogmatic exclusivism and harsh, and at times even harsher, criticism that we encounter in the Old Testament. We may consider the following sampling:

Ah, sinful nation,
a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers,
sons who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the Lord,
they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
they are utterly estranged. (Isa 1:4)

For they are a rebellious people, lying sons,
sons who will not hear the instruction of the Lord;
who say to the seers, 'See not;'
and to the prophets, 'Prophesy not to us what is right;
speak to us smooth things,
prophesy illusions,
leave the way,
turn aside from the path,
let us hear no more of the Holy One of Israel.' (Isa 30:9-11)

But you, draw near hither,
sons of the sorceress,
offspring of the adulterer and the harlot.
Of whom are you making sport?
Against whom do you open you mouth wide and put out your tongue?
Are you not children of transgression, the offspring of deceit,
you who burn with lust among the oaks under every green tree;
who slay your children in the valleys,
under the clefts of the rocks? (Isa 57:3-5)

All the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart. (Jer 9:26)

These prophetic oracles speak of Israelites as "sinful nation," "offspring of evildoers," "rebellious people," "sons of the sorceress," "offspring of the adulterer and the harlot," "children of transgression," and, "uncircumcised in heart." This kind of language certainly approximates the language found in the New Testament: "brood of vipers," "sons of the devil," and, "uncircumcised in heart and ears." One of the most offensive metaphors of prophetic criticism is the comparison of Israel to a harlot:

How the faithful city has become a harlot
she that (once) was full of justice. (Isa 1:21)

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: 'Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the harlot?' (Jer 3:6)

When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, 'Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord.' (Hos 1:2)

Sometimes the prophets reviewed Israel's history - all of it, not just a particular generation - casting it in a very negative light:

Zedekiah ... did what was evil in the sight of the Lord his God ... He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, the God of Israel. All the leading priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful ... The Lord ... sent persistently to them by his messengers ... but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the Lord rose against his people till there was no remedy. (2 Chr 36:11-16)

From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day; yet they did not listen to me, or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers. (Jer 7:25-26)

For I solemnly warned your fathers when I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, warning them persistently, even to this day, saying, Obey my voice. Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but every one walked in the stubbornness of his evil heart. (Jer 11:7-8)

Jeremiah's prophecies express no more than what is found in the Deuteronomistic tradition:

And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: 'You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders; but to this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.' (Deut 29:1-3 [2-4E])

The prophetic oracles often went beyond description. Sometimes they called for, even demanded, judgment and punishment. An angry Isaiah enjoined God: "Forgive them not!" (2:9). Similarly, a bitter Jeremiah at one time pleaded with the Lord:

Forgive not their iniquity,
nor blot out their sins from thy sight.
Let them be overthrown before thee;
deal with them in the time of thine anger. (18:23)

According to Hosea: "She conceived again and bore a daughter. And the Lord said to [Hosea], 'Call her name Not Pitied, for I will no more have pity on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all'" (1:6). Jeremiah goes even further and says that God commanded him not to pray for his people:

As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I do not hear you. (7:16)

Therefore do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble. (11:14)

Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and cereal offering, I will not accept them; but I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. (14:11-12)

After abandoning hope that Judah will repent, Jeremiah petitions God:

Therefore deliver up their children to famine;
give them over to the power of the sword,
let their wives become childless and widowed.
May their men meet death by pestilence,
their youths be slain by the sword in battle. (18:21)

The prophetic tradition even speaks of the rejection of Israel:

For thou hast rejected thy people,
the house of Jacob. (Isa 2:6)

Hast thou utterly rejected Judah?
Does thy soul loathe Zion? (Jer 14:19)

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children. (Hos 4:6)

And the Lord rejected all the descendants of Israel,
and afflicted them, and gave them into the hand of spoilers,
until he had cast them out of his sight. (2 Kgs 17:20)

There are no statements in the New Testament that approximate these angry expressions. Unlike Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jesus commanded his disciples to forgive (Matt 5:14-15). Unlike Jeremiah, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for their enemies (Matt 5:44). Indeed, according to Luke (23:34), Jesus prayed that those who called for his death be forgiven. Never does Jesus ask God to deliver up to death Israelites, or any people (cf. Luke 9:51-56). He warns of coming judgment and weeps because of it (Luke 19:41-44; cf. 13:34; 23:28-31). Never does Jesus nor any of the writers of the New Testament say that Israel has been rejected. Indeed, Paul proclaims the precise opposite: "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!" (Rom 11:1).

Consider also the polemic of Qumran. Like Jesus and the writers of the New Testament, the men of Qumran quote, comment, and draw upon the Old Testament for their faith (i.e., who they are and what they believe) and for their polemic (i.e., where they disagree with others and on what basis). The author of the Hymns of Thanksgiving describes his enemies, the teachers and authorities of the Jerusalem establishment, in the following terms:

And they, they [have led] Thy people [astray]. [Prophets of falsehood] have flattered [them with their words and interpreters of deceit [have caused] them [to stray]; and they have fallen to their destruction for lack of understanding for all their works are in folly. (1QH 12:6-8 [olim 4:6-8])

And they, interpreters of falsehood and seers of deceit, devised plans of Belial against me, bartering Thy Law which Thou hast graven in my heart for flattering words (which they speak) to Thy people. And they stopped the thirsty from drinking the liquor of knowledge . . . (1QH 12:9-11 [olim 4:9-11])

As for them, they are hypocrites; the schemes are of Belial which they conceive and they seek Thee with a double heart and are not firm in Thy truth. (1QH 12:13-14 [olim 4:13-14])

This thinking is also expressed in the Community Rule scroll:

And let him undertake by the Covenant to be separated from all perverse men who walk in the way of wickedness. For they are not counted in His Covenant: For they have not inquired nor sought Him concerning His precepts in order to know the hidden matters in which they have guiltily strayed; and they have treated with insolence matters revealed that Wrath might rise unto judgment and vengeance be exercised by the curses of the Covenant, and solemn judgment be fulfilled against them unto eternal destruction, leaving no remnant. (1QS 5:10-13)

The Qumranites call their opponents "prophets of falsehood," "seers of deceit," and, "hypocrites" who have "devised plans of Belial [i.e., Satan]" against God's true teacher. This polemic obviously parallels that found in the New Testament Gospels where Jesus calls Pharisees hypocrites and, according to the Fourth Gospel, sons of the Devil, who have strayed from the truth.

Apparently the people of Qumran did not wish outsiders (i.e., non-Qumranian Jews) to discover the error of their ways. They were strictly enjoined not to reveal their distinctive teachings:

And let him not rebuke the men of the Pit nor dispute with them; let him conceal the maxims of the Law from the midst of the men of perversity. And let him keep true knowledge and right justice for them that have chosen the Way. (1QS 9:16-18)

The people of Qumran, as had some of the classical prophets centuries earlier, prayed that their enemies might never be forgiven:

And the Levites shall curse the men of the lot of Belial, and shall speak and say: Be thou cursed in all the works of thy guilty ungodliness! May God make of thee an object of dread by the hand of all the avengers of vengeance! May He hurl extermination after thee by the hand of all the executioners of punishment! Cursed be thou, without mercy, according to the darkness of thy deeds! Be thou damned in the night of eternal fire! May God not favor thee when thou callest upon Him, and may He be without forgiveness to expiate thy sins! May he lift His angry face to revenge Himself upon thee, and may there be for thee no (word) of peace on the lips of all who cling (to the Covenant) of the Fathers! . . . (May there be) everlasting hatred for all the men of the Pit . . . . (1QS 2:4-9, 21-22)

The High Priest is referred to several times as the "Wicked Priest" (cf. 1QpHab 8:8; 9:9; 11:4; 12:2, 8; 4QpIsac 30:3; 4QpPsa 1-10 iv 8), perhaps also as the "Man of Lies" (cf. 1QpHab 2:1-2; 5:11) or "Preacher of Lies" (1QpHab 10:9). The teachers of the religious establishment are called the "builders of the (whitewashed) wall" (cf. CD 4:19; 8:12, 18; cf. Ezek 13:10-11). In what is probably a wordplay between halak ("to walk," i.e., legal interpretation, cf. the term halaka) and halaq ("to be smooth"), some men (probably the Pharisees) are referred to as the "seekers of smooth things" (cf. 4QpIsac 23 ii 10; 4QpNah 1-2 ii 7; 3-4 i 7; 3-4 ii 4). Indeed, the elect of Qumran will take an active part in punishing the faithless of Israel (cf. 1QpHab 5:3-5).

The polemic in the writings of Qumran surpasses in intensity that found in the New Testament. In contrast to Qumran's esoteric and exclusive posture the early Church proclaimed its message and invited all to join its fellowship. Never does the New Testament enjoin Christians to curse unbelievers or opponents. Never does the New Testament petition God to damn the enemies of the Church. But Qumran did. If this group had survived and had its membership gradually become gentile over the centuries and had its distinctive writings become the group's Bible, I suspect that most of the passages cited above would be viewed as expressions of anti-Semitism. But the group did not survive, nor did it become a gentile religion, and so its criticisms have never been thought of as anti-Semitic. There is no subsequent history of the Qumran community to muddy the waters. We interpret Qumran as we should. We interpret it in its Jewish context, for it never existed in any other context, and thus no one ever describes its polemic as anti-Semitic.

The polemic in Josephus often times assumes a very harsh tone. Luke Johnson has documented how common harsh polemic is in Josephus, as well as in other Jewish texts. Of the zealots, Josephus asks: "What have you done that is blessed by the lawgiver, what deed that he has cursed have you left undone? ... In rapine and murder you vie with one another ... the Temple has become the sink of all, and native hands have polluted those divine precincts ..." (J.W. 5.9.4 ｧ400-402). Of the Sicarii, he says: "[They are] impostors and brigands" (2.8.6 ｧ264), "slaves, the dregs of society, and the bastard scum of the nation" (5.8.5 ｧ443-444); "they outdo each other in acts of impiety toward God and injustice to their neighbors ... oppressing the masses ... bent on tyranny ... plundering ... lawlessness and cruelty ... no word unspoken to insult, no deed untried to ruin" (7.8.1 ｧ260-262). The polemic in Josephus directed against fellow Jews that Johnson cites outstrips anything found in the New Testament.

Even harsher polemic is found in 4 Ezra 6:55-59. The nations are like "spittle." They are "nothing," at least nothing more than a "drop from a bucket." In marked contrast, Israel is God's "first-born," "only begotten," and, "most dear." According to the Testament of Abraham, the gentiles "will be judged by the twelve tribes of Israel" (13:6).


Christian Polemic in Context
That genuine bigotry and racism eventually emerged within the Church sadly cannot be denied. One of the first expressions of bigotry appears in a Christian addition to the Sibylline Oracles (early to mid-second century):

And then Israel, intoxicated, will not perceive nor yet will she hear, afflicted with weak ears [cf. Isa 6:9-10]. But when the raging wrath of the Most High comes upon the Hebrews it will also take faith away from them, because they did harm to the Son of the heavenly God. Then indeed Israel, with abominable lips and poisonous spittings, will give this man blows. For food they will give him gall and for drink unmixed vinegar, impiously, smitten in breast and heart with an evil craze [cf. Deut 28:28], not seeing with their eyes, more blind than blind rats [cf. Isa 29:9-10], more terrible than poisonous creeping beasts, shackled with heavy sleep [cf. Isa 29:9-10] (1:360-371).

What places this sentiment on the path that leads to anti-Semitism is not the severity of the criticism (e.g., "abominable lips," "poisonous spittings"), but the distinction the author makes between himself and "Israel" or "the Hebrews." Gone is the perspective of inhouse criticism. The words of the prophets alluded to in this passage are used to bludgeon outsiders, which is untrue to the hermeneutics of inhouse criticism. This writer believes that the evil done to the Son of God was something that Israel alone did, which from the New Testament point of view is bad theology. According to New Testament theology, the human race - not Israel - put Jesus to death.

This "us against them" mentality underlies the following judgment uttered by Tertullian:

It was the merited punishment of their sins not to understand the Lord's first advent: for if they had, they would have believed, they would have obtained salvation. They themselves read how it is written of them that they are deprived of wisdom and understanding - of the use of eyes and ears [cf. Isa 6:9-10; Jer 5:21-23; Ezek 12:1-3]. As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from his lowly guise that Christ was no more than a man. (Apology 21.16-17)

Again the obduracy language of the prophetic tradition is invoked. The problem here is that the dynamic, in-house, prophetic criticism of Israel's classical prophets has been misapplied. In its original setting prophetic criticism is directed against one's own community. It is a challenge to assumptions that God is always on our side, or what James Sanders has called the theology of blessed assurance. In-house prophetic criticism is not racist or bigoted. But Tertullian's (mis)use of it is. When he as a gentile Christian ("us") applies the critical words of the prophets against Israel ("them") he has applied a false and alien hermeneutic. The words of the prophets are now made to speak against a particular race of people, something that the prophets themselves never intended. If Tertullian had applied the words of the prophets properly, in keeping with their original intent and canonical context, he would have applied them to his own community.

In the New Testament the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism is at work. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul challenged assumptions about election. The Baptist warned that physical descent from Abraham was no guarantee of salvation. Jesus taught, contrary to widely-held opinion, that the poor and various social and religious outcasts would have an easier time getting into heaven than the wealthy and ostensibly pious. Paul argued that Israel's hardness toward the gospel was God's wise way to open the door to the gentiles. All of these are expressions of the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism, not racism.

Consider, for example, this hermeneutic at work in Isaiah, when he interpreted and applied the sacred tradition to the crisis of his time. He tells the scoffers of Jerusalem to hear the word of the Lord (28:14, 22), a word which has decreed destruction upon the whole land (28:22):

For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim,
he will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon;
to do his deed-strange is his deed!
and to work his work-alien is his work! (28:21)

Isaiah has referred to two of Israel's great victories over her enemies. "Mount Perazim" alludes to David's defeat of the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17-21). David declared that the "Lord has broken through [Heb. paratz] my enemies before me, like a bursting flood" (2 Sam 5:20). Therefore the place became known as Baal-Perazim, or later Mount Perazim. "Gibeon" alludes either to David's second victory over the Philistines (2 Sam 5:22-25; cf. 1 Chr 14:13-16) or to Joshua's victory over the Amorites (Josh 10:6-14). In alluding to these wonderful triumphs preserved in Israel's sacred tradition and warning that God plans to do a "strange" and "alien" deed, Isaiah is saying that God will once again be victorious on the field of battle-but Israel is his enemy! It will not be Israel's enemies who will be defeated, but Israel herself. This is a classic example of the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism. Far from finding assurance in the sacred tradition that God is obligated to bail Israel out of trouble, as no doubt Hezekiah's court prophets and counselors tried to assure the king, the prophet Isaiah finds evidence of God's sovereignty, power, and freedom.

Paul does the same thing. When he reviews the principles of divine election at work in the stories of the patriarchs (Romans 9; cf. Genesis 12-25), he concludes that a sovereign God could also summon to himself the gentiles and make of them his people, too. Moreover, if apostate Israel, utterly rejected by God and called "Not My People" (Hos 1:9) can out of God's grace be restored and once again be called "Sons of the Living God" (Hos 1:10) then why cannot God by the same principle make a people of the gentiles? He can, says Paul (Rom 9:22-26). But what of Israel who reject and oppose the Gospel? To them apply Isaiah's fateful words of obduracy (Rom 11:8; cf. Isa 29:10) and even more shockingly David's angry words of imprecation against his enemies (Rom 11:9; cf. Ps 69:22-23; 35:8). If Romans 9-11 had been penned by a gentile I suspect many would see the passage as anti-Semitic. But the passage was written by a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5). It is no more anti-Semitic than Isaiah's interpretation of 2 Samuel 5. Paul's hermeneutic, like that of the classical prophets before him, was the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism.

Unfortunately, later generations of Christians, by this time predominantly non-Jewish, misunderstood (innocently in some instances, maliciously in others) the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism. No longer understood as challenge from within the community of faith, it was understood as condemnation of a particular people outside of the faith, the people which had rejected Jesus, his apostles, and the Church. In the light of this false hermeneutic, polemicists of the Church could cite Scripture from both Testaments as a weapon against the Jewish people.

But this was not what Jesus and the writers of the New Testament did. Theirs was the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism. As members of Israel they challenged their own people to think differently. Thousands did, and the early church had its beginning.


Conclusion
In my judgment, viewing the New Testament and the first two generations of early Christianity as anti-Semitic is hopelessly anachronistic. It is not only anachronistic in that second-through-20th century categories and definitions are imposed upon the writings of the New Testament. It is also fundamentally erroneous. Early Christians did not view themselves as belonging to a religion that was distinct from Judaism. New Testament Christianity was Judaism, that is, what was believed to be the true expression of Judaism. Just as Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees, and who knows what other teachers and groups believed that their respective visions of religious faith were the true expressions of what God promised Abraham and commanded Moses, so also early Christians believed that in Jesus God had fulfilled all that the prophets had predicted and all that Moses required. Early Christianity was one Jewish sect among several. The title of a recent collection of studies, Judaisms and their Messiahs, addresses itself to this important dimension. For this reason not only is viewing the New Testament as anti-Semitic anachronistic, so is describing it as anti-Judaic. To say that early Christianity opposed Judaism is to say that there was a clearly defined Judaism of the first century and that early Christians saw themselves as outside of, and separate from it. Both assumptions are erroneous. Judaism was diverse and pluralistic and early Christians viewed themselves as the righteous remnant within it (e.g., Mark 4:11-12; Rom 9:27; 11:2-5). Just as the Essenes had before him (1QS 9:18) the evangelist Luke (probably a gentile) calls his movement the "Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). And like the Essenes this self-designation may very well have been inspired by Isa 40:3, a passage of eschatological restoration: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (cf. 1QS 8:14; 9:19-20; and cf. Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 1:75; 3:4-6; John 1:23). Such a self-understanding provides one more indication that the early Christian movement saw itself as a movement within - and not opposed to - Israel.

If this is true, then why did Christianity eventually emerge as an essentially non-Jewish religious movement? The answer lies primarily in Christianity's radical views of proselytizing. Further developing Jesus' remarkable practice of extending messianic invitations to the apparently disenfranchised (i.e., the uneducated, the rabble, tax collectors, and "sinners") the early Church all but did away with the halakhic prerequisites for proselytizing. Belief in Jesus as Israel's Messiah whom God raised from the dead and who will return in glory was all that was required. Circumcision and observation of food laws, though not relinquished without hot debate, were no longer required. Who then was a real Jew? Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a former Pharisee (cf. Phil 3:5-6), followed the lead of the prophetic tradition (cf. Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Ezek 44:9) and concluded:

For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from people but from God. (Rom 2:28-29)

Pressed to its logical conclusion anyone could become a "Jew" by confessing Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Savior fulfilled the requirements of the Law for Christ was the telos ("goal" or "end") of the Law (Rom 10:4). But Christian proselytizing stretched the parameters of Jewish self-definition too far, with the result that the messianic movement which had centered itself around Jesus (what later became "Christianity") and the other expressions of Jewish faith (what later became "Judaism") went their separate ways. Steven Katz has argued that Christianity and Judaism did not separate until after the defeat of Simon ben Kosiba in 135 C.E. He observes that there is no evidence that there was an official anti-Christian policy before this time. Katz may be right. The expulsion passages in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., John 9:2; 12:42; 16:2) probably reflect only a local situation, not a widespread policy. The angry polemic that emerged in subsequent centuries became increasingly racial and ugly.

Luke's ambiguous portrait of the Pharisees, an item of scholarly debate, is probably best explained against this scenario. On the one hand, the Pharisees are treated favorably because they believe in the resurrection and therefore are sympathetic to the Easter proclamation (Acts 23:6-9). But, on the other hand, the Pharisees have strict halakhot for proselytizing and therefore they are portrayed, both in the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts, as opponents of Jesus and the early Church. They grumble when Jesus associates too freely with tax collectors and sinners (e.g., Luke 7:36-50; 15:1-2). They later object when gentiles are admitted into the community without being compelled to submit to circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5).

In the first century the requirements for proselytizing were an open question. What constituted a real Jew? He who had the faith of Abraham (cf. Romans 4)? Or he who was a physical descendant of Abraham? What made Abraham chosen in God's sight? His faith (cf. Gen 15:6), which is the line of interpretation taken by Paul, or his merits, which is the line of interpretation taken by some Jewish interpreters (cf. T. Naph. 8:3-9:5; Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 6:1-18; Jub. 12:12-14; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 11:28)?

It is against these questions that the writings of the New Testament should be read. And when it is read from this perspective, the anachronistic assumption that its polemic is anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic will rightly be abandoned. But will many Christians read the New Testament from this perspective? It is precarious to assume that many people will interpret Scripture (whether the Old Testament or the New) in context. Thus, there is a need for a modern translation that translates more than words alone, but translates context as well.



Editor's Note: The author's footnotes and documentation have been omitted from this article. Full documentation may be found in the printed edition of MISHKAN Number 34.

著作権表示 2001年
著者の書面による承諾無しに、印刷または電子的手段で全体または一部を利用することはできません。
これ、またはその他の ミシュカンの記事の利用を希望するときは電子メールアドレス：shoji@mb.infoweb.ne.jpへご連絡ください。

戻る

---