JEWS AND JUDAISMIN 1URP:' SGOSPEL: M{EXAKINA'I'ION OF KARP: 4:11-12IN ITSLITERARYCONTEXT
By eRonaldHe rbertDawe
Athes i ssubmit ted to the Sc h o o l of Graduate Studies inpart i a l fulfilme n t of thereq u i r e men ts
fo r the degr ee of Ma ster of Arts
Depar tm entof Relig i o u s Studie s Memo rial University of Newfoundland
Apri l 1993
St.Joh n's , Ne wf oundland
1+1
NationalLibrary 01CanadaBibliothequena liooalo oucenaoa Acquisitionsand Directiondes acquisitionset BiblIOgraphicServices Branch des services bibliOgraJ)hiqucs J9SW~lonSI'cel 395. rua W~tOtl
~~t.rottOIIlnn" ~IA~~()nWIO)
The author has granted an irrevocablenon-exclu sivelicence allowing the NationalLibraryof Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of his/herthesisby any meansand in any form or form al,making thisthesi s available tointerest ed persons.
Theauthor retai nsownershipof the copyri ght inhis/herthesis.
Neither thethesisnorsubs tant ial extrac ts fromit may be prin ted or otherwise reprodu ced without his/herpermission.
L'auteuraac cor ds une licence irrevocabl e et non excl us ive permettant
a
la Blbtlothequ e nation als du Can ada de reproduir e, prefer, distr ibu er ou ven dre des copie s de sathese de quelqu e manl ere et 50US quelque for me quecesoi t pour mettr edes exemplai resde cette thesea
la disposition des person nes in teressees.L'aut eur conserve la prcp rle te du droit d'auteur qui protege sa these.Ni la these nides extra its substa ntiels de celle-cl ne doivent ei re tmpr tmee ou autrementreprod uits sans son autorisa ti on.
ISBN 0-315- 86689-6
Canada
ABS T R1I.CT
Since the Holocaust therehas been renewed interestin the questionof Christianity's contributionto modernanti- Semitism. For many, the root of modernanti-semitism is found in the New Testament itself. Advocates of this positionargue that the New Testamentcontainsanti-Judaic sentiments and attitudesthat are to be linked inextricably to the development of later Christiananti-semitism. Mark 4;11-12is sometimescited as an example of a Ne w Testament te x t which is anti-Judaic. The pr esentthes isseeks to examine this particularclaimby a thorough examinationof the meaning and co nte x t of Mark 4:11-12.
Traditiona l ly,scholars have interpretedMark 4: 11-12 either in the immediatecontext of the parable chapter or have treatedi t as an isolated pericope. The li t e r a r y connections between Mark 4:11-12and the whole of Mark's Gospel, however, indicatethat both these approaches are too narrow. Methodologically, this thesis demonstratesthat Mark 4: 11-12 is an int e g r a l part of the Marean composition and should, therefore, be int erpretedas partof a much larger whole. In addition, the literary connections ce t ve e n Mark'sGospel and the old Testament are also deemed significantin assessing Mark'sattitude to....ard th eJe ws and their religion. The use of Isaiah in Mark is especially important sincethe source ofMar k 4:11 -12is Isaiah 6:9-10.
This thesis concludes that Mark 4:11-12cannot be taken
to reflect a polemic against theJews. Inthe firstplac e , there is no indicatio nthat Ma r k 'sus eotIs a i a h (or any other Old Testamenttext) reflects an aversiontowardthe Jews or Juda ism. Ananal y s i s of Hark'suse of Isaiah6:9-1 0 and his appropri ationof otherOld Testa _entth emesand mo t ifs indicatesthathis attitu detowardhis lite ra ry he ritage is, inta c t, quit econstruct iveand positive .
Secondly, the seeminglynegativepo rtra yalof the Jews throughout th e Marean nar rative , and especia llyin4:11-12, must be seen as partofMa r k's totaltheo l ogica l agenda. In at te mpt i ngtoaccounttor the failed mission toth eJews, Ma r k uti l izesIsaiah6:9-10 to argue tha t JesusI ide ntity was inten tionallyhidden fr o mth eJe ws because th is is part ot God' s sovereignplan. On the onehand, the blindn e s s of the Jews allows fo r the preservationof the int e nd e d destiny of Jesus. On theother hand, theobdur acy of the Jews serves a pedagogical purposeto bringabout notonlyth e i r own salvation , but al s othe salvati on ofth e Gentiles. The functionof cnera ct. ee-swi t h i n the Marean compos iti o n as well asMa r k' s answer to the questionof mission at teststoth e s e conclusio ns.
Fina lly , ant i-J uda ic sta tements inHa r kMustbe viewed frOm the perspe c tiv e that thete a c h i ng s of Je susrepre s e nt one form ofa mu l tiformJUda ism operative during the fi rs t cent u ry . con s e q uen t lyI Mare an tlta t eme ntsthat app ear tobe ag a i nst "Juda i s m" arein fact re pre s en t at i v e of adeb ate
iii
which took placewith i n a diverse and pluralisticJewish faith.
iv
ACKNOWL EDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I wou;'d liketothank my su pervisor , Dr. DavidHawki n, whoha s overse enevery stage of thewri t i ng of this thesis . He has challenge dme toask the right questions before seeking answers. Hisattentio n to detail and his many suggestions havetau g ht me much about th e artof academic composition. Hi s unde rs tandi n g , patie nc e, and encouragement, have made the complextaskof thesis wri t inganenjoyable one.
To the faculty members of the Departmentof Religious studies atMe mo r i a l Universityof NeWfoundland who have contributed to myac a d e mi c development. I offermy sincere th a n k s. Theun i qu e contributionsof Dr. D.N. Bell, Dr.M.F.
Ho d der , Dr.T.M. Mu r p hy , Dr. K. I. Parker, and Dr. Hans Rollmannwi l l long be reme mb e r e d. Special thanksgo to Dr.
R. S . Mac k en z i e and Dr. M. Shu tewho ha v e bee n constant sources of support and encouragement. The friends hi p of Dr. T. Klev e n hasbeen appreciated. The contributio nsof Dr. D.
Fox of Queen'scollege and Dr. S. Mas o n of York un iversity wi l lnot soon be forgotten.
Thanksalsototh eDep a r t me nt of Religious Studiesand th e Go ve r n me n t of Newfoundlandand Labradorfo r providi ng me withthe necessar y fellowshi p and assistantship fu nd s tha t made this academic ve nturepossible. With o u t su ch fina ncial su p port thi s th e s i s could not have be e n completed .
Since re tha n ks is extend ed to th ese c ret ar yofth e
De p art men t ofReli gi ou s Stud ies , Ma r yWalsh, forhe r con ti nu ed assistance and coo pe r a t i o n. For permiss ion to use the fa cil i ties of Queen 'sColl eg e I tha nk the Re v . CanonF.
Clui t t and Dr. D. Davis.
\ I ama*sogratefu ltoPaul Pinsentwhohas read vari o u s draft softnis thesisand of fere d manyva l u a ble suggesti ons . flissuppo r t and encourageme n t have ce rt ainly madeth e task of writi ng thi s thesis an easierone.
To myuncle, JohnG. Da we, lowe a special than k- You. Hisass ist an c e in comple ti ng some of my fa.milia lObli gat i on s hashelped topr o v id e mewithth e ne c e a n er-y time to write this thesis. And furt he r , it is lar ge lyas a result of hi s infl u e n c e tha t I becamein t e r este d in the Jewis h question in the first pl a c e.
Fina l ly , I wi::.h totha n k the members ofmyimme dia t e family. Theirsu p port and encourageme n t have bee n appreciated. I espe c i a.ll ywishtoth a n k my moth er whose unco n d i t i ona l fa ith and sup port in mehave beenla rg e ly re spon sib l e fo r thecompletionof this thesis.
vi
To my Mom, Mary Jane Dawe , and toth e memory of my Dad.
Clarence aeve.
vii
ABSTRACT • • • • •
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION. • ABBREVIATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
TABLEOP CONTENTS
. . . •. . 11
vii
1.1 The state of the Question • • . • . . . • • • • 1 1.2Me t h o d ol og y and Scope • . • • . . . • • • . • • • 21 2.0CONTINUITY AND/OR DISCONT INUITY: TUE SIGNIFICANCE OF
MARK'SUSE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT • • . • . • • . . 39 2. 1Marean Exegesis and theOld Testament: A
Preliminary Observation• • . . . • 43 2.2 AHermeneuticalKey to Mark'sUs e ofth e Old
Testame nt :The Prologu e . . . • . . . • • • . 56 2.3TorahCitations in Mark • • • • • . • • • " BO 2.4 Marean Motifs and OldTestamentProphetic
Th e me s • • • • • . • . • • • • . . • . • . • 10 2 2.5Summation • • • • • • . • . • • • . . . • • 117 3.0 THESALVATION OF THE JEWSIN ISAIAH 6:9-10AND
MARK4:11-1 ~ . . . • • • . • • • • . . . 12 0 3.1 Is a i a h 6:9-10 inth e Con t ex t of Isai a h . • • • 122 3.1.1Jewish Obdur a cy and InevitableJUdgement 12 6 3.1.2 Is a i a h 6:1-13an dRemnan tTheo log y . . 137 3.1.3 Is a i a h and UniversalSalvation . . • . 145 3.2Mark4: 11-12 intheCo nte x t of the Parable
Chapter • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • . • . 14 9 3.2 .1The Apparent severityotMark 4:11-12 15 0
3.2.2"Thos e Outside" • . • • • . . • 15 5
3.3 Ma rk' s Appropriationof Isaia h6:9-10
in 4:3-34 . • . . • • • • • • • • • 162
3.3.1DisbelieforHa r d ene d Hearts . 163 3.3.2Mys t eryan d Open Manifestation 16 B ).4 surameuIon • . • . • • • • . • • • • 17 3 4.0THE FUNCTIONOF CHARACTERSIN THE MAReAN
COMPOSITIO N . • • • • • • . • • • • • . 17 5 4.1The Message andMi ni stry of Mark'sJesus:
Acceptanceand/o r Rejection • • . • • . 176 4.1.1The Ambig uousRoleof "t h e crowd " 17 7 4.1. 2The Relig i o us Le ader s and aMar e a n
ReplacementMotif • • • • • • . • 1B1 viii
TABLE OF CON'l'EBTS (Continued)
4.2 The Identification of Jesus in Mark • 19 5 4.2. 1APopular Response: Sheep Withouta
Shepherd • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • 197 4.2.2Religious Leaders: opportunistMe n t a lit y 193 4.2.3The Perceptive De mo n i a c s • • • • 202 4.2.4The Disciples: Obedience Despite
Impercepti"ity . • . . • . • • . 20 5 4.3Summation • • • • • . . • • • • . • • • 220 5.0THE MISSION OF JESUS: AN EXAMINATION OF MARK
8:13-21 . • • • • . • . . . • • . • • • . • 223
5.1 Mark 8:13-21in itsLiteraryContext • • • • • .225 5.2 The Hermeneutical significanceof the Composition
of6:6b-8: 21inInt e r p r e t i n g8:13 -21 231
5.3Summatio n 248
6.0CONCLUSI ON• • • • • • 7.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ix
251 264
ABBREVIATIONS
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers BAR BiblicalArchaeology Review
BR Biblical Research
CBQ cae'iozrc Bib licalQuarterly
CJR ChristianJewish Relations
CT Cod e Theodos ian
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly ExpT Expository Ti mes HTR Harvard Theological Review HeyJ HeythropJournal
Int Interpretation
JQR JewishQuarterly Review
JR Journal of Religion
JSNT Jo u r na l for the Studyof th e Old Testament JSOT Journal for the Study of the New'rest anent;
JBL Journal of Bibl i ca l Li terature JES Journal of Ecumenical St ud ies MS Mill townstudi e s
MT Ma s so r e t i c Text Neot Neotestament ica NTS New Testament Studies NPNF Niceneandpost-NiceneFathers NovT Novum Testamentum
RSV Revised St a n d a r d Version SJT scottish Journal of Theology
TDNT Theological Di c t i on a r y ofth e New Testament
VT Vetus Testamentum
1.0INTRODUCTION
Anatte nt i v e l"eading of the Cospelof H.;:ark revea ls that Jews figurequ ite prominently inth ena r r a t i v e . Tho ug h Har k does not often refer to •Je....s , as a col lective ent i ty,'the numerous re fe re n cestothePhar is e e s , Saddu c e e s, and ot he r Jewi s h groups, clea rly indicate that Je ws have an imp o r ta n t funct ion inMark'~Gospel. The primary con te nt i o n of this thesis is that the function of Jews in the Marean plot will shed lighton discovering theattitude of one of thefh'st Chr i s t i a n writ e r s t.cva rd Jews and thing s Je wi s h . Thoughit isre c ogni z e d that the at t i t u d eof Ma r k towa r d the Jews 1s
"s o mewhatco mp li c ate d an d . . . [can not] be adeq u at el y cha r a c t e ri zedin a simple, unqu a l i f i e d stateme n t,..2itwi l l beargu e d that an analysis of l"a r k 4:11-12, in it s li t e r a r y con tex t , willprov ideinsigh t in deterllllininghisattitude towa r dtheaevsand their religion .
1.1 The at.eteof theQuest ion For some , the litera r y evidenc e sug gests thatthe perceptions and at ti t ud e s of the earli e s t Chr i st ianlitera ti toward Jews wer-e not in any senseposit ive . In fa c t, the autho rsof theno n- can o n i cal Ch ristianli t e rat u r e of the
, only in7: 3doe sHark use the expre ss ion"the Jews".
1 T.A. Burkill , "Ant i-Semit ism inSt. Ma r k's Gospel,"
l!..2YI.4 (1960 ):34.
first and second centuries ar e often viewed as expressing sentiments th a t are clearly anti-Jewish.) Similar ly, it has alsobeen pr oposedthat the New Testamentcon ta ins statements that reflectthe anti-Judaicattitudes and sentimentsof its authors.~ This asserti on has led tothe advancementof theth e o r y that the New Testame ntitselfis anti-Judaic5 and that it is the root cause (or a least a contri buting fa c t o r) of the sUffering tha t Jews ha v e experiencedatth e hands of Christians for nearly two millennia. Moreover, certain scncaaxs" cont en d th a t the New Testament itself is the root source of modern [Ch ris t ian]
JSeee. g . , JulesIsaac, The TeaChing of Contemp t:
,For a concise overview of the literature on ant i- JurIaism andan t i-Se mi t i s min the New Te stam e n t se e William Kl a s s en , "Ant i- J u d a i s m in Ea r l y Christ iani ty: The St a teof the Question, "in Anti -Judaismin Ea rly Ch rist ianity, vol.
1, ed. Pete r Richardsonand Davidcr a n s xc u (Wa te rl oo:
Wi lfri d La u rie r UniversityPress , 1986), 15 -1 9 . See als o John G. Gager, tlJudaismas Seenby outs i d e r s," in~ Judaism and itsMo d e r n Interpreters, ed.R.A. Kra f t and G.W.E. Ni c k els bu rg (Phi lade lph ia:Fort r ess Pre s s, 198 6 ) , 10 0-10 4 .
6Forexample: James Parkes, Rosemary Ruet h e r, and Roy Ec kardt . See Alan T. Da vie s, ed, ~smandth e Foundationsof Christianity (Toro nto: Paulist Pre s s , 197 9 ) , x-x t.
anti-semitism'and th at su bseq uentl y, the NewTestament is, to some degree, the fundamental cause oftheatr oc i t i e s that the Jews suffered during the Holocaust.
Acurs or y historical surveyof Jewish-Christian re l a t i o ns , fromthe ear liestof Ch r istian beg i nn i ng s to moderntimes, reveals that Christiandoctrine and prac tice more often than no t resultedinthe gene ra l degrada tionof Jewry. Tod a y ,sch ola r s generallyconcedethat even th e New Testamentcontains passagesthatexpress"somemeasure [of ] . . .hostilityto wardth e Jewishantagon i sts of th e apostolicchurch ."I Whether or not such expressionsof
7Thereis debateover the correct useof the term anti-Semitismas opposedto theterm anti- J udai sm.
Gene r a l ly, thete rmanti-Jud ais m is ta ken to referto opposit icn to Jews thatis essential ly rel i g i ou s inna t ur e wh il e ant i-S emi t i smreferstorac i alhostilit y and discrimi natio n aga ins t theJews whichismuch more severe thanthe rc rae r-. Inthis thesis ther ewi llbe an attemptto employ the terms anti-Juda ism and anti-Semitism in keeping wit h th e s e defi n itions. Itcanno t be concede d, howe ve r, th atth econ t e x t will alwaysallow the terms to be used as mechanica l lyas thesedefinitionsmight imply. Are vie w of at t emptstode f inethe correctusageofth e s ete rms isample testimonyof the havoc tha t they causefor sc ho l ar s. Se e for example: S.Sandmel,Anti-Semitismin the New
~? (Ph i la d e l ph i a : Fortress Pre s s , 197 8), xi x - xx i; J.N. Sevenster, Th e Roots of Pagan Anti-Se mi ti s m inthe ll,ncientWor l d (Leiden: E.J. Brill , 1975), 1-6 ; John G.
Gager , The Origins of Anti-semitism'Attit udes Towa r d Judaism inPaganand ChristianAntiquity (Ox f o rd : Oxford UniversityPre s s , 1983 ) , 7-9; G.I .Langmuir , ~ De fi n i ti onof Antisemitism (Los Angel es: Univers i t y of Cali f o r n iaPress, 19 9 0 ) , esp. 4-8, 311-352 .
IMirceaEIia de , ed, EncyclopediaofRe lig ion (New 'lork:Ma c milla n PUblishi ng Compa ny, 1987), e.v, "Ant i- Semi tis m,II by AlanDavies.
hostility can rightly bela b e lle d anti-Judaic and, eubeequenety , be considered to be the root cause of later expressions of christi an anti-Semitism9 continuesto be debated. But there is no question that the hostility between church and synagogu e, as depictedinthe New Testamentand which intensifiesduring the first centuries of the Christian Church,results in a theologicalvendetta againstthe Jews and Judaism. The literary evidence indicates that the leaders of both the churchand synagogue criticize the theologicalpositions of the other in an attemptto validatetheir ownparticularclaims.1G
From the Jewish perspective, the Christian response to God was invalidbecause it "rejectedthe essential requirements of Judaism. . . [na me l y) the acceptanceof the entire written and oral Torah, ci r c umc i s i o n , purification immersions, and sacrifice.,,11 From the Christian
9Fo r a fineoverviewof the development of Ch ristian anti-Semitism see Marcel simon, "Ch r i s t i a n Anti -Semit ism ,"
in Essent.ilt1 Papers onJudaism andChrist.ian ityin Conflict:
From t.at;e Antiquity to the Reformation, ed.J. Cohen (New York: New Yor kUniversity Press, 1991 ), 131- 173.
10 The debate between synagogue and churchappears to have lasted well into the fifth century. So Edwa rd H.
Flannery, The Anguish ofth e Jews (London: The Macmillan company, 1965), 39.
II Eugene Ferguson, ed, Encyclopediaof Early Christianity (New York/London: GarlandPublishing Inc., 1990), ssv , "Judaismand Christ.ianity,"by Robbin Darling Young.
perspective, "t he continuedexLst.enceof Judais mafter Jesus wasthe physi cal embod i ment of doubtaboutthe va l i dit y of Christia n ity.Ill: Thoug h literaryevidenceon the Jewish side of th e de ba t e islimite d,1]the literature indi c a te s th atthe rabbi s , indefence of Juda ism , sl a nder ed th e Chri st i ansintheir syna g ogu e s .I. On the Christiansideof the debat e , th eFa the r s ofthechur c h, inanattemptto va lida t e theChristia nposition , wrote lengthytreatises againstthebe li ef s and pract ic e s of Juda i s m. Manyof the se treat i ses hav esurv ivedasa bod y of literature kn own
12Langmuir, 58.
n The diff icultyof findingevid e nc e that speaks cr the Je wis h contr ibutionto this debate is illustrated by Mar c el Simo n 's comment that"Anyo ne who wishes to discover the remainsof the [J e wish ] st r u gg l e against Christianityis obliged to fish for them in 't h e Tal mudicsea.III See Marc e l Simon, Vers u s Is ra el (Oxford: oxford Un i v ersit y Press, 1986), 136. Simila rl y, Gager, The Orig i ns ofAnti-s ~, espec i ally7, 26 5-269,has argue dthat 'thevo i c e of those Jewish Chr i s t i a ns who saw no needto repUdiate Judais mis sc arcelyheard at all.' Ac c o r di ng to LukeT.Johnson, "The Ne w Testament'sAnti-JewishSlander and the Conve ntionsof Anc i e nt polemic,"~108 (1989): 441, the Jewish"vo i c es are sile nt." Ne vertheless, some credence may be given to fo ur salient forms of Jewishopposition to Christian doc t r i ne and pra cticeas outlinedby S.T.I<:atz, na me l y: "(1 ) the circulationof officialanti-Christianpronouncements;
(2) the issuing of anoff i cia l ban against Jewish Christ ia ns; (3)the is suing of a prohibition aga i n s t the reading of hereti ca l books; [a nd] (4) the proclamationof the Birkatha-Minim("ble ss ingagainst heretics" )." See S. T. Katz, "Issues in the Separation of Juda i smand Chris t ia ni t y after70 C.E.: ARec o ns i d e r a tion,"J..!ll.I103
(1 98 4 ): 44.
I.
See e.g.,Just inMartyr, Dial o gu e with Trypho, 16.4, 17.1, 47.4 (A.NF I, 20 2-3 , 21 8 ).general lyas the adversusJudaeos (against the Jews) tradition. The tradition advocatesprimari ly two theological premises that aregenerally considered tobe anti-Judaic, na me l y, "Ca) the rejection of the Jews and th e election of the Gentiles,and (b) the inferiorit yand spiritual fulfilment[in Christ ianity] of the Jewish law, cult, and scriptural interpretation.Itll Though anextensive examination ofth e s eth e me s as found intheadversusJudaeos tradition is beyond the scope of this thesis,16th e following examples clearly illustrate the contempt uous positiongiven to Jews and Judaism by tmo se Christians who contribu tedto the debate be tween church and synagogue.
A most influentialcontributionto the development of th eadversusJudaeostraditionis foundin the writi ngsof Tertullian (c a . 16 0- ca. 225). Inhis AnAns we r to the
~, Tertul lianargues that, becauseof Jewishidolatry , Gentiles (Christians) havereplacedtheJe ws inGod 's favour. Heis worth quoting at length since his anti-Judaic theological positionre p r e s e nt s adequatelyand clearly the
ISRosemary Radford Rue the r, Faithand Fr at r i c i d e : The TheologicalRoo t s of Anti-Semitism (NewYork:The Seabury Press, 1974), 12 3 .
16For a discussion of the rel ationshi pbetweenthe adversus .rudeeos traditionand Christian anti - Jud a i sm sea RosemaryRadford Ruether, "The Adve rsusJudaeos Tradi tionin theChurch Fa t he r s : The Exegesis of Christian Anti-Judaism, "
in Essen tialPaperson Judaism and Christianitv, 174- 18 9 .
viewadvocatedby otherPa tr i st i c writers. Tertul1ian writes:
Ac cord i ngly, sincethepeopleor nationof the Jewsis anterior in time, and "grea te r " th r o u g h the graceof primaryfavou r in th e law, whereas ours[Le.Christian] is understoodto be "le ss"
inthe age ofti me s , as having in the la s t era of th ewor l d attainedth e knowledgeof div inemercy:
beyonddoubt, th r oug h the edict of the divine utterance, theprior and"g r e a t e r "pe o p1 e --t hat is , the Jewish--mustne c e s s ar i l y SQrVQth e"Laes r"
andthe "less"people - -that is, the christ ian - - overcome the IIgreater.1I For, withal ,accord ingto th e memorialrecords of thedivinesc riptu r es, th e peopleof theJe ws --t h a t is, the mo reancient-- quite forsook Gad, and did degrading service to idols, and, abandoningthe Divi nity, was sur ren d e r e d to imag e s; while "the people" said to Aaron , "Ma ke us god s to go beforeus."And when the goldout of th e neckla ces ofthe womenand the rings of themen hadbeen wholly smelted byfire, and there hadcome fo r t ha calf- like head, to thi s figment Is r ae l with one consen t (abandoningGod) gave honour, saying, "Th e s e are theGods who brought us from the land of Egypt." For thus , in th e later times in which king s weregove rni ng them, did theyagain, in co n j u n c t i o n with Jeroboam, warship goldenkine (s i c ] , and groves, and enslavethemselvesto aaat . Whence is proved th a t theyhave ever been depicted , out of the volumeof thedivinescripture s, asgUiltyofthe crime of idolatry;whereas our "l e s s"--t h a t is, posterior--peopl e,qui t ti ng the id ols which fo r me r l y it used slavishlyto serve, has been convertedto the sameGod fromwhomIsrael, as we have aboverelated, ha d departed. Forthusha s the"l e s sU- - t h a t is, posterior--peopleovercome the"g r e a t e r people,"while it atta insthe grace of divine favour, fromwhich Israel has been divorc e d.11
The infe rior posit ionof Israel to theChurch,as
11 Tertullian, An answer tothe lews,Chap. 1(AID:III, 151-152 ).
ar ticulatedby Tertullian, isre ite r ate d by many othe r patristic wri t e r s.II origen, for example, ar g ue s that th e Jews willne ve r be re s t or e d to their for merpos i t i o n . 19 Justin Martyr (ca. 100- ca. 165) , in his pialogue ....ith
~, asserts by implication tha t Christ ianityhas infa c t abrogated Judaism. Hewrites :
But we [Chr i st i a ns ] do not trustthroug hMos e s or throughth e law •. . i But now . . .theresha ll be a final law, and aco ve na nt, thechi e f est of all, ....hich is now incumbent on all men toob s e r v e , asmany asar ese eki ng areerthe inherita nceof God. Fo r the law pr omUlgate d on Horeb is now old, and belongs toyourselves (J e ws ) alone; •• • now law placed against lawhas abrogatedthatwhich is befo reit (itali c s added], and a covenant wh i ch comes afterinlik e mannerha s put anendtoth e previous one; and an eternal and fi nal law-- namely, Christ- -hasbeen given to us, . . • . He is the new law, and the newccvenent.;"
I'
Numer ousotherearlychurch writers affirm the electionof the Gentilesand the rejectionof the Jews. ct, e.g., JUEtinMartyr , DialoguewithTrypho, Chap. cxxxv(A!:!.E I, 267)i id., The First ApologyofJu stin , Ch a p. XLIX (Al:!.E I, 179);Recognitionsof Clement, Ch a p.L(lillEVII I , 90);The Treat ies of cyprian ,TreatiseXI I (Mil:V,507-5 15 ); :tM Epistle of Barnabas, Cha p . XIII (At!t I,145-146).
19origen, AgainstCelsus4.22 (ANl:IV, 506). 10JustinMa r t y r , Dia loguewithTrypho, Chap. XI (AllEI, 199-200). Just i nMa r t yr' s assertion thatJewi sh law has beenabroga tedis strikinglysimilar to theposition heldby propo ne ntsof modernsupersess!onism. cr . L.H. sc h i f f ma n ,
"A Jewish Perspective on Supersessi on ism, "1!AB18 (1 9 92): 86. He sununariz"esthat "supersession is mde n i e stotally th e no t i o n tha t theJe ws have a covenant with God andcuts them off fromany relationshi p ....iththe creator in thi s world, let alone fromsal vati on in the ne xt world." Schiffmangoes on to state that supersessionism"hasalwa ys beena necessary stepin pavingth e ....ay fo r violentoutbtaexsof Christian anti-sem i tism , whether . . . {i n early Christian
More detrimental to the Je....s and Judaism was the assertionby patristicwriters thatthe present stateof Jewish sUffering resulted from the fail ureof the Jewsto believeinChrist. Origen argues thattheJe ws suffer present ly<andwillsuffer inthe futurebecause of
"un be l i e f , and the other insul tswhich they heaped upon Jesus. ,,11 For many of the earlyChristian writ"rs, the immediate SUffering of the Jews, duringthe first centuries of the common era, was directly related to the many crimes of the Jews, especiallythe crime of deicide.11 The de f e a t of the Je....s by the Romans in th e war of 66-73,and in particularthe destructionof the Temple, came to be vie....ed as just punishmentof the Jews for their crimes against Jesus . Origenadequatelyrepresents the view presentedin th e Patristic literatu re. The cityof Jerusalem,Origen argues,
no t lo ng afterwa rds wa s at tacked, and, after a long seige, wa sutterl y overthrown and la i d waste;
history] or in modernti me s."
21 Origen, Celsus, 2.8 (AHf.IV, 433) ;Seeal s o Hippo1ytus , Expos itory Treatise Against the Jews, 1-1 0 (Am:
V, 219 -221); The Ecclesiastical History of zusebdus
~~, trans. Christian Fr ederick Cr u s e (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book Hous e , 1979 ) , 57.
n Fo r anaccount of theroleof Jewish ig nora nc e and intentional ityinthe kil ling of Jesus as representedby Western th e o l oa i a ns see J. Cohen, "The Je ws asth e Killers of Christ in tile Latin Traditio n, FromAug us tinetothe Friars, "~39 (1983): 1-27.
10
• . . an d al l this befell the m (L e•• theJe ws ) , because the blood of Jesus was she d at the ir instigationand on their land; andthe landwas no longer able to bea r those who were guilty of so fearful a crimeagainstJesus. . •. and if the Jews hav e not a pl o t of groundnor a habitation left to them, • . .theentire blame is tobelaid upon the ir crimes, and especially upontheir quilt in the treatment of Jesus.n
And, as Flannerycor r e ct ly observes , tithe theme of a divine curseor punishme nt upon Jews tortheir role in the cruc ifixionof chri s t ,"as expres sed inth liwritingsct: the churchFathers, was lollthOllt doubt the "most ominous development for thehi storyof anti-Semitismin Christian ant i q u i t y .,,2.1
The the o l ogi c a lposit i onsad vocated byOr i q en,Jus ti n Ma rtyr , Ter tu l lian, andot he r church Fa t he rs finds practical expression in thenotorioussermo ns of the Arc hbishopof Cons t a ntinop le ,St.John Chrysos tolll.(34 4-40 7). In an atte mpt to rep el a revivalof Christian jUda i z ing inAntioc h dur i ng thefour th century, Chrys ost.o m afri n s t.he inval idity of Jewish law andthe sta teof repr o ba t.ion in whichthe Jews findtneusetves, And mor e than advocat ing a particular theologicalposition , chrysostom 'ssermons clearly encourage his Christian listeners to hate the Jews andthe ir synagogue. "The Jews,II writes chrysos tom, "act so
2Jorigen, ~, 8.42, 8.69 (Ali[IV, 655, 666)_ UFlanne ry , 62.
11 offensivelyagainst. thes e holymen(Le. Ho s e s andthe prop he ts) tha t wemust ha tethe mand thei r syn a g ogue al l the more.,,25 Th e synagogue,continu eschrysost om,"is not only II brothelandIIthe at re; it is a denofrob b ersandII lodgingforwildbeasts.IOU Amost deqradinq
Charact e r izati onot theJews isChrysostom 'scompa r is onof the Jews to ani mals. Hewrit es :
When ani mal sha vebe en fa t tened . . •th e yget stU b bo rn andhardto ma nag e. . . .When animal s arc unf it fo r work , they are marke d fo r the slaugh t er, and thisis the very thing thatJews haveexper ienced . By making themselve s unf i t for work, the y have be c ome readyfo r sla ughte r.v ot her Pat ri sti o write rs empl oysimila r der ogatory languag e in charac t e r izingthe Jews and thingsJewish. St.Ambros e ofMilan , for exa mple,callsth e synaqogue "ahome of unbelief , a houseof impi ety, a rec e pta cle offo lly, wh i c h
God hi ms el f ha sconde mne d."11 The author of the~
~, af t e r a discus s i onof Jewi s h worshippractic e s, wri tes : "And so, I hope I have saideno ug h to showyou how right the Chri sti a n s arein ke e ping away fromtheplain
uJo h n chrysost om,Eig htOrationsAg ainst the Jews I, 5, quoted inRuethe r , Fa i thand Fratri c ide, 176.
26The Fathers of theChurch, voL, 68, tra ns.PaulW.
Harki ns (Washington:TheCatholic Univers i t y of America Press,1979), 10-11.
71chry s ostom, ~, I, 2,quoted inRuther,1Ai..tb
and Fratr icide, 179.
..st. Ambros e, ~, Ch. XL, 14 (tiflilX, 442).
12 silliness and error, the fus sine s s an d vauntingof the .re ve.>"
ForRos e ma r y Ruetherandothe r s , the anti-Judaic th eol o g ica l positi ons and derogatory ant i-Jewishstatements pz-cpaqatiedbythe patristic writersJOwere to findpractical expressionin the lega l sphere. Prior toand follow in gthe inaugurat i on of Christ i a nityasthe statereligion in the fourth century, both ecclesiastica l andsec u l a r le g is l a tio n attempted to "o r d e r soc i l::lty legal l y accord ingto the implicat i ons of the doc tr ine (of thefath e r s an d] . . . to reinf o r c e arguments by ph y sic a l sanctions.,Il l Essentially , the legislativeobjective sof Christian empe rorsand Church counci lswere to"se ekthe conve rs i o nof .reve" . . . (a nd ] to preventth e in f luenceof Judaism onChrist ianity .1I1l
29The Fathers of the Church, vc L, 1, trans.Francis X.
Glilllm, JosephM.F.Marique, and GeraldG. Walsh(Ne w Yor k:
cmePUblishing Company Inc.,1947), 358 .
10It must of course be noted that not all of the early Chr i stianwri tersheld anextreme negative attitude toward the Jews. As Fla nnery, 38, hascor r e c tly observed, the at t itu de s towardJews are often moderate: "condemnations are usuallytemperedwitha noteof sadnessand hope for reunion ."
)1LangmuirI 58.
32There is evteence that onceChristianitybecame the officialstate religion largenumbe r s of Jews werecoerced to conv ertvia forced baptism. See cecil Roth,ed, Ency cl opedia ludaica, (Ne w York: Macmillan PUblishing Company, 1971), e;v, "Baptism , rcrcee;» by Ceci lRoth.
nRuether, Faith and Fratricide, 186 .
13 Theresultinglegislation,wh ile attil1lingthe legality ofJudaisJIIas a relig i onin the Christi a nempire, contributed qenClrally to the deg radation of theJews and th e i r re l ig i o n. Under suchleg is l at i o n, the Jews \le r e to su ffersocially, pol i t i call y ,and econo mically. Fo r example , unde r theauspice s ofthe church , the Synodof Elv i r a (J06 )pr Oh i bi te dJews and Christiansfro m eat i ng tog ether ;theSyn odot Cler mo u nt (535) forbad Jews froJII ho l d ing pu bj.Lcoftice;thethird Sy n odof Or l e a ns (538 ) disallowe d th e Je....stoemp l oy Christi a ns orto possess Christianslaves; the Trulanic Syn od (692) ord e r ed Christiansnot to patronize Jewishdoctors ;underthe Synod of Gerena (1179),Jews we r erequi r e d to support the church l:1o neta r ily to the same exten t as Christians ;by 1279 the churchhad forbidden Christians to sellor tra d ereal estate to Jews ;and atter thecounci l ot Basel in 1434, the Je....s were pro h ibited froo obta iningacademi cdegrees.)I
Secular legislation wa s equally detri mentalto Jewish exist e nc e. In315,theChr i stianempor or,Constant i neI, decree d dea t hat the stake fo rthoseJewswhopers ecuted Je....ish convert sto Christia ni ty; the second pa r t of thatlaw
34RaulHilbe rg , The pe stru ct ioD of the EuropeanJews , vct.1 (New York: Holmes 'Meier Publi sh ers,In c ., 19 85), 11-12. Fo ranoverviewotchurchlegisl atio nabed at the Jewsseeals oB. Bl ulllenkr a nz, "The ROllan Ch ur ch andthe Jews," in Essential Pap erson Judaism andc ~ .193- 20 5.
14 made it. a crime to become a J"ew. lJ Under Code Theodosian16, eaper-or Theodosius II (408-450) , for example, made conversionto Judaism an offense punishablebyconfiscation of the convert's property,orderedthat i twas unlawful for Jews topuzcha se Christi a nslaves, and prohibited Jews from building new synagogue s,17The laws decreedby Justin ianI (527-5 65) , simplY reiterated many of the laws enactedunder Theodosius II.lI And it wa sJusti nian'S"Corp u s Juris Civi l i s that fixedth e lega l status of Jewsin Byzant ine real ms for 700 yearsto come ."n
Thus thepositionoftheJewin medieval Christendom
"wa s alwaysone of wors en i ng st atu s . . . the res trictions decr-ee-dag ainstthem wereco n sta n t.l y reaffirmedand extended.,HO But, asLangmu irargues,
the legal impl i ca tions of Christi an anti-Judaism
J5P.R. Coleman-Norton, Roman state&Christian Church, yolo 1 (Lon d o n: S.P.C.K., 1966 ), 66, citing£r16.8.1.
36Code Theodosian isa compilationby Theodosius II of allthe reve from Constantine'st ime to 429 c.e. So Ernest Abel, Th;aRoots of Mti-semitism (Ne w Jersey:A"lsociated Universi tyPress, 1975), 154.
)7Coleman-Norton , vet. 1, 217, 233, citingg:16.8.7 and 15.9. 2 ; id. yolo2, 622, citi ng.QI 16.8.25.
J8AndrewSh a r f,By za nt i n e Jewry (New York: Schocken Book s , 1971), 19ft.
l'Richard E. Gade, AHi storical Survey ofAnti - S e~
(Gr a n d Rapids: Baker Book House,1981), 20. 40 Rue t h e r, Faith andfr a tri ci d e , 186.
15 coul d not be fully developed until the bulk of the populationidentified profoundlywithChristi an ity ard ance ptred itscosmo l o g y in such a way as to des ire to atta ck Juda ism and degrade Jews.~I Thisis precisely whatoccurred in theel e v e nt hcentury.~1 In thefirst place, theconve r s ionof virtu a l l y all the in ha b i ta nts of Euro pe (e x ce pt th eJews),H led tothe intens if i cati onof Christia n consc iousness. .... rts coro l l a r y was that any t h ing no t Christianmustbeeliminated . He nc e, ....ith the developmentof popu larant i-Judaism , camethe Crus a d e r ' s ul t imatum to th eJe ws: Chr istia ni t yor dea th.~' Historyrecordsthat hundreds of tho us a nd s ofJews died at thehand s of the Ch ris t i a nCr u s a ders who viewed the Jewsas
"a racemo r e in i mica l to Godthan any other.,,46 Du ri ng the later Middle Ag e s, theredev e l o pe d out of th isprofound Christi ancon s c i ou sne s s otherpopular expr e s s ion sof Ch r ist i an anti-Judai sm. Bythe twelfth ce nt ur y , three false accus ationslevelled agai n s tJe ws , namely, ritual murder , th e poisoni ng of Christ ians, and thedesec rationofthe
41Langmuir,59. 41Ibid.
HDennis Prageran d JosephTelu shkin, Why theJe ws ? (Ne w York: simon (, Schuster, 1983) , 96.
'" Langmuir , 59 -60.
t'
Pragerand Telushkin, 96.46Ibid.
"
Ho st, also re s ul t e d in the "suffe r ing of allJe ....s and the rand om mur de r of ma ny...'"
Nei ther were hcmanita ri anactions towa r dJews Ultimat elyencouragedby the founderof thePro t estant Reforma tion, Ma r t i n Luther. In fact. ithas been said that Luthe r wa s oneofhi s t o r yIs mostve he mentJe w-haters . '" In a pamph let entitled cgncern i ngtheJe\lsand the ir Lies, Lut h e r articul a t e s eigh t actio n s tobe tak enagainstthe Jews . These ac tio ns range from des t roy ing or con fiscating Jewish property and re stri ct i ngtheday-t o-da y act i v i ti es of Jews to expel lingthem from Ch r i st i a nprovince s.4' It appears that the impetus for Luther's anti-Juda ic trac t ate
U Ibid., 104•
.. Ib i d.• 106. The evidence indicate-s, howe ver , that Luther was no t always a Jew-hater. For a re v i e wof Lut h e r' a change of at t i tu d etowardthe Jews seeth efollowi n g works: Roy Ec kardt , Elderand YounaerBrothers(NewYor k: Ch arle s Scribn er'sSons, 19 6 7 ), 11, n. 23; Joh anne s Wallmann ,
"Lutheron Jewsllond Islam, " increativeBiblical Ex eg e sis eds. Ben j a mi n Uffenheime r and Henning Grill Rev ent l ow (Shef f i e ld: JSOT Press, 19 8 8) , 15 6-157. Jo hnEdwards ,I.b..!l Jews inChri s ti a n Europe14°0-1700 (London: Routledg e , 19 8 8) , 56-6 1 ; EmilL. Facke n heim,The JewiahRibleafter the Holocaust (India n apolis: Ind iana Unive rsi ty Press, 199 0), 74-7 6 . Mar kU. Edward s, "Again s t the Jews," in Es s enti alPap ers on JUd a ismandChris tia ni t y, 345-379; For agoodove rv iewof Lut her'swr it ing s on the Jewsse e also HansJ.Hille rbr a nd, "Ma rtinLuther and theJews, " in~ and Christi ans ' Expl oringthePas t Presen t and Fu ture, ed. James H. Char lesworth (NewYork:Cros s r oadPUblishi ng Comp a ny , 199 0) , 127-150.
'9Martin Luther, "On the Jewsand Th e i r Li e s, " in Luther 's Wo r k s , voL 47, tra ns.Marti nH. Bertram (Phil a de l phia : FortressPress, 1971 ) , 268ff.
17 was the failure of the Jews to convert to Christianity in any great numbers and the relative successof Jewish proselytisingactivitiesimplemented to convert Christians to Judais m.so And it was thefa i l u r e of the church to convert the Jews that gave way to the expulsion of thousands of Jews from England, france,Germany, Spain , Bohemia, and Italybetweenthe 13thand 16thcenturies. Inlight of the adversus Judaeostradition, many medieval Christiansviewed the expulsions of Jewsduring this periodas "another case of 't he wandering Jew' paying forthe perfidious crimes of deic ide and obduracy."SI
For RaulHilberg, the failureof Chri st ianity to convert Jews in vast numbers is of particular signif icance.
He argues that ecnv ex efen"wasthe firstof three anti- Je wi s h polices implemented by church and state to deal with the Jewish question. The SEc ond was expulsi on . Withthe failureof the expuls i onpolicy, athirdant i-Jewishpolicy
,\0Wallmann, 156-15 7 .
IIClark M. willia mson , Has GodRejectedHis People?
(Nashville :Abingdon, 1982), 117-118.
" The Chri st i an doctrineof conversionremainsa point of contention between Jews and Christians. The debate continuesabout whether or not thereis salvation for the Jews outsidethe Church. See for exa mple, Hans Hermann Henrix, l'Judaism--outside the Church, So No Salvation?l'~ 17 (1984): 3-12; From a pragmaticpoint of view, the issue of convertingJewsto Christianitycontinues to be the primaryobjective of such contemporary Christian groups as Jewstor Jesus.
18 instigatedbythe Nazis soughtto end the Jewish prob lem once and for all time. Hilberg writes:
since th e four t h centuryafter Christth e r e have been threeanti -Judaicpolicies:convers i o n , expul sion, and annihilation. The se c ond appeared as an alternative to the first, and theth i r d emerged as analter native tothe second. . . . The Nazi dest r uctionprocess • • •wa sth e culmina tionof a cyclical tre nd . We have observed the trend in the three successivegoals of anti- Jewish administrators. The missionariesof Christiani ty ha d said in effect: Youha v e noright to live among us as Jews . Theseemex leaders who followedhad proclaimed: you have nori g ht to live among us. The Germany Nazis at last decreed: You ha ve no righttottv e; "
As Hilberg implies, the atrocities committed againstthe Jews in Nazi Germany were not in isolation from past historic events. And more than that, the destruction of some six million.rews by the Naziswas possible only because it was the culmination of a lengthy hi s t o r i c a l processthat was inextricablylinked to a history of Christian doctrine and practice aimed atth e aevs . On this point Hilbergis worthquoting at length.
The Nazidestruction process did not come out of a void• • . .The Ge rm an Nazis . . .didnot discard thepa s t ; th e y built upon it. Theydi d no t be g i n a development ; they completedit . . • • The si g n i f i c a nc e ofthehi storica l precedents will most easilybe und e r s t o od in the administrative sphere• • •.The destructionof theJews was an administrative process, and the annihi lationof Jewry re q u i r e dthe implementa t ionofsys t e ma t i c administrativemeasures in successive steps in re v i e wi ngth e documenta ryrecord ofth e
SlHilbe r g , vol. 1, 8-9.
19 destruction of the Jews, one is almostimmediately impressed with the factth a t the German administration knew what it was doing. with an unfailing sense of direct ionand with an uncanny pathfinding ability. the Germanbureaucracy found the shortest road tothe :r1nal goal . . . (since the y ] could dipinto a vast reservoir of administrativeexperience, a reservoir that church andstatehad filled in fifteen hur.'dredyears of destructiveac t i vi t y (italicsadded),501
The influence of centuriesof anti-Judaic Christiandoctrine and practice on the German psyche, ideology, and praxis, is further illustrated by the Nazi interpretation of the Christiantradition.'~ Thisinf l ue nc e is clearlyevident in the testimony given by the Nazi Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg trials. Of StreicherIsdefence, Roy Eckardt writes:
There was more than phantasmagoryin Streicher' s retort before the tribunal at Nurembergthat Martin Luther shouldhave real lybeenthere as the accused in his place, since he, streicher,....as simply carrying out....hat Luther had summoned any honest and believing manto do.56
Neitherwere the anti-Jewishlegislative policies of Hitle r far removed from the anti-Judaictheol ogicalpositions of the earlychurch Fathers and subsequent ecclesiastical laws.
This is clearlyevidenced by a comparison of canonical and
~Ib i d ., a-10.
U Nazi ideologyand practice in most contexts replaced the rel igiousaspirations ofth e people. Cf. e.g.,Joachim Remak, ed. Th e Nazi Years: A DocumentaryHistory(New Jersey: Prentice-Hal l, 1969), 93-105.
'6
Eckardt, 11.20 Nazi legislati on." But mo re tel ling tha D that, Hitler, in re plyto two bis hOPSwhoconf ronted hi monracial policy, retorts tha t "he wa s only puttingintoeff ect wha t Christia n ity hadpre a c hed an d pra c t i s e d to r 2000 ye a r s .nJt
51Fora compari s on of Canonicaland Naz i ant i-Jewi s h legislation seeHi l berg, val. 1, 12-14.
,. Rue t h e r, Faith an dFr a t ricide , 224. Thequest i onof Christian it y 'scontributiontomodern anti-semitismis certai n l ysti llofco nt e mpora ry concer n. Anar t ! .::le inthe Jerusalem Post,Ap r i l10, 1992, pointedout that 'the Vatican hasno t fo rm a lly recog nized the state of Israel becausethe Cathol ic Churchrema i ns impregnated with implacab lecontempt for Judaismand th e Jewishpeop l e, a contempt that has found expression inea rly Church hi sto r y (Le. inthowr i t i n gs of the Church Fathers) and down to modernt imes:., At the fir s t internationa l semina r on anti- semitism inpost-tota litarianEurope (held inPragueof this ye a r ) scho lars "wer-eunable to agre e onwhat ha s ke pt hatred of aevs alivefor200 0 year s . But theyallac kn o...rLedqed thatanti-Se mit i s m did not di e withthedefeat of the Nazis andhauntsthe conti ne ntonceaga i n." Inthe wordsof onp ofthe contributors at theseminar, formerCze choslovak Presidentva clav Havel , "Anti-Semitis mhas re-emerged vith a stu bbo rnne s s,stu pidi ty , and ag gressive nes s all itsOlom.·As cite dinIsrael MyQlory 2 (1992): 29.
It mustbeno t e d ,ncvevee, that steps have beenan d ar e beingta ke nvith in many of the mainline chu r c he s in an attempt to removeco nte mpt and hostil ity tovar d Jevs and Juda ism. Va tican II'shistoricdecl arati on on the Church andthe Jewishpeoplehas ce r t ainly beena move in this directio n. SeeJohannesCardinal Wil lebrands,"Vat i c a n II and the Jevs: TwentyYe arsLater,·~18 (1985) : 16-30.
The consistentrefu sal of the Churchto fall into th e trap of Marcionismalsospe aks favourablyof the Chur ch 's positive intenttoward.reve, Fromthe Protesta ntcamp, the Uni tedChurc hof Christ, for example, hasaffirmed that
"JUdaism has not be e n sup e r seded bychristi~ nity; that Christ i ani t y is no t tobe unde r stood as thesucce ssor re lig i o n toJUdaism; (tha t)God ' s covenant vi t h the Jewish pe op l ehas no t ce en abrogated"and that"Go d has not re j ectedthe Jevishpeople." As cited in AriL. Goldman ,
"J uda i s m Affi rmed inChurchMil e s t o ne ,".1m8 (19 92): 56. The book , Eva ng eli c a lsand.re ws in convers a tionon
21
Andit was the implicat iontha t Chris t i a n ity had contribu t ed toth e at rocitiescommitt ed ag a i n s t theJew.::;j' by th e Nazis that:
rei n trodu cedwith unprecede nted urgenc y the question of Christianity 's re sp o n sibility for anti-Sem i t ism : not simplywhethe r ind i v i d ua l Christianshadadded fu e l tomode r n Euro pe an anti- semitism, but wh e t her Chris t ianityltselfwas,in essence and fromits beginnings, the primary source of anti-semitism in Western culture
(italics added).6O
1.2 MethodologyandScope
In seeking ananswer tothe questionof Christianity 's contributionto modern anti-Semitism, schola rs,employinga varietyof methodologies, haveproduced a vast amount of literature. Of part iC Ular co nc e rn forbiblicalscholars has beenthe assertionthatth e root of mode r nan ti-Semitism is foundinthe NewTestament. And , as Yamauchi asserts, the
Scripture Theology andHisto ry, eds . Harc H.Tanenbaum, MarvinR. Wilson , andA. James Rudin(Grand Rapids: Baker Book Hous e , 197 8 ), illustra testheeff o r t withinthe Eva n ge lic al Christia ncommuni t y to reevaluate at titud e s toward Jews and Judaism.
59It mustno t be overlookedthat althou gh Christ ianit y, Le., the church, has oftenbeen cha r a c t er ized as responsiblefor Jewi s h sUff eri ng , th ere are numerous examples of individualChristians who rescued Jews from the Na z i annihilationaechf ne , in mos t ca s e s, at riskof being murde red th e ms elve s . See e.g., He nr i de Lubac,~ Resistance to Anti-semitism, tran s. Elizabe t h Engl und(San Francisco: Ignat ius Pre s s , 199 0 ) ; Corriete nBoom,}hg.
Hiding Place (WaShingtonDepot: Chose n Books, 1971); Remak, 97-1 0 1, 16 1 - 176.
60Ga g e r, The Origins of Anti-semitism , 13.
22 murderof somesixmil li o nJews61bythe Naz i s has
forcedbiblicalscholars to exaatne th e possible ro l e ofanti-J ewi s h stateme ntsin theNew Te sta mentas a contributing factorinth e developmentof themost virulen t and vicious form of anti-semitis m ever known.61
Follow i ngthepUbl i c a t i on of Jules Isaac'sbook~
~in 1948,nume r ou s stud ies hav esoug htto det ermine whe t heror notth e anti-Judaicsentimentsas expressed in the NewTestamen t are to be linked inextricab lytothe development ot: la ter Christiananti-Semitism. Subsequent analysesof the roleof anti-Judaic passages in the New Testament have generally led to two distinct conclusio ns.
For some scholars, there is no connection between th eanti- Judaic sentiments that areexpressed inth e NewTestame nt and modernanti-Semitism . Thesescholarsge nera llyargue that th e Church's central message, namelythe love ofGod andneighbour, would be able to overcomethe prejUd icesand antipathiesgeneratedby the ancientpole ml c s.6J Such scholarsargue, therefore, that Christ ian ant i-s e mi t i s m did not derive from New Testament polemics, but tha t it was a
61It should, of course, be notedtha t millionsof non- Jews also died at theha nds of the Nazis. So Ec kardt, 12 , n • 24.
61 Edwin M.Yamauchi, "Co nc o r d , Conflict, and communi ty:
Jewish and Evangelical Views ofScripture, " in Evangeljca] s andJews in Conversation, 155.
6JRuet her, Faithi'Ind Fratricide, 1.
2'
product of la t er theological deve lopment.'" Fo r example , Gregory 8aum in his book, Is th e NewTestamentAnti-
~. argues that the characterizationofJews in the HewTesta me nt is not tobe li nk ed to later an t i-Semitism.
Heca u tio ns sc ho la rsto "guardagains t th i s kind of anachronis ticinte rp retation."" And even mo re tothe poI n t, 8a um claims that"t here is no fou nda t ion for th e accusation that a seed of cont emp t and hatred for Jews ca n be found in theNew Testamen t • • • no degrada t i o n of the Jewi s h peo pl e , no unj ust ac c u s ation, no malevolentprophecy is eve r suggested or implied.,,66 For Hann ah Are ndt, th e de velop men t of ant i -Semitismisa uniquelymodernph enomenon thatis li n k e d, not toNew Testamen t po l e mi c s, butto the development of ato t a l i ta r ia n Christianst a te.t1 Luke T. John s o n argues that,giventh e rhetorical functio n of slander in polemic debates ofthe first century,New Testamentslander aga instthe ,Jewsis -remarkab l ymild.10M Adele Reinha r tzsuggeststhata connection between the
w Ibi d., 2.
4SGrego ryBaum , IstheNewTe s t a mentAn t i - Se mi t ic ? (Ne w York: Paul i st Press, 19 65 ) . 35.
{l(i Ibid., 16 . aeua laterch a n g es hiB mind . See his in t r o d u c tio n to Ru etherIsFaithan d Frat ri g ide , 3.
67As poin te doutby Ga g e r ,The Ori gi nsof Anti-
~,267.
61.rcnn s c n, 441.
24 Gospelsandmodern antisemitism is solelydep endentupon how one reads the Gospel accounts.0'
Other scholars , however, argue that the NewTestament is inherent lyanti-Judaic, and that i t is inextricably linked to thela t e r developmentotChristian anti-semitism andto the Holocaust. For example,Roy Eckardt is of the opinion that:
The foundationsof Christianan t i-semitismand the church'scontribut io ntoth e Nazi Holocaustwere laid 19 0 0 yel'lrs ago; theline fr o mthe New Testamentth r o u g h the centuries of Christian contempt for Jews to the gas ovens and. crematoria is unbroken. lIl
Moreover, Rosemary Ruether, Roy Eckardt, and others concur withJamesParkesthat "the bas icroot of modern (Christian]
anti- Semitism lies squarelyon the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.,,71
Th e attempt by scholars to link"the source of and sanction for Christian hostilityand contempt for the Jews"n to the NewTestament has resulted in theexamination of numerous New Testamentpassages. Onepassage which ha s
69Adele Reinhartz, "The New Testamen t andAnti-JUd aism:
A Literary-crit ical Ap p r o a c h ,"~25 (1988): 536-537.
10Roy Ec)r;arelt, Your People My People- The Me e tingof Jews anelChristians (Newyo r k : Ouadran gle/T heNewYo r k Times Book Company, 1974), 13_
11Davies, xi.
-n Sandmel, xv ,
25 on occ a s ion be e n in te rp re t e das re fl ect i ngtra c e s of anti- JudaismisHar k 4:11-12.7) Itre a d s:
(( I i 'I:>-'£')'u aVTo'it;. 'Yp i, TilPVOTlj p tU 6£6010 1T~'
pa ot"Adat;rou ho u' t ul J'O&f;6Ero t t;~f"'"h JrapaPo)"ai., fA:,,6:HQ 1';"£1'"01, i,a,8>"hrOJlf l!C;
8'Af.ftwau !Cai.pi}i6"'ou' , ,(01 aKolioJlTf:t;lu.ovwoll'rai.
P1lavvn'JOtJ'•.u~R'OfE trrtorpi:.ywa IJl.cal c¢di
aV1oi l;. M
It has long be e n recognizedtha t thispa s sage contai ns theolog ica llyobjectionable Idea s .1J ofprimar y imp or ta nce for thi s studyis the inf ere ncethat"a revar e ele cted to kno wledg e ofthe saving mystery, and th ema nyarepr e ve n t e d fr om repenting by the opac i t y of parable s"llI (t he 'ha r den ing' or 'parable' theory ). In ot her words , Je s us taughtin parables inorde r to confo un d "thos e outside" and thuspre v e ntth emtr olDre p e nti n g and beingsa v ed! If one agrees wi t h th e argument ofJ. Gni lkathat "thoseou t s i d e "
nGa g er, Theoriginsof Anti-Semitism, 14 4. Cf. also DouglasR.A. Hare, "The Rej ectionat the Jews inth e synoptic Gospe lsand Acts," inAnti-Semitism andth e Fou nd a tion s ofCh ristianity , 33 .
14Ku r t Aland, et al. , ed s,The Greek NewTesta ment (New York:AmericanBib l e Sopciety , 1975 ), 134 .
1)Ma r yAn nBeavis, MartIs Aud i ence ' The Literaryand Social setti ng pf Mark4'11-12 (Sh ef fi eld:JSOT Press, 1989), 69. For abrief overviewofva r i o us attemptsto solv e the problems as so c iat ed with thispa s sagesee Se an Goan, "To Se e or Not toSe e • . • Mark.4:10-1 2Revisited ,"
I§25 (1990) : 5-7; A.M.Amb r o z i c, "Ma rkls conc eptofthe Par ab le,"~29 (1967): 220-223.
,. Ibid., 89.
26 spec i fi cally re f ertotheJe....a, the "o l dIsra el "77, thenit appear s Mar k is advocating thatGod hasre j e cted the Jews.
Hen c e ,Mark's construction in4:11-1 2 maybe:tak e n to reflect hisown anti-Jud a i c se nt i ments. If, however , the refer ence to thoseout sid e isspecifical lyto th e Jews, doe s this necessarily imply thatthe passage is anti-Jud aic?
con cretely, thequ e s t i on of co nc e rn here is : Doe s Mark 4:11-12reflec t a Mare an an t i-Ju dai c theologic alagenda?
Though there hav e been attempt s tode te r minewhether or not Mark 01:11-12 isby natureanti-Judaic,previousana l yses of the pas s a g e have not beenexte ns ive. Fo r exa mp l e, S.
Sandme l , inhis bo okAnt i-Semitis min the New Tastament ?, implies thatasubs tantia ltreatmen t of Mar k4:11-12 is forthc omi ngwhe n he states: "The parabl es (4:1-)4) wl1l not here concern us, but wewill returnto them pres en t ly."l1 While Sandmel doesre t urn to' th e m', his onlycomme nt is that in this passage (I. e. 4:1-)4) one finds a negati ve trea tme nt of the Twelve." In an essayent it l ed"The Rejection of the Jews", Douglas Ha r e contr i bu tes onl yone par agra phto ananalysisof Ma r k4:ire. Heco ntends th a t
"t heexplic it anti-Judais m(o f thispa s s a ge) has• . .been
-nBeavi s, 71, citi ng J. Gnilka, pipVQrst ockungTsrpels (Mun i c h:Kose l , 19 61) , 85.
71Sandmel, )0.
19Ib id., 40.
27 remo ve d by Markor hi s source ."Ml RosemaryRueth er makes referenceto Mark 4:11f . , but onlyas a para l l e l refe r e n c e in support of her cl ai mthatthe Jews are rejectedby the NewTestament writers. II In the article"Anti-SemitislIlin St. Har k' s Gospel,"T.A . Burkil l passes quicklyover Ma r k 4: 11-12bycOllUllent!ngonlythat Hark 4:1-34 is an explanationof theno n-a c c epta nc e of Jesusasthe Mes s iah and that it shows Mark's "unfail ing conf i de nceinthe ul timatetri ump h of the kin g d om of God over al l the oppos i n g fo rcesof evi l.,,11 One of the lon gest ana lysisof th eanti - Judaic natureofMa rk 4:11 -12is foundin Grego r y Ba u m' s book, Is the NewTes t a ment. Anti -Semi t ic ? There, he contributes fou r and aha l f pages toHa r k 4:11- 12andit s imme dia t e context. ::J He argues tha t 4:11-12 cannot correctlybeinterpretedas beinganti-Judaic si nc e suc h an interpretati on would be co ntra r yto the love of Jesus for Israel as depictedin numerousGospel passages. Rather, Ha r k uses the Isaianicpa s s a g esimpl y as an adequa te characte riza tionofthe re spo ns e of the unbel ie vingJe ws to the message ofJe s us. In otherwo r ds ,Har k' s adapta tio not
10Hare, JJ.
!lRuet he r, faithan d fr a tricide , 74.
12Burkill, 50. u Baum, 52-56.
28 Isaiah 6:9-10 shows that"i t happened as it was written."S4
The brevity with which sandmel, Hare, Ruether, Burkill, and 8aum attempt to deal with the possible anti-Judaic nature of Mark 4: 11-12 illustrates an inherent weakness in such approaches. namely, that previous analyses of Mark 4:11-12have been inadequate in that the methodologies employedhave failed to take into account all of the pertinent data. Modern stUdies, fo r the most part, have sought an interpretationof Mark 4: 11-12 eitherby focusing on what Jesus meant by individual parables and by the parable theory or on What Mark meantbyhis telic use of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the context of the parable chapter.ss To put i tanother way, mcst; exegetes and interpreters have not considered the theology or Mark 4: 11-12 to be or
significance outside the parable chapter.16 Such studies have primarilybeen concerned withdistinguishing between tradition and redaction. The contention here, however, is that any approach that deals primarily with distinguishing between redaction and tradition disallows the interpreter from assessing the significanceof the literary context into which Mark has placed the logionof 4:11-12. It sets strict
Il-lIbid., 55-56.
~,Joel Marcus, The Mystery of theKingdo~
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 1-5.
~6One exception is Beavis in Mark's AUdience.
2'
confines on the exeg eteand prohibits the interpreterfrom relatingthethe olog y of Hark 4: 11-12 adequatelyto thatot the rest of the Gos pel. In other words, an anal ysisof Mark 4:11-12as anisolated piece of nar r ati v e or merely in terms ofthe parable ch apter. doesnot al l owforthe si gn1£fcance of the many literary co nne c t i o n s betweenMark 4:11-12and the remainder of Mark'sGospel. Neitherdoes it allow sUf f ici e ntl y for the importance of the literarylinks betwee n Mark and hisreligious literaryheritage.
The recent trend inbiblica l scholarship hasbeen toward assessingthevalidity of a literaryapproach to tfew Testamentin t e r p r e t a tio n." A prima ry impe t u s towardthis development has be e n the diff iCUl tyofesta b li s h i ng the hi storical rel i abil i tyof certainGospelpas sages.
SUbs e qu e nt l y ,certainsc ho l ars ha v ecalled int o question the va l i di t y of a purelyhistorical cri t ica l appr oachto the New Tes t ame n t. S. seneaej , for example,que st ionsthe validity ofan historicalcriticalapproachto the New Testament sinc e it is impossib l e to determineconclusivelywhatin the Gospels ishi s t or i c a l and wha t is not." The shift away froma purely his torical approachand toward a li te ra r y
11Th i s trendisclea rly il lus t r at e d in a revie war ticle by J. B. MUddiman , "The End of Ma r k an Redaction criticism?"
n 101 (1990) : 307-309.
IISand mel, 23 , n. 2.
'0
approachto the Nev Testament is ill u s tra t e dbyM.A . Beavis's book Markls Audience: TheLiteraryand social Se t t i n g of Mark 4:11-12 (1985) . Bea visopines tha t the best methodoloqical approachto Mark 4:11-12isto interpret the passage as a literary/theo log icalcreationof the eva nq e l h.t since pr opo ne nt s of historical criticalmethods have not been able t.,reach a consensus as tothe ccmpoaLt.Lcnofth e parab lechapter." R.M . Fowler also dispenses....it h a pure l y historical criticalapproach toMark . Inhis boo k~!i and Fishes' TheFungt.ion ofth e Feed irqStories in the Go scel of Mark, Fo wl e r contendsthat a redactional/literary approachis mostvalid.9lJ He argues that a
redactional/literaryapproachdiffers froma pu r e l y redactional on e in that signsof Mareanco mpositionare not re strictedtoseams, insert ions and sUl'lUlla rie s as redactional criticsgenerallycontend . Fowleral s opointsout that traditional redact ional me thod s allowthebib lic a l scholar on l y to discover howthe author hasar r a ng e d his /her mat e r i a l. It doesnot provide any explanat ionas to Why the
19Beavis, 131-133. This is not to suggesttha t Beavi s does not emp l o y historical que s t i o n s in seeki n g an answerto what Mark intended in4: 11-12, bu t significantly, th a t she is not conce rnedwith theexerci s e oftry ingto determi n e thehistorIc al reliabi l i ty of gi v e n New Te s t amentpas s a g e s.
'ill For an overview ofFowle r ' s methodologysee R.M.
Fowle r , Loayes and Fishes' The Functionof thefe eding St.ories in theGospel ofMark (Chico: ScholarsPress, 1981), esp. 37 , 40-41, 46, 68, 17 7 ,181.
31 author arranges the material the way he/shedoe s ;"
Aprimarycontributionof Fowler' s study is that he reiteratesthe significanceof the factthat Mark, the au t h o r of theGo s p e l , re ga r dle s s of his sources, "bears the full responsibilityfor the shape and structure of the final product.,,92 This methodological stance posed by Fowleris certainlyfar removedfrom the position advocatedbythe early form critic, Rudolf Bultmann, who states that Mark was not "sufficiently master of his material to be able to ventureon a systematic constructionhimself.,,93 Bultmann and other form criticsgenerally came tovi e w the Gospels as mere vco Lt ecctons of material . . . (the evangelists being]
only tothe smallest extent authors. 'I'he y are principally collectors,vehicles of tradition, ed i t o rs.,,904 Later sch olars , however,were unwilling to concede that the evangelistswere merely "s c i s sor s - a nd - pa s t e "9S compilers and thus it was in response to form criticism that redaction
91Ibid., 37, 181.
91Ibid., 40.
93Rudolf BUltmann, The Historyof1Msynoptic
~, trans. John Marsh (New York;Harper &Row, 1963), 35 0.
'Jo4Martin Dibelius, Fr omTrad itionto Gospel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.), 3.
9S W.R.Telford, "Introduction: The Gospel of Mark, "in The Interpretation of Mark, ed, William Telford
(Ph i l a d elph i a: Fortress Press, 19 8 5 ) , 5-6.
32 cri tic i smemer qed .- While somere d a ct i on cr i t ics continue to distinguish betweensources , most havebecome interes t ed primari ly in howthe order i ng of sourcemateria l affect sthe totaldes ignor the o l og y of the au t h or."
Th istendencywi th i n redaction criticism that emphas i z esthe orderingofsourc e mate ria l rat h e r than disting uis h i ng: between tradi t ionand re da c t i o n1s know n as compos i tioncri tici sm. Ac co rd i ngtoMoore,compositi on cri t i c i s m is
a holisti c variat ionof redaction cr i tici s m in which thework itself , vi e wed rigorousl y and persistent ly initsent i r ety, become sthe pri mary co n t e xtfor interpre tinganypart ofit."
Andit is he r etha t compositio ncritic i sm must beclea r ly distingu i s hedfromlite rary critic i sm. The twoare si milar inthat th e y areboth holisticapproache s and employ li t e r ar y te c h niq ue s to determi ne the meaning of atext . But compos i t i o n critici s mis distinctfro m literar y cr itic i s m in tha t the pr ima r ypurpose of th e compositioncriticremains
.. Da vi dJ. Hawkin, "TheMarkan Horizon of Meaning," in Self - pefinitiODand Self - Di s c o...·ryinEarly Christianity' A StudyinCh a ngi ng Horizons, eds. David J. Ha wk in and To m Ro b inson (New'fork: Th eEdwin Mellen Press, 19 9 0) , 4.
91Ibid., 5.
91stephen D. Moore , LiteraryCrit i cism andthe Gospel s' The Theoretic alCha llenge (London: YaleUnive rs i t y Pres s ,
JJ historica lytandth e olog l c a l.1oo
Theus a of composit i o n critici s mia illustratedby R.F.O' Toole'sbook The Unityof X/ute'sTheology "An Anal ysisof Luke-Acts . In it,O'Toolesta tes expl i c i t l y tha t be c a u s e of the di!ficultyin de t e rmini ngand deline a t i ng the so urc e s inthe bookof Acts, he haschosen compositio ncriticism,"....hich like lite ra ry critic ism analyses the....hole of an author's work,11101 Phi li p Sel l e w' s ar t ic l e "Compo s i t i on of DidacticScen es in Mark 's Gospel,,,1(11als o il l ust rates the us e of compositio n critici sm. Whil e Se l l e wdo e s not focus on the selectio n and ar r a ngement ofla r g er block s afmaterialin Ma r k' s compositional pr od u ct i on, hisan a l y s e sof "the compositional teChniqueemplo yedby theevange list in const ru cting part i cUla r sc ene s ,"Ial exemplifiesthe app ro achof compositioncri t ics.lOt
99Hawkin, 5. 100Moore, 7.
101RobertF. O'Toole , Th g UnityofIdlkel s Th e ol ogy · An Anal ysisot'Luke-acts (Wi lmi n g t o n, De l aware, 19 84) , 11.
102Ph i l i p se U ew, "c omp o s i t i o nof Didac t icScenes in Mark'sGo spel ,"JlDL108 (1989): 61 3-634.
ID:!Ib id. , 616.
lOtFo r otherexa mple sof composition al ap pr oac h esto Mark' s Gospelsee Norman R. Peters en , "TheCompos itionof Mark 4:1-8: 26 , " lrIB 1198 0): 18 5-21 7; Robe r t Butterworth,
"Th e comp o s i ti o n of Mar k 1-12,"~13 (197 2): 5-2 6 .
34 The contention here isthat the most fruitfu l appro a c h to....ardan analysis of Mark 4:11 -12is compositioncri t i c i s m.
Followingth e methodological tendenciesof Beavis, Fowler, Selle....,O'Toole, and others, i t isheldbythis write r that th e author of Mark is responsible for a compositional production. In other ....erds ,Ha r k inheritedstoriesfrom either anoral or written tra ditionabout thete ac h i n g s and activitiesof Jesus,and to ok liber tytore wor kth e material insu ppc,r t of apa rt i cularth e olo gic al agenda. contra ryto th e positionofBultmannand th at genera lly heldby form critics that Mark was a "simple and clumsycompiler, "the arqument prese ntedin thisthesisre sts upon th e assertion by more recent scholars that Mark is a creativeauthor 1oIh o has the ability to order his gospel in a sophisticated manner. As Beavis con t e nds, Hark 10Ias a creativeauthor
who thoroughlyre1ol0 r ke d and suppleUlented traditionalmaterialstoproducea specificeffect on hisaudience, rathe r than a simpleand rather clumsy compilerwhore du nd a nt lyinco rporated duplicatetraditions intohis narrative . . . (He 1oIas ] quitecapable of composing highlysymbolic narratives , and of structuring hi s material ina soph isticatedway.lll:l
In sh o r t , Hark is respons ibletor a li t erar y pr-oductiLcn ,andonl yas theint e r pr e t er keeps this in mind is it pos s i ble to dis c ov er wha t Markinte ndedby histelic use of words in4:1 1- 12. Thispa s s a g e, then , must not be
1mBe a vis, 15- 16 , 133.
