Matthaeus Adversus Christianos: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus 3161526155, 9783161526152

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

350

Christoph Ochs

Matthaeus Adversus Christianos The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus

Mohr Siebeck

Christoph Ochs, born 1977; 2000 BA in Bible and Biblical Languages, Columbia Int. University, USA; 2001 MA in OT Theology, Columbia Int. University, USA; 2003–04 post-graduate studies Hebrew University, Jerusalem; 2004–08 Language Instructor, China; 2013 PhD at University of Nottingham, U.K.; currently in training for ministry.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152655-8 ISBN 978-3-16-152615-2 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Für Herbert Reinhard 1929–2011

Jesus spricht: Ich bin die Auferstehung und das Leben. Wer an mich glaubt, der wird leben, obgleich er stürbe. Johannes 11, 25

Preface The present book is a slightly revised and corrected version of my dissertation (Nottingham, 2012) which surveys how Jewish polemicists have made use of the New Testament, and predominantly the Gospel of Matthew, to refute the Christian conviction that Jesus is divine. It investigates the exegetical arguments that were put forward in medieval Adversus Christianos literature in order to analyze the use and interpretation of Matthew in relation to the divinity of Jesus. Jewish polemicists have used a significant number of gospel passages, particularly where Jesus is portrayed as a human (who has to sleep, is hungry, ignorant) and those where he differentiates himself from God. The two main arguments consistently encountered are that 1) Jesus is distinctly and exclusively human, and 2) that it is unthinkable that God could become human. The arguments form a kind of polemical tradition based on the New Testament, perpetuated in exegetical arguments against Jesus’ divinity, the incarnation, and the Trinity. Some of these arguments can be traced back to heterodox dogmatic debates in antiquity, while others look suprisingly modern. Seven Jewish polemical texts comprise the main sources for this inquiry: Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf (c. 8/9th century) and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer (before 1170), Sefer Milḥamot ha-Shem (c. 1170), Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (c. 13th century), Nizzahon Vetus (13–14th century), Even Boḥan (late 14th century), Kelimmat ha-Goyim (c. 1397), and Ḥizzuq Emunah (c. 1594). I would like to thank my wife Staci, and our three children, Hudson, Miriam, and Ruben for their loving support these last years. Heartfelt gratitude also needs to be directed to Prof. Dr. Roland Deines, my Doktorvater, for his immense generosity, criticism, and guidance. I can truly say that I would have never attempted, nor successfully finished this study without his support and supervision. Special thanks are also due to Prof. William Horbury, the external examiner of the dissertation, and also to Prof. Tom O’Loughlin; their many suggestions and detailed corrections have greatly improved this book. Further heartfelt thanks are due to my colleagues and friends at the University of Nottingham, in particular to Matthew Malcolm, Andrew Talbert, Eric Lee, Peter Watts, Michael DiFuccia, David Mosely, Emily Gathergood, and Kimbell Kornu. I am grateful for their friendship and many fruitful conversations over coffee (and cake).

VIII

Preface

Then, I would like to thank the series editors of “Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,” Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey (Zurich), Prof. Markus Bockmuehl, Prof. James Kelhoffer, Prof. Dr. Hans-Josef Klauck, and Prof. Dr. Tobias Nicklas. I also wish to express my thanks Dr. Henning Ziebritzki at the publishing house Mohr Siebeck, and also Ilse König (and Ilona Wiens) for the countless corrections to the manuscript. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to sincerely thank Him without whom we can do nothing (John 15:5). I dedicate this work to Herbert Reinhard (1929–2011), ‫ז״ל‬, who was like a father to me and who sadly was not able to see me finish my doctoral studies, but without whom I would have never been able to walk this path. Nottingham, June 2013

Christoph Ochs

List of Contents Preface ...........................................................................................................VII Abbreviations..............................................................................................XVII

Chapter 1: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus...........................................1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................1 1.2 The Divinity of Jesus .................................................................................3 1.3 The Gospel of Matthew .............................................................................6 1.4 Jewish Polemics .......................................................................................13 1. 5 Methodology & Presentation ...................................................................23

Chapter 2: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer..........................29 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................29 2.2 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa ..............................................................35 2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor ...........................37 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 2.3.9

The Narrative Setting (§§1–8) ......................................................38 Better Candidates for Divinity (§§9–24) ......................................40 Theological Issues with the Trinity (§§25–32) .............................42 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (§§33–37) ..............................44 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (§§38–57) ...........45 The Law, Jesus’ Humanity, and his Divinity (§§58–71) ..............47 The Life of Jesus’ Reveals his Utter Humanity (§§72–109) ........48 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (§§110–138) .................50 Arguments from a Different Gospel Sequence (§§139–158) .......51

2.4 Underlying Sources in Qiṣṣa/Nestor .......................................................52

X

Contents

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor .................................................56 2.5.1 Jesus’ Distinctiveness ...................................................................56 2.5.1.1 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 24:36, 12:18 (§39, §57) ....57 2.5.1.2 Jesus’ Prayer at the Cross: Mt 27:46 (§45) .....................61 2.5.1.3 The Use of “Messianic Psalms:” Mt 22:41–46 (§50) .....63 2.5.1.4 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mt 19:16f (§51) ......65 2.5.1.5 Jesus’ Prayer in Gethsemane: Mt 26:36–46 (§53) ..........67 2.5.1.6 Jesus’ Statements of Being Sent: Mt 12:54–57 (§55) .....68 2.5.2 Jesus’ Human Origins (§78, §77, §80, §150, §97) .......................71 2.5.3 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (§74, §76, §82, §111)........78 2.6 Summary ..................................................................................................89

Chapter 3: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem ....................................................91 3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................91 3.2 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem .........................................94 3.3 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem ............................98 3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem......................................101 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6

Outline of Chapter 11 .................................................................102 Jesus’ Genealogy: Mt 1:1–16 .....................................................104 Jesus’ Baptism: Mt 3:13–17 .......................................................108 Jesus’ Temptation: Mt 4:1–11a...................................................110 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Mt 11:25–27 ...................................111 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–37a, 40b–41, par. Mt 26:36–40a, 45 .................................................................113 3.4.7 Jesus’ Cursing of the Fig Tree: Mt 21:18–19 .............................119 3.4.8 Jesus on the Kingdom and Authority: Mt 28:16–20a .................120 3.4.9 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:30–32 .................121

3.5 Summary ................................................................................................123

Chapter 4: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Joseph ben Nathan’s Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne .......................................127 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................127 4.2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne ..............................129

Contents

XI

4.3 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne ........................................136 4.4 Overview of the Use of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne ........................................................................138 4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne .............................141 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6 4.5.7 4.5.8 4.5.9 4.5.10 4.5.11 4.5.12 4.5.13 4.5.14 4.5.15 4.5.16 4.5.17 4.5.18 4.5.19 4.5.20 4.5.21 4.5.22

Jesus’ Mission: Mt 1:16, 18, 21 (§16) .......................................142 Jesus’ Birth: Mt 1:23, 26:39, and 20:28 (§37) ..........................143 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Mt 2:13–14 (§22) .................................145 Jesus’ God-given Judgment: Lk 12:22–24, par. Mt 6:25–26 (§24) ...............................................................146 Jesus was Sleeping: Mt 8:21–25 (§29) ......................................147 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 8:18–20 (§§26–27) .....................149 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 8:20 (§7 ......................................150 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 9:6 (§25) .....................................150 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 9:6 (§28) .....................................151 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman: Mt 9:20 (§12) ...............152 Jesus and John the Baptist: Mt 11:11a (§1) ..............................153 Jesus on Gluttony: Mt 11:19a (§4) ............................................155 Quicunque Vult and Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:31–32 (§9) ......................................................................155 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:31–32 (§41)......157 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 13:37 (§13) .................................158 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mk 10:17–21, par. Mt 19:16f (§33) ..........................................159 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee: Mt 20:22–23 (§15) .................160 Jesus’ Lament over Jerusalem: Mt 23:37 (§3) ..........................161 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mt 26:38, 41 (§6) ...................................161 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mt 26:39 (§10) .......................................162 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Mt 27:46 (§38) ..............................163 Jesus Commissions his Disciples: Mt 28:16–20 (§30) .............164

4.6 Summary ................................................................................................165

Chapter 5: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Nizzahon Vetus ..................................................................................167 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................167 5.2 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus.............................................170 5.3 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus .................................................174

XII

Contents

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus ...........................................176 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 5.4.9 5.4.10 5.4.11 5.4.12 5.4.13 5.4.14

Jesus’ Genealogy: Mt 1:1–17, 25 (§154, §88, §28) ..................181 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Mt 2:13–14 (§159) ...............................184 Jesus’ Baptism: Mt 3:13, 16–17 (§160) ....................................185 Jesus’ Temptation: Mt 4:1–11a (§162) .....................................188 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 8:20, 9:6, 20:28 (§188, §168, §215) ....................................................................191 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Mt 11:25–30 (§170) ......................193 Blasphemy against the Spirit: Lk 12:10, par. Mt 12:31–32 (§223) ...........................................................194 Jesus’ Statement of Being Sent: Mt 13:57 and Mt 12:18 (§207) ........................................................................195 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mk 10:17–21, par. Mt 19:16–21 (§184) ...........................................................196 Cursing the Fig Tree: Mk 11:11–14a, par. Mt 21:17–19a (§181)..........................................................197 Jesus’ Ignorance: Mk 13:24–34a, par. Mt 24:29–33, 36 (§177, §194) ...........................................198 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–42, par. Mt 26:36–46 (§176) ...........................................................199 Jesus on the Cross: Mk 15:33–34, par. Mt 27:45–46 (§178, §145) .................................................202 Jesus Commissions his Disciples: Mt 28:16–20 (§182)............206

5.5 Summary ................................................................................................206

Chapter 6: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Even Boḥan .....................................209 6.1 Introduction............................................................................................209 6.2 The Historial Context of Even Boḥan (and Kelimmat ha-Goyim) .........211 6.3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan ...................................213 6.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan .................................................219 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5 6.4.6

Jesus’ Genealogy: Mt 1:1–16 (§1) ..............................................223 Bethlehem Ephratah: Mt 2:1–12 (§3) .........................................225 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Mt 2:13–15 (§4) .....................................227 Jesus’ Baptism: Mt 3:13–17 (§6) ................................................227 Jesus’ Temptation: Mt 4:1–11 (§7) .............................................228 Jesus’ Healings: Mt 8:1–4 (§18) .................................................230

Contents

6.4.7 6.4.8 6.4.9 6.4.10 6.4.11 6.4.12 6.4.13 6.4.14 6.4.15 6.4.16 6.4.17 6.4.18 6.4.19 6.4.20

XIII

Jesus’ Raising of the Dead: Mt 9:18–26 (§22) ..........................231 Jesus’ Miracles: Mt 9:32–38 (§24)............................................231 Jesus and John the Baptist: Mt 11:11–15 (§24) ........................236 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Mt 11:25–30 (§25) ........................238 Jesus’ Exorcisms: Mt 12:22–29 (§28) ......................................239 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:30–37 (§29)......241 Jesus’ Signs: Mt 12:38–45 (§30) ..............................................242 Peter’s Confessions: Mt 16:13–20 (§37) ..................................243 The Transfiguration: Mt 17:1–8 (§38) ......................................245 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Mt 21:10–22 (§42) .....................246 Paying Taxes to Caesar: Mt 22:15–22 (§44) ............................246 Jesus’ Ignorance: Mt 24:27–36 (§50) .......................................248 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mt 26:31–44 (§53) .................................248 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Mt 27:27–66 (§56) ........................251

6.5 Summary................................................................................................255

Chapter 7: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Profiat Duran’s Kelimmat ha-Goyim ........................................................257 7.1 Introduction............................................................................................257 7.2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim .....................................259 7.3 The Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim....................................265 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.4.5 7.3.6 7.3.7 7.3.8 7.3.9 7.3.10 7.3.11 7.3.12

Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament......................267 Jesus’ Temptation I: Mt 4:1–11 ................................................268 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Mt 21:18–21 ...............................269 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mk 10:17–21, par. Matt 19:16–21 ....................................................................269 Jesus’ Temptation II: Mt 4:3–4 .................................................270 The “Term Son of Man:” Mk 10:45, 11:13–14 .........................271 The “Term Son of Man:” John 5:30 ..........................................271 Joseph is Jesus’ Father: Lk 2:41–48, par. Mt 1:22–23 ..............272 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Mt 27:34........................................274 Jesus’ Self-Understanding: John 10:19–36 ...............................274 Matthew’s Intention with Isa 7:14: Mt 1:22–23 .......................277 The Hypostatic Union and Jesus’ Death: Mt 27:46 ..................279

7.4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament ........................281 7.5 Summary ................................................................................................285

XIV

Contents

Chapter 8: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Isaac b. Abraham of Troki’s Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah ...............................291 8.1 Introduction............................................................................................291 8.2 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah ..................................................................297 8.3 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah ...................................................297 8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah ...........................................299 8.4.1 The “Son of Man” and Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:32 (I, §10) .......................................................................302 8.4.2 Jesus’ Nativity and Isaiah’s Prophecy: Mt 1:20–25 (I, §21) .....305 8.4.3 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mt 26:36, 27:46 (I, §47).........................307 8.4.4 Jesus’ Temptation: Mt 4:1–10 (II, §7) ......................................308 8.4.5 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 8:19–20 (II, 12) ..........................309 8.4.6 Jesus is Sent: Mt 10:40 (II, §14) ...............................................309 8.4.7 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Mt 12:32 (II, §16) .......310 8.4.8 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mt 19:16–21 (II, §19) .......310 8.4.9 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee: Mt 20:23 (II, §20) ...................311 8.4.10 The Term “Son of Man:” Mt 20:28 (II, §21) ............................311 8.4.11 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross: Mt 26:39 (II, §24) ......312 8.4.12 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Mt 26:39 (II, §24) .........................312 8.4.13 Jesus Commissions the Disciples: Mt 28:18 (II, 27) ................312 8.4.14 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Mk 11:12–40, par. Mt 21:18–22 (II, §30) ........................................................313 8.4.15 Jesus’ Ignorance: Mk 13:32, par. Mt 24:36 (II, §31) ................314 8.5 Summary................................................................................................314

Chapter 9: Conclusion: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics ..........................................................................................317 9.1 Synopsis of Finds ...................................................................................320 9.1.1 Selectivity of Readings ...............................................................321 9.1.2 Continuity with Earlier Polemics ................................................326 9.1.3 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement ..........................................331 9.2 Evaluation of Finds ................................................................................333 9.2.1 The Divine/Human Dichotomy ..................................................333 9.2.2 Jesus is Vere Homo Only ............................................................335 9.3 Epilogue: The Central Paradox..............................................................336

Contents

XV

Appendix I: Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣva: Reason 11 of the 15 Reasons Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus .......341 Appendix II: Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments ...........................................................345 Bibliography..................................................................................................349 Index of Literature ........................................................................................383 Index of Modern Authors ..............................................................................401 Index of Persons & Subjects .........................................................................407

Abbreviations The abbreviations used for ancient texts, periodicals, and reference works are almost entirely according to P. H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). In certain instances the suggested guidelines have been amended for stylistic reasons and greater convenience.

Chapter 1

Matthaeus Adversus Christianos: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus 1. 1 Introduction The belief in the divinity of Jesus has been challenged at all times. From the first century onward the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God incarnate, even “God with us” (Matt 1:23), has constantly been called into question from within and without the Christian community. Be it from inner-Christian, pagan, Jewish, and Muslim objections to the more recent Jesus Quests, the divinity of Jesus was always a controversial subject. It is therefore false to think that it was merely the naiveté of earlier “pre-critical” generations that allowed such a high view of Jesus to prevail unchallenged. Rather, right from the beginning the “Christ of Faith” was a stumbling block (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). From the authors of the New Testament to the medieval church apologists and beyond, the conundrum of Christology was clearly understood by Christians, and yet, against all objections and probabilities, maintained as a necessary element in the description of the “real” Jesus.1 Already the author of the first gospel proclaimed Jesus as the miraculously conceived “God with us,” who is the fulfillment of the hopes and promises of Israel, while simultaneously maintaining that he was a human descendant of Abraham and successor of king David and thus rooted in history and biblical Judaism.2 It is, in fact, the New Testament itself that binds these transempirical3 claims about Jesus to the physical world of first century Judaism, and by 1

For a recent discussion of the “real” Jesus see Roland Deines, “Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus? A Review of the Pope’s Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debate,” in The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church (ed. Adrian Pabst and Angus Paddison; London: SCM, 2009), 199–232; also in Didaskalia 39 (2009): 11–46. 2 See Matt 1:1, 17, 20–23, 3:15. 3 This term was appropriated by Anthony Thiselton and subsequently put to use by my doctoral supervisor, Roland Deines, see his “Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus?,” 205–11; and Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 376–413 (the term appears on p. 377). Transempirical does not relate here to something that is utterly beyond experience, but refers to the movement of transcendent reality into and through the empirical. It describes, as such, the high christological claim that

2

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

doing so has effectively kept the “Christ of Faith” permanently joined to the human figure of Jesus of Nazareth. In this, the gospels themselves constitute the guardians of the controversial and paradoxical nature of the identity of Jesus. For it was the evangelists who effectively compelled orthodox4 Christianity to maintain and defend the paradox, when it would have been far easier to abandon the intellectual embarrassment of a divine-human Christ in favor of a purely human or purely divine Jesus. Thus, both those who defended and those who challenged Christianity found the content of the Christian canon useful for their arguments, particularly the gospels. In fact, a great number of Jewish polemical texts have persistently used the Gospel of Matthew to dispute this most central of Christian claims, and it is surprising that no indepth study of this aspect of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Matthew is available to date, especially considering that both the divinity of Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew have been central to Christianity.5 the pre-existent, transcendent Son of God has entered the horizon of human history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and then “left” it by means of crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension. This move “into and through” the empirical realm, therefore, allows and necessitates the use of all historical-critical tools within the empirical horizon (that is, it operates on the basic premise that God was indeed present in Jesus and acted in history), yet, without succumbing to the illusion that human enterprise would ever be able to describe all there is to Jesus of Nazareth. In this regard, since true objectivity in this (or any other matter) is an illusion, this footnote also serves the purpose of indicating that this study, as unbiased as it seeks to be, is the exercise of a Christian who wants to understand his own tradition and Scripture by engaging another, highly capable, tradition, which out of exegetical, religious, historical, and rational concerns is antagonistic to it. On this see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (2nd ed.; trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; London: Sheed & Ward, 1989), 277–307. 4 Here and throughout the term “orthodox” denotes the traditional mainstream of Christian thought (in contrast to heterodoxy or heresy), rather than a Jewish or Christian denomination. 5 An exhaustive study of the pagan use of the New Testament recently became available in John G. Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (STAC 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002). Nothing comparable exists for the Jewish corpus of polemical texts. Only a single study, albeit never published, has examined the use of the New Testament in Jewish polemics, see Joel E. Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics” (Ph.D. diss., Los Angeles: University of California, 1975). While Rembaum has made many observations that this study can corroborate (see chapter 9), he did not focus on the Gospel of Matthew or the divinity of Jesus. Likewise, Philippe Bobichon only researches the role of the Hebrew Bible in JewishChristian debate, see idem, “La Bible dans les œuvres de controverse judéo-chrétienne (IIe– opXVIIIe siècles): entre texte révélé et littérature,” in De la Bible à la littérature (ed. JeanChristophe Attias and Pierre Gisel; Religions en perspective 15; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2003), 69–97 (I am grateful to Nicholas De Lange for brining this to my attention). See also Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007), first published in 1977, who examined the philosophical arguments used against four Christian doctrines, viz. the Trinity,

1.2 The Divinity of Jesus

3

This study, then, is an examination of how one of Christianity’s most prominent texts, the Gospel of Matthew, was read by one of Christianity’s most formidable opponents, medieval Jewish exegetes, in regard to one of Christianity’s most controversial (and most foundational) beliefs, the divinity of Jesus.

1. 2 The Divinity of Jesus This study is admittedly asking a very Christian question. From a Jewish point of view probably the more pertinent question was, initially at least, whether Jesus was the Messiah,6 not only because this is a concept closer to the horizon of Jewish expectations, but also because the Christian arguments to this end provoked doubts, especially in the medieval period.7 Hence, the discussion of Christian interpretations in Jewish polemical literature were to a large extend focused on refuting the notion that the Hebrew Bible foretold Jesus as the Messiah, and considerable effort was spent on discussing, e.g., Genesis 49:10, or various passags in the prophet Isaiah.8 For Christians, on the other hand, it was one of the most foundational beliefs that Jesus was the Messiah, which is why this confession already very early had essentially become a proper name: “Jesus Christ.”9 The question of his divine status — however it was perceived initially — was and is more controversial, both in terms of accounting for its origins and its historical development. In more recent New Testament studies the question of how

the incarnation, the virgin birth, and Transubstantiation. However, his study focuses on the philosophical discussion, thereby excluding most exegetical arguments. While many of his observations are valuabe, esp. in regard to the incarnation, the present study is distinct. 6 See Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, xxvii: “The central question remains: Was Jesus of Nazareth the messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets or was he not? In a sense, the rest is commentary.” See also Tertullian, Apol. 21.15. 7 So Norman Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002), 10–13, 318. 8 See, e.g., Adolf Posnanski, Schiloh: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre — Erster Teil. Die Auslegung von Genesis 49,10 im Altertume bis zu Ende des Mittelalters (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904); and Adolf Neubauer, S. R. Driver, and E. B. Pusey, The FiftyThird Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (2 vols.; Oxford and London: James Parker, 1876–77). 9 See Martin Hengel, “Jesus, the Messiah of Israel: The Debate about the ‘Messianic Mission’ of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 323–49, esp. 323–35; idem, “Jesus the Messiah of Israel,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 1–72; and idem, “‘Christos’ in Paul,” in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in Earliest Christology (London: SCM, 1983), 65– 77 (and endnotes, 179–88).

4

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

Jesus came to be understood as divine is much debated,10 and it is an issue that promises to remain controversial for the foreseeable future.11 What is definite is that by the second century, at the latest, a substantial number of the followers of Jesus considered Jesus Christ to be divine.12 This understanding 10

For an overview of the more narrow discussion of how Jesus originally came to be seen as divine see William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), esp. 109–52; but also Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Docrine, 395–413, who situates the debate in the larger post-enlightenment context. Larry Hurtado, based on Martin Hengel’s work, has argued that Jesus’ divine status originates in the praxis of the first followers of Jesus, who worshipped him alongside God, which he has called a “binitarian devotional pattern,” though he subsequently has abandoned the term “binitarian” advocating now a “dyadic devotional pattern,” see Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ — Devotion in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), and idem, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). Richard Bauckham, who has become a co-founder of the so-called “Early High Christology Club,” argues that Jesus’ identity was directly related to the one God of Israel in that Jesus was understood as a “divine personification” of God, see his Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). One of the most prominent New Testament scholars disagreeing with Hurtado and Bauckham is James D. G. Dunn, Did the first Christians worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence (London: SPCK, 2010), who maintains that the early church very clearly distinguished between Jesus on the one side, and God as Creator and “Father” on the other (143), arguing e.g. that Jesus was a monotheist (101). That he was designated as Lord (κύριος) meant that he was regarded as a highly exalted “divine agent of creation” (145), but not as identical with the Creator. According to Dunn, high Christology developed gradually, rather than rapidly as Hurtado and Hengel have maintained. On the recent reconstructions of the development of Christology see also Andrew Chester, “High Christology — Whence, When and Why?” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 22–50. 11 Esp. with Daniel Boyarin’s contribution, Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: The New Press, 2012), who argues based on the depiction of the “Son of Man” in Daniel, and in the Similitudes of Enoch, that Jews at the time of Jesus, and long before, had a clear expectation that the Messiah was divine (this is similar to William Horbury’s argument that the theological ideas behind Jesus’ divinity were already present in Second Temple Judaism). Needless to say that, if Boyarin is right, this would constitute a major paradigm shift from the prevalent view that Jesus’ divinity is the most significant boundary marker between Judaism and Christianity. Not surprisingly, then, this theory has so far not been received favorably, see esp. Peter Schäfer’s highly critical review entitled “The Jew who would be God,” in The New Republic (May 18, 2012). Online: http://www.tnr.com/ print/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin. 12 When referring to the “divinity of Jesus” and the “incarnation” in the following and throughout, I wish to refer to what Christian doctrine traditionally has meant, not simply that “Jesus is God,” but the more differentiated definition expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed, that “Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Selfsame [τὸν αὐτον] of a rational soul and body; consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον] with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτον] with us according to Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father

1.2 The Divinity of Jesus

5

has subsequently become more central to Christianity, and was (more or less) settled at the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon.13 Within the Jewish-Christian debate the issue of Jesus’ divinity has, therefore, likewise taken center stage over the discussion of his messiahship. Michael Wyschogrod has expressed this well: The most difficult outstanding issues between Judaism and Christianity are the divinity of Jesus, the incarnation, the trinity, three terms which are not quite synonymous but all of which assert that Jesus was not only a human being but also God. Compared to this claim, all other Christian claims such as Jesus as the Messiah become secondary at most. The divinity of Jesus has been unanimously rejected by all Jewish (and Muslim) authors as incompatible with true monotheism and possibly idolatrous. For Jews, once this issue is raised, it is no longer necessary to examine seriously any teachings of Jesus. A human being who is also God loses all Jewish legitimacy from the outset. No sharper break with Jewish theological sensibility can be imagined.14

Likewise, Robert Chazan has pointed out that the harshest Jewish criticism of all is leveled against the Christian doctrine of Incarnation. Christianity, with its notion of a deity incarnate and its concomitant doctrine of a trinity of divine beings, became (…) the ultimate irrationality. (…) The doctrine of Incarnation was projected as the teaching that would supposedly reveal to any impartial observer the fundamental irrationality of Christian thinking. It was seen as responsible for the profound gulf between the two traditions, was viewed by Jews as thouroughly unreasonable, and was claimed to have more than a tinge of the immoral about it as well.15

Moreover, the Christian notion of incarnation, which essentially is part and parcel of the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity, is not only a question of religious

as to the Godhead; but in the last days, the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον], for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos, as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the property of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Prosopon and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Prosopa, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ,” see T. Herbert Bindley and F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith (4th ed.; London: Methuen, 1950), 234–35, cf. 193; also, Heinrich Denzinger and Adolf Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (35th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 108 (§301). 13 For an overview see Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (trans. J. S. Bowden; London: Mowbray, 1965), esp. 480–91; and Richard P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). 14 Michael Wyschogrod, “A Jewish Perspective on Incarnation,” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 195–209; here 197–98. 15 Robert Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 349.

6

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

differences, but from a Jewish point of view also touches on the definition of God’s nature and holiness, which is the reason why [t]he Jewish polemicists employ a wide range of contentions which stress that this doctrine was not befitting God. They insisted that is was beneath God’s dignity to enter into a woman’s body, to be born into the world like other men, to live a wordly life in which He ate, drank, slept, etc., and finally was humiliated and suffered death. (…) It would be a diminuition of God’s dignity, a lèse majesté, for God to live as man among men and to suffer. For the Christian, however, incarnation did not imply a diminuition of God’s glory, but rather indicated God’s greatness, for He did not hesitate to become a man in order to bring men closer to Him.16

The divinity of Jesus is, thus, not an arbitrary topic of Jewish investigation, and Christian theologians likewise could not refuse the challenge of addressing the objections against this most central of Christian beliefs.17

1. 3 The Gospel of Matthew In this study the Gospel of Matthew has been chosen as the principal New Testament text of investigation, which limits the scope of the Jewish sources examined both in terms of the selection of texts and also the presentation of arguments within these sources. This is not to say that Jewish polemicists and scholars did not know and use other New Testament texts. In fact, the other three evangelists often make an appearance in exegetical arguments that 16

Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 107, 108. In this respect I would argue that extensive, prolonged involvement and in-depth study of apologetic-polemical literature is fueled by at least two related motivations: the first being the need of self-assurance that one’s own belief system is correct, the second being a vested interest in defending and/or advancing one’s own belief system (or “truth-claims”) against the advances and claims of another, especially where the interaction between these two defines either side (i.e. in establishing religious boundaries). This rings true, in my opinion, for many of the principal scholars of Jewish polemical literature in the past and present, be it Christians, e.g., Johann Christoph Wagenseil, Sebastian Münster, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, A. Lukyn Williams, or be it Jews, e.g, Abraham Geiger, or Judah Eisenstein. Likewise, more recent scholars are not unaffected by these two related motives, see e.g. David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod’s tractate, Jews and “Jewish Christianity” (New York: Ktav, 1978; repr. 2002). Noteworthy here is also Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprụt’s comment in the introduction of chapter twelve of Even Boḥan (see chapter 6): “(I wanted) to show to the leaders of our exalted faith the shortcomings of those books and the errors contained in them. Through this they shall come to know and understand the advantage and superiority of our faith over that of the remaining faiths. For one does not (properly) know the degree of the superiority of a matter other than through the investigation of its opposite” (emphasis mine). MS Laur. Plutei 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana), f. 134r: ‫להראות לבעלי אמונתנו הרמה‬ 17

‫חסרון הספרים ההם והשגיאות הנופלות בתוכם ובזה ידעו ויבינו יתרון ומעלת אמונתינו על‬ ‫שאר האמונות לפי שלא יודע גודל ומעלת הדבר כי אם בבחינת הפכו‬.

1.3 The Gospel of Matthew

7

employ Christian sources. Nevertheless, Matthew features much more frequently and extensively than passages from any other New Testament author. That the Gospel of Matthew was predominantly used in the Jewish critique of Christianity in this manner is mostly due to dogmatic, historical, and exegetical reasons. First of all, Matthew played a vital role for Christian theology and the development of the Christian dogma as the exegetical basis and defense of Jesus’ divinity by means of the incarnation. That Jesus Christ conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, and natus ex Maria Virgine18 was chiefly argued by means of Matthew 1:18–24 and Isa 7:14, and was integral to the claim that God had come to dwell among humankind in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, Christians could defend the belief in Jesus’ divinity without the Gospel of Matthew, e.g., by refering to the prologue of the Gospel of John, or Psalm 110, but it was in particular the evangelist’s nativity account of Jesus (Matt 1:1–2:23), championing the identification of Jesus as Isaiah’s Immanuel, that was seminal in conceptualizing Jesus’ identity.19 In fact, Matthew is the only New Testament author who linked the (Septuagint) text of Isa 7:14, “the virgin (παρθένος) shall have a son,” with Jesus’ birth, making Matt 1:22–23 all the more christologically important to Christians. In conjunction with Matt 28:20 the “God-with-us” motif brackets the whole gospel.20 This motif, then, gives initial shape to Matthew’s Christology, summarized here by Jack Kingsbury: Matthew is equally intent upon showing that Mary’s child can be called the Son of God: he is conceived by the Holy Spirit (mentioned twice: 1:18, 20); he is not the product of the union of any man with Mary (cf. 1:18, 20, 24) because she is a “virgin” when she bears him (1:23) and Joseph, for his part, scrupulously refrains from having martial relations with her until after she has had her son (1:25); his mission is to save his people from their sins (1:21); and God himself, albeit through the prophet (1:22), is the one who discloses the true significance of his person (“God with us,” 2:22–23). When these several factors are combined, they 18 Apostles’ Creed, the Symbolum Apostolorum, see John N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.; London: Longman, 1972), 369; similar the Old Roman Creed, see ibid., 102. 19 The most important christologial passage in the Hebrew Bible for the writers of the New Testament, however, was Psalm 110:1 and its association with Psalm 8:6, cf. e.g. Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42–43; 22:69; Acts 2:33–35; 5:31; 7:55–56; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; 2:6; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21. For the importance of Psalm 110:1 for Christology see Martin Hengel, “‘Sit at my right hand!’,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 119–225. The revised version of this article (so far only in German) is entitled “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1,” in Studien zur Christologie: Kleine Schriften IV (ed. Claus-Jürgen Thornton; WUNT I/201; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 281–367. 20 Matthew is also the only gospel author who explicitly maintains the virgin birth, see Matt 1:18, 20, 23 and esp. 25. Luke implies the virgin birth, but is not as explicit about it, cf. Luke 1:34–35.

8

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

compel the following conclusion about the sonship of Jesus Messiah: Jesus Messiah, born of Mary, is without question the Son of David, but beyond this, by reason of his unique origin, he is the Son of God.21

Matthew’s linking of Jesus’ to Isaiah 7:14 as virgin-born Immanuel was thus paramount in the development of doctrinal expressions.22 In particular the related claim of the virginal conception became a signature, and conceptual vehicle, for teaching and defending Jesus’ divinity. Already in the middle of the second century we find that this interpretation underlies Justin Martyr’s reply to Trypho: What is truly a sign, and what was to be an irrefutable proof to all men, namely, that by means of a virgin’s womb the first born of all creatures took flesh and truly became man, was foreknown by the prophetic Spirit before it took place and foretold by him in different ways, as I have explained to you.23

Also Irenaeus in Against Heresies effectively relies on Matthew to argue that Jesus was more than a mere man:

21

Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 43. Simon Gathercole recently has made the case that Matthew portrays Jesus as more exalted than recent New Testament scholarship conventionally has allowed for: “Matthew alone has the material about Jesus’ transcendence of space and the requirement to meet in his name (Matt. 18.18-20), as well as the Emmanuel motif, the mention of Jesus as sender of prophets, and the supplement of walking-on-water account which contains just one of many references in the Gospel to reverence (προσκυνεῖν) of Jesus,” Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 79 (emphasis original), see also 46–79. About all Synoptic Gospels he further states that, “in very brief summary, then, we have seen a clear identification of Jesus as transcending the God-creation divide, the heaven-earth divide, and as transcending the confinement of his earthly ministry. This is held together with his genuine humanity and subordination to the Father: all the power and status the Son has is a result of the Father’s determination” (ibid.). Gathercole subsequently argues for the pre-existence of Jesus by examining the various “I have come” sayings, and by doing so joins Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, and Richard Bauckham et al with a very high (and early) view of Christology in the Synoptic Gospels. 22 See esp. David D. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel (SNTSMS 90; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 49–108, 157–244. For the history of interpretation of Isa 7:14 see Marius Reiser, “Aufruhr um Isenbiehl oder: Was hat Jes 7,14 mit Jesus und Maria zu tun?,” in Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift: Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese und Hermeneutik (WUNT I/ 217; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 277–330, but also. Laurenz Reinke, Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und von Immanuel: Jes. 7,14–16 (Münster: Coppenrath, 1848), appraised by Reiser for his meticulous and exhaustive investigation of the interpretation of Isa 7:14, see 286, n. 29. 23 Justin, Dial. 84.2, trans. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (ed. Michael Slusser; trans. Thomas B. Falls, rev. Thomas P. Halton; Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003), 130.

1.3 The Gospel of Matthew

9

So this Son of God, our Lord, was both the Word of the Father and the Son of Man. Since He had a human generation from Mary, who was of the human race and was herself a human being, He became the Son of Man. For this reason the Lord Himself gave us a sign in the depths below and in the heights above. Man [i.e. Ahaz] did not ask for that [sign], because he did not hope that a virgin, as a virgin, could become pregnant, and that she [could] also give birth to a son, and that this child [could] be “God with us”…24

And likewise Tertullian appeals to Matthew’s nativity account in Against the Jews: “Further,” they say, “that [Christ] of yours who has come has neither been spoken of under such a name [as Emmanuel] nor has engaged in any warfare.” But we, on the contrary, consider that they ought to be reminded to consider the context of this passage as well. For there is added an interptetation of Emmanuel (‘God is with us’), so that you should not only pay arttention to the sound of the name, but the sense as well. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is ‘God is with us.’ Therefore, inquire whether that word ‘God is with us,’ which is Emmanuel, is employed afterwards with regard to Christ, since the light of Christ has begun to shine. I think you will not deny it. For those from Judaism who believe in Christ, from the time they believe in him, since they wish to say Emmanuel, they mean that ‘God is with us,’ and in this way it is agreed that he has come already who was proclaimed Emmanuel…25

These short excerpts, many more could be cited, show that the introductory chapters of the Gospel of Matthew were not only important for Christian doctrine and Christology, but further that Matthew was effectively used to establish religious boundaries with other groups, such as Judaism. A second, related factor why Matthew was used by Jews is the first gospel’s linking of Jesus with various passages in the Hebrew Bible, which is diplayed so prominently by means of the so-called “fulfillment formula.”26 This linking of passages from the Hebrew Bible positioned Matthew as bridge

24 Ireneaus, Haer. 3.19.3 (cf. ANF 1:449), trans. Irenaeus M. C. Steenberg and Dominic J. Unger, St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies (Book 3) (Ancient Christian Writers 64; Mahwah, N. J.: The Newman Press, 2012), 94. Incidentally, “Son of Man” is understood literally here (i.e. as denoting Jesus’ humanity), which is similar to the Jewish arguments surveyed in this study. 25 Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9.2–3 (cf. ANF 3:161), trans. Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian (The Early Church Fathers; London: Routledge, 2004), 84–85. 26 In Matthew’s prologue: In 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 4:14; cf. also 2:5–6, 3:3. In the main body: 8:17, 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 27:9–10; cf. also 13:14–16 and 24:15. Besides commentaries ad loc., see on this also Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Wilhelm Rothfuchs, Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus-Evangeliums: Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung (BWA[N]T 5.8 (88); Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); Carlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008); and David Instone-Brewer, “Balaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotations in Matthew 2,” in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 207–27.

10

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

between the history of biblical Israel and Jesus, and gave Christians further license to find additional interpretations and prophecies fulfilled in Jesus.27 However, Matthew’s “proof-texting,” as it was popularly understood, frequently turned out to be an easy target for Jewish scholars who often were more familiar with the details and historical context of the Hebrew Bible, and who appealed to a more contextual interpretation of a given passage.28 Thus, the popularity of the Gospel of Matthew in polemical arguments not only resulted from the importance Matthew was given by Christians, but also was due to a perceived need to refute the christological interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and the ease (and urgency) by which many fulfillment analogies could be challenged.29 The resolute Jewish objections to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7–9, often linked to the rejection of the translation of ‫ עלמה‬as παρθένος,30 must have been especially irritating to Christians as it 27 The literature on this topic is extensive, but see the essays in Stanley E. Porter, ed., The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), and idem, Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Steven Moyise, Old Testament in the New (London: T&T Clark, 2001); esp. Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). 28 Matthew’s actual intention and exegetical strategy in linking these various passages from the Hebrew Bible to Jesus by means of the “fulfillment formula” cannot be fully considered here; they certainly point to Matthew’s conviction (and intention) that his gospel narrative stood in continuity with Israel’s divine history and expectations, and that in Jesus an age of fulfillment had arrived, see e.g., James M. Hamilton Jr., “‘The Virgin Will Conceive’ Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18–23,” in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 228–47; and Roland Deines, “Das Erkennen von Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte bei Matthäus,” in Heil und Geschichte: Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heilsgeschichte in der biblischen Tradition und in der theologischen Deutung (ed. Jörg Frey, Stefan Krauter, and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT I/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 403–441, esp. 426–34. Already the first followers of Jesus, and most likely he himself, understood the Jewish Scriptures to foretell events that were fulfilled in him, cf. 1 Cor 15:3, Mark 1:1–3, Luke 4:21, 24:44, John 12:38, Acts 1:16, 13:27. 29 The Jewish discussion of Matthew’s interpretations does not necessarily mean that Jewish protagonists had an actual gospel text in front of them, as we will see later. Only from the medieval period onwards do we have clear evidence in Jewish sources that the text itself was in some form encountered. 30 Since translating the original ‫ עלמה‬as παρθένος (“virgin”) is only one interpretive choice from a range of semantic possibilities, which could also easily be “maid” or “young woman.” The matter of translation became thus a heated issue in the Jewish-Christian debate. Christians saw in this a clear proof for Jesus’ distinction and the exegetical basis for arguing for the virgin birth and Jesus’ divinity. Jews on the other hand pointed to the ambiguity of the term ‫ עלמה‬and rejected it as mistranslation. Both sides subsequently accused each other of having altered the text, see already Justin, Dial. 68.8, 71.3, 84.1–3. The ensuing debate was usually based on semantics and the historical context of Isa 7:14. Where Jews initially appear to have identified the child as Hezekiah (a position which was later revised by Rashi, Ibn

1.3 The Gospel of Matthew

11

undermined a foundational aspect of their doctrine and missionary strategy. In turn, the dispute over the interpretation of Isaiah became an integral part of Adversus Judaeos texts and many include extensive discussions of the Jewish interpretation of Isa 7:14.31 Moreover, elements from Matthew’s nativity story and beyond were also echoed in the various Toldot Yeshu (“History of Jesus”) accounts, well-known popular Jewish gospel parodies.32 Likewise, the adaptation of Matt 5:17 in Ezra, and David Qimḥi in response to Jerome’s often quoted rejoinder), Christians attempted to dispel this exegesis by pointing to the miraculous character of this sign which they saw was only fulfilled in Jesus, see Reiser, “Aufruhr,” 299–302. 31 E.g. Justin, Dial., chs. 43, 54, 63, 66–68, 77, 84, also his 1 Apol. 32–35; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.9, 19, 21, and 4:23; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9; Ignatius, Phld. 3; Origen, Cels. 1.33–35; The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila 8.5–6, 18.6–10, 26.6, 34.14–20, see William Varner, Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athansius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila. Introduction, Texts and Translations (Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2004), 156–157, 180–181, 196–197, 216–217), The Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus 28–34 (Varner, Dialogues, 36–39), and The Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus 12–14 (Varner, Dialogues, 102–105). Though we do not have any verifiably genuine Jewish polemical texts of this nature from this early period, the arguments refuted by these early Christian writers when compared to what is found in Jewish polemical sources seem authentic, or at least point out an actual issue with Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14 (as this study will be able to show). Also, Peter Schäfer discusses how parthenos (virgin, Isa 7:14, Matt 1:23) may deliberately have been distorted by the talmudic rabbis to pantheros (panther) as a “well known rabbinic practice of mocking pagan or Christian holy names,” see Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 98, which would further indicate that the rabbis were not ignorant of Matthew’s uses of Isa 7:14. Likewise, Marcion, Emperor Julian, and Porphyry appear to have discussed Matthew’s linking the virgin-born Immanuel with Jesus, see Tertullian, Marc. 3.12–13 (ANF 3.330–332), and R. Joseph Hoffmann, Julian’s “Against the Galileans” (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004), 253A–B, 125–126; 262C, 126– 127; Fragment XV, 145. According to Jerome and Epiphanius, also Porphyry commented on various passages in Matthew, see Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians (Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts 1; Leiden: Brill 2005), 144 (§28), 157–158 (§73). 32 The various narratives labelled Toledot Yeshu are Jewish gospel parodies, or “antigospels,” more recently classified as “counter history,” and have a different character than most other Jewish polemical works, although their influence is readily felt in many Jewish Adversus Christianos texts. It is likely that Toledot Yeshu represent a fairly early Jewish attempt (probably written in Aramaic initially) to counter a Christian gospel (written in Aramaic or Hebrew?), which must have had some relationship to the Gospel of Matthew as some major Toledot Yeshu manuscripts relate that Jesus applied Isa 7:14 to himself (e.g., MSS Strassburg, Vindobona, Adler), see Samuel Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (Berlin: Calvary, 1902), 41, 53, 69, 94, 118–119, 123. For an in-depth discussion of this important polemical link see William Horbury, “A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshu” (Ph.D. diss.; University of Cambridge, 1970); Günter Schlichting, Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu: Die verschollene Toledot-Jeschu-Fassung Tam ū-mū’ād (WUNT I/24; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982); and David Biale, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity: The Sefer Toldot Yeshu and the Sefer Zerubavel,” Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999): 130–45;

12

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

b. Šhabb. 116b, the only New Testament text given the prominence to be cited in the Talmud, demonstrates that Matthew’s gospel, or at least parts of it, were known and used by Jews comparatively early.33 Further evidence that Jews knew of the gospels and their content has also been accumulated by James Carlton Paget.34 It should, therefore, not surprise that in the medieval period Jewish polemical works could include often lengthy refutations of Christian beliefs with verses derived from Matthew, foremost among them a refutation of Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14.35 The investigation of the use and role of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish polemics is, therefore, intrinsically related to the historical importance this gospel has for Christians. In the light of the prominent role the Gospel of

also Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillan, 1950), 147–66; and esp. the essays in Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch, eds., Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference (TSAJ 143; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Since 2008, Peter Schäfer and Michael Meerson have been overseeing the collection and transcription of all available Toledot Yeshu manuscripts; see online: http:// www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html. 33 In the case of b. Šhabb. 116b, Matthew could be used to argue that Christians had abandoned Torah against the wishes of their master, an argument that has prevailed to this day. That the Talmud alludes to Matt 5:17 has — not very convincingly — been challenged by Johann Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Erträge der Forschung 117, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982), 78, 89–93, 222, n. 178. Against Maier, Peter Schäfer has argued that the Talmud contains a sophisticated antiChristian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives, and contends that the Babylonian Talmud demonstrates a special familiarity with John and Matthew, see idem, Jesus in the Talmud, 8–9. More recently Holger M. Zellentin has shown that the talmudic authors (and those of Bereshit Rabbah) were familiar with passages from Matthew (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount), see his Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature (TSAJ 139; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 137–236. This, however, does not mean that Jews always had access to a written Gospel of Matthew, nor that they were aware that they used verses from Matthew (cf. ibid., 15–16, 21, 137–43, 168–73), as was argued by Hugh J. Schonfield, According to the Hebrews: A new translation of the Jewish life of Jesus (the Toldoth Jeshu) (London: Duckworth, 1937), who contended that b. Šabb. 116a “establishes that a Hebrew Gospel with Matthaean matter was well-known to the Jews at the end of the first century” (248). On the other hand, Zellentin remarks that “we cannot categorically exclude the possibility that some rabbis had occasional access to written Christian texts,” and goes on to show that it is “likely that some rabbis did have such access” (141), which in his estimate would have been Tatian’s Diatessaron, cf. William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance & History in Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 1994). 34 See idem, “The Four among the Jews,” in Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (WUNT I/251; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 267–86. First published in The Written Gospel (ed. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005), 205–21. 35 For a brief discussion of the debate over Isa 7:14 in medieval polemics see Robert Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 126–33.

1.4 Jewish Polemics

13

Matthew enjoyed within Christendom,36 Jewish commentators paid special heed to this part of the Christian canon, and as this study shows, the Gospel of Matthew is the primary New Testament text that Jews rely on in their exegetical based critique of Jesus’ divinity.

1. 4 Jewish Polemics Before venturing into an examination of specific sources and single arguments that use the Gospel of Matthew, it is necessary to give some initial observa-

36 This claim, that Matthew’s gospel played a leading role amongst other New Testament texts, while seemingly self-evident, is not so readily substantiated. Seán P. Kealy has attempted to do so in his Matthew’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation: Book 1 (Mellen Biblical Press Series 55a; Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997), 5–6, and has counted 70 references in Biblia Patristica to the Gospel of Matthew for the first two centuries, and another 120 for the third century (incl. Origen), which is significantly more than the other gospels. He also emphasizes that the Sermon on the Mount is the most frequently quoted New Testament passage in all the Ante-Nicene writers (quoting W. S. Kissinger), and refers to the works of Christopher M. Tuckett and Jacqueline A. Williams on the Nag Hammadi library, who likewise point out the importance of Matthew in gnostic texts; cf. Warren S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975), 6; Christopher M. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 249–50; Jacqueline A. Williams, Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi (Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1988). Kealy further relies on Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus (3 vols.; New Gospel Studies 5.1–3; ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni; trans. Norman J. Beval and Suzanne Hecht; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1990–1993), who has extensively argued that the Gospel of Matthew had most influence on early Christianity, see esp. Bellinzoni’s preface the the English edition, 2:ix–xii. A further way the influence of Matthew could be gauged, though this cannot be further investigated here, is its use as sermon text and in various lectionaries, on this see, e.g., Caroll D. Osburn, “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 61–74. According to the THALES lectionary database (see online: www.lectionary.eu; I am grateful to Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra for allowing me to use the beta version of the database), readings from Matthew occur 443 times, in comparison to 75 readings in Mark, 361 in Luke, and 336 readings in John. Where Jews (and Christians) did not have access to written Christian texts it would stand to reason that there is a correlation between the Matthew passages found in lectionaries and those that are discussed in Jewish polemical works: e.g., the Matthean nativity (incl. the references to the Hebrew Bible) and also the Gethsemane pericope (rather than Mark’s version) are featured in the Armenian Jerusalem Lectionary, one of the oldest lectionaries in existence, which is thought to preserve the practice of the Jerusalem church in the fifth century, see Athanase Renoux, “Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121,” in Patrologia Orientalis 35.1 and 36.2 (1969–1971).

14

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

tions about so-called Adversus Christianos literature, which for the most part began to be produced in the medieval period.37 Daniel J. Lasker, one of the leading scholars in the field of Jewish polemics, has stated that the primary function of this kind of literature was apologetical,38 rather than seeking to facilitate some kind of dialogue with Christians: Jewish polemicists had one goal in mind: to prevent Jewish conversion to Christianity. It is hard to imagine that even the most academic, scholastic polemical Jewish author had some sympathy for Christianity; otherwise, he would not have written a polemic at all (…). I believe the primary explanation for stylistic diversity is that the polemicist uses those arguments which he thinks will work. Polemical literature is a genre in which almost anything goes. Polemicists do not have to believe the arguments they present; they merely have to be convinced that someone will find the arguments persuasive (…). The author’s view of Christians and Christianity is a secondary consideration if it is a consideration at all. The Jewish polemical literature was intended for internal consumption and not as an attempt to convince

37

For a comprehensive and manageable introduction of Adversus Christianos texts see Samuel Krauss and William Horbury, The Jewish-Christian Controversy: From the Earliest Times to 1789 — Volume I: History (TSAJ 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); and Judah M. Rosenthal, “The Anti-Christian Polemical Literature to the End of the Eighteenth Century” [‫]ספרות היווכוח האנטי־נוצרית עד סוף המאה השמונה־עשרה‬, Areshet 2 (1960): 130–79; 3 (1961): 433–39 [Hebr.], also A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s-eye View of Christian Apologiae Until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935; repr. 2012). But see also Ora Limor’s multi-volume “Adversus Iudaeos project:” Jews and Christians in Western Europe. Encounter between Cultures in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance [‫יהודים ונוצרים במערב אירופה עד ראשית העת החדשה‬: ‫]בין יהודים לנוצרים‬ (5 vols.; Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1993–98) [Hebr.]. For the reciprocal Adversus Judaeos literature see Heinz Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-JudaeosTexte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.) (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Theologie 172; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1982; repr. and rev. 4th ed., 1999); idem, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.–13. Jh.): Mit einer Ikonographie des Judenthemas bis zum 4. Laterankonzil (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Theologie 335; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1988; repr. and rev. 3d ed., 1997); idem, Die christlichen AdversusJudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13.–20. Jh) (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Theologie 497; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1994); and Bernhard Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental: 430–1096 (Études juives 2; Paris: Mouton, 1960; repr. Leuven: Peeters, 2006). 38 When using the terms “polemical”/“polemics” and “apologetical”/“apologetics,” one is not only faced with the issue that individual authors mean different things with them, but also that the purpose of this kind of literature cannot be limited to one or two functions. Some scholars will use these terms interchangeably, others, e.g., William Horbury, reserve the term “polemical” for attack or external reference, and “apologetical” for internal defense, while others employ them exactly the opposite; e.g., Daniel Lasker employs the term “polemics” in the context of internal use (see quote). This study will mostly follow William Horbury’s definition, see idem, “Hebrew apologetic and polemical literature,” in Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World (ed. Nicholas De Lange; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 189–209, esp. 189.

1.4 Jewish Polemics

15

Christians of the folly of their ways. It had to speak to a Jewish audience, not a Christian one.39

While this view, that the function of Adversus Christianos literature was foremost apologetical, has been common in Jewish studies, recently it is beginning to be revised, not least by Lasker himself.40 Nevertheless, this is still an important disclaimer insofar as the actual arguments that are scrutinized in this study may not allow one to directly deduce what a given author actually believed about Christianity or understood Matthew to mean (nor that there was an interest in this). In other words, the polemical use of Christian teachings may not be equal to what a Jewish scholar knew about Christianity.41 Lasker is certainly right that this kind of polemic literature was primarily intended for the Jewish faith community,42 but I question the notion that “almost anything goes.” The Jewish arguments prove to be not that arbitrary. First, Jewish scholars did engage Christians in debates, and it would have been precisely the arguments they had learnt from their own polemical tradition that guided them in these encounters and subsequently lead to a refinement (or abandonment) of specific arguments.43 In fact, many of the Jewish polemicists are known to have been involved in religious exchanges with Christian missionaries and high status clergymen, and not infrequently this gave the impetus for composing polemics.44 If such treatises were merely meant for internal consumption and could offer any kind of anti-Christian polemic,45 then a community leader who was engaged in a friendly (or not so 39 Daniel J. Lasker, “Popular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christianity,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 243–59, here: 254. See also idem, “Teaching Christianity to Jews: The Case of Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” in Judaism and Education: Essays in Honor of Walter I. Ackerman (ed. Haim Marantz; Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1998), 73–86. 40 See Daniel J. Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity: In Search of a New Narrative,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 6 (2011): 1–9. See also below. 41 It is likely that some authors may not have had much knowledge of a discussed aspect of Christianity and just repeated a traditional argument, whereas others were much better acquainted with particular Christian teachings which was nevertheless not reflected in their writings. On this see also Daniel J. Lasker, “Jewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan (ed. David Engel, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Eliot R. Wolfson; SJJTP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 97–109. 42 After all, most sources were written in Hebrew, though there are exceptions. See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 202–49, cf. 249–61. 43 Profiat Duran, e.g., replaces the traditional Jewish attack of the two natures of Christ with something far more perceptive, see 7.3.12. 44 E.g. in Jacob ben Reuben (see 3.1), the Offical family (see 4.1), Shem Ṭov ibn Shapruṭ (see 6.1) and Isaac ben Abraham of Troki (see 8.1), who were not involved in debates but it is clear that these encounter were instrumental in the composition of their treatises. 45 This is more characteristic of Toledot Yeshu narratives.

16

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

friendly) dispute with Christians, and who relied on such a treatise for direction, at best would have been unable to impress the other party, and at worst would have become easy prey.46 Instead, the kind of arguments Jews employed (and handed on), as can be seen below, were precisely those that historically had “worked” against Christians, which is why exactly the same arguments are refuted in much earlier Adversus Judaeos literature.47 Secondly, William Horbury, based on the work of Jacob Katz, has pointed out that there is also a “link between communal self-identification and the desire to refute error and win proselytes.”48 In other words, Jews were not merely defensive, they also actively sought out the debate with Christians.49 In addition, Jewish scholars employed polemical literature to define and negotiate religious boundaries, which recently has become a more recognized

46 That various (later) treatises were not confined to mere defense is clearly seen in the titles they were given, e.g., Simeon ben Zemah Duran’s Qeshet u-Magen (“Bow and Shield”), Hayyim Ibn Musa’s Magen ve-Romaḥ (“Shield and Spear”), Leon Modena’s Magen vaḤerev (“Shield and Sword”). 47 See 9.1.2 and passim. The fact that Christians went to great lengths to refute these arguments shows that they were not considered trivial or arbitrary by Christians. 48 Horbury, “Hebrew apologetic and polemical literature,” 191, but see also the list on p. 205, which summarizes the functions of Jewish apologetical literature, and Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 81, 90–92, 96–97, 105. 49 As meticulously argued by David Berger, “Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages,” AHR 91 (1986): 576–91 [this and most of Berger’s essays dealing with polemics have been republished in idem, Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010)], concluding that the “absence of a christian missionary ideology and the presence of frequent Jewish-Christian confrontations establish the likelihood that eleventhand twelfth- century Christians wrote polemics not out of missionary objectives but largely in response to requests generated by a genuine Jewish challenge. (…) Nevertheless, by the late Middle Ages the tone is profoundly different; one begins to see the defensiveness, nervousness, and demoralization of a worried community. Jewish polemic was never the same again” (591), emphasis mine. See also Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity,” 9: “In sum, a close look at the Jewish critique of Christianity indicates that some Jewish authors were responding directly to overt Christian missionary challenges, hoping that their arguments would convince their fellow Jews not to abandon the religion of their fathers. Others saw criticism of Christianity as part of their rational exposition of Judaism. Others may have understood it as part of Jewish self-definition and a marking of borders. One thing seems to be certain: medieval Jews did not offer refutations of Christianity solely as a reaction to a perceived Christian threat.” See also Gavin I. Langmuir, “Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts/Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: Comment,” AHR 91 (1986): 614–24, who suggested that already “the eleventh century marked the beginning of a period in which Christians at different social levels were assailed by doubts about their identity” (619). Irrespective of the exact period in which this began, it is clear that the production of Adversus Judaeos tracts in the medieval period was not only motivated by inner concerns, but also was prompted by actual Jewish challenges.

1.4 Jewish Polemics

17

aspect of this genre.50 For this reason one will frequently find in polemical works explanations of the Christian doctrines, which can even include specific terms in Latin, Greek, or a particular vernacular (e.g. German).51 In this way the Jewish audience was actually informed about the content of the Christian canon52 and about Christian doctrine,53 though not always correctly.54 The underlying purposes and applications for this kind of polemic was evidently more complex, and not just apologetical. It also served the purpose of Jewish self-identification, taught Jewish philosophy and dogma to one’s own community, and prepared Jewish scholars for an encounter with Christians. Consequently, the arguments used in Jewish polemics, even if they were only intended for “internal consumption,” and were not “an attempt to convince Christians of the folly of their ways” still can express what Jewish scholars perceived to be serious issues with various Christian beliefs. The arguments examined here, therefore, still may allow a level of access to what the individual authors thought Christians actually believed or understood Matthew to mean. Having thus dealt with some preliminary issues related to Jewish polemics, we can now consider the more narrow topic of the use of the New Testament in Jewish polemics. In fact, many Christians are not used to the reading and critique of their own scriptures by Jewish readers.55 The Christian tradition, in 50

In particular argued by Robert Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity. For an overview of this issue see Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, xvii–xx. 51 E.g. in Nizzahon Vetus (see 5.1). 52 Most notably in Even Boḥan, where an entire Gospel of Matthew text is reproduced in Hebrew, see chapter 6. 53 E.g., by Profiat Duran’s presentation of the hypostatic union, see 7.3.12 and esp. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 161–68. 54 See the discussion in 9.1.3 and passim. 55 More recent exceptions are the (more or less favorable) reception of the contributions of Wilhelm Bacher, Claude Montefiore, Joseph Klausner, Pinchas Lapide, David Flusser, Shalom Ben-Chorin, Samuel Sandmel, Jacob Neusner, Geza Vermes, Mark Nolan, Amy-Jill Levine et al. But already since Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho it is clear that Christians have not been comfortable with Jewish objections (whether real or imagined) to which also much of the rest of Adversus Christianos can testify. The insightful exchange between Jacob Neusner and Pope Benedict XVI in and of itself shows how extraordinary a genuine Jewish response still remains to Christians; cf. Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (2nd ed.; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000), and Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (trans. Adrian J. Walker; New York: Doubleday, 2007), 69–70, 103–27; see also Deines, “Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus?” That said, the Church Fathers in comparison, as will become evident in the course of this study, were often quite familiar with Jewish arguments that used the New Testament. And also, starting with the 16th and 17th century, a segment of Christian scholarship began to devote itself to the study of Judaism and therefore was not ignorant of Jewish objections; for an overview with an extensive bibliography see Stephen G. Burnett, “Later Christian Hebraists,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament II:

18

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

contrast, is thoroughly acquainted with assessing various Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and to accept, modify, or reject them within the context of the Christian schema — a process which is already well attested in the writings of the New Testament.56 It was most probably due to the vitality of Christianity that Jews began to consider and use sections of the New Testament for polemical and apologetical purposes.57 Especially in the medieval period Jews produced not an insignificant number of polemic texts and commentaries, many engaging the Christian scriptures with varying degrees of scrutiny.58 However, this body of Jewish polemical writings has for various reasons often been disregarded by Christian scholars, and it is regrettable that especially modern and “post-modern” New Testament scholarship has largely failed to investigate the reading of its own canonical texts by those familiar with its cultural and lingusitic conventions, who are, nevertheless, unencumbered by Christian presuppositions and commitments.59 This is all the more From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (ed. Magne Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 785–801; and also Raphael Loewe, “Hebraists, Christian,” EncJud (2007) 8:510–51. 56 For example portrayed in Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees (cf. Matt 12:1–8, Mark 7:19), in the negotiation what the mission and nature of the Messiah was (cf. Matt 11:2–6), or in Paul’s discussion of Torah adherence (cf. Gal 5:2–12). It is possible that Christians themselves also may have encouraged the use of the New Testament in Jewish arguments, see Bernhard Blumenkranz, “Die jüdischen Beweisgründe im Religionsgespräch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5. bis 11 Jahrhunderts,” TZ 4 (1948): 119– 47, who recalls that in the Vita Sylvestri 2 Christians are meant to use the Hebrew Bible in their arguments against Jews, and Jews are to use the New Testament in their argument against Christians (134–35). 57 Anti-Christian Jewish polemics cannot simply be explained as reaction to some form of Christian pressure or persecution (or vice versa). This popular and widely held view is increasingly recognized as too limited because it cannot account for how Jewish polemics could arise in situations when Christians were not in a position to exercise power, e.g. in millieus under Muslim rule. It also relegates the authors of such polemics into the role of victims, which is neither a very helpful qualification, nor is it necessarily true. The composition of polemical writings certainly can arise in environments of non-aggressive interaction, and have been shown to be important for religious identification. Religious polemic should perhaps be better understood as a response to the vitality of another religious group, whereas the exact manner of how this vitality is experienced could then be further classified (this may or may not include the desire to proselytize). This model would also account for the large body of Christian Adversus Judaeos literature which Christians produced precisely because Judaism was “alive and thriving,” even if individual polemicists had not personally encountered Jews. In fact, the initial flurry of Christian apologetic-polemical literature in the twelfth century was a response to the vitality of Judaism, “and not a self-initiated attack upon the minority religion,” Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, xix. 58 Krauss and Horbury list 75 individual authors and 35 anonymous polemical works. Since some of these authors wrote more than one treatise, the number of Adversus Christianos texts is well over a hundred. 59 There are a few exceptions, e.g., Hans-Georg von Mutius (though not a New Testament

1.4 Jewish Polemics

19

striking considering that recent New Testament scholarship has focused so much on the historical Jesus and his particular Jewish identity. A factor in why these texts are understudied may be that access to Adversus Christianos literature is not without its difficulties. The scarcity of critical texts, language limitations, and the general inaccessibility of source material poses a formidable entry hurdle, but the situation is steadily improving.60 An additional sense of superiority of the critical method might also have prevented the closer examination of so-called “pre-critical” (or pre-modern) authors, though some texts will certainly surprise in this respect. Some of the medieval Jewish evaluations of Jesus are quite similar to those of the contemporary Jesus quests.61 One of the benefits for New Testament studies in having such an extensive body of Adversus Christianos literature, that is, those that use the New Testament, is that it has the potential to be a touchstone for Christian interpretation. The consideration of the medieval Jewish exegesis of passages in the New Testament might bring forth less christologically biased interpretations, which would be similar to how the Jewish critique of christological readings of the Hebrew Bible can act as a corrective to various interpretive extravagances. It may also be able to demonstrate that certain non-christological readings of passages are not possible, or at least highly unlikely.62 Historically, Christian scholars have already profited from considering Jewish scholarship and insights. As is well known, Martin Luther extensively consulted Rashi’s commentary via Nicholas de Lyre’s Postilla,63 and many New Testament scholars scholar), “Ein Beitrag zur polemischen jüdischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980): 232–40, who investigates the use of the Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem (this study attempts to expand on this, both in depth and scope). And while New Testament scholarship is aware that Hebrew versions of the Gospel of Matthew exists, see e.g. Craig A. Evans, “Jewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew: Observations on three recent Publications,” Mishkan 38 (2003): 70–79, no serious study of the reception and use of these Matthew versions has been undertaken, even by those who have focused on such texts, e.g., George Howard (see the discussion in 6.1–6.3). 60 Though the situation is by no means what it could be as many important source texts are still not edited, remain unpublished, or are not available in translation. For this reason most of the relevant passages in this study are given in extenso and are translated into English. 61 Especially Shem Ṭov’s Even Boḥan and Profiat Duran’s Kelimmat ha-Goyim in places are comparable to critical scholarship, see chapter 7. 62 This is, e.g., seen in how Jewish interpreters use the various “Son of Man” passages in a very limited and restricted manner, see 9.1.1 et passim. 63 Luther also appears to have consulted some exegetical writings of Rabbi David Qimḥi, commenting in the Protokoll und handschrifliche Einträge, Psalm CXXVII that “Rabbi Kimchi est deus,” Weimar Edition Deutsche Bibel 3:574, cf. also 543. For Luther’s dependence on Nicholas de Lyre’s Postillae perpetuae see Carl Siegfried, “Raschi’s Einfluss auf

20

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

continue to benefit from Billerbeck’s meticulous referencing of Jewish sources, despite all its shortcomings and the criticism heaped on it.64 But, by and large, it is unfortunately the case that (contemporary) Christians can been rather ignorant of the Jewish objections to Jesus and about the Jewish reading of the Gospel of Matthew, in particular of the adverse feelings the incarnation and Trinity may invoke in Jews (and Muslims). The JewishChristian debate is not merely a rational or philosophical exchange of differing opinions about ontology, it has a deep emotional dimension which can only be apprehended if one understands the arguments and the theological logic behind them. While the nature of the genre of polemics may skew the various arguments against Jesus’ divinity, they are nevertheless authentic representations of the “other side’s” reactions and perceptions, and as such should be taken seriously. In terms of the use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish polemics it has already been noted that this gospel plays a prominent role where medieval Jewish scholars appeal to New Testament passages. In fact, the arguments that use Matthew often employ a standard set of passages from the gospel to refute what is understood as the most problematic Christian beliefs.65 Very dominant in any Jewish polemic is the rejection of (messianic) interpretations of the Hebrew Bible as prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus, or the understandNicolaus von Lira und Luther: in der Auslegung der Genesis,” Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1869): 428–45; 2 (1871): 39–65; also Theodor Pahl, Quellenstudien zu Luthers Psalmenübersetzung (Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1931). 64 Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–1961). Cf. Berndt Schaller, “Paul Billerbecks Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch: Wege und Abwege, Leistung und Fehlleistung christlicher Judaistik,” in Zwischen Zensur und Selbstbesinnung: Christliche Rezeptionen des Judentums (ed. Christfried Böttrich, Judith Thomanek, and Thomas Willi; Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 17; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 2009), 149–74 (see also the three other articles on Billerbeck in the same collection by Andreas Bedenbender, Julia Männchen, and Christina Biere); and Hans-Jürgen Becker, “Matthew, the Rabbis and Billerbeck on the Kingdom of Heaven,” in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting (ed. Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer; Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 57–69. 65 No exhaustive overview of all the themes Jewish polemical literature discusses is available, but for a summary see Daniel J. Lasker, “Major Themes of the Jewish-Christian Debate: God, Humanity, Messiah,” in The Solomon Goldman Lectures: Perspectives in Jewish Learning — Vol. 7 (ed. Dean Philip Bell; Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1999), 107– 130; idem, “Popular Polemics;” David Berger, “Jewish-Christian Polemics,” ER (2nd ed., 2005), 11:7230–36; Horbury, “Hebrew apologetic and polemical literature;” Edward Kessler, An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 109–11; Hans-Joachim Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History of Theological Conflict (trans. David E. Green; London: Faber & Faber, 1963), 1–77; and Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, esp. 167–242. See also Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, xiv–xvii, 2–11, 172–3 (n. 11); and Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish AntiChristian Polemics.”

1.4 Jewish Polemics

21

ing that the church was the “true Israel.” Other topics which are frequently discussed are the Christian abrogation of Torah, the notion of original sin, the veneration of Mary, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the incarnation.66 The last three doctrines, which for Christians were perhaps the most crucial points of contention, are generally addressed by emphasizing Jesus’ humanity which is contrasted with God’s transcendence and uniqueness.67 Metaphysical and exegetical themes often overlap in the response to Christian doctrines, although within the exegetical arguments that rely on the New Testament one will rarely find extensive discussions of philosophical or metaphysical concepts, they are however assumed.68 The Gospel of Matthew is heavily featured in arguments against the more crucial Christian beliefs, and the familiarity and importance of Matthew for Christians lends these arguments perhaps more weight than a highly philosophical argument. At least on a popular level these exegetical arguments must have made an impression on the Christian party, especially since they were more accessible than philosophical debates. Matthew was employed in Jewish polemics in two ways.69 One was to simply reject, deride, or discard Matthew’s interpretation, e.g., his reading of

66 It is worthwhile recalling here Lasker’s remarks about the latter topic, incarnation: “Jewish arguments against this doctrine can hardly be called philosophical in the way the term is being used here. The Jewish polemicists employed a wide range of contentions which stressed that this doctrine is not befitting God. They insisted that it was beneath God’s dignity to enter into a woman’s body, to be born into the world like other men, to live a worldly life in which He ate, drank, slept, etc., and finally was humiliated and suffered death,” Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 107. The same line of argument will consistently be encountered when dealing with the divinity of Jesus. 67 The underlying premise of this argument is usually human corporeality in contrast to God’s incoporeality, see 9.2.1–2; also Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 108–134, who shows that Jewish philosophical polemicists content that God’s immutability, incorporeality, and simple unity precludes incarnation from the outset. 68 Daniel Lasker has proposed a simple classification for the various types of polemical arguments into “(1) exegetical arguments (min ha-ketuvim), (2) historical arguments (min hameẓi’ut), and (3) rational arguments (min ha-sekhel), ” see Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 3, see also 3–11. Exegetical arguments, which are the focus of this study, can either employ the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, or the New Testament. See also Lasker, “Popular Polemics.” Other classifications that have been suggested are found in Jeremy Cohen, “Toward a Functional Classification of Jewish Anti-Christian Poelmic in the High Middle Ages,” in Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (ed. Bernhard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner; Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 4; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 93–114; and Amos Funkenstein, “Reflections on Anti-Judaism 3: Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewis Polemics in the Late Middle Ages,” Viator 2 (1972): 373–82, which is a slightly abridged version of what is found in idem, “Changes in Patterns of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Century” [‫]התמורות בווכוח הדת שבין יהודים לנוצרים במאה הי״ב‬, Zion 33 (1968): 125–44 [Hebr.]. 69 See also Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 5–6.

22

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

Isa 7:14 or the claim to virginal birth.70 This could be done by several means: either by appealing to exegetical observations, metaphysics (ontology), the impropriety of various Christian beliefs, by juxtaposing the Hebrew Bible, or by pointing to contradictions within the New Testament. The second way the Gospel of Matthew was used by Jewish polemicists is as positive support for their critique of Christians, and that in at least two areas: Jesus’ divinity and the Christian abrogation of Torah.71 In particular Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ’s Even Boḥan and Profiat Duran’s Kelimmat ha-Goyim champion the use of Christian sources against Christian doctrines in this manner. This type of argument simply uses passages from Matthew to dispute Christian convictions by either emphasizing particular aspects, seemingly overlooked by Christian interpreters, or by using Jesus’ own words to confute Christian beliefs and practices (especially Matt 5:17–19). In arguments against Jesus’ divinity one will frequently find a mix of both negative and positive applications of the Gospel of Matthew, although the positive use, that is, the presentation of passages that stand in tension with Christian beliefs, is often more pronounced. The main body of this study will present a wide range of these kinds of arguments, and it will be seen that they form a kind of polemical tradition that frequently discuss the same passages and pericopes in the Gospel of Matthew. It remains to be admitted that this study is somewhat unconventional in that it will peruse Jewish texts from a Christian point of view by analyzing the Jewish point of view so as to come to perhaps a more insightful understanding of Christian texts and the Christian position. Usually, Jewish polemic texts are studied to investigate the historical and cultural contexts of their authors, the development of philosophical and theological reflection within Judaism, the genre of Jewish polemics in general, and the interaction and dynamics of Judaism and Christianity throughout the centuries, normally by scrutinizing the underlying causes and factors for conflict and Christian aggression towards Jews. While this study might very well be able to inform any of these areas of research, in that it can be used to trace the development of individual arguments and ideas, its focus is on coming to a better and fuller appreciation of the Jewish (and in some sense the similar Muslim) objections to the belief

70

The, at times, crude parody of Jesus’ birth circumstances in the Toldot Yeshu accounts would be a good example for this. There, Jesus is often portrayed as Mary’s illegitimate offspring of rather questionable circumstances. 71 On the topic of Jesus and the Law see, e.g., Adolf Harnack, “Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth. 5,17) in der ältesten Kirche: Eine Skizze,” SPAW (1912): 184–207; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Hermeneia; rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 215– 17, 222–25; and the overview of the more recent Jewish positions by Donald A. Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus: An analysis & critique of the modern Jewish study of Jesus (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 1997), 87–132.

1.5 Methodology & Presentation

23

in Jesus’ divinity, and further to investigate the role and Wirkungsgeschichte of the Gospel of Matthew in this regard.72

1. 5 Methodology & Presentation The starting point for this investigation is Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and its Hebrew translation known as Nestor ha-Komer (chapter 2), which is the first genuine Jewish polemic that uses Christian texts extensively.73 The argumen72 For the early reception of the Gospel of Matthew by non-Christians see Martin Hengel, “Die ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelien,” in Beim Wort nehmen — die Schrift als Zentrum für kirchliches Reden und Gestalten: Friedrich Mildenberger zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Michael Krug, Ruth Lödel, and Johannes Rehm; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 99–117; repr. in Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V (ed. Claus-Jürgen Thornton; WUNT I/ 211; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 702–724, for the Christian reception see Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew; Kealy, Matthew’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation; and Wolf-Dietrich Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (WUNT II/24, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). 73 The focus on the use of the Gospel of Matthew meant that the Jewish anti-Christian polemics in apocalyptic prose, homiletic-exegetical works (midrashim), commentaries, and synagogal poetry (piyyut) are not considered here. For the apocalyptic compositions see Yehuda Even Shmuel (Kaufman), Sermons of Redemption: The Chapters of Jewish Apocalypse from the Finalization of the Talmud to the Beginning of the Sixth Century [‫מדרשי‬ ‫פרקי האפוקליפסה היהודית מחתימת התלמוד הבבלי ועד ראשית האלף הששי‬: ‫( ]גאולה‬Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute; Massada, 1943; repr. 1953, 1968) [Hebr.]; for the midrashim see Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies, 51–94; Burton L. Visotzky, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah,” PAAJR 56 (1990): 83–100; and idem, Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah (TSAJ 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); for anti-Christian remarks in commentaries see Erwin I. J. Rosenthal, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentaries,” JJS 11 (1960): 115–35; repr. in Studia Semitica Volume 1: Jewish Themes (ed. Erwin I. J. Rosenthal; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 165–85]; and Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity? A Comparison of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shor,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; SJSJ 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 249–72; Avraham Grossman, “The Commentary of Rashi on Isaiah and the Jewish-Christian Debate,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan (ed. David Engel, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Eliot R. Wolfson; SJJTP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 47–62; and for the piyyutim see W. Jac. van Bekkum, “Anti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (piyyuṭ) of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries,” in Early Christian Poetry: A Collection of Essays (ed. J. den Boeft and A. Hilthorst; Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 22; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 297–308; Hagith Sivan, “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish/Christian Polemics,” GRBS 41 (2000): 277–306; and Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 5–13. See also Pieter Willem van der Horst, “Birkat ha-Minim in recent research?,” in Hellenism-JudaismChristianity. Essays on Their Interaction (2nd ed.; Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 8; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 113–24; first published in The Expository Times

24

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

tation of Nestor ha-Komer reappears in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot haShem (chapter 3), a highly influential twelfth century composition that left its traces in many subsequent polemical works. The next major critique of Jesus’ divinity that utilizes gospel texts is found in Joseph ben Nathan’s Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (chapter 4), and the anonymous Nizzahon Yashan (chapter 5), which are both collections of polemical arguments that from the thirteenth century onwards were circulated in France and Germany respectively, which therefore allow access to the Ashkenazi polemical tradition. In fact, Nizzahon Vetus is one of the most comprehensive and important polemical compositions available. Also indispensable to this study is the fourteenth century work Even Boḥan by the prominent Spanish Rabbi Shem Ṭov Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ (chapter 6), for in it we have the first clear evidence of a Jewish scholar engaging with the entire text of the Gospel of Matthew, which he provides in form of an annotated Hebrew translation. Equally important is Kelimmat haGoyim (chapter 7), penned by probably the most exceptional and ingenious polemic writer of the Late Middle Ages, Profiat Duran. Much later is the sixteenth century Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah by Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki (chapter 8), who also comments on a good number of New Testament passages. Since it is one of the best known Jewish polemical works and still in use today, and also had an impact on so influential thinkers as Voltaire and Hermann Samuel Reimarus, it could not be omitted here. Five more sources have been considered alongside the seven main witnesses, yet without treating them in seperate chapters, instead they are discussed where appropriate. These are: Joseph Qimḥi’s Sefer ha-Berit (“The Book of the Covenant”),74 a manuscript usually related to Sefer Yosef haMeqanne (MS Rome Or. 53),75 Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq (“The Disputation of Radaq”),76 Sa’d b. Manṣur Ibn Kammunāh’s Tanqīḥ al-abḥāt li-l-milal

105 (1993–94): 363–68; and esp. William Horbury, “The Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian Controversy,” JTS 33 (1982): 19–61. Further, also Stefan Schreiner, “‘Ein Zerstörer des Judentums...?’ Mose ben Maimon über den historischen Jesus,” Trias of Maimonides (ed. Georges Tamer; Studia Judaica; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 323–45. 74 Sefer ha-Berit was written by Joseph Qimḥi (c. 1105–1170, who lived most of his life in Narbonne) at the same time as Milḥamot ha-Shem. See Frank Talmage, The Book of the Covenant and other Writings [‫ וויכוחי רד״ק עם הנצרות‬:‫( ]ספר הברית‬Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1974) [Hebr.]. For the English translation see idem, The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimhi (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972); also Robert Chazan, “Joseph’s ‘Sefer Ha-Berit’: Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologetics,” HTR 85 (1992): 417–32. Sefer ha-Berit uses John 18:4, 6; Luke 16:19–31, 23:34; Matthew 26:39 (see 3.4.6), and Mark 15:34 (par. Matt 27:46; see 3.4.6). See also under 2.5.3 and 6.4.19. 75 See the discussion under 4.3. 76 Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq is a late 12th or early 13th century pseudonymous polemical work attributed to the exegete David Qimḥi (1160–1235), published in a collection of polemical texts entitled ‫“( מלחמת חובה‬Obligatory War”) in Constantinople in 1710 (ff. 13a–18a); on

1.5 Methodology & Presentation

25

al-talāt (“Examination of the Inquries into the Three Faiths;” 13th century),77 and Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣvah (“Commanded War”).78 These are not all the texts that could have been considered, there are far more,79 yet

this see also Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 221–22. For a translation of this text see Frank Talmage, “An Hebrew Polemical Treatise: Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox,” HTR 60 (1967): 323–48. See also the discussions under 2.3.2, 2.5.2, 3.4.6, 3.4.8, 6.4.10, 6.4.11, 7.3.10, and the appendix. 77 See Moshe Perlmann, Ibn Kammūna’s Examination of the Three Faiths: A thirteenthcentury Essay in the comparative Study of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 74, 81–83, 86–93; see the discussion under 2.5.1.1. See also Stefan Schreiner, “Ibn Kammûnas Verteidigung des historischen Jesus gegen den paulinischen Christus” in Geschichte — Tradition — Reflexion. Volume 1: Judentum (ed. Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer; FS Martin Hengel; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 453–79. 78 Milḥemet Miṣvah is a 13th century compendium of disputations between Me’ir ben Simeon and noted Christians, amongst them the bishop of Narbonne. The work is not fully published, but several significant portions have been printed, see Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 227–29, esp. 227, n. 98; Hanne Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword: Jewish Polemics Against Christianity and the Christians in France and Spain from 1100–1500 (TSMJ 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 73–83; Chazan, Daggers of Faith: ThirteenthCentury Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 39–66, and esp. Siegfried Stein, Jewish-Christian Disputations in ThirteenthCentury Narbonne (London: University College London; H. K. Lewis, 1969). Milḥemet Miṣvah is extensive and rather interesting, e.g., it contains a list of fifteen reasons why Jews cannot believe in “this man” Jesus. Of these especially reason eleven is comparable to what is encountered in the sources surveyed in this study (see 2.5.3, but also the reproduction of this section in the appendix). The Gospel of Matthew is also alluded to in regard to Torah abrogation (mostly Matt 5), see William K. Herskowitz, “Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R. Meir HaMeili” (Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 1974), 72 (cf. pp. 5, 62, 66; Hebrew section), and Siegfried Stein, “A Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Me’ir b. Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣwah (Narbonne, 13th Cent.),” JJS 10 (1959): 45–61, esp. 52. 79 Further noteworthy (though by no means all) sources that treat the Gospel of Matthew which are not considered here are: The Karaite Jacob Qirqisani’s Kitāb al-anwār (“Book of Lights,” 10th century), see Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood, Ya‘qūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity: A translation of ‘Kitāb al-anwār,’ Book I, with two introductory essays (Judentum und Umwelt 10; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1984), 138–39 [only discusses Matthew’s genealogy]; Judah ha-Levi’s Kitâb al-Radd wa-’l-Dalīl fi ’l-Dîn al-Dhalîl (“The Book of Refutation and Proof on the Despised Faith”), written in 1140, see N. Daniel Korobkin, The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith (Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1998), 8–9, 50–51, 222 [only Matt 5:17, 39–40 mentioned]; Judah Hadassi’s Eshkol ha-Kofer (“Cluster of Henna”), a twelfth century text from Constantinople, see Wilhelm Bacher, “Inedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassi’s ‘Eshkol Hakkofer’,” JQR 8 (1896): 431–44, esp. 432, 437, 440 [only marginal references to Matthew]; Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas’ ‘Ezer ha-Emunah (“Aid to Faith”), written after a public debate with Christians which occured in Avila, c. 1375, see Krauss and Horbury, 165–66, 232–33 [unfortunately no published text]; Ḥasdai Crescas’ (c. 1340–1411) Biṭṭul ‘iqqare ha-Noṣrim (“Refutation of the Christians’ Principles”), see Daniel J. Lasker, The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai

26

Chapter 1: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos

these thirteen sources create a fairly representative historical and geographical overview of the exegetical arguments that occur in Jewish polemics. In fact, as will be seen, most discuss the same passages in Matthew. Each of the seven main sources will be placed in its historical and cultural context and then analyzed for the use and citations of the Gospel of Matthew. The relevant passages will be presented in the original and as translation.80 Furthermore, the arguments will be situated within the context of the greater theological issues and briefly summarized at the end of the chapter of each main witness. The last chapter will then draw out some of the finds and make some general observations (chapter 9). The individual arguments within each chapters will mostly be organized following the order of the Gospel of Matthew. This is necessary, even unavoidable, because many of the polemical works that treat the New Testament are seemingly random collections of exegetical arguments.81 At first Crescas (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992), 66, 71–73 [only marginal references to Matthew]; Joseph Albo’s (c. 1380–1444) Sefer ha-‘Iqqarim (“Book of Principles”), see Hans Georg von Mutius, “Die Beurteilung Jesu und des Neuen Testamentes beim spanisch-jüdischen Religionsphilosphen Josef Albo,” FZPhTh 27 (1980): 457–64 [alludes to Matt 1:23, 2:18, 5:17–19]; Simeon ben Zemah Duran’s Qeshet u-Magen (“Bow and Shield”), originally part of his Magen Avot (“Shield of the Fathers”), written in Algiers in 1423, see Prosper Murciano, “Simon ben Zemah Duran, Keshet u-Magen: A Critical Edition” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1975), 3–3a, 9a, 13–13a, 15–15a, 16, 21–21a, 22, 23–27, 29– 29a, 31–31a, 34–36, 37a–39a, 43, 44–44a, 48, 53, 56a–58a, 60a–61 [extensively discusses Jesus’ Torah adherence, probably relies on Milḥamot ha-Shem and Kelimmat ha-Goyim et al, see Murciano, xxv, 24a, n. 8 (translation)]; Lipmann Mühlhausen’s Niṣṣaḥon (early 15th century), see Ora Limor and Israel I. Yuval, Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen: A Critical Edition (forthcoming); and Krauss and Horbury, 112, 223–25 [likely dependent on Nizzahon Vetus and/or the French polemical tradition]; Leon Modena’s Magen va-Ḥerev (“Shield and Sword”), see Allen H. Podet, A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb by Leon Modena 1571–1648 (Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), 29–30, 49, 66–67, 74–75, 89–90, 92–94, 95–97, 119–22, 132–45, 170, 173, 182–87. A further manuscript, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Heb. MS 712, which contains a selection of New Testament passages transcribed from Latin into Hebrew, mentioned by Lasker, and described by Philippe Bobichon and Tamás Visi during a conference he attended, was not available, see Lasker, “Jewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” 105. 80 This is necessary because the Hebrew original is often not easily available and an English translation is frequently non-existent. Where Hebrew editions exist, text critical notations have been kept to a bare minimum to not encumber the overall presentation, which is why the consultation of the critical editions is highly recommended. In chapter 6 (Even Boḥan) it was necessary to give more textual variances, as no critical text has been published so far and two manuscripts were used as the source for the chapter. When it comes to the translation, medieval Hebrew can be notoriously stubborn to yield an adequate rendering into English — and I am by no means an expert — any shortcomings in this regard is hopefully mitigated by having easy access to the Hebrew original. 81 In certain sources, e.g. in Qiṣṣa, the material appears to have been deliberately arranged, which consequently resulted in a somewhat different chapter organization.

1.5 Methodology & Presentation

27

sight this may give the impression that each chapter presents only a list of disjointed arguments. Due to the nature of the source material, however, the arrangement along the Matthean chapter sequence is in most cases an improvement of the presentation in the sources.82 The content table and headlines identify the respective passage in Matthew and, thus, provide convenient access to the discussion of a given passage in the Jewish sources. Moreover, this arrangement will allow the comparison of individual arguments. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that the discussion of a given argument that has already been encountered — very frequently the same or very similar arguments are repeated by various polemicists — will not be discussed again and again. Instead, the reader will be directed to the discussion in previous (or in some cases subsequent) chapters.

82

This is especially true for Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizzahon Vetus.

Chapter 2

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer 2. 1 Introduction The earliest Jewish composition presently available that uses and directly engages Christian scriptures is Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf.1 This “Account of the Disputation of the Priest”2 is a polemical treatise composed in JudeoArabic, and, next to Toledot Yeshu, it is one of the earliest genuine Jewish Adversus Christianos works extant.3 The Hebrew version, a later medieval translation of Qiṣṣa, was already known in 1170 as Sefer Nestor ha-Komer (“The Book of Nestor the Priest”).4 The anonymous author of Qiṣṣa presents himself as a former Christian priest who, after having converted to Judaism, provides various arguments for his change of mind. It is not clear if this proselyte identity is a mere literary device or indeed recalls the account of a Christian convert to Judaism. This would not be entirely implausible in particular since a significant number of

1

Subsequently Qiṣṣa. The principal source text was edited by Daniel J. Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa, The Polemic of Nestor the Priest: Qiṣṣat Mujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomer (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1996). 2 Sometimes also referred to as “Account of the Disputation of the Bishop.” For the translation of usquf see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:52, n. 1. 3 See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 236–238. For an introduction to Anti-Christian polemical works in proximity to Qiṣṣa see Daniel J. Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity under Islam in the Middle Ages,” PAAJR 57 (1990–1991): 121–53; but see also Nicholas De Lange, “A Fragment of Byzantine Anti–Christian Polemic,” JJS 41 (1990): 92– 100; and Hagith Sivan, “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem.” 4 Subsequently Nestor, both together will be abbreviated as Qiṣṣa/Nestor (‫ כומר‬should technically be translated as an “idol-priest”). Passages that are are attributed to Nestor appear already in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem, which is dated to 1170 (see chapter 3). In 1880, Moritz Steinschneider concluded that Nestor was a Hebrew version of Qiṣṣa; see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:27–29, 31; and Daniel J. Lasker, “Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer: The Earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” in Genizah Research After Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic: Papers read at the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (ed. Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 112–18, here 112.

30

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Christian passages, mostly from the gospels, are discussed in Qiṣṣa.5 Also, details from a range of Christian apocryphal texts appear, at times interspersed with novel details, and treated as co-equal to canonical texts.6 The great familiarity with canonical and apocryphal texts seen in Qiṣṣa lends, as such, some credence to the claim that the composer was formerly Christian.7 In the Hebrew version the author is identified as “Nestor” which then also provided the title for the treatise. The name Nestor appears in Qiṣṣa in §768 and may refer to Nestorius of Constantinople (died c. 451), or perhaps to the less known Nestorius of Adiabene (c. 800).9 While in Qiṣṣa this person Nestor simply provides a polemical example of a Christian who came to agree with a more Jewish understanding of God, the later European translator understood this reference to signify the author of the whole work.10 This Nestor is said to have “left your religion,” because he did “not believe in a

5

See Lasker, “Critique of Christianity under Islam,” 123–24. The gospel references are mostly taken from Matthew and John; see also Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian polemics,” 62–112. 6 Apocryphal traditions appearing in Qiṣṣa/Nestor have been related to The Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, and The Protoevangelium of James (see Qiṣṣa §§81–82, §92, §111, §152; also §28a, §31, §75, §§153–157, §§182–183). For further discussion see Simone Rosenkranz, Die jüdisch-christliche Auseinandersetzung unter islamischer Herrschaft (7.–10. Jahrhundert) (Bern: P. Lang, 2004), 288–93, who also explores similarities to the Sibylline Oracles and the Arabic Infancy Gospel. She notes that Qiṣṣa reflects a high esteem for apocryphal traditions, common to oriental Christianity, ibid., 293. She also points out similarities to Toledot Yeshu, ibid., 261, 269–70. Joel Rembaum likewise sees similarities to the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Thomas, see his “The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemics,” PAAJR 45 (1978): 156– 85; esp. 160–63, commenting “it is practically impossible to ascertain whether or not the author knew the difference between canonical and apocryphal traditions” (163). 7 The Jewish philosophical polemicist Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammaṣ, a prominent Jewish reconverted proselyte from Christianity, who was active in the early 10th century, has been suggested as a possible author, but was ruled out on terminological grounds, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:15, and Lasker, “Qiṣṣat,” 115–16. 8 Here and in the following based on Lasker/Strouma’s numeration. 9 See Lasker, “Qiṣṣat,” 114–15, esp. n. 28. Harry A. Wolfson has suggested that this latter Nestorius has founded a “splinter group of Nestorians” with a differing theological view of the Trinity and the incarnation, see idem, “An Unknown Splinter Group of Nestorians,” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 6 (1960): 249–53; and idem, “More about the Unknown Splinter group of Nestorians,” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 11 (1965): 217–22. Nestor, most likely Nestorius of Constantinople, also appears in Toledot Yeshu (e.g., in those of the “de Rossi” type), see Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 269, esp. n. 55; Krauss, Leben Jesu, 232–36; but also William Horbury, “The Strasbourg Text of the Toledoth Yeshu,” in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) (ed. Schäfer et al), 49–59, see 50, 59; and Stephen Gero, “The Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth Yeshu,” OrChr 59 (1975): 108–20. 10 See Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 266.

2.1 Introduction

31

god who dwelt in the filth and menstrual blood in the abdomen and womb.”11 More so, he found in the Torah that God was described as a devouring fire, and consequently he questioned how there could “be fire upon fire in a woman’s abdomen.”12 Qiṣṣa and Nestor have a complicated and uncertain textual transmission history which have made it difficult to determine the exact date, origin, or setting of the composition, in particular since both the original composer and later copyist(s) appear to have drawn on various sources. Daniel J. Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa, who prepared the presently most authoritative critical edition and translation of Qiṣṣa and Nestor, discuss “approximately the middle of the ninth century as a plausible date for the composition of Qiṣṣa.”13 Yet, some of the oldest available fragments, which might represent underlying source material or earlier versions of Qiṣṣa, date to the 8th century.14 Qiṣṣa is, thus, one of the earliest genuine Jewish polemic works currently available. A much earlier date reaching back as far as the early sixth century was proposed by the first editor of Qiṣṣa, Léon Schlosberg, in 1880.15 This dating is based on §133 in Paris Heb. MS 755 in which the persecution of Diocletian is 11 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67, see also 1:29, 113–14, 152; Lasker, “Qiṣṣat,” 114–15; and Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 266–74. She proceeds to discusses §76 and Nestorius’ role in Jewish and Muslim polemics, ibid., 266–74. 12 For more on Qiṣṣa §76 see this chapter, 2.5.3. 13 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:19. Agreeing with this later dating are Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 236–38, and Heinrich L. Fleischer, “Über eine jüdisch-arabische Streitschrift gegen das Christentum,” in Kleinere Schriften: Vol. 3 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883), 167–86; repr. from BVSGW 34 (1882), 57–75. Rosenkranz, after an extensive study of the internal evidence, comes to the conclusion that Qiṣṣa was composed in the 8th century, see Auseinandersetzung, 107, 250–308. 14 These fragments are shorter than later versions and distinguished by the fact that Jesus is called Yeshu‘a (‫)ישוע‬. See discussion below, but also Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:25 and Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 250–51. 15 For the publishing history of Qiṣṣa/Nestor see Lasker, “The earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” 112–14. For Scholars who have held to the earlier dating see Léon Schlosberg, ‫קצה מגאדלה אלאסקף‬: Controverse d’un Évêque. Lettre adressée à un de ses collégues vers l’an 514: texte arabe (Vienna: Chez l’éditeur, 1880); idem, Controverse d’un Évêque. Lettre adressée a un de ses collègues vers l’an 514. Traduite en français du texte arabe. Publiée d’après un ancien Manuscrit de la Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris (No 755 du Catalogue) (Versailles: F. Vieweg, 1888); Samuel Krauss, “Un Fragement polémique del la Gueniza,” REJ 63 (1912): 63–74; Michel van Esbroeck, “Le manuscript hébreux Paris 755 et l’histoire des martyrs de Nedjran,” in La Syrie de Byzance à Islam, VIIe – VIIIe siécles: Actes du colloque international “De Byzance à l'islam” (ed. P. Canvivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais; Damas: Institut français de Damas, 1992), 25–30; idem, “Der von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Verfolgung von seiten Dū Nuwās,” in Ausgewählte Vorträge: XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag (ed. Werner Diem and Abdoldjavad Falaturi; ZDMGSup 8; Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990), 105–15. Rembaum assumed a date between 500 and 800 C.E., see idem, “Testament,” 64.

32

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

mentioned as having occurred 230 years earlier. This then allowed for the conjecture of a date as early as 514 C.E.16 However, Lasker and Stroumsa propose that this particular section originates in “earlier Christian hagiographical literature, and the date found in the earlier work was left unchanged,” thus the section ought to be deemed inadequate for dating the composition of the overall work.17 Yet, it shows that earlier source material was incorporated into Qiṣṣa, and it can thus be assumed that some of the polemical arguments itself antedate the eight or ninth century. Based on manuscript evidence Lasker and Stroumsa suggest the middle of the tenth century as terminus ad quem.18 Though, “the latest possible date for Qiṣṣa can be pushed back even earlier. Some early Muslim polemical texts, which can be dated with a fair degree of certainty to the middle of the ninth century, seem to depend on Qiṣṣa.”19 16

See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:15. Ibid., 1:16, esp. n 16. They point out that Qiṣṣa §133 is strikingly similar to a Christian Arabic manuscript from the 10th or 11th century, MS Brit. Mus. Or. 5091, relating the martyrdom of Christians in Sinai, which also includes The Protoevangelium of James. They subsequently suggest that the passage in Qiṣṣa may therefore have been copied from this Christian material, which itself was translated into Arabic in c. 772 C.E. See Joshua Blau, The Emergence and linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of MiddleArabic (2nd ed., Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1981), 5–6, esp. n. 7. Rosenkranz provides an in depth analysis of the content of §§133– 134, which also includes references to the legends of the miracle healers Cosmas and Damian and of the finding of the true cross, Auseinandersetzung, 253–66. She concludes that the author of §§133–134 had a good knowledge of Christianity, which in her estimation reflects a Greek-speaking “melkitisch-syrisches Christentum,” (265, see also 282). 18 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:18. 19 Ibid., 1:18, esp. n. 27. The textual interdependence of Muslim texts on the Qiṣṣa or vice versa appears to be an area in need of further investigation. Lasker and Stroumsa note that whole paragraphs, and “coherent units” in Muslim polemical works “bear a striking resemblance to parts of Qiṣṣa, but the direction of the influence is harder to determine” (1:22). For example, a Muslim text from the late eight century, the Risāla of Ibn al-Laith is briefly mentioned as possibly exhibiting some dependence on Qiṣṣa; cf. Melhem Chokr, Zandaqa et zindīqs en Islām au second siècle de l’hégire (Damascus: Institut Français des Études Arabes de Damas, 1993), 85–87, 102; see also Dominique Sourdel, “Un pamplet musulman anonyme d’époque ‘abbāside contre chrétiens,” Revue des études islamiques 34 (1966): 1–33. Lasker and Stroumsa tentatively favor the movement of arguments from Jewish to Muslim polemics and in their estimation Jewish polemical arguments were adapted by Muslims (ibid., 1:22). Yet, the historical milieu arguably allowed for more mobility than this. For instance, Christians who had converted to Islam would have been able to provide unique access to (heterodox) Christian arguments (e.g. Abū Bakr, or ‘Ali al-Ṭabarī). In fact, various Muslim works frequently cite and use the New Testament, see esp. Martin Accad, who brought together “1270 Gospel references from 23 works of 20 Muslim authors” (from the abstract) in “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Century: An exegetical inventory,” Islam and Christian Relations 14 (2003): 67–91, 205–20, 337–52, 459–79. He notes several authors who utilize the Gospel of Matthew, amongst them al-Qāsim al-Rassī 17

2.1 Introduction

33

Lasker and Stroumsa have based their critical text on a 15th or 16th cent. manuscript, Paris Heb. MS 755,20 which presents the most complete version of Qiṣṣa. It is also the longest of presently 30 other manuscripts consisting of 36 fragments.21 Lasker and Stroumsa have compared and corrected the Paris manuscript, which “offers a very corrupt text,”22 with all other manuscripts available at the time, and produced a critically reconstructed and rearranged text version of Qiṣṣa and of Nestor. They also helpfully translated both the Judeo-Arabic and the Hebrew texts and included a commentary of the respective arguments encountered. Lasker and Stroumsa propose that the available Qiṣṣa manuscripts reflect at least four different text versions:23 they find 1) a longer, and later “main version” which MS P represents, 2) an early version, preserved in the oldest fragments,24 and 3) further various “intermediate” versions, as some manuscripts are closer to the “main version” and others to the shorter, early version. But because some of these manuscripts greatly differ from the “main version” Lasker and Stroumsa also have identified 4) a separate and shorter “parallel version.” Nestor does not follow the long version of MS P, but is “more often than not (…) closer to the shorter parallel version, but sometimes includes elements that are present only in the long one.”25 Thus, Lasker and Stroumsa assume the existence of an intermediate version as the basis of the Hebrew translation that often best preserves the logical sequence of the arguments.

(c. 820) who translated and included the first eight chapters of the gospel of Matthew (ibid., 72), and (Pseudo-)‘Umar II (ninth century; ibid., 74). On this topic see also Philip Alexander, “The Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate,” in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) (ed. Schäfer et al), 137–58. 20 Hereafter designated MS P. This is also the manuscript on which Schlosberg, van Esbroeck and Rembaum based their research, albeit without considering additional manuscripts. MS P is a Qiṣṣa text; it is composed in Judeo-Arabic and not Hebrew. 21 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:25–26, 39–48, cf. esp. 46–47. It is to be expected that further fragments will become available, see 1:25, n. 63. 22 Ibid., 1:46. 23 See ibid., 1:25–26. There are only four Nestor manuscripts, which appear to represent three distinct recensions as they often arrange the arguments differently, see 1:93–95; cf. also Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 251–52. 24 In at least three fragments of this presumably earliest version of Qiṣṣa Jesus is called Yeshu‘a (‫)ישוע‬, which stands in contrast to all other manuscripts. These three fragments belong to the same manuscript (c. 10th century) and are printed without a translation in Nestor the Priest; they are MS Z (§§60–68), MS K (§§69–77), and MS H (§§114–125), ibid., 1:25; 40; 2:87–92; see also Lasker, “Qiṣṣat,” 114, 117. 25 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:26. Accordingly, all the Hebrew Nestor manuscripts are closer to the “parallel version” and, at least when it comes to the logical sequence of the treatise, represent an earlier stage of textual development than MS P, see also Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 252.

34

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

They maintained that “Nestor in some instances actually bears better witness to the original Qiṣṣa than does MS P.”26 The setting of the composition is, in light of the manuscript evidence, somewhat difficult to determine. Not much else can be said other than that the author or compiler was a “Jew, probably of the ninth century, who lived in an Arabic-speaking environment,” who appears to reacted to a form of “Eastern Christianity.”27 Simone Rosenkranz has narrowed this down further and suggested that Qiṣṣa appears to reflect the environment of an original Greekspeaking, Melkite Christianity.28 She, like Ora Limor, deems it possible that the treatise may have come from a convert to Judaism, as claimed in the introduction of Qiṣṣa.29 26 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:29. Hans-Jürgen Becker has challenged Lasker and Stroumsa’s textual reconstruction, see his review of their Nestor the Priest in ZDMG 148 (1998): 406–409. He mainly criticizes the editorial decision to postulate an “original text” and then proceed to rearrange the often hopelessly cluttered arguments of the various manuscripts and eclectically correct MS P with other earlier text versions and manuscripts. Becker suggests that the complex manuscript situation is rather similar to that of rabbinic literature with its fluid textual transmission, where alterations, additions, or truncation of texts are quite common. Qiṣṣa and Nestor were in his estimation much like other rabbinical texts, adjusted and rearranged to the cultural and language milieus of their audiences, a proposition which is reflected in the complex nature of the manuscripts — which also shows the popularity of this text. He consequently qualifies Lasker and Stroumsa’s dating and reconstruction of transmission history as “unsicher.” 27 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:21–22, but see also 1:19 where they entertain the possibility of a Syriac language background to Qiṣṣa, for which also Schlosberg and van Esbroeck have argued. 28 See Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 287, also 307–308; as already mentioned, she proposes the eighth century as composition date, ibid., 107. 29 See ibid., 308; following Ora Limor, “Judaism examines Christianity: The Polemic of Nestor the Priest and Sefer Toledot Yeshu” [“‫ פולמוס נסתור הכומר‬:‫יהודות מתבוננת בנצרות‬ ‫]”וספר תולדות ישו‬, Pe‘amim 75 (1998): 109–28 [Hebr.], here 111–13, who sees the composer’s great familiarity with Christian texts as an indicator of being a convert. Moreover, based on well-known medieval parallels of Jewish conversions to Christianity, Limor finds the assertion quite realistic that such a person would pen a polemical text against his former religion (for self-assurance, out of zeal, or to gain the trust of Christians). Converts to Judaism, while probably not common, are known to exist. For example, Simeon ben Zemah Duran mentions in Qeshet u-Magen (15th century) that “I have already seen French proselytes, pious and learned in their traditions, who converted to Judaism on account of this matter [discrepancies within the Christian canon and/or Jerome’s insufficient attempts to deal with them],” see Murciano, Keshet u-Magen, 60 [‫וכבר ראיתי גרים צרפתים חסידים חכמים‬ ‫]בנימוסיהם שנתגיירו מפני זה‬. For more on the topic of converts and proselytism see also Norman Golb, Jewish Proselytism: A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early Medieval Europe (The Tenth Annual Robbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture; Cincinnati: Judaic Studies Program University of Cincinnati, 1987), and in addition especially Joseph Shatzmiller, “Jewish Converts to Christianity in Medieval Europe, 1200–1500,” in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth

2.2 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa

35

2. 2 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa Common to the geographical context and preceding the more conservative suggestions for the composition date is the Arab conquest, which is most clearly illustrated in the composition language of Qiṣṣa, Judeo-Arabic. By the seventh century the Byzantine Empire had lost Palestine, Syria, eastern Anatolia, and Egypt to the advancing Arab armies, and this area would largely stay under expanding Muslim control and influence, but for the brief intermezzo of the Crusades.30 The administrative consolidation by the Abassids made the various Jewish and Christian communities throughout the Levant equal in social and legal standing from the middle of the eight century onward. As dhimmi, officially tolerated and subjugated “minorities” that were granted certain rights including freedom of worship and religious self-administration, Jews and Christian were on equal socio-political footing, although regional differences probably allowed one or the other group to exercise more influence at times.31 Melkite, Jacobite, Coptic, Nestorian, and other forms of Christianity were present in the Mashreq (generally speaking, the region under Muslim control east of Egypt and north of the Arabian Peninsula) in addition to Jewish and Muslim communities. The new political situation, and with it the elimination of regional borders and increasing influence of Arabic, put many religious groups in direct contact with each other, attested to by the various polemic texts created in this period.32 Birthday (ed. Michael Goodich, Sophia Menache, and Sylvia Schein; New York: P. Lang, 1995), 297–318. 30 Although, from the middle of the 10th century the Byzantine Empire resurged reconquering northern Palestine, see e.g. Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 148–49. 31 The dhimmi as the native population of newly conquered territories were in fact in the majority and only gradually became a minority. See Youssef Courbage and Philippe Fargues, Christians and Jews under Islam (London: I. B. Tauris, 1997) 3–28; Bernhard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 17–19, 25; Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littman), The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (rev. and enlarged English edition; Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Press, 1985), 48–49, 67. 32 This is mostly an exchange between Christians and Muslims, with only very little Jewish polemical activity against Islam or Christianity, see Lasker, “Critique of Christianity under Islam,” 122, esp. n. 3. For an overview of polemical literature written in Arabic see Moritz Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden (Kunde des Morgenlandes 6.3; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1877); also Sarah Stroumsa, “Jewish Polemics against Islam and Christianity in the Light of Judeo-Arabic Texts,” in Judeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judeo-Arabic Studies (ed. Norman Golb; Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations 3; Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association, 1997), 241–50; and Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 29–103. See esp. the various volumes edited by David Thomas, Barbara Roggema and Alex Malett, eds., Christian-Muslim relations: A bibliographical History (so far vols. 1–4, Leiden: Brill, 2009–2012).

36

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Thus, even if one assumes the seventh to the tenth century as possible time range of writing, one cannot deduce that Christian hostilities towards Jews gave cause to the composition of Qiṣṣa, which often has been postulated as a precursor for the later European Jewish polemic literature. Qiṣṣa is not in particular hostile, nor employs any crude verbal abuse known to occur in other texts of the polemical genre, although it can be quite blunt and graphic in passages.33 The reason for writing, or collating various arguments, could be personal, as converts often appear to be leading the charge of proselytization.34 Alternatively, Qiṣṣa can be understood as response to the continual vitality of Christian groups in contact with the intended audience, probably in one of the urban centers where Jewish and Christian communities co-existed.35 Simone Rosenkranz has argued in her dissertation that Christianity posed, at least for a time, a noteworthy theological challenge for Jews prompting the writing of several extensive polemic works, and that Qiṣṣa in particular defies the notion that Jewish anti-Christian polemics were only reactionary literary expressions caused by Christian persecution.36 Qiṣṣa was preserved and circulated for “domestic” use as a strong reaffirmation that Christianity is a substantially flawed belief. In particular the frequent use of the New Testament shows that Qiṣṣa is not a refutation of Christians and their arguments only, but the means by which one can demonstrate the inherent contradiction of Christianity.37 Jacob ben Reuben’s pivotal treatise Milḥamot ha-Shem brought some of Qiṣṣa’s polemic to the European Jewry in the 12th century.38 However, his clearer style of argumentation seems to have superseded Qiṣṣa/Nestor in the European context, evidenced by the fact that so far only four manuscripts of 33 See e.g. §60–61, §82. Nestor is in comparison more graphic, and sometimes more hostile in tone and choice of words, perhaps reflecting the greater pressures the audience and redactors experienced in the European context. 34 See Ora Limor, “Judaism examines Christianity,” 111–12. 35 Most of the thirty Qiṣṣa manuscripts were found in the various (Cairo) Genizah collections, hence providing us with a definitive setting for this kind of writing. See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:40, 42, 47. 36 See Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 15. 37 See ibid., 307; cf. Lasker, “Critique of Christianity under Islam,” 121–22; and idem, “Qiṣṣat,” 117. 38 For the influence of Nestor/Qiṣṣa on later European polemic see Daniel J. Lasker, “The Jewish Christian Debate in Transition: From the Lands of Ishmael to the Lands of Edom,” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication, and Interaction — Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner (ed. Benjamin H. Hary, John L. Hayes, Fred Astren; Jewish Studies 27; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 53–65, esp. 61–61; idem, “Jewish-Christian Polemics at the the Turning Point: Jewish Evidence from the Twelfth Century,” HTR 89 (1996): 161–73, esp. 166–68; and idem, “Judeo-Christian Polemics and Their Origins in Muslim Countries” [‫הפולמוס‬ ‫]היהודי־נוצרי ומקורוריו בארצות האסלאם‬, Pe‘amim 57 (1993): 4–16 [Hebr.]. For Qiṣṣa’s and Nestor’s influence on later Jewish polemic see Rembaum, “Influence,” 164–70.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

37

Nestor have been preserved, the oldest from the 15th century. Nevertheless, the Hebrew manuscripts show a remarkable circulation: one of the manuscripts cites the New Testament in Latin gloss, and two manuscripts cite the text in Greek.39 It would seem that Qiṣṣa made “its way from the Middle East, through North Africa, and onto the Iberian peninsula, where it became part of the Andalusian Jewish tradition of anti-Christian polemics.” There it would provide important guidelines for the encounter between Jews and Christians. “Furthermore, it is possible that Jews in Christian countries were as yet unfamiliar with the text of the New Testament, and Qiṣṣa with its extensive quotations from the New Testament was translated to provide such familiarity.”40 Thus, Qiṣṣa/Nestor can be seen as a conveyor of arguments from a milieu that was reasonably familiar with Christianity, a milieu which had a long established anti-Christian polemic tradition, to a new shore where these arguments provided important assurance against the vitality of Christianity and religious pressures encountered in Europe. It serves as a crucial link between polemics from late antiquity to the medieval period (and beyond), forming an important literary bridge for polemics moving from the orient to the occident.

2. 3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor In contrast to the more abstract or rational-philosophical arguments commonly used in the period, the arguments in Qiṣṣa are generally more popular and exegetical, and appeal to “common sense.”41 Thus, Qiṣṣa/Nestor only briefly deal with the doctrinal aspect of the Trinity and incarnation (§§25–32), and mostly focus on Jesus’ humanity and contradictions found within the gospels. In their current form Qiṣṣa and Nestor probably should be seen as a compilation of anti-Christian polemics,42 which for the most part advances arguments against the divinity of Jesus.43 39 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:93–95. One manuscript, Vatican MS Heb. 80.4, ff. 20a–33b (hereafter MS H-B; the letter ‘B’ stands for A. Berliner, the first editor of this manuscript), a 15th c. manuscript, has Latin glosses of New Testament passages, two further manuscripts have Greek glosses; Athens Jewish-Museum MS 79.199-2/3 (hereafter MS H-A; dated to 1578 C.E.) and Vatican MS Heb. 171.50, ff. 521b–534b (hereafter MS HC; dated to 1493 C.E.). The glosses are appended to Lasker and Stroumsa’s edition, see ibid., 1:173–86. 40 Ibid., 1:28. 41 Lasker, “The earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish anti-Christian polemics,” 113. 42 See Sarah Stroumsa, “Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf: A case study in polemical literature,” in Genizah Research After Ninety Years (ed. Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 155–59, esp. 157. 43 This is despite the possibility that one of the underlying sources of Qiṣṣa originally

38

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Qiṣṣa’s primary strategy is to challenge Christian convictions about the divinity of Jesus by emphasizing his humanity. In this Qiṣṣa has to be seen as a potent polemic since it takes the Christian canon seriously. If the New Testament shows Jesus to be distinctly human (and nothing else), then this poses a direct challenge to the incarnation and trinitarian thinking.44 As the polemic largely rests on the New Testament, Qiṣṣa must have provided Jewish polemicists with ample material to counter Christian claims (whether for their own assurance or as ammunition in actual debates with Christians). Consequently, this kind of use of the New Testament is also encountered in many later Jewish polemical works. The various arguments contained in Qiṣṣa/Nestor are loosely grouped into sections, which Lasker and Stroumsa have called “clusters.” Some of these individual clusters are quite noticeable, e.g. §§9–24, §§25–32, §§33–36, §§47–58, possibly §§72–109 etc.45 2. 3. 1 The Narrative Setting (§§1–8) The following sections attempt to provide a general — and admittedly quite extensive — overview and outline of this important, yet underappreciated, text. I am quite aware that the outline of an already eclectically re-arranged text will probably create more coherence than the composition ever may have possessed.46 Nevertheless, the attempt of finding such an outline is warranted since Qiṣṣa/Nestor exhibit at least two indicators of an editorial arrangement. First, the whole treatise has an introduction, and second, various redactional transitions appear in the text:

may have attempted to defend the humanity of the Messiah (against those that argued for his divinity). See the discussion in 2.4. 44 Right at the beginning it must be said that this line of popular, exegetical argumentation encountered in the surveyed texts is frequently debating the Christian doctrine on a rather superficial level without engaging the more sophisticated development of the christological dogma that consistently has affirmed and defended the full humanity of Jesus against Docetism, Gnosticism, Apollonarianism etc. On this see e.g. Hugh R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 196–222; Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (ed. Robert T. Walker; Downers Grove: IVP & Paternoster, 2008); Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 229–61; and Thomas G. Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (London: T&T Clark, 1993), esp. 21–38. For a more detailed presentation see John N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (5th rev. and repr. ed.; London: Continuum, 2011), 109–62, 223–343. 45 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:23, 33–34. Each cluster could perhaps stand independently of those around. 46 There is, as such, always the danger that an outline just traces Lasker and Stroumsa’s editorial decisions and not the arrangement of the composer.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

39

The introductory section is somewhat different in Qiṣṣa and Nestor, yet in both versions §§1–8 provide a narrative and topical framework for the whole composition. In Qiṣṣa §§1–2 the narrator introduces the converted priest and his friend, also a cleric and perhaps a former protégé, who in one manuscript is referred to as “their greatest priest.”47 The subsequent treatise from §2 onward is then framed as a letter from this apologetically competent converted priest to his former, presumably influential, friend. The implied audience of the letter is therefore Christian and presents an insider view, that of a former Christian priest addressing his former co-religionist, whereas the whole treatise is given for the benefit of Jewish readers.48 Nestor likewise introduces the whole treatise as a letter to a priest,49 but is more elaborate here. The writer is identified as a converted priest by the name “Nestor” who is highly proficient and who even corresponded with “all their sages.”50 This inside view, however, is not fully maintained in the following §2, since “matters between me and you” are meant “to explain to you the erroneous faith of the uncircumcised, concerning their errors regarding the Lord and that which they imagine concerning the Messiah (…).”51 After a confessional formula in §3, the following §4 in Nestor is meant to be a reply to a question with which the convert has been challenged by his friend, in contrast to Qiṣṣa, where it is a challenge posed to the imagined 47

MS Cambridge T-S Ar. 52.222 (designated as MS ARB), see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:52, n. 2. 48 Yet, the author frequently addresses and challenges an implied Christian reader as “you” and at times also refers to himself and asserts what he believes, e.g. in §§2–3, §74, §168, §180 et passim. 49 Jewish Seminary of America MS Mic. 2455 [ENA 1726] (hereafter MS H-J, dated to the 17th century) begins with the Shema and a selection of other quotations from the Hebrew Bible, and then informs the reader: “[This is] the book which Usquf the proselyte composed against the religion of Jesus the Christian [Yeshu‘a ha-Noẓeri] to inform the Christians of their error in their faith (…) He sent it to a priest who was his beloved friend, who was like a comrade and brother to him. And thus it began,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:97, n. 6. 50 Perhaps this is reminiscent of the letter exchange between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria. In fact, it might be fruitful to compare Qiṣṣa’s content with Nestorius’ and Cyril’s letter exchange. For example, in Nestorius’ second letter to Cyril, we read: “For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name ‘propriety’ to make God, the Word, share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of angelical assistance. I make no mention of circumcision and sacrifice and sweat and hunger, which all belong to the flesh and are adorable as having taken place for our sake. But it would be false to apply such ideas to the deity and would involve us in just accusation because of out calumny,” Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols.; London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), 1:49. For the Latin and Greek texts see ibid. or Friedrich Loofs, Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1905), 179. 51 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:97; emphasis mine.

40

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Christian recipient. This difference, then, shows the intention of the respective redactors: Qiṣṣa is more discursive, perhaps reflecting a more courteous, but also more assertive and confident religious exchange, while Nestor is more reactionary. In §5 both the Judeao-Arabic and Hebrew have an overture of topoi that subsequently will be addressed in the rest of the treatise: Heaven forbid that one says that God dwelt in the womb, in the filth of the stomach, in the oppression of menstrual blood, and in gloom and darkness! Or that the eyes of the creatures saw Him, that He slept or dozed off, or He did that which he did not want to do against his will, or that He sinned, or was sad, or was stricken by fear and terror; or that He pleaded with a human, or was jailed with sinners, or let himself be controlled by Jews or by mortals or by infidels who made Him do things He did not want to do.52

The themes listed in this introductory section echo and preview the exegetical arguments provided in the rest of the treatise, and perhaps allow the intended audience to employ it as an easily usable, quick response in their encounters with Christianity.53 The second indicator for an editorial framework are the various redactional transitions that tie some thematic units together. The repeated rhetorical question at the end of some sections, “Why are you not embarrassed about above inappropriateness?”, in §82, §88, §96/2 (Nestor) and §109, can be seen as a form of redaction and linking of those sections, though they might also stem from underlying source material. 2. 3. 2 Better Candidates for Divinity (§§9–24) In the first discernible thematic unit, §§9–24, the belief in the divinity of the Messiah/Christ54 is challenged.55 A list of candidates equally deserving of divinity is given, comparing their deeds and circumstances with those of Jesus: Adam and Eve “had neither father nor mother” (§9); Enoch and Elijah

52

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:98. The quoted translation is from Nestor, the Qiṣṣa version is similar, cf. ibid., 1:53. 53 Cf. the introduction of The Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus (c. 4th or 5th century), which treats very similar topics to those of Qiṣṣa/Nestor: “You Christians are deceived. First, because you think that there are other gods beside the one and only God (…). And second, you are deceived because you say that the Messiah is God, and that he is subject to suffering, and that he was born from a woman. When you hear this are you not ashamed?,” Varner, Dialogues, 23 (§1). 54 Lasker and Stroumsa prefer to translate ‫( אלמסיח‬al-masiaḥ) as “Christ,” although it equally could be translated as the “Messiah.” This is in particular important to consider when one peruses the sections which speak affirmingly about Jesus as ‫( אלמסיח‬see 2.3.5 and 2.4 below). 55 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:54–56 (Qiṣṣa), 1:99–102 (Nestor). The Judeo-Arabic and Hebrew texts are in volume 2.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

41

also ascended to heaven (§10); God called the people of Israel first “my firstborn son” (§11); moreover, the apostles (§11), Elisha (§13, §19), Elijah (§12, §§16–18), Ezekiel (§14), Moses (§21), Joshua (§22), and Hezekiah (§23) performed miracles, which were, however, “more wondrous” than those of Christ. Christians should therefore reckon that it is more fitting and proper that you should worship those prophets, rather than worship Christ, who was imprisoned and crucified after having a crown of thistles put on his head, and after he was given vinegar and colocynth to drink; and he was made to carry a piece of wood, upon which he was [then] crucified, as you yourself claim in your Gospels.56

This kind of comparative argument bears perhaps similarities to the Qur’ān (3:59), in particular to Muslim polemic works,57 but appears also in early sources.58 The argumentation here essentially responds to various Christian

56 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:55 (Qiṣṣa). This strategy to compare Jesus to other characters who performed miracles is common, and occurs also in later sources, see e.g. Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq: “Tell me further: By your life, you know that Elijah of blessed memory revived the dead and that the whole world saw him and recounted his praise, [saying] ‘this is the man whom Elijah revived.’ Similarly, Elisha revived two dead persons, one while alive and the other after his death, and helped the leper, Naaman, general of the king of Aram. Everyone saw those dead whom he had revived and the leper who was healed by him, and they recounted his praise, extolling and glorifying the living God. Thus was it with Jesus. According to your notions, he revived the dead and healed the lepers and the lame and those [with] other illnesses. Here, too, when everyone saw the dead who were revived by Jesus and those who were healed by him, they recounted his praise and glorified God who gave him this power. Thus, when he revived himself, he should have shown [himself] to every city and province, saying, ‘I am he whom the Sages of Israel have stricken and tormented. No, I am as alive and hale as one of you.’ He should have at least shown himself to the court which sentenced him to death. Then all Israel would have undoubtedly believed in him. However, after they hanged him and killed him, he was not seen again and never will be seen,” Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 343 [ff. 15v–16r]. The additional argument that Jesus’ miracles resulted in people praising God rather than Jesus can only be based on a close reading of the Gospel texts, cf. Matt 9:8, 15:31, Luke 18:43, 19:37, John 11:4. 57 See esp. Lasker and Stroumsa’s commentary in Nestor the Priest, 1:139–43, who point out the various parallels, in particular to two muslim polemical works: ‘Amr b. Baṛ al-Jāḥiẓ’s, “Al-Radd ‘alā al-naṣārā,” in Thalāth Rasā’il — Three Essays of Abū ‘Uthmān ‘Amr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ (ed. Joshua Finkel; Cairo: al-Matbaʻah al-Salafīyah, 1926), 10–38 [Arab.]; and Ibn al-Layth’s “Risālat Abī Rabī‘ Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā ilā Qusṭanṭīn malik alRūm,” in Jamharat rasā’il al-‘Arab fī ‘uṣūr al-‘arabiyya l-zāhira: Al-‘aṣr al-‘Abbāsī l-awwal (ed. Aḥmad Zakī Ṣafwat; 4 vols.; Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1937), 3:252–324 [Arab.]. For a translation of al-Jāḥiẓ’s Al-Radd ‘alā al-naṣārā see Charles D. Fletcher, “AntiChristian polemic in early Islam: A translation and analysis of Abū‘Uthmān ‘Amr b. Baḥr alJāḥiẓ’s risāla: Radd ‘alā al-Naṣārā (A reply to the Christians)” (M.A. thesis; Montreal: McGill University, 2002). 58 E.g., in Lactantius, Inst. 5.3, where Porphyry discusses Apollonius of Tyana as a better candidate for divinity, see Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §62, 154. Also Celsus compared Jesus to a total of ten other figures, cf. Origen, Cels. 3.3, 22, 36, 42, 5.20 et al; see

42

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

beliefs, i.e. the incarnation (§9), Jesus’ ascension (§10), and that Christians venerate Jesus as “Son of God” and “Lord” (§§11–12). In comparison with these other characters in the Scriptures, it is argued that Jesus is surely less impressive, and in fact a rather inappropriate candidate for divinity. 2. 3. 3 Theological Issues with the Trinity (§§25–32) The second cluster presents questions of a more metaphysical nature concerning the Trinity and the incarnation, which is the only part of Qiṣṣa that focuses on more philosophic-theological issues (apart from the introductory §4). Part of this section, §§25–30, has been studied in depth by Rosenkranz, who has shown that it reflects a popular understanding of the Credo, corresponding and reacting to some sections from the Nicaneum and NicaenoConstantinopolitanum, albeit without completely understanding trinitarian doctrine.59 The main thrust of the argument goes against the incarnation, mostly in the form of questions which are subsequently answered in a manner that shows that the Christian position is untenable: [§25] Presentation of the Christian Understanding of the Trinity [§26] Question 1: Did the Father call the Son his child before or after he was conceived? And did he call him ‘his Son’ before the creation? [§27] Question 2: Was the Son with the Father before he was conceived? [§28] Question 3: When he ascended in divine and human nature, did fear, horror, sadness, sleep, hunger, thirst, and refuse seat itself on God’s throne? When he was in heaven, did he eat and defecate? [§29] Question 4: If the ‘Lord Jesus,’ the ‘Son of God,’ the ‘Christ,’ who created all things came down to earth to redeem us, without being separated from the Father and the Spirit, why did he as ‘Lord’ need to take on human nature? And if he was fully human, why would he need a divine nature as well? [§30] Question 5: Did all three persons incarnate themselves in Mary, or did the Son descend alone?60

Ernst Bammel, “Jesus und ein anderer,” in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I (WUNT I/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 157–74, esp. 163–67; also Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1909; repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967), 466. 59 See her Auseinandersetzung, 274–87. She notes that in comparison Saadia Gaon, Qirqisani, and al-Muqammaṣ, three prominent Jewish theological-philosophical polemicists of the 10th century, display a better understanding of Christian doctrine. In the same context Rosenkranz also remarks that the entire argumentation of Qiṣṣa against the incarnation fails to apprehend the doctrinal differentiation between the eternally begotten logos and the incarnation of Christ in Mary, which many other anti-Christian polemics likewise fail to appreciate, ibid., 284–85. 60 See esp. Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 279–80, where she presents a tabular comparison of the creedal Greek text with that of Qiṣṣa §§29–30, and §26. See also Lasker,

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

43

After §30 “the Gospel” and “your Gospel” are mentioned the first time in Qiṣṣa as a source of Christian beliefs (§31, §32), a reference that then occurs more frequently (in §33, §35, §36, §37 et al).61 In Nestor, however, the word “gospel” is missing.62 The particularly enigmatic §31 in Qiṣṣa then appears to break with the previous arguments:63 You say in the Gospel that Christ had been inside the earth (Fī’l-arḍ), in the place of infinity and where the base of the mountains is, to the right and left, east and west, just as al-jarab [meaning unclear] is everywhere; if you insist that this is true, then you lie, because you have declared that Christ is a human being, with a human body like other people. A perfect human being is at most three or four cubits tall. If you say: the body of Christ was on earth, then the body of Christ [could not have become] five thousand cubits long!64

Lasker and Stroumsa suggest this might discuss Jesus’ descent to hell.65 But, considering that the following §32 discusses Christ’s visibility in contrast to God’s invisibility, and then §33 his “descent upon earth,” it is perhaps more likely that §31 responds to the belief that Christ in his pre-existent state upheld all things (cf. Col 1:17).66 It would be in that sense that he was “in the place of infinity and where the base of the mountains is,” which is then contrasted to being found in a much more limited human form.

“Popular Polemics,” 250, n. 25; idem, Philosophical Polemics, 121–22; and esp. the discussion in David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of Nizzahon Vetus (Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1996), 366–69 (Appendix 5). 61 The use of the word “Gospel” (‫אלאנגיל‬ ֗ , al-Injīl) in this context seems to refer more to the whole of what Christians considered their Scriptures (i.e. the New Testament) rather than the four gospels proper. An exception to this is §35, where Matthew 5:17–19 is clearly referred to. From §39 onwards “Gospel” is then further qualified by adding the name of the respective evangelist (see §39, §40, §50, §51, §52, §57, §68, §78, §80, §180, §181; but cf. §31, §32, §33, §36, §37, §67, §69, §85, §106, §139, §146). 62 In Nestor this whole cluster (from §25 onwards) is much more elaborate and easier to follow. Qiṣṣa in this section presents the lectio brevior and lectio difficilior, and is, thus, more archaic and terse (§§27–32 in Qiṣṣa in Lasker and Stroumsa’s edition are based on MS ARB, and not MS P, the “main version,” see ibid. 1:57, n. 2). Nestor (the “parallel version”) displays in comparison a better understanding of the doctrinal issues, which make it difficult to decide which text preserves the “original” argument. 63 Rosenkranz did not include §31 or the following sections in her discussion. 64 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:58. 65 See ibid., 1:58, n. 3. 66 Colossians 1:17 states that Christ is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, NA27). In like manner, Col 1:16 might be the background of the next argument in Qiṣṣa §32: “You profess that God created everything, both visible and invisible; tell me now…,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:58; emphasis mine. Cf. Col 1:16, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible…” (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα…, NA27).

44

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Nestor §31 equally points to a discrepancy between the alleged heavenly and earthly existence of Jesus, although it seems to be aimed more at the hypostatic union, in particular where the human nature is located in relationship to the divine nature: If [Jesus was] fully divine and fully united with the Holy Spirit, inform me: when [he] descended to the earth, where were his flesh and blood, in the heavens, or on earth, or in the ends of the earth or in that which is beyond them, since Jesus’ stature was not greater than the [stature of] other humans who are on earth? If you say that [his flesh and blood] were not with him according to your words, then he was not perfect with full divinity and with the Holy Spirit. If you say that [only] part of the divinity was there [in Jesus when he] descended, [you have separated] part of him from the other part.67

Either way, §§31–32 discuss the contradiction arising from the belief that Christ, as God, had divine attributes (omnipresence, invisibility), yet while “on earth” is paradoxically confessed by Christians as a human (physically limited, visible). Consequently, there is no significant break from the previous philosophic-theological arguments of §§25–30. In a sense, the arguments in this whole cluster, from §25 onward to §37, and in some respect the whole of Qiṣṣa, are essentially based on the strict dichotomy between God as the Creator and his creatures, which also is a major point in the following arguments. 2. 3. 4 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (§§33–37) Although the following sections discuss contradictions concerning the practice and abolition of Torah (§§33–36), a topic which is also discussed in a subsequent cluster (§§63–71),68 the topic of Torah abolition in this first section (§§33–36) is mostly used to argue against Jesus’ divinity.69 According to the argument in §33, Jesus’ use and submission under the Torah of Moses

67 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:105. This argument in Nestor can perhaps also be read as a polemic against the Eucharist (“flesh and blood”). 68 Altogether Qiṣṣa deals with neglected Torah obedience in three clusters: §§33–36 (also in §58), §§63–71, and in §§120–138. 69 For an in-depth discussion see Roland Deines, “Die Verwendung der Bergpredigt im ältesten erhaltenen Text der jüdischen Adversus-Christianos-Literatur,” in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte — Grenzen — Beziehungen (ed. Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, Florian Wilk; FRLNT 226; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 372–400, who shows that in §§33–36 it is argued that Jesus’ submission under the Torah of Moses contradicts his divinity (since God is the one who decrees Torah). Cluster §§63–71 contrasts, then, the conduct of Christians in comparison to Jesus’ own submission under Torah, and cluster §§120–128 discusses the failure on the side of the Christians to observe the Sabbath and circumcision. Also, in §136 and the following sections the argument is made that Jesus himself did not keep the Law based on Matt 5:38, 43–47 (the so-called fifth and sixth “antitheses”).

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

45

demonstrates that he is not divine: Jesus is not the law-giver, he is someone who receives, and obeys.70 This argument is carried over to §37 where it is asked if the Messiah/ Christ, based on Psalm 2:6–7, is “the one who sends messengers or is he a messenger?”71 This section forms kind of a conclusio with the previous cluster with the final remark that “your various beliefs contradict each other, and your creeds are corrupt.”72 But the identity of Jesus as messenger in §37 is also thematically related to §§55–57, where this implicit identification becomes explicit, forming an inclusio with §37; perhaps §37 is even a redactional transition from §§25–36 to §§37–57. 2. 3. 5 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (§§38–57) Between the two sections on Torah abrogation, §§33–36 and §§63–71, one finds a sequence of statements disputing Jesus’ divinity based on the Christian texts themselves: one set of arguments, §§38–46, presents Jesus’ own statements and sayings, and leads the audience to conclude that Jesus, as a human, is distinct from God. The next set of arguments, §§47–50, presents further statements from other noted (Christian) authorities corroborating this conclusion. The final set in this cluster, §§51–57, argues more forcefully that Jesus is distinct from God, finite, and therefore ought to be understood as a messenger and prophet. In the first set of arguments, the audience is repeatedly called on to decide whether God or the Messiah/Christ is lying (cf. §§38, 44, 45, 46).73 The aim is to demonstrate that by worshipping the Messiah/Christ Christians do not properly relate to the Creator, nor are they correctly apprehending the Messiah’s/Christ’s self-understanding:

70

This is based on Matt 5:17. Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:59. 72 Ibid., 1:59. 73 In §44 it is even remarked that “if you say that Christ lied, woe to you, for this is a base and shameful thing to say,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:60. Though this could be a way of playing the devil’s advocate, this particular line of argumentation could easily reflect an inner-Christian dispute over Christology. First, in order to reject the possibility that “Christ lied” appeal is made to one’s implicit respect of the person of Jesus; or at least to the belief in Jesus as Messiah (§44). In fact, the entire argument in §§38–57 rests on Christian Scripture and implicit appeal to its authority for Christian believers. Further, Jesus is rather affirmingly called Messiah/Christ (‫אלמסיח‬, al-masiaḥ) throughout (in fact, the Hebrew translator was not comfortable with this, changing it to the less contentious Yeshu (‫ ;)ישו‬and likewise Lasker and Stroumsa chose to translate ‫ אלמסיח‬as “Christ” rather than as “Messiah”). Yet, a Muslim background cannot be ruled out either; in particular since it is emphasized in §38 and §§55–57 that the Messiah/Christ is a prophet and messenger. For further discussion see 2.4. 71

46 I.

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor Christ’s Statements about Himself: §§38–4374 1. In Mark 13:32 — Christ presents himself as the (human) “Son of Man:” §39 (cf. §58) 2. In John 5:30–32, 8:16–18 — Christ says he is sent and only co-judging with God: §§40–41 3. In John 17:25–26 — He pointed his disciples to the Father: §42 4. In John 20:17 — Christ calls the Father his and their God: §43 5. It follows that Jesus is distinct from God: §44–46 i. Christ is not God because he either spoke the truth in identifying God as distinct from himself, or he lied (which is not acceptable): §44 (= §38) ii. Christ is not God because he appealed to God in hardship (Matt 27:46, par. Mark 15:34): §45 iii. It is thus false to claim that Christ is God: §46

II. Other Authorities on Christ’s Distinction from God: §§47–50 1. 2. 3. 4.

Paul75 — Christ and God are distinct (?): §47 John 5:36–3876 — Christ and God are distinct: §48 David in Psalm 2:2 — Christ and God are distinct: §49 John77 uses Psalm 110:1 — Christ and God are distinct: §50 (cf. §28)

III. Christ’s Self-Understanding: §§51–57 1. Christ is explicit about not being divine according to Matthew 19:16–17 (“the Rich Young Ruler,” though the passage is closer to Mark 10:17–19 and the par. Luke 18:18–19): §51 2. Christ’s prayer to God shows that he is a finite creature: §§52–54 i. In Luke 22:31–32 Christ prays to God on Peter’s behalf: §52 ii. In Gethsemane Jesus prays to God: §§53–54 a. Quoting Matt 26:39 (par. Mark 14:35–36): §53 b. Quoting Matt 27:46 (par. Mark 15:34): §54 3. Christ regarded himself as sent by God (= as a prophet): §55–57 i. He is called a prophet in Matt 13:54–57 (parr. Mark 6:1–4, Luke 4:24): §55 ii. He calls himself a prophet in Luke 13:31–33: §56 iii. He says himself he was sent and authorized as a servant: §57 a. In John 12:49–50 (Nestor adds John 5:37). b. In the Gospel (only in Qiṣṣa)78 he calls himself “Son of Man.” c. In Matthew 12:18 by citing Isa 42:1.

74

Underlined words appear in the text. Also, the rather curious method of citing the New Testament, discussed in 2.4, is only encountered in this first part of the treatise. 75 The references are not clear here: “Paul said at the beginning of the seventh chapter: ‘Christ is the son of God and our scriptures elucidate this.’ And he said: ‘I have worked with you and [given you] peace from God the benefactor,’ after which he said ‘and Christ is with Him’,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:61. 76 This is wrongly attributed to Paul in Qiṣṣa, Nestor correctly references John. 77 The attribution to John cannot be correct as Psalm 110 is cited in the gospels only in Matt 24:44, Mark 12:36, and Luke 20:42. 78 Nestor has “your book(s)” (‫ )בספר)י(כם‬here instead, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:101, 123.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

47

2. 3. 6 The Law, Jesus’ Humanity and his Divinity (§§58–71) The next set of arguments, §§58–71, appears to be purposely placed as §58 is linked to the previous §57 by also quoting from the prophet Isaiah (49:1–15). Interestingly, the argument is introduced with “this is what the Messiah/Christ says in the book of Isaiah, peace be upon him,” and this particular section ends with how is it that you are not distressed by what you have done concerning the Messiah/Christ: You have denied his words, you have abrogated his sayings, you have denied the Torah and the Psalms, and you have changed the laws of Moses, peace be on him, that were given on Sinai.79

The “servant of the Lord” in Isaiah is thereby interpreted as the Messiah, which consequently is extended to to Jesus. In the second half of §62 the topic of Law-abrogation is then revisited, and in the following §§63–71 more closely investigated; thus §58 and §62 may form an inclusio.80 In the intermediate section, §§59–62, a series of arguments is given, more polemical in tone, on the unbecomingness, indignity, and limitations of human weakness seen in Jesus’ human life.81 This section starts with Christ’s childhood (§59), continues with the particulars of Jesus’ human existence, i.e. the need to sleep and eat (§60), and then discusses that Jesus experienced fear and was crucified (§61), finally ending with his death an burial (§62), thus roughly following Jesus’ biography and the Gospel accounts. Then, in §§63–71, the argument turns back to the law, where the Christian’s behavior is contrasted with Jesus’ submission under Torah,82 followed by more arguments in §§72–109 against the inappropriateness of ascribing humanity to God (assuming, at least for the sake of argument, that Jesus is God), which is possibly (again) arranged around Jesus’ biography.83 We thus find two distinct sets of arguments, which are intertwined and alternated between in the present edition: one that employs Jesus’ attitude towards Torah against Christian antinomian behavior (§58, §62, §§63–71) and one that more generally argues against the idea that Jesus as a human could be God (§§59–62).

79

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:63. Also, §§63–66 may point forward to §§120–138. 81 There is some difference here between Qiṣṣa and Nestor, esp. §58. 82 On this cluster see Deines, “Die Verwendung der Bergpredigt,” 387–89. 83 Some of the details in this section seem to follow a different narrative of Jesus’ life. Satan, e.g., is reported to have kidnapped Jesus from the temple (cf. Nestor §61, see also §60). Also, in Qiṣṣa §62 Jesus is said to have been captured and crucified by demons. Cf. also Ernst Bammel, “Die Versuchung Jesu nach einer jüdischen Quelle,” in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I (idem; WUNT I/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 253–56. 80

48

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

2. 3. 7 The Life of Jesus Reveals his Utter Humanity (§§72–109) The next segment begins with §72, where the audience is informed that, “you should know I have examined the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, and have found their testimony about Christ contradictory” (Qiṣṣa).84 This is followed in §73 with a secondary introduction: “I have written for you the account of Jesus from the beginning to the end, from the time his mother gave birth to him until he was crucified on a piece of wood, according to that which is written in the Gospels” (Qiṣṣa),85 thereby clearly indicating that the narrative of Jesus’ life is the framework for the following discussion.86 Although after §97 the arguments appear to become more random, interjections in §82, §88, §96, and §109 clearly suggest a form of redactional linking, and topical arrangement. After §109 the text appears to become more of an anthology and collection of various arguments: I.

Arguments Based on Jesus’ birth and nativity: §§73–82 Gabriel did not87 say ‘you shall give birth to a god’ (cf. Luke 1:30): §73 Comparing Adam and Jesus again (cf. §9), Matthew reports that Jesus was confined in a filthy womb: §74 3. [Debate about the timing of when a legionary stabbed Jesus (cf. §6): §75] 4. “Nestor’s creed” denying that God could dwell in a womb (Deut 9:3): §76 5. Mary told the census registrars that Jesus is Joseph’s son: §77 6. Gabriel referred to Mary as Joseph’s wife in Matthew (Matt 1:20): §78 7. The people of Nazareth testify that Jesus is Mary’s son (Matt 13:55, par. Mark 6:3): §79 8. Matthew’s genealogy of Joseph to Jesus (Matt 1:1–16): §80 i. Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies (only Qiṣṣa) contradict each other ii. Again: Mary tells the census registrars that Jesus is Joseph’s son (cf. §77) 9. Salome, Jesus’ harlot-midwife, nursed and suckled Jesus: §81 10. First Interjection: Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety? §82 1. 2.

84

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:66. The Gospel of Luke is not mentioned in this list in Qiṣṣa, although, Luke is referred to by name in Qiṣṣa §68. It would therefore seem that §72 belongs to a new source, see also below. 85 Ibid, 1:66. 86 See ibid., 1:66. This secondary introduction clearly indicates that a new source is underlying this section, in particular because after §72 Jesus is not anymore referred to as Messiah/Christ (‫ )אלמסיח‬in Qiṣṣa, but only as Jesus (‫)יסוע‬. Also, in the following sections references to apocryphal and Toledot Yeshu traditions occur, which is not the case for the previous sections. Moreover, just from comparing the outline and the kind of arguments that are made it is evident that this later part is employing a more popular, folk-story-like, polemic than the first half of the treatise. As such, there is a major seam in the text after §71, which will be explored further in 2.4. 87 Some manuscripts affirm rather than deny that Gabriel announced to Mary that she would be giving birth to a God, see 2.5.2.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

49

II. Arguments Based on Jesus’ Humanity: Human-Only Characteristics: §§83–91 1. 2.

3.

Jesus, the wine drinker: §83 Jesus was sleeping: §§84–87 i. Jesus was asleep in a boat (cf. Mark 4:38, parr. Matt 8:23–25, Lk 8:23–24): §84 ii. Jesus got drunk and fell asleep at the wedding at Cana (cf. John 2:1–11): §85 iii. Jesus slept at ‘Peter’s banquet’ and a Samaritan harlot kissed his feet: §86 iv. Jesus slept in animal shelters: §87 Second Interjection: Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety? §88 i. Appendix to §§84–87: Challenge against the idea that Jesus is divine because God does not sleep nor can be seen: §§89–91 i. According to David God does not sleep (Psalm 121:4): §89 ii. According to Moses God cannot be seen (cf. Deut 4:36): §90 iii. Summary: The error and inappropriateness of attributing human nature to God: §91(Qiṣṣa)

III. Arguments Based on Jesus’ Humanity: Childhood and Adolescence (cf. §72f): §§92–96 1. 2. 3. 4.

A prophecy of ill-omen about Jesus at the temple (cf. Luke 2:21–35): §92 After his flight to Egypt, Jesus learns dyeing and magic (Matt 2:1–22, Matt 14:1–2): §§93–94 Jesus was drunk at the wedding (cf. §85): §§95–96/1 Third Interjection: Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety? §96/2

IV. Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus’ integrity: §§97–10988 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

Jesus puts no distance between him and the sons of Zebedee, thus he is human (Matt 20:20–23, Mark 10:35–40; cf. §150): §97 It is incredible to believe one can move mountains by faith, Jesus is therefore a liar (cf. Matt 17:20): §98 Jesus’ parents’ statements about his origin: §§99–100 i. Again: Mary’s statement to the census registrars (cf. §77, §80): §99 ii. Mary’s statement to Jesus after finding him in the temple (cf. Luke 2:48): §99 iii. Gabriel told Joseph Mary is his wife (cf. Matt 1:20, §78): §100 Jesus, compared to Isaiah 11, did not do what the Messiah is prophesied to do: §101 Jesus is cursed through crucifixion: §§102–104 Jesus on love and servitude (cf. §39, §57): §§105–106 i. Jesus washed Peter’s feet thus affirming his humanity (cf. John 13:5–20): §105 ii. Jesus affirms that he is only “Son of Man” (cf. Matt 20:28),89 thus only human and a servant: §105 iii. Jesus’ outrageous demand to love him more than one’s parents (cf. Matt 10:37): §106 i. Interjection: Are you not ashamed about saying that God has a mother (only Qiṣṣa)? The testimony of the people of Nazareth about Jesus (cf. Matt 13:54, §79): §107 Jesus was sweating, afraid and anxious (cf. Matt 26:38, parr. Mark 14:34, Luke 22:44): §108

88 From §97 onwards the arguments become more spurious and repeat elements from the previous sections. 89 Nestor has “the son of flesh” (‫ ;)בן הבשר‬cf. Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:119.

50

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor 9.

Jesus, the donkey thief (cf. Matt 21:1–5, parr. Mark 11:1–6, Luke 19:28–35, John 12:14–15): §109/1 10. Fourth Interjection: Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety? §109/2

Since this is the last interjection of this kind it is possible that the underlying source ends here, the cluster would, as such, begin in §73 and end in §109. 2. 3. 8 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (§§110–138) The immediately following sections present arguments of a more theological character, though appear somewhat random: I.

Jesus’ fasting shows that he is seeking forgiveness (cf. Matt 4:2, par. Luke 4:1–2): §110

II. The Hebrew Bible says God cannot be contained, but Jesus was in a womb, a manger, on a mule, a boat, the cross: §111 III. Jesus claims to be a prophet, yet he was bribing and lying to an official (cf. Luke 4:24, parr. Mark 6:4, Matt 13:57, Matt 17:24–27): §112 IV. How can Jesus be identical to the “Father” if he is his called the “Son”?: §§113–11990 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Philip wants to see the Father, Jesus says he and the Father are the same (John 14:8–10a): §113 Yet, Jesus was purified through baptism in the Jordan (Nestor: Luke, cf. §60): §114 Also, God calls Jesus “my Son” (Mark 1:11, par. Mt 3:17; Nestor: Luke 3:22): §115 Also, Mark (Nestor: Luke) calls Jesus “Son of God” in contradiction to what was said to Philip in John 14:9: §116 Also, in the Christians’ “trinitarian prayer” and creed Jesus is called a “Son” (cf. §69): §117 Moreover, Moses could not see God’s face (cf. Exod 33:20), so how can Jesus see the Father and sit next to him, since no-one can see God and live? §118 The son of Archelaus (Qiṣṣa) even slapped Jesus’ face, so God forbid that one worships someone as God who is described so unseemly: §119

After this section the topic of Torah adherence and abolition is discussed for a third time, though with a focus on circumcision (§§120–138), then topoi emphasizing Jesus’ frailty and humanity are discussed again, which largely

90

After §113 MSS H-A and H-C end with perorations. MS H-A concludes with a comment about Jesus that shows some similarities to the Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu: “This man called Jesus son of Pandera was a mamzer and an outcast, as it is written in their erroneous, cursed book: ‘The belly that carried the outcast’ [in Greek] whose abbreviation is mamzer.’” MS H-C has: “And I Nestor the Priest believe in the God of heaven and earth, not in anyone born nor in anyone who bears,” see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:121, n. 4 (this particular comment shows some affinity with the Nestorian position, i.e. the rejection of Mary as theotokos). As such, at least two (Nestor) manuscripts would seem to end with §113. However, §113 and §116 are clearly linked, and thus §§113–119 might very well form one argument (against John 14:8–10a), disputing that the Son and the Father are identical.

2.3 The Character and Content Overview of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

51

recycle many of the arguments already given earlier. However, here we find that the arguments work off a somewhat different narrative of Jesus’ life (perhaps echoing a Toledot Yeshu account or an apocryphal or popular version of Jesus’ biography), which would consequently suggest that a different source or redactor (or at least polemical strategy) stands behind this cluster of polemical arguments: 2. 3. 9 Arguments with a Different Gospel Sequence (§§139–158) I.

Jesus’ Prayer (Luke 22:39–46, parr. Matt 26:38–42, Mark 14:32–38): §§139–141 1. 2. 3.

Jesus prayed to God, thus he cannot be God: §139 Jesus prostrates, prays, and asked for prayer in his agony: §140 Prayer in which Jesus asks for intercession, he is consequently not almighty: §141

II. Jesus’ Temptation (Luke 4:1–13, parr. Matt 4:1–11, Mark 1:12–13): §§142–145 1. 2. 3.

After this (!) Jesus was for 40 days in the wilderness: §142 Satan coerces and tempts Jesus (taking him screaming), Jesus escapes: §§143–145 [In Qiṣṣa: Jesus praised and followed Torah: §146]

III. Luke Chapters 3 and 4: §§147–152 1. 2. 3. 4.

[In Nestor: Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3:21–22): §147a] Luke’s (and Matthew’s) contradicting genealogy (Luke 3:23–38): §147b Jesus’ was captured and mastered by Satan (temptation?, cf. Luke 4:1–3): §148 Interjection: The Christian’s convictions can only be deemed nonsensical: §149

IV. Christians should therefore be ashamed: §§150–152 1. 2. 3.

The Christian Scriptures claim different, and contradicting fathers for Jesus: §150 The prophets would curse this idolatrous belief: §151 Joseph the carpenter admits having relations with Mary (Matt 1:25, 13:55–56): §15291

V. The Passion Narrative and Judas (similar to Toledoth Yeshu and Gospel of Bartholomew): §§153–158

The text concludes with a series of passages from the Hebrew Bible emphasizing the unique monotheistic nature of God (§§159–164, though this is only found in Qiṣṣa MS P) followed by another series of passages showing and summarizing why Christianity is essentially blasphemy (§§165–179, again only in Qiṣṣa MS P). The treatise offers then some final objections against Jesus’ crucifixion and the notion that Jesus descended into hell (§§180–183), compares Jesus once again with Moses (§184), and then ends with an expression of messianic expectation (§185).92

91 This section, §152, repeats details from the previous sections, in particular it is reiterated that the angel Gabriel, the evangelist Matthew, and Joseph (Jesus’ father) testified to Jesus’ human parentage. 92 §185 is much longer in Nestor.

52

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

2. 4 Underlying Sources in Qiṣṣa/Nestor In the course of outlining Qiṣṣa/Nestor various thematic units became clearly discernible: §§1–8

The Narrative Setting of Qiṣṣa/Nestor

§§9–24

Better Candidates for Divinity

§§25–32

Philosophic-theological Issues with the Trinity and Incarnation

§§33–37

The Divinity of Jesus and the Law

§§38–57

Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus

§§72–109

The Biography of Jesus demonstrates his embarrassing Humanity

§§139–158

Arguments from a different Gospel sequence attributed to Luke

As was noted, at least one clear textual seam appears after §71,93 but a further significant seam can be identified after §57. This seam may shed some light on the overall composition of Qiṣṣa. The arguments up to §57 demonstrate some familiarity with Christian scriptures and creeds. More pertinently, the arguments presented before §57 do not manifest any particular negative view for the person of Jesus, “the Messiah.” However, after §57 the arguments take on a distinctly more popular and cruder character, often alluding to apocryphal or other folk narratives. Moreover, up to §57 Jesus is designated as the Messiah/Christ rather affirmingly (esp. in §44), and the names of Christian persona seem to be purposely arrayed as authoritative witnesses against the idea that the Messiah/Christ is divine (in §§47–58).94 It is also only in this section, in §§39–40, §47, §§51– 52, and §57, that we find that the New Testament is cited by means of a peculiar division of books. A verse may for instance be referred to as appearing in “the fourth of the five parts of Mark.”95 This manner of citation and appeal to Christian authorities as witnesses, at least in the underlying source material, seems to anticipate an audience that either recognized these (as authorities), or 93

Evidence for this seam shall be briefly reiterated: besides the introductions in §72 and §73, it was noted that after §72 Jesus is not referred to as Christ/Messiah (‫ )אלמסיח‬anymore, but only as Jesus (‫ישו‬/‫)יסוע‬. Also, the whole of §§72–109 forms a redactional unit. 94 This stands in contrast to Qiṣṣa §167 where some of these witnesses, notably the authors of the gospels, are called “sinners, perpetuating lies,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:85. 95 This style of citation often does not correlate with the actual location of the cited passage in the respective book. If this style of citation (and the text cited) could be related to a particular Christian source or context, the underlying source or its contexts might be further identifiable. Lasker and Stroumsa conjecture that the verses quoted in Qiṣṣa in this manner “were drawn from some anthology, perhaps from a manual for the apologist or from a lectionary,” idem, Nestor the Priest, 1:17–18.

2.4 Underlying Sources in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

53

a situation where the use of such an argument in some form of social exchange would make an impression on the Christian party.96 Then, Isaiah 7:14 is not discussed anywhere in Qiṣṣa, and although this is essentially an argument from silence, the absence of any discussion of Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 in a Jewish polemical text of this nature is decidedly odd.97 Thus, one is left with a source that appears to omit passages that identify Jesus directly as God (“with us”), yet refers to Jesus as Messiah/Christ and appeals to Christian personae and scriptures as trustworthy support. While the Christian claim of virginal conception is mentioned in this earlier section (cf. §9, §30), only in the latter part, after §57, the inappropriateness of God being in the womb is discussed in detail and rejected as inconceivable (in §74, §76, and §111).98 Likewise, the assertion that Jesus was a drunkard only appears after §57.99 In other words, before §57 Jesus is 96 After all, the introduction to Qiṣṣa explicitly wants the following arguments to be understood, at least in part, as an internal exchange between a former Christian and a Christian. If some of the underlying source material was indeed from non-exclusively Jewish sources, or even from the a former Christian priest, there might have been even a benefit, or felt need, in admitting to such a source. 97 Already in the middle of the second century, as mentioned in the introduction (under 1.3.), Justin Martyr used Isa 7:14 as a “proof from propehcy” against Trypho, who countered this with a comparison to Perseus intending to downplay the potency of this kind of prophetic argument, see Dial. 66–69. Also in the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus 30–33 (c. 4th or early 5th century), the Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus 3.12–13 (c. 400 C.E.), and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila 8.5–6, 18.6–13, 26.6, 34.14–20 (5th to 6th c.) the prophecy of Isaiah is debated, see Varner, Dialogues, 36–38, 100–103, 180–83, 216–17. Also Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus) debates Isa 7:14, see Against the Galileans, in The Works of the Emperor Julian (trans. Wilmer C. Wright; LCL; 3 vols.; London: William Heinemann, 1923), 3.399. Interestingly, Celsus also seems to have omitted a discussion of Isa 7:14, although Origen doubts that Celsus was ignorant about this, see Origen, Cels. 1.34. The absence of any discussion of Isaiah 7:14 and Matt 1:22–23 in Qiṣṣa/Nestor (especially after citing all of Matt 1:1–16 in §80) is, as such, noteworthy. One of the reasons why a discussion of Isa 7:14 and of Matt 1:22–23 was not included in Qiṣṣa surely is not because the (first) compiler purposely cropped it from his sources when almost every other Jewish (and pagan) polemic argues against the Christian interpretation of Isa 7:14. It is more plausible that the available source material of Qiṣṣa would appear to not mention the passages (esp. if it was originally of Muslim or Christian provenance), and the Jewish compiler was not aware that it was Matthew who made the link between Isa 7:14 and Jesus, in which case the compiler probably had no access to the Gospel of Matthew. 98 Although in §5 mention is made of the “filth of menstrual blood,” this is clearly part of the introductory section. Yet, no mention of the unbecomingness of birth is made in §§9–71, and that despite the fact that Jesus’ birth is discussed in §9 (in comparison to Adam), in §26 (in being begotten), and in §30 (incarnation). 99 Apart from the introductory overview in §5, the first time Jesus’ intoxication is mentioned is in §§59–61. This type of polemic denouncing Jesus as drunkard is already attested in the gospels, cf. Matt 11:19, par. Luke 7:34. See Joseph B. Modica, “Jesus as Glutton and Drunkard,” in Who do my opponents say that I am? An Investigation of the Accusations

54

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

not criticized in regard to virginal birth or for being a drunkard, whereas after §57 no great concern for Muslim or Christian sensitivities can be attested anymore. Most significant in further tracing this underlying source is that the transition into this section, §37, but especially the conclusion in §§55–57, seeks to convince the addressee that Jesus is a messenger, servant, and a prophet. At first sight this section would then seem to reflect Muslim sentiments,100 but this view has to be adjusted: in §54 (and also in §44) Jesus’ words on the cross (Psalm 22:1) are briefly mentioned, and then it is remarked: “If, despite these true testimonies, you come claiming that he is a Lord and a God, will people not spit in your face?”101 A Muslim would certainly have difficulty arguing that Jesus’ words on the cross, together with the previous arguments are “true testimonies,” in particular because a Muslim might not want to claim that the Messiah was abandoned at the cross by God (much less died).102 It is, therefore, possible that some kind of Christian source underlies this particular section, a source which held Jesus to be the Messiah and perhaps endorsed the virginal birth, but not Jesus’ divinity. Lasker and Stroumsa themselves speculate that Qiṣṣa contains Jewish-Christian material,103 although perhaps other heterodox Christian sources could account for this kind of argument. Since other Christian material has been identified in Qiṣṣa,

Against the Historical Jesus (ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica; LNTS 327; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 50–75. 100 Cf. Qur’ān 4:157; 5:75; 19:30; 43:59. 101 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:62 (Qiṣṣa); emphasis mine. Earlier, in §44 it was also remarked that it is a “shameful thing” to assert that the Messiah lied. 102 The Qur’ān 4:157 denies that “the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah” was crucified (but cf. 3:55, 19:33–34). 103 See Lasker and Stroumsa, The Polemic of Nestor the Priest, 1:20–21. They (following Shlomo Pines) discuss the possibility that Qiṣṣa might resemble “Jewish-Christian” thinking in places. Cf. Shlomo Pines, “Judeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise,” PAAJR 35 (1967), 187–217; and idem, “The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2.13 (1966): 1–73. Pines’ theory, however, has not been left unchallenged, see the discussion in Alexander, “The Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate,” 146–48, and John G. Gager, “Did Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islam?,” in The Ways that Never Parted (ed. Adam H. Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed; TSAJ 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 361–72; also Ernst Bammel, “Excerpts from a New Gospel?,” NovT 10 (1968): 1–9; repr. in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I (idem; WUNT I/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 239–46. Regardless, the study of Jewish-Christian groups has become more focused in recent years and generated more interest (and numerous publications), especially among to Christian scholars; see esp. Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), and Carlton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, esp. 289–379 (“The definition of the term ‘Jewish Christian’/‘Jewish Christianity’ in the history of research”).

2.4 Underlying Sources in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

55

specifically Christian hagiographical sources underlying §§133–134, it is probable that Qiṣṣa’s arguments are informed, at least in part, by christological debates (see esp. §§25–32). If the author, or initial compiler, of this particular source material was indeed a convert, one would even have to expect to find some of these heterodox viewpoints in the treatise. Whatever the case, it is clear that Qiṣṣa’s overall polemic addresses Nicene-Chalcedonian or Monophysite forms of Christianity and would seem to be rather ineffective against convictions that equally emphasize the distinction between God and Jesus (as e.g. in Arian, Nestorian, or probably in certain Jewish-Christian circles). And so, although ultimately not verifiable, it would seem that a later (Jewish) compiler utilized earlier heterodox Christian material, perhaps from someone who had left or opposed orthodox Christianity,104 and subsequently added an introduction, his own polemic, and material derived from other sources. Qiṣṣa would, as such, be a treatise specifically crafted to attack Christian convictions about Jesus. This compiler appears to have had a low view of Jesus (e.g. as a drunkard, who was nursed by a harlot etc.), but who used source material that saw Jesus in a more positive light. This source material was, at least in Qiṣṣa, understood to be authentic and effective, and therefore largely left unchanged. As such, a good amount of knowledge of the Christian texts and critique of Jesus’ divinity based on the New Testament would have come from this heterodox source rather than from an actual gospel text available to the author.105 This theory, then, would account for the two portrayals of Jesus, one where he is called Messiah,106 albeit without being divine, and one where Jesus is 104

This would be comparable to al-Ṭabarī, who converted from Christianity to Islam and brought much knowledge (and critique) of the Christian Scriptures and doctrines to his new religion, see David Thomas, “Abū l-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Sahl Rabban al-Ṭabarī,” ChristianMuslim Relations (Brill Online, 2012), also idem, “Al-Radd ‘alā l-Naṣārā,” Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online, 2012). 105 The use of canonical and apocryphal material should therefore probably be treated with caution as it could just testify to the accumulation of various arguments without necessarily denoting first-hand knowledge of these texts by the compiler. This may also indicate that Jewish awareness of Christian texts at the turn of the millennium and beyond, where they are based on and derived from Qiṣṣa/Nestor, may originate to a significant extent in inner Christian doctrinal debates, and may, therefore, indicate that direct knowledge of Christian Scriptures within some Jewish circles was relatively sparse. Limor sees this as a distinct possibility and comments, ‫ אין בו אולי הוכחו‬,‫אם הוא אכן נכתב )או נערך( בידי כומר לשעבר‬ ‫לכך שיהודים הכירו את הברית החדשה‬, “Judaism examines Christianity,” 111. 106 In fact, the person(s) copying/arranging the Hebrew text seem to have felt awkward about this at times and appear to mitigate this to some extend, e.g., compare Qiṣṣa §37 and Nestor §37; Nestor has “your Messiah” whereas the Judeo-Arabic reads “the Messiah” (‫)אלמסיח‬, cf. Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:37, 99. In Nestor Jesus is referred to as “Messiah” (‫ )משיח‬in §9, §10, §11, §13, §21, §27, §28; in §15 and §22 it is “your Messiah” (‫)משיחכם‬. In MS H-B in §21, he “whom you call Messiah” (‫ )אשר אתם קוראים לו משיח‬is

56

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

seen along more popular (or vulgar) polemic lines. The composition concludes, presumably reflecting the compiler’s view, that Christians are either shamelessly ignorant, or liars and hypocrites, since they endorse the most blatant contradictions and even ignore Jesus’ own statements about himself. Ultimately, Christians have to be deemed deliberate polytheists, and thus blasphemers (cf. §§44–46, §106, §165).

2. 5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor The following sections have been chosen for further discussion based on their relevance to the areas of Jesus’ divinity, incarnation, and the Gospel of Matthew. They will be treated under three headings, which also constitute the main thrust of the treatise’s polemic stance: 1) Jesus’ distinctiveness in comparison to God, 2) Jesus’ exclusively human origins, and 3) the inappropriateness of the incarnation as a theological and/or historical category. 2. 5. 1 Jesus’ Distinctiveness As seen from the outline, the discussion of Jesus’ humanity with its physical particularities provides the main trajectory for the whole polemic: Qiṣṣa/ Nestor use statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels, comparisons with verses from the Hebrew Bible, and “common sense” arguments to emphasize that Jesus is merely human, thus not God. In this, the imagined Christian interlocutor is often challenged with a fair amount of “false dichotomy” reasoning. Texts from the New Testament and other apocryphal material comprise the main sources for this polemic thrust, rather than the Hebrew Bible. However, some of the arguments engage the same passages Christians use to show that Jesus is divine, e.g. Psalm 2, Psalm 110, or John 17. Six arguments will be considered here which are meant to show Jesus’ self-understanding, i.e. that he understood himself to be human and distinct from God: 1) The use of the term “Son of Man,” 2) Jesus’ prayer at the cross, 3) the use of the “Messanic Psalms,” 4) the exchange with the so called “Rich Young Ruler,” 5) the prayer in Gethsemane, and 6) Jesus’ statements of being “sent.” It is perhaps not insignificant, in particular for the study of the development of Jewish polemic, that all the above arguments occur before §57.107 qualified for the first time as Jesus (‫)ישו‬, whereas Qiṣṣa has here simply “the Messiah” (‫ )אלמסיח‬without any further qualification, see ibid., 2:31, 96. 107 It is, therefore, quite possible that later Jewish arguments, where they depended on Qiṣṣa/Nestor, drew from sources that originally were not exclusively Jewish, and probably even Christian, as was discussed in 2.4. The same can be observed in Ḥizzuq Emunah where the author took some of his polemic from unitarian Bible commentaries, see chapter 8.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

57

2. 5. 1. 1 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 24:36 and Matt 12:18 (§39, §57) The first argument to be closer examined is Qiṣṣa/Nestor’s understanding and use of the term “Son of Man,” which until the pesent day is one of the most debated terms in the so-called “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” In Matthew’s gospel the term “Son of Man” is used by Jesus in allusion to the vision in Dan 7:13,108 but seemingly also as a self-reference (see Matt 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 16:13), though it is also used to refer to Jesus’ mission and the eschaton (cf. 10:23, 12:32, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:18, 20:28, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:39, 24:44, 25:31, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45, 26:64). Thus, the extensive discussion in New Testament scholarship circles around how this enigmatic term is to be understood, i.e. whether it is a “messianic title,” Jesus’ self-reference used, or perhaps an affirmation of possessing human nature etc.109

108

In Matt 24:30; 26:64, cf. also Mark 13:26; 14:62, Luke 21:27. Ulrich Luz, a leading scholar in the field of Matthean studies, has suggested that in the Gospel of Matthew “[t]he expression ‘Son of Man’ refers to Jesus’ path as a whole, from his earthly existence to his final consummation. At the end of this path Jesus’ words take on a Danielic tinge, for it was the conclusion Daniel had prophesied. When the readers of Matthew’s Gospel heard Jesus speak of the Son of Man they heard reverberations from his other sayings with this title,” idem, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 113–14, see also 112–16. 109 For an overview and a most recent discussion of the term, in particular in response to Maurice Casey’s Solution of the Son of Man Problem, see the various articles in Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen, eds., ‘Who is this son of man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus (LNTS 390; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011), see esp. Albert L. Lukaszewski’s summary, “Issues Concerning the Aramaiac Behind ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of Scholarship,” 1–27, but more extensively Mogens Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation (Sheffield: Equinox, 2008), and Delbert R. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History of Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Maurice Casey in The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (LNTS 343; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2007) has argued that the Aramaic expression (‫ בר )א(נש)א‬underlying the Greek gospel is the ordinary term for “man.” Before him Geza Vermes had contended, and not without causing strong reactions, that “Son of Man” is simply a circumlocution for the personal pronoun “I” or “me,” cf. idem, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 177–86 (this was first proposed by him in 1965 and published in 1967, see Lukaszewski, “Issues,” 7–9; Vermes was reviewing Lietzmann’s theory, which itself was discussed, modified, and rejected by Dalman et al; see e.g. Adela Yarbro Collins and John Joseph Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 156ff). The use of the term in the New Testament is, however, much more complex, not the least because of its possible apocalypic titular use (cf. Dan 7:13). See also B. Barry Levy, “Why Bar-nash Does Not Mean ‘I’,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed. Barry Walfish; vol. 1, Jewish History 6; Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993), 85–101.

58

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

In Qiṣṣa §39, where the argument appears for the first time110 (although not as a discussion of Matthew, but of Mark), the expression “Son of Man” is interpreted in a very literal sense, so as to affirm that Jesus was in fact human, and not divine:111 Qiṣṣa §39: But he told you in the fourth of the five parts of [the Gospel of] Mark, that when the apostles had asked him about the resurrection, Christ said: “No one knows that day and that hour, neither the son of man like myself, nor any of the angels.” Were he a God, he would not have presented himself as a son of man.112 Nestor §39: How could he be the Lord? It has already been said in your books, in the fourth chapter of the Book of Mark, when his disciples asked him about the resurrection, and they said to him: “When will that day come?” He answered and said to them: “But of that day or that hour no one knows not even angels of Hell [or: heights],113 nor the son of man, whose blood is like himself; no one knows that day except the Lord alone.” [Latin gloss:] Nẹmon śit dẹ *diẹ ẹlla ed *ora fịleos ominẹs nẹ*si patri soluś.114

‫ואיך הוא י״י וכבר אמרו בספריכם בד׳ חומשים על ספר מרקו כאשר שאלוהו תלמידיו על‬ ‫ אין יודע היום ההוא ולא השעה‬:‫ מתי יהיה היום ההוא? ויען ויאמ׳ להם‬:‫תחיית המתים ואמ׳ לו‬

110

Lasker and Stroumsa, note that a similar argument based on the ignorance logion is made in genizah fragment T-S Ar. 14:12, see Nestor the Priest, 1:147. Likewise, Ibn Kammūna uses the logion in his Tanqīḥ (ed. Perlmann), 89. In fact, there are significant parallels between Ibn Kammūna’s arguments and the argumentation in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, cf. ibid., 86–92. 111 In the following Qiṣṣa and Nestor will be given in the form of extracts. Qiṣṣa texts, however, will only be given in translation as they appear in Lasker and Stroumsa’s critical edition (I am not familiar with Judeo-Arabic enough to rightly appreciate Qiṣṣa as source material). The presentation of the Nestor material is not as straightforward. First of all, it was already noted that the “four extant Hebrew manuscripts comprise three different recensions,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:93. One manuscript, MS H-B, has Latin glosses of New Testament passages, two further manuscripts, MS H-A and MS H-C, have Greek glosses. The fourth manuscript is MS H-J. Lasker and Stroumsa remark that MS H-C often preserves superior readings compared “to those of MS H-A (based on the original Arabic and the earlier Hebrew version),” although “the differences between these two manuscripts are essentially minor,” whereas the difference between the recension with the Greek and the recension with the Latin are usually more significant” (1:94). Since MS H-J is not very trustworthy, two recensions of the Hebrew text, respectively those with the Latin and the Greek glosses, must be compared for every argument. The translation of Nestor provided by Lasker and Stroumsa is based on MS H-B, but unfortunately it also draws from all available Hebrew manuscripts when the text is deemed corrupt, which makes it somewhat problematic to use. The excerpts for Nestor provided here will be mostly of MS H-B and/or MS H-A (as reconstructed and compared to MS H-C by Lasker and Stroumsa), which will be indicated where appropriate. At times this will lead to smaller adjustments in Lasker and Stroumsa’s translation. 112 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:60. 113 In MS H-A the angles are “in hell” (reading ‫ )דוּמה‬rather than in heaven, MS H-B has “height(s)” (‫)רוֹמה‬, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:106, n. 9; 2:119, n. 10. 114 Ibid., 1:106.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

59

‫ההיא מכל הבריות ולא מלאכי רומה ולא בן אדם דמו כעצמו ולא ידע היום )היום( ההוא בלתי‬ 115.‫אוֹמינֵ יס נֵ ִרי ַפ ְט ִרי סולוּש‬ ִ ‫יאה ִפ ֵיליאוֹס‬ ַ ‫יאי ֵא ַילא ַא ִד‬ ִ ‫ נֵ ימֹן שית ֵמ ֵיד‬:‫ לבדו לעז‬,‫לי״י‬

Jesus’ saying in Mark 13:32 (par. Matt 24:36), also known as “ignorance logion,” functions as a warning to alertness, perhaps against false prophets who asserted that they could predict the parousia.116 Yet, the portrayal of the Son as someone who himself asserts that he lacks the full spectrum of divine omnipotence, and who is grouped with angels, easily can be understood as an expression that he is not as divine as the Father. Not surprisingly, then, this logion was theologically problematic for Christian interpreters and the passage is also a recurring point in Jewish polemic. Arius used it,117 and most of the early church interpreters, out of a commitment to the full divinity of Jesus, paradoxically affirmed that the Son was not ignorant of the apocalyptic timing, despite (and perhaps because of) the passage’s assertion that this knowledge belonged to the Father alone.118 Pope Vigilius (in 553 C.E.) and

115

MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:99. The vocalized Latin gloss, which is a peculiar version of Mark 13:32 is given as reconstructed, see ibid., 1:174. “The Greek gloss of Mark 13:32 in MS H-A is preceded by a rendition of Matt 24:24” (1:147). 116 See Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 212. According to Luz, Matthew is nevertheless “not thinking less of Jesus,” since the evangelist has already introduced and affirmed him as the “Son of God,” who alone knows the Father (cf. Matt 11:27, par. Luke 10:22). Thus, in Matthew’s (and Jesus’) understanding the “knowledge of the times” has to be taken as an exclusive prerogative of the Father. Luz points to Zech 14:7 and 2 Bar. 21:8, which in like manner state that it is God alone who knows the apocalyptic timing. But Luz then remarks, “[t]hat the exalted Lord of the world, Jesus, belongs to the angels and to the Father does not detract from the godhead that is unique to God, who alone is Lord of time” (213). Luz’s disclaimer, however, effectively heightens the issue, because it transfers Jesus’ limited knowledge (as that which distinguishes him from the Father) to the transcendent sphere (implied in the phrase “the exalted Lord of the world”). 117 According to Jerome, Comm. Matt. 4.24.36 (CCSL 77:231–32, FC 117:277–78), Arius wrote that “he who knows and he who does not know cannot be equal” (non potest aequalis esse qui nouit et qui ignorat). See also Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.42–50 (NPNF2 4:416ff), and esp. the highly relevant article by Kevin Madigan, “‘Christus Nesciens’? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the Ancient Latin West,” HTR 96 (2003): 255–78. 118 See Luz, Matthew 21–28, 213. Cf., e.g., Origen, frg. 487 (GCS 41/2:200); Ambrose, Fid. 5.16, 193f (CSEL 78:289f, NFPN2 10:309); Basil, Ep. 236 (FC 28:167–68); Hilary, In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius 26.4 (PL 9:1057, SC 258:196); Jerome, Comm. Matt. 4.24.36 (CCSL 77:231–32, FC 117:277–78); Augustine, Trin. 1.12, 23; Bede, Exp. in Ev. S. Matthaei 24 (PL 92:104D); Strabo, Glossa Ordinaria: Evangelium Secundum Mattheum 24.36 (PL 114:162). See also William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume III: Commentary on Matthew XIX–XXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 377–79. See also Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 29.18 (Third Theological Oration), idem, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius (trans. F. Williams and L. Wickham; PPS 23; Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 86, who identifies Christ’s ignorance as belonging to his incarnation.

60

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

especially Pope Gregory (in 600 C.E.) issued encyclicals addressing this passage.119 On this Luz makes the important comment that, [a]ll in all, however, the history of interpretation shows that the vere homo has always been subordinate to the vere deus. Thus only in the modern period has v. 36 been able to achieve an actually positive meaning when the Son’s ignorance was understood as part of Jesus’ solidarity with human impotence.120

The argument in Qiṣṣa/Nestor presumes, first of all, that Jesus was speaking to his disciples about the resurrection, which itself is a noteworthy interpretation of Mark 13:32 (par. Matt 24:36). The verse quoted functions here in two distinct ways: first, it is used to demonstrate that Jesus, who is referred to as Messiah/Christ (in Qiṣṣa), is not God (or Lord). Second, Jesus in professing his ignorance refers to himself as “Son of Man.”121 The last line, “were he a god, he would not have presented himself as a son of man,” which only appears in Qiṣṣa, must then mean that Jesus purposely emphasized that he is human, and not divine. Nestor maintains the same by asking, “How could he be the Lord?” Where Qiṣṣa and Nestor argue this point from a reading of Mark (and Matthew), the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Ta’anit 65b [2,1/24]), in contrast, dispels the assertion of divinity by someone who calls himself “Son of Man” (i.e. Jesus) with Numbers 23:19.122 In Qiṣṣa/Nestor, the term “Son of Man” is thus understood as Jesus’ admission that he is human, which subsequently is used with this sense in the following §57, §105, and §150: Nestor §57: (…) If you say that [Jesus] said everything which the Lord said to him, and he testified about himself that he was a man and that he was a servant, and he did not call himself anything in your book other than ‘son of man,’ then you, too, should accept his words

119 Vigilius, in particular, sought to address the proposition that Son was ignorant which emphasized the disunion of the two natures in Christ, see Denzinger and Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 144 (§419), 162–63 (§474–75). Gregory, according to Raymond Brown, “tended to interpret Mk 13:32 as an accommodation of God’s Son to human speech. He maintained that the Son of God in his human nature knew the time of the Parousia, but his knowledge did not come from his human nature” (novit in natura, non ex natura humanitatis); Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 78, n. 59 (emphasis original); cf. idem, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1994), 57–58, n. 73. 120 Luz, Matthew 21–28, 214. Though, already Irenaeus, Haer. 2.28.6, Origen, Comm. Matt. 55, and Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.43 (NPNF2 4:417) explained Jesus’ ignorance as indicator of his human nature — and therefore as expression of his full humanity. 121 The problematic “neither the son” (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός), which various Matthean manuscripts omit, is even heightened in Qiṣṣa/Nestor by the addition “of man” (‫ )אדם‬probably supplied from the context of the verse, e.g. from Mark 13:26 or Matt 24:30, 39, 44. Also, in Qiṣṣa, unlike in Mark, the angels come second in sequence after the Son. 122 See Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 106–111, esp. 108–109.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

61

[and not deify him]. It is further written in the third of the Book of Matthew, “Behold my servant whom I uphold.” [Latin gloss:] Ektsi serbo mẹo, kontaina en illom.123

‫ ולא קרא עצמו‬,‫ואם תאמר כל אשר אמר לו י״י דבר והעיד על עצמו כי הוא אדם וכי הוא עבד‬ ‫ כתוב עוד בשליש ספר מטיאוס הן עבדי‬.‫ והודה גם אתה כדבריו‬,‫בספרכם כי אם בן אדם‬ 124.‫אתמך בו ֶא ְק ִצי ֶס ְרבוֹ ֵמיאוֹ קוֹנְ ֲטיינַ א ֵאנִ ילוֹם‬

As previously mentioned, §57 concludes a thematic unit, and the last arguments of this cluster seek to demonstrate that Jesus is a messenger (§55), a prophet (§56), and a servant (§57). By referring to Matt 12:18, which itself quotes Isa 42:1, the argument introduces a further qualification of how the term ought to be understood: the “Son of Man” is a human servant and a messenger akin to the prophets. Thus, Qiṣṣa/Nestor consistently employ the term “Son of Man” to express Jesus’ limitations affirming that he is only a human, an argument that will be repeated in all the following polemical treatises surveyed here.125 “Son of Man” is thus not taken to be a messianic title or designation of honor at all. With this Qiṣṣa appears to stand in a trajectory that has very early antecedents, for already some early Christian sources downplay the phrase “Son of Man,” which might indicate that the term was already used in a similar polemical fashion against those who held Jesus to be divine.126 2. 5. 1. 2 Jesus’ Words at the Cross: Matt 27:46 (§45) In §45, Jesus’ prayer to God at the cross (Matt 27:46, par. Mark 15:34) is presented as evidence that he was not divine: 123

Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:110. MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:101. For the Latin gloss see 1:175. MS H.-A is essentially the same here. 125 In Nestor §105, §141 and §150 we even find a pun on this term, Jesus is there referred to as the “Son of Flesh” (‫)בן הבשר‬, which epitomizes the underlying issue which the whole polemic is essentially advancing: how could the ‘God of all flesh’ (Jer 32:27) himself become flesh? Or in other words, how could the Creator ever become creature? 126 See e.g. the Letter of Barnabas 12:9b (10) (ANF 1:145; SC 172:172), c. 130 C.E.: “Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not Son of man, but [the] Son of God” (ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τύπῳ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς; emphasis mine), also Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 18 (ANF 3:537, CCSL 2:905): “It was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father’s seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than ‘a Solomon’ or ‘a Jonas,’— as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him” (non competebat ex humano semine dei filium nasci, ne sic totus esset filius hominis. Non enim esset et dei filius nihilque se haberet amplius Salomone nec amplius Iona et de Hebionos opinione credendus; emphasis mine). For more see the discussion in Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Band 1 – Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451) (3d ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1990), 40–57 [not included in the 2nd, rev. English ed.]. 124

62

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Qiṣṣa §45: And if you say that God is Christ and that Christ is God, then you lie. For if Christ were a God, he would not have appealed to another [God] nor to anyone else to help him when he met with suffering and illness, as he said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” If Christ were God, how could he appeal to another God to help him in hardship?!127 Nestor §45: If you say that God is the Messiah and the Messiah is God, you have lied and told falsehood, since if the Messiah were God, he would not have requested help from someone else in his time of trouble, saying “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me.” [Latin gloss: Dẹuz mẹuz, dẹuz mẹuz, kal dẹlikvẹśtẹ mẹ?] If the Messiah was a truth-teller, you take him to speak falsehood when he said, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me.”128

‫ לא‬,‫ שאם היה משיח י״י‬,‫ואם תאמרו כי י״י הוא משיח ומשיח הוא י״י כיזבתם ושקר אמרתם‬ ‫ ֵדיאוּז ֵמיאוּז ֵדיאוּז ֵמיאוּז‬,‫היה מבקש עוזר מאחר בעת צרתו לאמר אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬ 129.‫ אם המשיח נאמן הכזיבו אותו באמרו אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬.‫ויש ֵטי ֵמי‬ ְ ֵ‫לד ִליְ ְקו‬ ֵ ‫ַק‬

That Jesus died powerlessly on the cross, thereby demonstrating the unlikelihood that that he is God, is a not a novel anti-Christian argument.130 The argument here, however, focuses on Jesus’ prayer to God on the cross. His prayer is understood as an expression of the Messiah’s distinctiveness from God, which essentially accepts the Christian position that Jesus is the Messiah.131 In fact, on this assumption rests the force of the argument in Nestor, since the Messiah “was a truth-teller” (‫)המשיח נאמן‬.132 The argument is thus not based 127

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:60. Modified from ibid., 1:107. The translation follows MS H-B. Lasker and Stroumsa prefer MS H-A here, although they suggest to omit the negative (‫)ולא‬: “If the Messiah was a truth-teller, then you [do not] deny God and contradict him when he said, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’” (‫ואם המשיח נאמן ולא כפרתם אתם בה׳ תכזיבוהו באמרו אלי‬ ‫)אלי למה שבקתני‬, see ibid., 1:107, n. 7, and 2:120. 129 MS H-B, ibid., 2:99. For the Latin gloss see 1:174. 130 Porphyry is remembered in Lactantius’ Inst. 4.22 as saying: “Why then did he not come as God to instruct men? Why did he make himself so lowly and weak that he could be condemned by men, and afflicted with punishment? Why did he suffer violence at the hands of weak mortal men? Why did he not destroy these human forces with his power or avoid them with his divinity? Why did he not show his majesty at least at the brink of his death? And why was he led to judgment by someone weak, condemned and guilty, and killed as if mortal?,” Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §57, 152. In Qiṣṣa/Nestor the argument that Jesus’ death demonstrates that he is not God is made in the later part, in §§180– 181; that he was cursed through death on the cross is found in §104. 131 A similar argument occurs in §53. Lasker and Stroumsa note that “[t]his arguments seems to be at the background of al-Muqammaṣ’s Radd ‘alā al-Naṣārā, in both the second question (Cambridge, MS T-S 8 Ka 41) and the eighteenth (Cambridge, MS T-S NS 91.26),” Nestor the Priest, 1:148. 132 This argument in particular might reveal the non-exclusively Jewish character of the underlying source. In fact, it is noteworthy that Nestorius (!) used the same argument: “Concerning this: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ What then (is this)? Does he speak the truth or does he lie? If he truly says he is left alone, where then is the infinity of God? And if he is not alone he has therefore lied,” see Luise Abramowski and Alan E. 128

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

63

on the death of Jesus, but on that fact that he prayed. “My God,” therefore, is understood as the acknowledgment that the one praying, even if he is the Messiah, is in fact not God, especially when he is explicitly eliciting God’s help.133 2. 5. 1. 3 The Use of the “Messianic Psalms:” Matt 22:41–46 (§50) The equating of God with the Messiah is again refuted in §49, there with the help of Psalm 2:2, where the phrase “against the Lord and His anointed” is drawn out to demonstrate that they are in fact “two.”134 According to the Psalm, and thereby again assuming its Christian interpretation, the Messiah and God cannot be understood as one, but as two entities.135 It is also implicitly accepted that Jesus is the Messiah, who prays in the words of Psalm 22, and of whom also Psalm 2 speaks. The document underlying this section, therefore, allowed for Jesus as Messiah, yet maintained that the Psalms demonstrates that the Messiah is distinct from God and not a divine-like being. This is further supported by §50, where the christologically most important psalm, Psalm 110:1, is considered:136 Qiṣṣa §50: If you say that He is one, then you deny the Gospel, the Psalms and the book of Paul. For it is written in the Gospel of John, according to your express claim: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” You claim, then, that this Lord ascended and sat to the right of the other [Lord]. Tell me then, is it with his body and what is in it, and with his human nature that he ascended and sat to the right of the Lord? For if one of the two Lords, in his humanity, ascended to the right of the other, then one would be to the right of the throne and the other to the left of the throne. You previously depicted him as incarnated in humanity, and [now you say that] the humanity [in which he was incarnated] is on the right [of the throne]! If you say, “He is one,” then you deny your books. And if you say, “They are two,” then you deny God’s unity, taught by the prophets.137

Goodman, A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts Volume II: Introduction, Translation, Indexes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 118. The reference to Nestor in Qiṣṣa might therefore not be an accident. 133 In this manner Qiṣṣa/Nestor actually stress many other instances when Jesus was praying as admission of his equality with humanity and dissimilarity from God, especially in §§52–54. See also §95, §108, §§139–141, §§156–157. 134 See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:61, 108. 135 This shows that the author of this argument was aware that Psalm 2 was important to Christians; cf. Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 and Acts 13:33, but also Matt 3:17, 17:5. On the role of Psalm 2 for the christological development see James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1989), 35–36 et passim; and Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961), 139–44. 136 See Martin Hengel, “‘Sit at my right hand!,” and idem, “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’” 137 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:61.

64

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

The same section in Nestor shows similarities, but also differences: Nestor §50: (…) You said that he ascended to the firmament sitting on the right of the Most High. Inform me: did his body and his human nature ascend to the heavens in order to sit to the right of God, or not? If you say yes, you have made God united with human nature, and the human nature is on the right. If you say He is one [God], you have contradicted your belief. If you say they are two, you have denied the Lord and the prophets, and how can you make him a God when it has already been made clear to you that [Jesus] is not God.138

‫ הודיעני אם גופו עלה לשמים וניהוג אישותו‬.‫)…( ואמרתם כי עלה לרקיע יושב לימין עליון‬ ‫לשבת לימין האל או לאו? אם תאמר הין כבר עשית האלהות נדבק לאישות והאישות על‬ ‫ ואם תאמר שנים כפרת בשם ובנביאים ואיך‬.‫ ואם תאמר כי הוא אחד תכזב אמונתכם‬.‫הימין‬ 139.‫תעשהו אל וכבר ביררום לכם כי אינו אל‬

The reference to “the book of John” is wrong as Psalm 110:1 only appears in the Synoptics, in Matt 22:41–46, Mark 12:35–37, and Luke 20:41–44.140 Yet, it is clear that the author continues the argument that the Messiah and God are not identical. Both Qiṣṣa and Nestor cite Psalm 110:1 to make this point, however, they progress somewhat differently. Common to both is the use of the verse to contradict the claim that Christ is identical with God since the Psalm refers to two lords, i.e. two individual entities. Also, both Qiṣṣa and Nestor take the Christian reading of the Psalm as their point of departure, namely that “my lord” refers in the context of §50 to the ascended Jesus. Qiṣṣa then points to the heart of the problem: “Tell me then, is it with his body and what is in it, and with his human nature that he ascended and sat to the right of the Lord?”141 The Christian answer is also anticipated, for if one of the two lords ascended to the right of the other, then one would sit to the right of the throne, who “bears” humanity and “what is in it.”142 In other words, not only would

138

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:108. MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, The Polemic of Nestor the Priest, 2:100. 140 Psalm 110 is also alluded to in 1 Cor 15:25–28 (and Hebrews 1:3), and MS H-A references this correctly: “For thus said Paul in the book of your errors” (‫כי כן אמר פאוולוש‬ ‫)בספר טעותכם‬, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:121. 141 Cf. Justin, De resurr. 9, who states that Jesus presented himself to the disciples after the resurrection to show them “that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven” (ANF 1:298). The matter of Jesus’ bodily ascension was an issue already very early on, cf. also 1 Cor 15:35–57. Many other church interpreters affirmed Jesus’ resurrection “in the flesh” against Docetist, Gnostic, and Pagan viewpoints; e.g., Irenaeus in Haer. 3.16.8, 5.31 and Tertullian, Res. 51. See Bauer, Leben Jesu, 276; Caroline W. Bynum, “Images of the Resurrection Body in the Theology of Late Antiquity,” Catholic Historical Review 80 (1994): 215–37, and eadem, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity: 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995). 142 The latter phrase perhaps points to the physical content of Jesus’ intestines, or to the anthropological ‘make-up’ of a human, i.e. to his human spirit and soul; either of which are difficult to imagine sitting on a heavenly throne. 139

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

65

there be two (divine) beings, but one would sit sit as “embodied God” next to God. To deny this would be to deny the Christian Scriptures, namely “the Gospel, the Psalms [that is their Christian interpretation] and the book of Paul.” This, however, contradicts the “unity taught by the prophets.” Nestor argues here mostly against the union of the human nature with God:143 “you have made God united (‫ )נדבק‬with human nature, and the human nature is on the right.” The contradiction is not a contradiction with Scripture necessarily, as in Qiṣṣa, but focuses more on the oneness of God: “If you say He is one [God], you have contradicted your belief.” What is similar in Qiṣṣa and Nestor is their interpretation of Psalm 110:1. The verse can only be used in reference to God by assuming that only one of the two lords is divine. This is of course based on the premise that God is one, and the inherent contradiction, from the (later) Jewish point of view, lies in that the Christians apply this verse to Jesus in order to argue for his divinity. The fact that there are two means a priori that one cannot be God, otherwise the One God would be referred to as in effect two divine persons (which is the orthodox Christian position). Not only does this transgress the most important article of Jewish faith, that God is uniquely one (Deut 6:4), but in attributing (‫ )נדבק‬human nature to God it also detracts from the “otherness” of God. Thus, we have three christologically important Psalms interpreted in a way that maintain that the Messiah and God are neither identical, nor equal. And therefore, the Christian concept of identifying the Messiah/Christ as divine is not in accordance with Scripture. 2. 5. 1. 4 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Matt 19:16–17 (§51) In §51 the argument is then driven to a decisive challenge by referring to Jesus’ own statement about himself: Qiṣṣa §51: How can you consider Christ as God, when he himself told you explicitly that he is not divine? Do you not know that a man said to him, “O, righteous teacher, teach me that by which I can attain eternal life.” And he said, in the Gospel, in the thirtieth part of the book of Matthew: “Do not call me ‘righteous;’ God alone is righteous.” If Christ were a God, he would not have denied his divinity and would not have called himself a human being, nor

143 The Jewish rejection of the union of the divine and the human, like many other paradoxes, was embraced in Christian theology. Especially after Athanasius’ famous dictum, “for He became man [human] so that we become God [deified]” (Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἑνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεωποιηθῶμεν), Inc. 54.3 (PG 25:192B), incarnation itself was understood as salvific and developed along this trajectory (already seen in Irenaeus, Haer. 5, preface). This was concomitant with the belief in theosis (or the deification of humanity), see Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Tradition (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007), and Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

66

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

would he have responded to the man who said to him “O, righteous teacher,” by saying: “God alone is righteous.” You claim that he said it about himself only because of his incarnation through Mary. You thus render his soul and his nature unrighteous.144

Nestor MS H-B is slightly different:145 Nestor §51: (…) And if you should say that (the) Messiah is God, he would not have denied his divinity, nor would he have called himself a human, nor replied to the one who called him ‘righteous’ by saying that only God is righteous. And if you should say that he answered him in this matter (on account of being) incarnate [lit.: “united” (with humanity)], you have therefore considered him as being without righteousness.146

‫)…( ואם תאמר היה משיח אל לא היה כופר האלהות ולא היה קורא לעצמו אדם ולא היה‬ ‫ ואמרת על דבר שנדבק השיב לו ככה‬.‫משיב לאשר קראו צדיק ואומר י״י הוא הצדיק לבדו‬ 147.‫ולכן שמתה וחשבתו בלא צדקות‬

The paraphrase of Matthew 19:16–17, which is conflated and expanded with elements taken from Mark 10:17–18 (par. Luke 18:18–20),148 is used to substantiate in Jesus’ own words that he is not divine. In deflecting the adjective “righteous” for himself and instead deferring to God alone, Jesus is understood to deny that he is God, or even like God. This particular argument appears already in much earlier polemics. Porphyry, e.g., used it exactly in the same way.149 The argument is even aware of a Christian interpretation and reply to this polemic, which is that Jesus is referring to his humanity in this manner “because of his incarnation through Mary.” In other words, Jesus only deferred to God on account of his human nature.150 This is, then, countered with the argument that Jesus in his humanity must consequently have been less than righteous according to this verse: If

144 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:61. MS H-A is for the most part similar to Qiṣṣa here. 145 See ibid., 1:108, n. 11. 146 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:100. 147 Ibid., 2:100. 148 Only in Mark is Jesus addressed as “good teacher” (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ), here it is even “righteous teacher” (Qiṣṣa), “good and just teacher” (MS H-B: ‫ )רבי הטוב והישר‬or “good and righteous teacher” (MS H-A: ‫)מלמד הטוב והצדיק‬, which is an amplification and heightens the issue. The argument does not interact with the rest of the pericope where Jesus affirms the Decalogue. 149 Apokritikos 3.4: “Why then, if he is God, did he deny he was God by stating: ‘No one is good but God alone. Why do you call me good?’,” Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §166, 193. 150 This is a common explanation encountered in the writings of the church father, so e.g. Athanasius, C. Ar. 3.43 (PG 26:413–14; NPNF2 4:417) in his explanation of the ignorance logion, “but why, though He knew, He said, ‘no, not the Son knows,’ this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word’s deficiency, but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant,” emphasis mine. But cf. Justin, Dial. 101.1–2.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

67

Jesus spoke the truth, he as human would have indirectly denied that he was righteous, at least in the sense of having God’s perfect righteousness. The argument, of course, is rendered more forceful by changing the wording from “good”’ to “righteous” (‫)צדיק‬, nevertheless, the Christian is left with the choice of either accepting that Jesus denied being divine, or that he understood himself as less than righteous (or good), i.e. that his human nature was less than perfect. Not surprisingly, patristic writers had to react to this rather formidable argument.151 2. 5. 1. 5 Jesus’ Prayer in Gethsemane: Matt 26:36–46 (§53) Another iconic scene from the New Testament, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Matt 26:36–46, parr. Mark 14:32–42, Luke 22:40–46), is discussed as a key passage to show Jesus’ distinction from God: Qiṣṣa §53: Were Jesus God, he would not have prayed to himself and fallen on his knees, pleading with God and fasting. He also said, pleading with God, “If it be your will, remove from the the cup of death. But let it be as you please, not as I please, and by your command, not by mine.” It is made thereby clear that he is not a God, but a human being, subject to sadness and fatigue, who fasts and prays to someone else.152 Nestor §53: And if the Messiah were God, he would not have prayed to someone else, and he would not have bowed down on his knees and said: “Pater meus, remove from me this cup of death, by Your will and not my will.” He requested that God save him from the bitterness of the cup, and he was poor and humiliated in his mourning, his poverty and his serious illness; and he prayed and bowed on his knees. And also, he would not have requested from someone else to remove from him any pain or illness, or the cup of death if he were God.153

‫ ולא היה כורע על ברכיו ואומר ַפ ְט ֵרי ֵמיאוס העבר‬,‫ואם היה משיח אל לא היה מתפלל לאחר‬ ‫ וביקש האל להצילו ממרירות הכוס והיה עני ומושפל‬,‫ממני כוס המות הזה ברצונך ולא מרצוני‬

151 Cf. e.g. John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 63:1 (PG 58:603, NPNF1 10:387), Jerome, Comm. Matt. 3.19:17 (CCSL 77:169–70, FC 117:219), Origen, Comm. Matt. 15:10–11 (GCS 40:373–80), Cyril of Alexandria, Com. in Luc. 122–123, see R. Payne Smith, A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke: Part II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859), 565– 72, and extensively Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron (trans. Carmel McCarthy; JSS Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), XV, §§1–11, 229–235. See also Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 511, n. 21: “While the text was an effective argument against the Gnostics (the Father, Creator, and Lawgiver is by essence good; cf. Ps.-Clement Hom. 18.1.1–3; Irenaeus Haer. 4.12.3), it appeared to agree with the Arian view that the Father is good in essence, the Son only per participationem (according to Thomas Aquinas, Lectura no. 1581). Countless authors take issue with it, among them Ambrose (In Luc. 8.65–67 = BKV 1/21.500–502) and the so-called Arian Opus imperfectum 33 = 806–7.” 152 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:62. 153 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:109.

68

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

‫ וגם לא היה מבקש מאחר להעביר‬.‫באבלו ובעונייו ובחולייו הקשה ומתפלל וכורע על ברכיו‬ 154.‫ממנו שום כאב ומחלה ולא כוס המות אם היה אל‬

Jesus’ prayer in and of itself, specifically the desperation and weakness displayed in it, is understood to show that Jesus is exclusively human.155 The fact that Jesus prays to God, addressing him as “Father,” on bended knees, deferring to God’s will, makes it “thereby clear that he is not a God.” Later Jewish polemic texts will make more of Jesus’ deferral to God’s will, thereby showing that Jesus and the Father are not one entity with one will, but here it sufficed to point out that the whole scene ought to be taken as a clear indicator that Jesus was utterly human.156 It is, then, perhaps not surprising that the pericope about the so-called “Rich Young Ruler” and the Gethsemane prayer will consistently re-occur in Jewish polemics as key passages to argue for the (exclusive) humanity of Jesus.157 2. 5. 1. 6 Jesus’ Statements of Being Sent: Matt 13:54–57 (§55) The last point that needs mentioning here is how Qiṣṣa/Nestor interprets Jesus’ “sending sayings.” In §37, §48, and §55–57 it is maintained that according to the New Testament Jesus was a messenger and prophet.158 In 154 MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:100. The section in MS H-A, cf. ibid., 2:121–22, is essentially the same, but the Greek gloss is significantly longer quoting (though with some omissions and differences) Mark 14:32–34 and 15:2 (conflated with Matt 27:11), connecting both passages with καί ὅτε ἐκρέμετον ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρὸν! After Mark 15:2, a paraphrase of Mark 15:31–32 (par. Matt 27:41–42) follows, cf. ibid., 1:180. 155 Likewise, Porphyry is remembered as saying: “And yet, he being in torment and anticipating the expectation of horrible things, asked in prayer that his passion pass from him. And he said to his closest friends: ‘Watch and pray that the temptation pass away’ (Mt 26:41; Mk 14:38; Lk 22:46). Now these sayings are not worthy of God’s Son, not even of a wise man who despises death,” see Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §175, 198 (emphasis mine). The interjection that such a description is “not worthy” of God is also frequent in Qiṣṣa/Nestor. 156 Which may have been part of the reason why Matthew softens the Markan account, see Reinhard Feldmeier, Die Krisis des Gottessohnes: Die Gethsemaneerzählung als Schlüssel der Markuspassion (WUNT II/21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 9–49; also Erich Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium (4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 20–21. 157 In Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6), Yosef ha-Meqanne §6, §10 and §33 (see 4.5.16, 4.5.19–20), Nizzahon Vetus §184 and §176, (see 5.4.9, 5.4.12), Even Boḥan (see 6.4.19), Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.4), and Ḥizzuq Emunah I, §47; II, §19; and II, §24 (see 8.4.3, 8.4.8, and 8.4.11). 158 In Qiṣṣa/Nestor §37 the argument is based on Psalm 2:6–7, in §48 on a paraphrase of John 5:36–38, in §56 on Luke 13:31–33 and Mark 6:4, in §57 on John 5:37, 12:49–50 and Matt 12:18 (citing Isa 42:1). In the New Testament Jesus is referred to as a prophet in Matt 11:9, 13:57, 21:11, 21:46 (perhaps also 10:41, 14:5), Mark 6:4, 6:15, Luke 4:24, 7:16, 26, 39, 13:33, 24:19, John 4:19, 44, 6:14, 7:40, 52, 9:17, Acts 3:23, 7:37, though it is quite clear that Jesus is also “more than a prophet” (Luke 7:26). Jesus talks about being sent (by God) in Matt

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

69

particular in §§55–57 we find the argument that Jesus has to be understood as a human due to being a messenger and a servant: Qiṣṣa §55: Do you not see that this Messiah/Christ testified about himself that he is a messenger and a servant? For he entered the city and stood in the midst of the crowd preaching, and they were astonished by him and said to each other in wonder, “Where did that one get this wisdom and these words? Is this not the carpenter’s son, whose mother’s name is Mary, and whose brothers are Simon, Joseph, Jacob and Judas?” For it is said: “A prophet is not humiliated and demeaned except in his own city.”159 Nestor §55: Do you not know that he testified about himself, as he said: “I am the servant of God, and I am a prophet and messenger.” I must clarify his testimony for you, as he testified about himself when he went to a certain city, sat with [the people of the city] for one day, admonished them and said to them: “Fear the Lord your Master, and my Master,” and they wondered about him. They said: “Is this not the son of the carpenter whose mother’s name is Mary, and his brothers are with us, and their names are Simon and Jacob in the city of Nazareth in the Galilee in the Land of Israel?” When he saw they recognized him and his lineage, he said: “A prophet is not treated lightly or scorned except in his own city.” [Latin gloss:] Non ẹśtẹ profẹta śẹni ontri ni ki i patrẹa soa.160

‫ ועלי לבאר לך עידותו‬.‫הלא תדעו כי הוא מעיד על עצמו ואמ׳ עבד אל אני ונביא ושליח אני‬ ‫אשר העיד על עצמו בבואו למדינה אחת וישב עמהם יום אחד ומזהיר אותם ואומר אליהם‬ ‫ ואומרים הלא זה בן הנגר ושם אמו מרים ואחיו‬.‫יראו את י״י אדונכם ואדוני והיו תמהים עליו‬ ‫ ובראותו כי הכירוהו וייחוסו‬.‫אצלינו ושמם שמעון ויעקב במדינה נצרת בגליל בארץ ישראל‬ ‫יאי‬ ִ ‫יק‬ ִ ִ‫יטא )ביני( שנִ י ֵאינְ ְט ִרינ‬ ַ ‫רופ‬ ֵ ‫ישטי ְפ‬ ֵ ‫ נון ֵא‬.‫אמר לא יקל הנביא ולא יתבזה כי אם במדינתו‬ 161.‫סואה‬ ַ ‫ַפ ְט ֵר‬ ַ ‫יאה‬

Matt 13:54–57 (parr. Mark 6:1–4, Luke 4:22–24) stands in the background of the argument, but some additional details appear in Nestor, specifically that Jesus went “to a certain city” and that he “sat with them for a day.” Also the the admonition to “fear the Lord your Master, and my Master” appears to be a conflated reference to John 10:17. Then, both Qiṣṣa and Nestor remember Jesus’ siblings different to what is found in the respective New Testament accounts, although Qiṣṣa is closer.162 Yet in both the point is clear: Jesus is recognized as the “son of the carpenter,” whose mother and brothers are 10:40, 15:24, Mark 9:37, in particular in John (chs. 5–18 passim), and that he came in order to serve in Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 (cf. also John 13:1–11). On Jesus as prophet see the overview in Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Band 1, 23–40 [not included in the 2nd, rev. English ed.]. 159 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:62. 160 Ibid., 1:109, and 1:175. 161 MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:100. MS H-A is very similar here; the Greek gloss is, again, significantly longer, citing Matt 13:54–57, ibid., 1:181. 162 Qiṣṣa §55 (MS P) recounts four brothers, Simon, Joseph, Jacob, and Judas; Nestor §55 only two, Simon and Jacob; cf. Matt 13:54 (par. Mark 6:1–4, though slightly different): James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas. Qiṣṣa §79 (MS B; Oxford MS Heb. e. 32 = Bodl. 2631, not in MS P) in comparison only references Jacob and Judah, whereas Nestor §79 (MS H-B) has three brothers here: Jacob, Simon (missing in MS H-A), and Judah.

70

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

known by name, an evaluation to which Jesus reacts with a saying that implies that he understood himself to be a prophet in some sense, or at least affirmed that he was a charismatic teacher.163 The critique against Jesus in the pericope is based on his origin: on his family relations to his father, mother, and siblings. However, what is used here in the argument at hand is Jesus’ reply, i.e. that he perceived himself as a prophet.164 This in turn is interpreted as a concession: since God alone is the one who sends (prophets), the one who is sent is consequently not God, especially if he describes himself as a prophet. In other words, God alone sends; he alone has the authority to do so. This is, of course, a legitimate issue that underlies all the sending statements, and in a way also the “I have come” sayings of Jesus, especially if they were to express the pre-existence of the person coming.165 That Matthew and many other New Testament passages show that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, e.g., expressed in his obedience, was certainly not a trivial issue for early church theologians.166 As seen, Qiṣṣa/Nestor generally work on the basis of a strict paradigm of opposites. The treatise throughout uses various passages in the gospels in this antithetical manner: Jesus is sent, God sends; there is one God, not two; the 163

In Luke this is even more explicit, cf. Luke 7:26, 13:33, 24:19. On the topic of Jesus as prophet see the overview by James F. McGrath, “Jesus as False Prophet,” in Who do my opponents say that I am? (ed. McKnight and Modica), 95–110. 164 Unlike in §79 and §107 where the argument is focused on Jesus’ origins, see below. 165 Recently, Simon J. Gathercole has argued (in particular against James Dunn) that Jesus’ sending and “I have come” statements in the Synoptics can be understood as a claim to pre-existence, see idem, The Pre-existent Son. Cf. Dunn, Christology in the Making, who argues that the doctrine of preexistence has to be attributed to John, see ibid., 47. 166 Subordinationism holds that the Son was ontologically lesser, distinct, and subordinate to the Father (though still divine), and some New Testament passages (which are also frequently discussed in polemical literature) have been advanced in support of this view, e.g., Mark 10:18, 13:32, John 3:35, 5:26–27, 10:29, 13:16, 14:28, 1 Cor 8:4-6, 15:28, Heb 10:7–9. Origen has at times been considered one of the earlier representatives of heterodox subordinationism, though this view has subsequently been revised and attempts have been made to move Origen closer to the orthodox position, see Earl Muller, “A ‘Subordinationist’ Text in Origen’s De Principiis,” StPatr 41 (2006): 207–12, though subordinationist tendencies are noticeable in various theologians of the early church, in particular before the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, see e.g. Justin, 1. Apol. 13.3. Arius, of course, is the classic representative of (a kind of) subordinationism, whose view Athanasius shrewdly, and ultimately successfully, attacked and condemned against the majority of Christian opinion which had endorsed a form of subordinationism, see e.g. Charles Kannengiesser, Arius and Athanasius: Two Alexandrian Theologians (Collected Studies 353; Aldershot: Variorum, 1991), in particular chapter XII, “Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis,” first published in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (ed. Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 204–15. See also Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 2001), 29–91, and Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

71

Messiah is human, not divine. Jesus’ distinct humanity is thus asserted simply by setting up a human-divine dichotomy. Jesus is visible (§5, §32, §90 [Qiṣṣa], §113, §116 [Qiṣṣa], §118, §150, §168 [Qiṣṣa]), whereas God is invisible. God is self-sufficient, Jesus prayed. Thus, he identified God as distinct from himself (§45, §§52–54, §95 [Qiṣṣa], §108, §§139–141, §156 [Qiṣṣa]), and consequently made himself equal to other men (§97, §150). Another element that fits into this dichotomy in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, in particular after §57 and often in conjunction with wine drinking, is the emphasis on Jesus having to sleep (§5, §60, §§81–82, §§84–89, §91 [Qiṣṣa], §§95–96). This, of course, demonstrates Jesus’ limitation (and impropriety), but also stands in contradiction to God’s nature, who “does not sleep” according to Psalm 121:4 (§89).167 This dichotomy, as will become evident, is common to most Jewish responses to Jesus as encountered in the gospels, and in fact it is this human-divine dichotomy that proved to be the major issue for the inner-Christian doctrinal debates over Christology for the first few hundred years of the church. 2. 5. 2 Jesus’ Human Origins (§78, §77, §80, §150, §97) The argument that Jesus had solely human origins is frequently encountered in later polemics, though it clearly has early antecedents in Jewish-Christian and heterodox groups.168 In Qiṣṣa/Nestor, the nativity of Jesus is discussed in 167 In Bereshit Rabbah 8.10.1 the distinguishing mark between God and Adam is, in fact, sleep as Adam is made in the likeness of God, and consequently so similar to God that the angels cannot tell who is who. See Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 147. However, this argument that God does not sleep, in particular in Jewish polemics, suppresses the passages in the Hebrew Bible where God is said to be sleeping or resting, cf. Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, 23:12, Deut 5:12–15, Job 11:18–19, Psalms 3:7; 4:8; 7:6; 9:19; 17:13; 35:2, 22–23; 44:23, 26; 59:4– 5; 68:1; 74:22; 82:8; 132:13–14; Zech 2:13. Specifically the similarity of Isa 51:9–11 to Mark 4:35–43 (which is the only narrative in the gospels where Jesus is said to be sleeping, cf. parr. Matt 8:23–27, Luke 8:23–27), may mean that the evangelists did not want to portray the humanity of Jesus, but rather to link the sleeping God motif to Jesus (as the victor over the forces of chaos), see Bernard F. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–77. The gospel passage would then depict Jesus as an epiphany of God (idem, 174–75). On this see also Daniel Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark: Unity and Distinction” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2012), and Richard Glöckner, Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen: Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Verwandtschaft zwischen neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen (Walberberger Studien der AlbertusMagnus-Akademie: Theologische Reihe 13; Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1983), 67–69. 168 Cerinthus is said to have taught that Jesus “was the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation,” (γεγονέναι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας οἷον ὁμοίως τοῖς λοιποῖς ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποίς; Harvey 1:211 [ch. 21]), see Irenaeus, Haer. 1:26.1. In the same context this teaching is associated with the Ebionites and Carpocrates; cf. also Epiphanius, Pan. 30.3, who reports the same about the Ebionites, “that Christ is the off-

72

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

like manner — and in some detail — again by using the Christian texts as main source, and predominantly Matthew.169 Strangely though Isa 7:14 and Matt 1:22–23 are not mentioned in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, it is nevertheless the belief in the incarnation that is essentially disputed and rejected. Accordingly, Joseph is repeatedly established as Mary’s husband, and Jesus’ exclusively human parentage is maintained by advancing statements of the angel Gabriel (§73, §74, §78, §100, §152), his parents (§77, §99, §152), Matthew (§78, §80, §152), and the people of Nazareth (§79, §107). With this the author emphasizes Gabriel, Jesus’ parents, and the evangelists as authoritative witnesses in order to convince an (imagined) interlocutor of Jesus’ human origins. The numerous references to Gabriel in these arguments are telling since the archangel held a place of importance both in the Eastern church170 and also played a role in Muslim thought.171 His witness would, as such, bear no insignificant weight within the Eastern Christian or Muslim society. In §73 it is only argued ex silencio that the angel Gabriel did in fact not say, “Rejoice, O Mary, you shall give birth to a God,”172 but in §78 (and also in §100) Gabriel is quoted as positively testifying that Mary is really Joseph’s wife: spring of a man, that is, of Joseph,” in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Sects 1–46) (trans. Frank Williams; 2nd rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 131. Also Justin remarks in Dial. 48–49 (cf. ch. 67) that some Christians argued that Jesus was “man from man” (ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἄνθρώπου; PG 6:580). See esp. Georg Strecker, “The Problem of Jewish Christianity,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity: Second German edition with added appendicies by Georg Strecker (Walter Bauer; ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gehard Krodel; Philadelpia: Fortess, 1971), 241–85, esp. 276–84. 169 Qiṣṣa/Nestor appeal more often to Matthew, though elements from Luke’s gospel and apocryphal texts are also frequently encountered. 170 See Gonzalo Aranda Pérez, “Gabriel, Archangel,” Coptic Encyclopedia 4:1135a– 1137b; also Abu al-Makarim, The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries attributed to Abû Ṣâliḥ, the Armenian (ed. and trans. B.T.A. Evetts; Anectoda Oxoniensa; Oxford: Clarendon, 1895), who lists 20 churches that bear the name of Gabriel (see index). However, Abu al-Makarim wrote his Coptic history of churches and monasteries comparatively late, probably between 1117–1204 C.E., see Aziz S. Atiya, “Abu al-Marakim,” Coptic Encyclopedia 1:23a–23b. The angel Gabriel held also a position of relative importance in Jewish thought. Darrell D. Hannah has counted 39 occurrences of Gabriel in the Babylonian Talmud, and a further 186 occurences in the Haggadic Midrashim, see his Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (WUNT II/109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 97–98, n. 23 (I wish to thank Dr. Hannah for bringing this to my attention). 171 According to Muslim tradition Gabriel revealed the Qur’ān to the prophet Muhammad, see e.g. Qur’ān 2:97, 16:102. 172 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:66. Nestor expresses the exact opposite here assuming that Gabriel did in fact say this “in your erroneous books” (1:113). However, this is effectively counterproductive as it undermines the manner in which the other figures are mentioned as trustworthy witnesses in the context, cf. e.g. §78 (s.a.). Qiṣṣa appears to preserve a more coherent argument here.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

73

Qiṣṣa §78: You can rightfully demand from me to present to you two trustworthy witnesses, whose testimony you cannot deny, and who testify that Joseph is Mary’s husband. It is written in the Gospel of Matthew that the angel Gabriel said to Joseph: “Go, take your wife and do not fear.” So you now have Gabriel, Matthew and Luke who testify more than once that Joseph is Mary’s husband.173 Nestor §78: Furthermore, I will bring two trustworthy witnesses that Joseph was her husband, as it is written in the Book of Matthew that the angel Gabriel came to Joseph and said to him: “Take your wife and do not be afraid.” [Latin gloss:] Anbola, atsepi[t] a maria oksori e non timẹri. Gabriel here testifies that Mary was the wife of Joseph, and Matthew and Luke testified in many places similarly that Joseph was the husband of Mary.174

‫ועוד אביאך שני עדים נאמנים שיוסף היה בעלה כאשר כתוב בספר מטיאוס שהמלאך‬ ‫יא אוֹק‬ ַ ‫יפית ַא ַמ ִר‬ ִ ‫יצ‬ ֵ ‫בוֹלא ֵא‬ ַ ְ‫ ַאנ‬:‫ לאז‬.‫גבריאיל בא אל יוסף ואמר לו קח את אשתך ואל תירא‬ ֵ ‫סוֹרי ֵאינוֹן ִט‬ ִ ‫ ומטיאוס ולוקא העידו בהרבה‬,‫ הנה גבריאל מעיד שמרים היתה אשת יוסף‬.‫ימ ִירי‬ 175.‫מקומות ככה כי יוסף בעל מרים‬

By means of a paraphrase of Matthew 1:20 the audience is shown that Joseph is Mary’s husband, which is of course not disputed by Christians. However, the clear implication is that Joseph and Mary are to be understood as Jesus’ biological parents, which practically side-steps the Christian claim of incarnation, that is, Mary solely conceiving by the Holy Spirit. Then, the issue of conception is tackled by recalling a dialogue between Mary and Augustus’ census registrars wherein she testifies that Jesus is Joseph’s son, which in this form does not occur in the New Testament or any other Christian sources. The author (or compiler), however, clearly assumes this to be authentic, as this exchange is referred to a total of three times in this cluster (in §77, §80, and §99). It occurs first in §77: Qiṣṣa §77: When Mary became pregnant with Jesus, King Augustus sent [emissaries] to register all pregnant women. Mary was found to be pregnant at the inn at Bethlehem, and she was asked: “By whom are you pregnant?” and she said: “By Joseph.” So they registered her [as follows]: “Mary, and the child in her womb is by Joseph he carpenter.” So Mary testifies that Joseph is her husband and that she is pregnant by him.176

Likewise, in Nestor it is mentioned that “Mary has already admitted that Joseph was her husband and that she had become pregnant by him.”177 This exchange between Mary and the census registrars can perhaps be related to the apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter.178 However, it is not attested 173

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67. The translation here does not follow MS P here, but MS H-B, see ibid., 1:67, n. 3. 174 Ibid., 1:114, 1:175. 175 Ibid., 2:103. MS H-A is similar, but has the Greek gloss Παράλαβε Ἰωσήφ τὴν γυναῖκα σου · μὴ φοβαῖσαι, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτὴν γεννηθὲν ἀπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐστίν, ibid., 1:183. 176 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67. 177 Ibid., 1:114; emphasize mine. 178 Throughout this cluster the History of Joseph the Carpenter (ANF 8:388–394) seems

74

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

in other sources, and it appears to be unique to Qiṣṣa/Nestor.179 The clarification that Mary is Jesus’ mother is only a prelude to a full citation of Matthew’s genealogy in §80, which again is presented as proof that Joseph is in fact Jesus’ father.180 The genealogy is concluded with some pointed observations anticipating Christian objections: Qiṣṣa §80: […] Know that I did not ask you about the genealogy of Mary. The genealogy of Mary is mentioned nowhere in the scriptures or in the Gospels. But in the case of Jesus, his genealogy appears in more than one place, in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, and what is written there is contradictory. Do you not know that when Jesus was thirty years old, people knew him as “Jesus, son of Joseph, son of Matat, son of Levi.” This is the genealogy of Jesus, and Joseph is his father, as it is said in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, concerning Mary’s declaration on the day that King Augustus registered the name of people: “And they wrote down that Mary is pregnant by Joseph.”181 Nestor §80: […] Know that I will not ask you about Mary’s lineage, because Mary does not have a lineage, neither in our entire Torah nor in your Gospel. But Jesus has lineage through Joseph. They wrote [his lineage] in many places in their book, and the lineages contradict

to be in the background; cf. §77, §78, §79, §99, and possibly also in §§73–74. The History of Joseph the Carpenter was probably written in Egypt in the 4th or 5th century, of which Bohairic, Sahidic (both Coptic dialects), and Arabic recensions exist (the Arabic version being a translation of the Coptic). For a recent overview see Alin Suciu, “New Fragments form the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi Fabri Lignarii,” Le Muséon 122 (2009): 279–89; and Louis-Théophil Leford, “À propos de ‘L’Histoire de Joseph le Charpentier,” Le Muséon 66 (1953): 201–23. For the texts and translations see Paul De Lagarde, Aegyptiaca (Göttingen: D. A. Hoyer, 1883; repr., Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1972), 1–37; and Forbes Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels (Texts and Studies 4.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 130–159, 220–35. 179 In Toledot Yeshu (MS Vindobona) we find a somewhat similar exchange between the teachers of the law and Mary as part of an investigation of the rumors of illicit relations between Mary and Joseph, see Krauss, Leben Jesu, 68–69, 91–92; cf. also a similiar scene in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas 15 (ANF 8:303). In the History of Joseph the Carpenter, ch. 7, it is mentioned that Joseph inscribed his name in the census list as “Joseph, the son of David,” and his spouse Mary as being from the tribe of Judah (the Coptic fragments add “Jesus his/ their son”), but a dialogue is not mentioned. A somewhat similar argument to that in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor was made by Emperor Julian who argued that Jesus and his “father and mother” registered in the census, but that is again different from an actual exchange between Mary and a registrar, see Against the Galileans 213A, in The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3:378–79. However, the same exchange between Mary and the registrars is also mentioned in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq, “ Since she had a husband, one might think that she conceived by her husband or possibly that she conceived by someone else. Further, when Herod registered all the women in Bethlehem, Mary was asked, ‘By whom are you pregnant?’ She answered, ‘I am pregnant by Joseph’,” see Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 345 [f. 17r]. 180 MS H-A has the genealogy only in Greek, MS H-C omits the genealogy altogether, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:114, n. 7. The genealogy in Qiṣṣa (essentially MS P) does, interestingly enough, not include the four (Gentile) women mentioned by Matthew. 181 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:68.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

75

each other. Was not Jesus thirty years old and all the people testified about him that he was the son of Joseph, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi? That is the entire lineage of Jesus. Furthermore, it is written in the Book[s] of Luke and Matthew that on the day that Augustus Caesar wrote the names of the women, Mary testified [that Joseph was the father] and he wrote that Mary was pregnant by Joseph.182

‫ודע כי לא אשאלך אודות יחס מרים כי אין למרים יחס מרים כי אין למרים יחס בכל תורתינו‬ ‫ אולם לישו יש יחס מצד יוסף )מצ( במקומות הרבה כתבו בספרם‬.‫ולא בעון גיליון שלכם‬ ‫ והלא ישו בן ל׳ שנה היה וכל האנשים מעידים עליו שהוא בן יוסף‬.‫וסותרין זה דברי זה ביחוסו‬ ‫ ועוד כתוב בספר לוקא ומטיאו שהעידה מרים יום אשר‬.‫בן מתת בן לוי זה כל יחוסו שלישו‬ 183.‫כתב אגוסתוס קיסר שמות הנשים וכתבו שמרים הרה מיוסף‬

The argument clearly suggests familiarity with the differing genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke,184 which already from earliest times had posed problems for Christian apologists.185 It perhaps also shows awareness of a Christian argument that ascribed one of the genealogies to Mary (and not Joseph), which is also why it is affirmed here that both genealogies belong to Joseph: “This is the genealogy of Jesus, and Joseph is his father, as it is said in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.”186 182

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:115. MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:103. MS H-A is essentially the same, but has an extensive gloss that includes Matt 27:11–13 and Luke 22:70. 184 A similar argument is already found in Julian’s Against the Galileans, see The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3:395–7. 185 See Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (updated ed.; Yale: Yale University Press, 1993), 57–95, esp. the bibliography on pp. 94–95; and Helmut Merkel, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (WUNT I/13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971). 186 Sources that argue that Luke provides Mary’s genealogy have been traced to the fifth and seventh century by Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc (Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1921), 119–20, though also Marius Victorinus (4th century) in his Commentary on the Apocalypse suggested this, see Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 27–28. Yet, the view that Luke provides Mary’s genealogy is perhaps even earlier; already Irenaeus compared Mary to Eve by way of Luke’s genealogy in Haer. 3.22 (cf. 3.9.2, 3.16.3), and also Justin, Dial. 45 and 100, asserted that Mary was of the family of David. Moreover, Celsus wondered if Mary could “have been ignorant of the fact that she had such a distinguished ancestry” (Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 93), thereby disputing that Mary had Davidic descent, see Origen, Cels. 2.32. Also, the Jerusalem Talmud, y. Ḥag. 77d, l. 57 [2,2/7] and y. Sanh. 23c, l. 38 [6,9/4], polemicizes against a Mary [Miriam] “daughter of (H)eli” (‫)מרים ברת עלי בצלים‬, though the attribution, translation, and precise meaning of this particular passage in the Talmud has been debated; cf. R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London: Williams & Norgate, 1903), 42; and Str-B 2:155. Also, based on the census record in the Babatha archive, Klaus Rosen has argued that Mary’s registration indicates that she owned property in Bethlehem. Luke 2:1–5 therefore would imply that Mary was from the tribe of Judah, otherwise there would have been no need for a pregnant women to travel to be personally registered in a census, see Klaus Rosen, “Jesu Geburtsdatum, der Census des Quirinius und eine jüdische Steuererklärung aus dem Jahr 127 nC.,” JbAC 38 (1995): 5–15; and idem, “Zur Diskussion um Jesu Geburtsdatum: Der Census des Quirinius und eine jüdische Steuererklärung aus dem 183

76

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Later, in §99, Luke 2:48 is cited to further corroborate Mary and Joseph as Jesus’ parents. Yet in addition, earlier, in §79 (and again in §107, cf. also §152), the people of Nazareth are mentioned as witnesses that Jesus is Mary’s son: On the basis of Matthew 13:55–56 (par. Mark 6:3) it is pointed out that “they counted Jacob and Judah as his brothers, and [said] that his married sisters live in their town, in Nazareth of the Galilee, in Palestine.”187 However, Qiṣṣa does not remember that Matthew and Mark mention four brothers. The detail of Jesus’ sisters being married is likewise not in the canonical gospels, but can be found in the History of Joseph the Carpenter.188 Thus, Gabriel, the census registrars, Joseph, Mary, Matthew, Luke, and the people of Nazareth are cited to validate that Jesus is of human descent.189 Overall Qiṣṣa/Nestor clearly favor Joseph’s parentage without insinuating any illicit involvement as in the case of Toledot Yeshu.190 The author’s motivation is not merely to disprove the related Christian claim of incarnation, but probably also to dispel the notion that God would in some form impregnate a

Jahr 127 nC.,” in Qumran und die Evangelien: Geschichte oder Geschichten? (ed. Walter Brandmüller; Aachen: MM Verlag, 1994), 41–58; see also Hannah M. Cotton, “The Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian κατ’ οἰκίαν ἁπογραφή,” in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine (ed. L. H. Schiffman; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 105–22. The position that Luke relates Mary’s genealogy has been strongly asserted by Peter Vogt, Der Stammbaum bei den Heiligen Evangelisten Matthäus (BS 12.3; Freiburg: Herder, 1907), see esp. xii–xvii, 110–21 (for more proponents, ancient and modern of this viewpoint); and Joseph M. Heer, Die Stammbäume Jesu nach Matthäus und Lukas (BS 15.1/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1910). Raymond Brown has also noted that a “converse situation with Matthew giving Mary’s ancestors (and Luke giving Joseph’s) has minor support — perhaps Tertullian, De carne Christi xx–xxii,” see idem, Birth of the Messiah, 89, n. 6. 187 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67 (Qiṣṣa §79). 188 MS H-B remembers Jacob, Simon and Judah, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:114 and 2:103, but likewise reports that Jesus’ “sisters are married [and live] in Nazareth.” In the History of Joseph the Carpenter, in chs. 2 and 11, four brothers are recalled: Judas, Justus, James and Simon. Also mentioned are two married daughters/sisters by the name Lysia/Assia and Lydia, who both live in Nazareth (ch. 2, cf. also ch. 9) . 189 Cf. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus: “I can see the genealogy of Jesus, for he was the son of Joseph, along with his brothers, Jacob and Joseph and Judah and Simon. And his mother was Mary,” Varner, Dialogues, 44–45 (§43). 190 See, e.g., Krauss, Leben Jesu, 68–69, 91–92. Qiṣṣa/Nestor may in places faintly imply illicit relations: in Nestor §99a it is questioned which of the contradicting accounts designate Jesus’ real father; Joseph son of Hillel/(H)eli (acc. to Luke), or Joseph son of Jacob (acc. to Matthew), or whether Jesus was the son of God (acc. to Mark), but this is missing in Qiṣṣa. Also, in §152 the third person statement in Matt 1:25, “and he (Joseph) knew her not until she had born a son,” occurs in an altered form and is put into the mouth of Joseph as a first person statement implying that Mary had sexual relations (which thus argues against the notion that Mary stayed a virgin), “I have not known Mary since the day on which she conceived (‫מיום‬ ‫)שהרתה‬,” emphasis mine, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:83, 127; 2:80, 109.

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

77

woman, or grow as fetus in her — after all the priest Nestor is quoted as not believing “in a god who dwelt in the filth and menstrual blood in the abdomen and womb.”191 In addition, contradictions in the nativity narratives are also presented as a demonstration of the confused and unreliable accounts about the beginnings of Christianity. The difference of Luke and Matthew’s genealogies has been mentioned already, but Qiṣṣa/Nestor also finds inter-textual and rational contradictions: e.g. in §68 and §115 the heavenly declaration at Jesus’ baptism is understood as contradicting the claims to human ancestry (cf. also §99a).192 In Qiṣṣa §150 (cf. also §152) some of the issues seen as contradictory are summarized: Qiṣṣa §150: (…) As for you, you should be ashamed of yourself, to speak lies about your Lord, making him the vilest of people and the lowliest human being. One time he is the son of Joseph the carpenter, and another time he is the son of Jacob, and another time the son of David. At one time he says: “He that has seen me has seen my father, and I and my father are in the same state,” [cf. John 14:9] and another time he says to the wife of Zebedee,193 “I and your two sons are in the same state,” and then he tells Peter that he will was his feet and says, “The son of man came to serve.”194

The reference to the sons of Zebedee, which most likely is based on Matt 20:20–23; par. Mark 10:35–40 first occurred in §97: Qiṣṣa §97: Do you know that Zebedee’s wife said to Jesus: “I would like you to place one of my sons at your right hand, and the other at your left hand.” And Jesus replied, saying, “I and your two sons shall drink from one cup.” How can there be a God who puts no distance between himself and human beings?195

191 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67 (Qiṣṣa §76); cf. §82, and §111; see also Qiṣṣa §150. 192 In §§68–69 the heavenly voice, the Bat Qol, at Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:22 and Mark (Nestor only) is, in fact, interpreted as expressing Jesus’ divinity, since it means that “Jesus was the son of the Lord” (MS H-B: ‫)כי ישו בן י״י‬, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:112, 2:102. The Christian audience is then challenged in Nestor §69 to choose between strict monotheism (viz. Judaism), and “Luke, Mark, John, and Matthew” (1:112). In this particular argument Nestor would seem to endorse the interpretation that the heavenly declaration means that Jesus is divine — which is rejected as incongruent with monotheism. 193 Clearly referring to Matt 20:20–23 and not Mark 10:35–40. 194 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:82. MSS B and LD read here: “The apostle Matthew also contradicted himself more than once. He said at the beginning of the genealogy that Jesus is the son of David, son of Abraham, and at the end of the genealogy [he said]: ‘Jesus, son of Jacob, son of Eleazar.’ And Jesus also contradicted himself more than once, as he said to Philip: ‘He who has seen me, has seen my father,’ and then Jesus said to Zebedee’s wife: ‘I and your son are one,’ and he said to Peter: ‘The son of man did not come to be served but to serve.’ Jesus then contradicted his disciples, for I see that he claims more than once that he is a human being. I have explained it all to you” (1:82, n. 4). 195 Ibid., Nestor the Priest, 1:70.

78

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

The same is found in Nestor §97, though followed by a more explicit explanation: I see here that [Jesus] did not distinguish himself from or raise himself above the sons of Zebedaeus in any respect.196 197.‫דבר‬

‫והנה אני רואה שלא הפריש עצמו ולא עילה נפשו על בני זבדיאוס שום‬

The polemic writer(s) who used and copied this passage were apparently not aware of the polemic potential of Matt 20:20–23 (par. Mark 10:35–40), namely, that Jesus deferred the decision to grant the diciples’ request to the Father because it was not his “to give” (Matt 20:23), which would have worked well with the overall argument against Jesus’ divinity (this argument occurs in a later texts).198 This probably indicates that the compiler did not take this argument straight from a (canonical) gospel text,199 especially considering that this is not more than a paraphrase of Matthew. Both Qiṣṣa and Nestor take Jesus’ affirmation that he would share the cup with the two brothers as concession that he is human. Jesus acknowledges that the sons of Zebedee, who are clearly human, are on the “same level” with him. Thus, according to the argument, he cannot be God. He is too similar to humanity to be divine (§97), and the additional fact that he has come to serve shows that he cannot be God (§150). Thus, Qiṣṣa/Nestor favor Jesus’ exchange with “the wife of Zebedee” as indicative of his humanity, thereby disregarding the juxtaposition of John 14:9, including its interpretation: “He that has seen me has seen my father, and I and my father are in the same state.” In other words, although it is acknowledged that, according John 14:9, Jesus may have claimed divinity being in the “same state” as his father, the exchange in Matt 20:20–23 is given more credence. The synoptic tradition is in this instance preferred over the Johannine text. 2. 5. 3 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (§74, §76, §82, §111) The second major thrust of Qiṣṣa asserts that the physicality, limitations, and lowliness of human existence are unbecoming and inappropriate for the divine, which is a problem that also vexed the old church (and has been debated in Christian theological reflection ever since). This particular trajectory is dominant in the whole polemic of Qiṣṣa: it is shameful and repugnant to assert that God in the person of Jesus, according to 196

Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:117. MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:104. MS H-A is almost the same, the Greek gloss, however, is a paraphrase of of Matt 20:20–23 (perhaps with amalgamations from Mark 10:38–40); ibid., 1:184. 198 E.g. in Yosef ha-Meqanne §15 (see 4.5.17). 199 Unless, of course, the text was misunderstood or deliberately altered. 197

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

79

the Christian understanding, is subject to human limitations and bodily functions, that is, in having to sleep (§5, §60, §§81–82, §§84–87, §89, §91, §§95– 96), in having to eat and drink (§§5, §28, §§59–60, §91, §§95–96, §142), in experiencing fear (§5, §28, §60, §108, §148), and in having to defecate and urinate (§28, §59).200 It is further foolish to say that God could be coerced, mocked, tortured, and crucified (§5, §7, §20, §32, §§60–62, §75, §§102–104, §119, §§142–143, §145, §148, §155, §157, §168), a point which is often reiterated.201 Moreover, it is inappropriate to believe that this unimpressive human could be God, specifically since he was found in improper, “un-godly” situations: Jesus was nursed by Salome, a harlot (§59, §§81–82, §92, §94, §111),202 he slept in dirty places (§81, §87, §91, §111, §142), he kept company with criminals and sinners (§5, §150), he was in need of purification (§60, §114), while sleeping he was kissed by a Samaritan harlot (§86), he stole and rode on a donkey (§109, §111),203 and he fasted in admission of his need for repentance (§110). Neither was he of high social standing (§168). In addition, Qiṣṣa ascribes to him a rather questionable moral character: Jesus was a (sleeping) drunkard (§60, §§83–91, §§95–96),204 he was evil, and a criminal (§92, §109, §112) and a liar (§98).

200

This, according to Jerome’s commentary on Matthew (15:17), was also a polemic used by Porphyry: “According to the heretics and perverts all gospel passages are replete with scandals; and even from this minor passage they slander the Lord, saying that he experienced physiological processes. They are of the opinion that all nutrients go into the stomach and are excreted,” Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §96, 168. In the second century, Valentinus had contented that Jesus’ digestion was such that he did not need to defecate, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.59.3; and Ismo Dudenberg, “The School of Valentinus,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’ (ed. Anti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 64–99, esp. 73–74; cf. Tertullian, Marc. 3.10.1 (CCSL 1:521). 201 Arguments that mention the crucifixion are in §5, §7, §20, §32, §§61–62, §§102–104, and §168. 202 Salome is referred to by name as a midwife/wet-nurse for Jesus (in MS H-B as Lucia). In §§81–82 she is designating as harlot, perhaps conflating her with the account of the woman in Luke 7. In §92 Salome accompanies the family to the temple, in §94 to Egypt. In Christian sources Salome is mentioned in The Proto-Evanglium of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, and the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. In the Protoevangelium 20, it is Salome who empirically verifies — in the manner of doubting Thomas — that Mary is a postnatal virgin. Rosenkranz thinks that §81 shows more similarities to later traditions, i.e. Pseudo-Matthew, see Auseinandersetzung, 290–91. 203 Jews under Byzantine rule, and Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, were not allowed to ride on horses or camels, (if at all) only on donkeys as a lesser beast of burden, see James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (London: Soncino Press, 1934; rep. London: Athenaeum, 1977), 114. 204 In §84 it is noted that Jesus slept in a boat (cf. Matt 8:24, par. Luke 8:23, Mark 4:38), in Qiṣṣa §91 Jesus is said to have fallen asleep in the boat because he was drunk.

80

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

In §74, in a comparison of Adam with Jesus, this anti-incarnational trajectory of Qiṣṣa’s polemic against Jesus is graphically verbalized: Qiṣṣa §74: I say that Adam was closer to God than was Jesus, because He said to Adam, “Be” and he came into being, from clay: his flesh and blood, his hair and muscles and body. And He breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a human soul, rational and living, walking and talking. And He gave him dominion over the birds of the sky, the beasts of the earth and the crawling insects, and He made every creature subordinate to him and placed every creature beneath him. In the case of Jesus, on the other hand, Gabriel came and announced him, as you claim, and His mother carried him in the confinement of the womb, in darkness, filth and menstrual blood for nine months, as Matthew claimed. He [i.e. Jesus] suffered continued curses and disasters, from the time he was in the mother’s womb until he was crucified and died, as you claim.205 Nestor §74: I see that Adam was more dear to God than Jesus, since the Lord created him from matter and [Adam] was the work of His hands. God made limbs for Adam, caused his hair to grow, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and gave into his midst the holy spirit, so that Adam became a living being. He made him rule over the birds of the heavens and the animals of the earth and all that which He created. [God] subjugated all to his will and governance, and He made him rule and raised him up. As to Jesus, as you have written in your book, the Book of Matthew, the angel Gufrieli came and gave Mary the good news, and she carried him in her womb for nine months, in the oppression of her womb, in the place of darkness and gloom and filth and menstrual blood, as Matthew said.206

‫ואני רואה כי אדם הראשון יקר לפני השם יותר מישו כי י״י בראו מחומר ומעשה ידיו היה‬ ‫ועשה בו איברים וצימח בו שיער ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויתן בקרבו רוח הקודש ויהי האדם‬ ‫לנפש חיה וישליטהו על עוף השמים ועל חית הארץ ועל כל מה שברא והכל שם תחת ידו‬ ‫ וישו כאשר כתבתם בספרכם בספר מטיאו גופריאילי המלאך בא‬.‫וממשלתו וימשילהו ויגדלהו‬ ‫ובישר את מרים ותשאהו בבטנה ט׳ חדשים בעוצר הבטן במקום החושך והאופל והטנופת‬ 207.‫והנידות כאשר אמר מטיאוס‬

The author points to Matthew as the source for the details of Mary’s pregnancy, but Nestor is less precise here, introducing details taken from Luke, namely that Gabriel spoke to Mary (cf. Luke 1:26–28). The argument itself compares Jesus to Adam; whereas Adam’s creation was miraculous (recalled are Gen 2:7 and 1:28), Jesus’ origin, birth, and life are much more mundane.208 Having thus established Jesus’ humanity and “unimpressiveness” compared to Adam, Qiṣṣa argues that the particularities of humanity are unbe205

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:66–67. Ibid., 1:113 [“made him great” is perhaps closer to ‫ ויגדלהו‬than “raised him up”]. MSS H-A and H-C part ways in this section with MS H-B; the sequence of arguments is arranged differently. MS H-A continues with Jesus’ baptism, which in MS H-B appears much later, see ibid., 1:113, n. 5. 207 MS H-B, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 2:102. 208 The argument might address and reverse Paul’s description of Jesus as the second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 and Romans 5:12–14, but equally contradicts the Qur’ān; in Sura 3:58–59 Jesus and Adam are said to be equal; both are shown to be created by God’s word. 206

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

81

coming of the divine. Specifically, the concrete imagination and depiction of Jesus’ confinement in the womb (‫ )עוצר הבטן‬is used as the most graphic imagery for this polemic, which will be repeatedly used in several subsequent arguments and bears similarities to non-Jewish arguments. The Christian assertion of the incarnation is thus understood so concretely that it comes to be rejected as an impossibility precisely because of the imagination of the related physical implications. Incarnation is, as such, not rejected primarily on philosophical grounds, but on its concrete, physical ramifications; to claim that God could dwell in the womb is simply inappropriate and repugnant, both historically and theologically.209 In §76 this “confinement in the womb” theme is returned to, although here with a less graphic, perhaps more metaphysical emphasis:210 Qiṣṣa §76: Do you not know that Nestor said “I do not believe in a god who dwelt in the filth and menstrual blood in the abdomen and womb.” For Nestor examined the Torah, which is from the words of Moses, peace be on him, and found written there: “The God your God is devouring fire.” Then Nestor said: “How can there be fire in a woman’s abdomen?” So he left your religion and declared his disagreement with you.211 Nestor §76: Nestor the righteous proselyte said: “I trust in the Lord, the God of the heavens and the earth, and I deny a god who dwelt in the filthy womb and the menstrual blood.” Know 209 It is perhaps worthwhile asking if the the concept of incarnation was deemed theologically controversial first because of the related implications, viz. God being confined or born or having to defecate etc., or because of a prior commitment to divine transcendence. In other words, did the felt “taboo” precede theological conviction and therefore may have even informed and directed doctrinal commitments and developments, or was it the opposite? Or more simply, why is incarnation a point of contention at all? What is it precisely that makes the idea of divine incarnation so radical? 210 The argument against Jesus’ divinity in §§72–76 is broken up with §75, a seemingly random attack on disagreements over the timing of the piercing of Jesus by the legionary (although §75 is linked to the last sentence in §74 which mentions the crucifixion and Jesus’ death); see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67, 113; 2:51, 102, 133; also Rembaum, “Influence,” 159. This is noteworthy for two reasons: 1) The original author of this section knows that there is a dispute over the time and manner of Jesus’ death (several important manuscripts of Matt 27:49b show a significant textual variance, suggesting that there was a tradition in the early church that understood that the cause of Jesus’ death came from being pierced by a spear, see Stephen Pennells, “The Spear Thrust (Matt 27.49b, v.l. / Jn 19.34),” JSNT 19 (1983): 99–115; also Bammel, “Excerpts from a new Gospel?,” 243, n. 28; and Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 209, 237), and 2) it is this pagan legionary who is confessing in Mark 15:39 (parr. Matt 27:54, Luke 23:47) that Jesus is the son of God. Could this section in Qiṣṣa then perhaps be a response to a Christian argument where the Roman soldier is employed as witness of Jesus’ divine sonship (notice especially §74 the phrase “as you claim,” and §78; “you can rightfully demand from me to present…”), or is this sequence otherwise random? Nestor is similar here, though in addition the legionary is known by the name Longinus (cf. the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, ch. 16). In fact, Origen responds to Celsus by appealing to the centurion under the cross as a witness of the divinity of Jesus in Cels. 2.36. 211 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:67.

82

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

that Nestor understood the Torah of Moses and knew that the Lord is exalted above every God, may His name be blessed, and He is a fire consuming fire. Nestor furthermore said: How can God be Jesus?212

‫ ובוטח אני בי״י אלהי השמים והארץ וכופר באל ששכן ברחם מטונף‬:‫ויאמר נסתור גר צדק‬ ‫ ודע כי נסתור מבין בתורת משה וידע כי י״י נתעלה על כל אל ית׳ שמו והוא אש‬.‫והנידות‬ 213.‫ ויאמר עוד נסתור איך יהיה אל ישו‬.‫אוכלה אש‬

As already mentioned in the beginning to this chapter, it is in §76 that Nestor, who would lend his name to the whole work, is introduced as a Torahheeding, “righteous proselyte” (‫ )גר צדק‬from “your religion.”214 The “confinement in the womb” argument is thus associated with this Nestor, and expanded with a second, more ontological argument which sees God as a “consuming fire.”215 To understand God ontologically as fire would not necessarily fit with how this term was understood in the Hebrew Bible,216 but does reverberate with later conceptualizations of God.217 In particular, fire imagery has been used in 212

Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:114. MS H-B, ibid., 2:102. 214 Some early Christian writers also have referred to their Nestorian adversaries as “Jews,” and while this is meant derogatorily it might indicate that both groups might have other commonalities, at least in the eyes of their opponents. See Parkes, Conflict, 300–303; and Rosenkranz, Auseinandersetzung, 268–270. 215 In Nestor the phrase is expanded to (and interpreted as) “a fire consuming fire” (‫אש‬ ‫)אכלה אש‬, which occurs in several relevant Jewish texts: in b. Yoma 21b, where the Shekinah is described as “fire consuming fire,” in Midrash Tanḥuma Yitro, sec. 16: “[The Torah] was given out of fire consuming fire, as it is written, ‘For the Lord, your God, is a consuming fire’ (Deut. 4:24), ‘on earth He let you see His great fire’ (Deut. 4:36)” (‫ונתנה מן האש הוכלת‬ ‫)אש שנאמר כי ה׳ אלהיך אש אכלה ועל־הארץ הראך את אשו‬, and also, P’siqta Rabbati 11 (trans. William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 1:215): “As the Holy One, blessed be he, is a fire consuming fire (‫)אש אכלה אש‬, as is written, ‘For the Lord is a devouring fire’ (Deut 4:24), so shall they be a devouring fire (…).” Also, in early mystical Hekhalot literature, in the Maase Merkava §587, God is described as a “fire consuming fire,” see Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 3.12; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 251; and Michael D. Swartz, Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism: An analysis of Maʻaseh Merkavah (TSAJ 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 243. In later mystical texts the ontological conceptualization of God as fire is more developed, see e.g. the Zohar 1:50b. 216 In the Hebrew Bible the term “consuming fire” (‫ )אש אכלה‬is not in particular ontological, as if God was composed of the prime element fire. In Deut 4:34 it refers to God’s (righteous) jealousy, in other contexts, e.g. Deut 9:3 or Isa 29:6, as his destructive (punitive) force (on behalf or against his people). Consequently, his people should be aware of God’s fierceness, which is also how the author of Hebrews interprets the expression, cf. Heb 12:29. 217 Besides the above mentioned Jewish texts, where ‫ אש אכלה‬is understood in more metaphysical and ontological terms, the idea was also important for Christians. In fact, it was exactly the imagery of the burning bush which some Christian interpreters used to explain the co-existence of the human and divine nature in Jesus. See here Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in 213

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

83

Christian circles to explain doctrinal positions and to conceptualize the Trinity.218 In that sense, appeal to a former Christian named Nestor demonstrates awareness that the christological debate within Christendom was not a fully resolved matter.219 Regardless, the fire-imagery, much like the idea of being confined in the womb of a woman, is employed to show that the “otherness” of God cannot be confined or come in touch with all-too human “facts.” In §82, the “confinement in the womb” (here: ‫ )עוצר הרחם‬argument of §74 appears again, however Qiṣṣa and Nestor differ here. One manuscript, MS HB, has an extremely graphic and detailed description of Jesus in the womb and his delivery through the birth canal emphasizing the proximity to bowel movements and sexual intercourse: Qiṣṣa §82: It is most astonishing, how is it that you, who claim to be judicious and reasonable, are not ashamed: ashamed of yourself and embarrassed by me; [ashamed] that you worship a god who dwelt in the womb, in the filth of menstrual blood, in the confinement and imprisonment and darkness for nine months; he lay in a donkey’s manger and he was nursed at the breast of a harlot.220

Christian Tradition Volume 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604) — Part Four (trans. O.C. Dean; London: Mowbray, 1996), 365–67, who points to Cyril of Alexandria’s Hom Pasch. 17.3 (PG 77:781, SC 434:283): “For just as the fire was made endurable to the bush, so also the Excellency of the Godhead to our nature” (Ὥσπερ γὰρ γέγονεν οἰστὸν τῷ θάμνῳ τὸ πύρ, οὕτω καὶ τῇ καθ’ ἡμᾶς φύσει τῆς θεότητος ἡ ὑπεροχή), and his Quod unus est Christus (PG 75:1291, LFC 47:266). Similar is also John of Damascus De Fide Orthodoxa 3.8 (PG 94:1013, NPNF2 9:52–53); cf. also Justin, Dial. 59– 60, 127–28. This then might indicate that this objection ascribed to Nestor in §76 had a possible Sitz im Leben, cf. Nestorius’ response in Godfrey R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson, Nestorius: The Bazaar of Heracleides (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 156. In the Ethopian Kebra Nagast §96 (13th c., but disputed), the wood of the bush becomes even a symbol for Mary, see edited by Carl Bezold, Kebra Nagast: Die Herrlichkeit der Könige (Munich: G. Franz, 1909), 105. 218 E.g. Justin, Dial. 61 (ANF 1:227; PG 6:613–4), 128 (ANF 1:264, PG 6:773–6); Athanasius, Decr. 23 (PG 15:455, NPNF2 4:164); Augustin, Symb. 8 (CCSL 46:190–91, NPNF1 3:371–72). Cf. also the sun and ray imagery in Tertullian, Prax. 8 (ANF 3:603, CCSL 2:1167–8 ), and Apol. 21 (ANF 3:34, CCSL 1:124–5). 219 It might even indicate that Nestorianism was seen more favorably by Jewish contemporaries compared to Chalcedonian Christianity. 220 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:68. Cf. Joseph Qimḥi’s Sefer ha-Berit: “The great and mighty God Whom no eye has seen, Who has neither form nor image, Who said ‘For man may not see Me and live (Exod. 33:20) — how shall I believe that this great inaccessible Deus absconditus [‫ נעלם ונכסה‬,‫ ]ואיך אאמין באל גדול‬needlessly entered the womb of a woman, the filthy, foul bowels of a female, compelling the living God to be born of a woman, a child without knowledge or understanding, senseless, unable to distinguish between his right hand and his left, defecating and urinating, sucking his mother’s breasts from hunger and thirst, crying when he is thirsty so that his mother will have compassion on him. Indeed, if she had not suckled him, he would have died of hunger like other people. If not, why should she have suckled him? He should have lived miraculously! Why should she have

84

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Nestor §82: I wonder about you that you are not embarrassed to worship he who dwelled in the oppression of the womb, close enough to hear his mother’s flatuses when she moved her bowels like any other woman, remaining in deep darkness for nine months. How can you say that any aspect of divinity dwells in such an ugly place? If you say that there was no aspect of divinity in [that] place, then you are saying that [Jesus] was like any other child, and after he left her womb through the [organ] which receives the penis and the semen, since this is the place from which he emerged with his mouth and nose pulling against the urethra, close to the places from which the stench of excrement exits, then he slept and nursed from his mother’s breast.221

‫ותמיה אני עליך איך לא תתבייש לעבוד את שכן בעוצר הרחם קרוב לשמוע נפיחות אמו‬ ‫ ולהיות בחושך ובצלמות ט׳ חדשים ואיך תוכל לומר שישכון שום‬,‫בצאתה לנקביה כשאר נשים‬ ‫ אם כן‬,‫צד אלהות במקום מכוער כמוהו? ואם תאמר שלא היה בו שום צד אלהות במקום‬ ‫ שמאותו מקום יצא‬,‫תאמר שהוא כאשר ילדים אחרי צאתו מבטנה דרך הכנסת הגיד והזרע‬ ‫ופיו וחוטמו משך דרך כלי השתן וקרוב למקום שיוצא הסרחון שלצואה והיה ישן ויונק משדי‬ 222.‫אמו‬

Where Qiṣṣa only expands on §74, Nestor drives the argument to the pinnacle of polemic223 — although the argument is essentially nothing but a meditation

suckled him for nothing, that he should engage in all foul and miserable human practices? Thus I do not profess this belief which you profess, for my reason does not allow me to diminish the greatness of God, be He exalted, for He has not lessened His glory, be He exalted, nor has He reduced His splendor, be He extolled. If I do not profess this faith which you profess, I am not blameworthy. I say to you further that if this belief is true, the Creator would not hold me guilty for not believing in His deficiency and the reduction of His grandeur and splendor. (…). I do not in this respect believe in the diminution of His glory and greatness. (…) I may liken this for you to a human king who changed his garments, shaved his hair, and put on filthy garb and dirty clothes, so that he impaired his noble figure. He then walked alone on the highways without dignity or majesty. The people came and told someone: ‘This is the king.’ If he does not believe [it], the king canot hold it against him. How much more evident is this with respect to the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Who would dare to profess this belief which diminishes His greatness, whereby He cannot save His world except by humiliating Himself, debasing His majesty, and befouling His splendor,” Talmage, The Book of the Covenant, 36–37 [Hebr. ed. pp. 29–30]. 221 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:115. 222 MS H-B, ibid., 2:103. 223 Inasmuch as there is a difference between Qiṣṣa and Nestor, it seems clear that various redactors shaped the argument to suit their respective contexts. Likewise in MS H-B one can detect redactional activity: The lines, “How can you say that any aspect of divinity dwells in such an ugly place? If you say that there was no aspect of divinity in [that] place, then you are saying that [Jesus] was like any other child,” appear to be an interjection into an earlier argument, but it focuses the main issue underlying the entire confinement argument: how can any aspect of divinity become truly fully incarnate? The argument (and a summary of other themes observed in Qiṣṣa/Nestor) also appear in Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣvah (mid. 13th c.): “[a]ll physical characteristics were to be found in his body. He [Jesus] was small at birth, like all infants. There was no difference between him and other children. He was enclosed nine months in a vessel of blood and there developed. When he was born, he passed through the birth canal and had to be washed. He had to nurse, cried, played, slept, awoke,

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

85

on the full reality and radicalness of what the Christian concept of incarnation entails.224 This “confinement in the womb” argument, which was first mentioned in the introduction (§5), then employed in arguments §74, §76, and §82, is again, and for a final time, used and expanded in §111 where not just the womb, but also the crib, a mule, a boat etc. are questioned as appropriate receptacles for God: Nestor §111: I wonder that you do not pay attention to that which David and his son Solomon said. David said to the Lord: “I will build You a house.” [The Lord] answered him: “What house will you build for Me and what place can contain Me?” Solomon said: “Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You; how much less this house which I have built!” Isaiah said: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is My footstool.” And you say that your God was

ate, drank, was hungry — he and his disciples —, defecated, urinated, and flatulated. But behold, we find with Moses, peace be upon him, that he tarried forty days and forty nights, not eating bread or drinking water when he was on the mountain and the spirit of God was upon him. How much more should we believe that he was not in need of elimination and other objectionable body functions. Concerning Jesus, if it were true that divinity were within him, why was it necessary for him to eat and drink and perform other bodily functions. Moreover, he slept, but behold it is written: ‘The Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Moreover, they were forced to smuggle him out of Egypt out of fear of the king, and he remained there until he matured, because of fear of the king. He was likewise hidden many times, ever after he had matured and returned to the Land of Israel… Many times he was shocked and frightened out of fear of death. He also prayed before the Creator to remove the cup of death, but his prayers were not accepted. He would also conceal and deny out of fear…,” Robert Chazan, “Polemical Themes in the Milḥemet Miẓvah” in Les Juifs au regard de l’histoire: Mélange en l’honneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz (ed. Gilbert Dahan; Paris: Picard, 1985), 169–84; here 179; also idem, Daggers of Faith, 60. The sections which Chazan did not translate (in fact, he softens the original) are too important to be excluded. They are therefore given in the appendix. 224 Odo of Tournai (c. 1060–1113) responded to a very similar argument, see Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.–13 Jh.), 54. The Jew Leo tells Odo: “In one thing especially we laugh at you and think that you are crazy. You say that God was conceived within his mother’s womb, surrounded by vile fluid, and suffered enclosure within this foul prison for nine months when finally, in the tenth month, he emerged from her private parts (who is not embarrassed by such a scene!). This you attribute to God what is most unbecoming, which we would not do without great embarrassment,” see Irvin M. Resnick, On Original Sin and a Disputation with the Jew, Leo, Concerning the Advent of Christ, the Son of God: Theological Treatises, Odo of Tournai (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994), 95. Odo’s answer then is: “God fills all things and is everywhere whole. Although he fills us and is whole even in us who are sinners, he is untouched by the uncleanness of our sins, but remains uncontaminated and pure. He sees all things and nothing hurts him. He sees darkness yet remains untouched by the darkness, since ‘light shines in darkness’ (Jn. 1:5) and ‘night, just like day will be illuminated’ (Ps. 138:12 Vulg.). The Most Pure sees sin, and the Most Just sees our injustices, since he justly orders every evil he sees. The light of justice is not extinguished by making sins visible, just as the light of this world shines upon the sordid fleshly body but is not soiled by it. Why then are you offended if God is conceived in a virgin, when he preserves his purity everywhere?” (ibid.).

86

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

carried by Mary in her womb for nine months and Salome, Jesus’ nuresemaid whose name was Lucia, carried him all her days; and [Joseph] and his mother carried him to Egypt, and a small donkey carried him, and the cross upon which he was crucified carried him until evening. If Jesus was God, then Solomon lied when he said: “Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You.” How can a womb or a nursemaid or a cross carry him?225

Qiṣṣa asks in the last line of this particular argument instead, “How could these things contain Him, He whom the heavens and earth cannot contain?”226 To claim that God was confinded in the womb of Mary when Solomon’s temple is insufficient as house for God, is shown to be in contradiction with the Hebrew Bible and the biblical conception of God’s nature. Thus, the argument is lifted from the taboo to a more theological level. Clearly, the imagination of God being confined in the womb emerges as a powerful picture. On the one hand, its concrete and graphic description, with its appeal to propriety and common sense, makes it a potent, easily usable polemic. On the other hand, it also becomes the means by which a more theological (or ontological) challenge against Jesus’ divinity can be conceptualized. Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts, which portray Jesus as the one born of the Holy Spirit, are thus employed in a manner opposite to the authorial intentions of the evangelists. To be born of a woman (regardless of divine involvement) consequently declares Jesus to be shockingly and radically human. It is certainly possible that this more graphic imagination of the incarnation was sufficiently troublesome for Christians to lead them to convert to Judaism, if one follows the narrative of the introduction, especially when one considers how this particular point is a recurring theme in the overall argument of Qiṣṣa/Nestor. But even in §76 it is clear that also ontological considerations were a factor. This would be more comparable with what is known from church history, where perhaps mostly scriptural and metaphysical considerations lead to differing views on the nature of God and Christology. As such, it is debatable if the graphic imagination of the incarnation by itself was sufficient reason to lead to conversion. However, Qiṣṣa/Nestor still employed this anti-incarnational argument as as a weighty, and formidable, polemic throughout the treatise. This particular “confinement in the womb” argument appears, in fact, in earlier and later polemics,227 and it is quite evident that the weight of the this

225

Nestor has more details, Qiṣṣa expresses almost the same, however adds a boat as “receptacles” for Jesus and does not mention the name Salome or Lucia, Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:120, cf. 1:73. 226 Ibid., 1:73. 227 In Origen, Cels. 6.73, we read: “And if he did wish to send down a spirit from himself, why did he have to breathe it into the womb of a woman? He already knew how to make men. He could have formed a body for this one also without having to thrust his own spirit

2.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor

87

argument was felt by the Christian side very early on, in particular because this polemic forced Christians to take the process of incarnation more serious than they themselves perhaps would have wanted to. One subsequent response in the Christian tradition, was to obscure these all-too human facts of the incarnation, i.e. either by denying the incarnation altogether, or by emphasizing the perpetual virginity of Mary, and/or that the birth of Jesus was completely un-bloody. Incarnation and virginal birth, in fact, were rather sensitive issues from the early Christian period onwards. Justin Martyr, as well as many other early church interpreters, dealt with polemics and objections against the incarnation, which themselves played a role in the formation of doctrinal expressions. On the one side Christian theologians had to assert the physicality of Jesus, against those within and without that did not consider him as truly human, e.g., against Gnosticism or Docetism,228 and on the other side they struggled against the notion that he was just human. But in asserting Jesus’ humanity and at the same time holding to his divinity, they, and the gospel texts themselves, inevitably made Jesus offensive to a Jewish audience.229 into such foul pollution” (Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 386, cf. also Cels. 1.69. Also Porphyry, according to Macarius Magnes’ Apokritikos 4.22, appears to argue in the same way: “But if anyone among the Greeks were so frivolous that he would assume that the gods live in these statues, his idea would be a much purer one than those who believe that the deity came down into the womb of the Virgin Mary and became an embryo. And then when he was born he was placed in swaddling clothes. For this is a place full of blood and gall and things even more disgusting than these,” Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §208, 217. In like manner Emperor Julian in his Letter To Photinus appears to agree that a God cannot be in the womb: “O Photinus, you at any rate seem to maintain what is probably true and come nearest to being saved, and do well to believe that he whom one holds to be a god can by no means be brought into a womb. But Diodorus, a charlatan priest of the Nazarene, when he tries to give point to that nonsensical theory about the womb by artifices and juggler’s tricks, is clearly sharp-witted sophist of that creed of the country-folk,” The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3:188–89. Also, Marcion took offense at this aspect of the incarnation, in Carn. Chr. 4 we read Tertullian’s challenge: “Beginning then with that nativity you [Marcion] so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastiness of genital elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisture and blood, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more unmanageable, heavy, self-concerned, safe not even in sleep, uncertain in the whims of dislikes and appetites (…) You shudder, of course, at the child passed out along with the afterbirth, and of course bedaubed with it,” Ernest Evans, Tertullians’s Treatise on the Incarnation (London: SPCK, 1956), 13. This, of course, cleary shows that from early on there were Christian interpreters, such as Tertullian, who fully engaged with this objection and polemic; something which should not be (yet often has been) overlooked. 228 See e.g. Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 17–23. 229 Not surprisingly Zaccheus in his dialogue with Athanasius calls the idea that God was in a “human womb” blasphemy, a sentiment that Qiṣṣa certainly shares with him, cf. Varner, Dialogues, 32–33 (§22). On the abhorrence of this idea of God being in the womb see esp.

88

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

Elements of Qiṣṣa’s use of the New Testament, in particular in the first part of the treatise, might then be indicative of how opponents of Christian orthodoxy (perhaps Jewish-Christians, Arians, or Nestorians) emphasized Jesus’ humanity in arguing against those who would endorse Jesus’ divinity. The subsequent emphasis on the womb, menstrual blood, feces, etc. are consequently not merely polemics. They essentially express something of the abhorrence and impropriety this doctrine of Jesus’ divinity and his incarnation poses for early Christians, Jews, and Muslims — of which some Christians today are not even aware.230 The concrete imagination of the physical details of the incarnation stimulated by the particulars of the Christian tradition was then, as is also now, rather offensive to the contemporary sense of propriety and the (largely) shared, common conceptualization of God. While Qiṣṣa’s and Nestor’s arguments are certainly unbalanced in that they ignore the more careful doctrinal explanations of Jesus’ divinity by patristic writers,231 Jesus’ proximity to the facts of human life must also have been more than an embarrassment to the early Christians. The kind of polemic leveled against Christianity in Qiṣṣa illustrates that it was not only Augustine-inspired harmatology and soteriology that necessitated Mary to be more removed from the reality of sin. The inappropriate aspects of the incarnation surely played a role in the emergence of apocryphal nativity texts long before any of the great doctrinal debates. The taboo of the graphic image that God in Jesus had been carried in the womb and was born, and the polemic that employed it in this manner, must not have been an insignificant stimulant to the various textual compositions around the nativity. Before Mary’s elevation to greater prominence in the fifth century, the extensive nativity narrative in the popular Protoevangelium of James (c. 150 C.E.!) Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, 350–54 (Appenix: “God in the Womb and the Problem of Incarnation”). 230 One could point here to various Christmas hymns that mention Mary’s womb, e.g., the lyrics of Come all, Ye faithful: “True God of true God, Light from Light Eternal, Lo, he shuns not the Virgin’s womb,” or in Hark the Herald Angel’s Sing, we find “Offspring of the Virgin’s womb, veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail the incarnate Deity.” This, of course, stands in the tradition of Ephrem (4th c.) who likewise referred to Mary’s womb in his hymn lyrics, see e.g. his hymn 21, in Kathleen E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1989), 175: “How indeed did that small womb of Mary suffice for Him? (…) But who will dare to say that a small womb, weak and despised, is equal to [the womb] of the Great Being? He dwelt [there] because of His compassion and since his nature is great, He was not limited in anything.” That is not to say that Christians, and in particular the theologians of the church, have been ignorant of the shock effect of the incarnation. To the contrary, Ephrem in fact embraced it, and also in the Te Deum which is constantly being used in Christian worship we sing: “non horruisti Virginis uterum.” 231 The composition and contexts of the gospels are also largely ignored in which depictions of Jesus’ humanity are juxtaposed with passages where the evangelists clearly want him to be understood as more than a mere human.

2.6 Summary

89

serves as witness of such a reactionary move against the presence of “incarnation taboo” polemics. Mary became a post-natal virgin precisely because it was too challenging to imagine that God did come into the world through a birth canal, being covered in blood and mucus, and Salome had to testify that this was exactly not the case.232 In like manner, Mary was made Joseph’s second wife, so that Jesus’ siblings were only half-brothers and sisters (or cousins) and thus had not to be carried by the same womb.233 She became a perpetual virgin because it would have been too inappropriate to think that Joseph had subsequent sexual intercourse with Mary and produced more children that would have “shared” the womb with Jesus.234 Mary’s purity became as such theologically contingent on Jesus precisely because he was believed to be God incarnate (and that long before the christological debates of the fourth and fifth century!) — precisely because God could not comfortably be associated with the utter physicality of Mary.235 In this, Qiṣṣa/Nestor have to be seen as important texts that preserve later memories of this argument, in all its graphic sharpness, which are important even in inter-religious interactions and doctrinal reflection today.

2. 6 Summary The Polemic of Nestor the Priest is a unique piece of literature within the corpus of Jewish anti-Christian polemic. It defied the established views of that genre and provides an important basis for much of the later medieval Jewish defense against Christian advances.236 Similarities to much earlier polemic and inner-Christian doctrinal disputes are evident, and its amalgamation of Jewish and heterodox Christian arguments against the incarnation and Jesus’

232 In chapter 20 of the Protoevanglium, Salome verifies the perpetual virginity of Mary. The entire narrative seeks to address and bring coherence to the various issues with the nativity accounts, see Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 65. 233 Jesus’ siblings are portrayed as is half-siblings in from Joseph’s former marriage, see the Protoevanglium 9:2, 17:1–2 and 18:1. Later, Jerome argued that Jesus’ siblings were his cousins, in Helv. 14 (PL 23:196–98, FC 53:30–33). On this see esp. the discussion in Armand Puig i Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey (WUNT II/288; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 113–35. 234 The argument that Mary was not a post-natal virgin is, e.g., already discussed by Epiphanius in Panarion 78 (58). 235 Of course, to argue that Mary was elevated from natural humanity in order to avoid this kind of crude polemic requires that the early church proclaimed Jesus’ parthenogenesis and had a very high Christology. 236 See Limor, “Judaism examines Christianity,” 111.

90

Chapter 2: Qiṣṣa and Nestor

divinity allow for a rare, authentic look at the inter-religious debate of late antiquity and the early medieval period in the Near East. Qiṣṣa/Nestor is a not a defensive or purely reactionary text, but boldly advances an assault at the heart of Christian orthodoxy by employing its own scriptures, and that largely without resorting to the fiercely fought-over battleground of the Hebrew Bible and its interpretation. The New Testament, often the Gospel of Matthew, and Christian apocryphal writings are the main sources by which the assertion of divine incarnation and the divinity of Jesus are confronted. The treatise does not shrink back from using christologically important passages to refute Christian dogma, nor is it particularly timid in challenging Christian exegesis and convictions by means of the Christian canon itself. It is, thus, not surprising that the kind of arguments seen in Qiṣṣa and Nestor were widely circulated and are encountered in later texts, and even today. While the entire work shows clear marks of being a compilation of various arguments and sources that over time were expanded and modified, its main strategy is to point to various passages to demonstrate that Jesus himself did not claim to be God and that the claim itself is heretical and non-rational. The fact that Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as distinctively human excludes him from being divine. This emphasis on Jesus’ human nature allowed for the use of any material found in the New Testament (and other authoritative sources for Christians) which depicted any notion of Jesus’ humanity by juxtaposing his human limitations to claims of his divinity. By appealing to and reinterpreting Christian texts, passages in the Christian canon are effectively turned against orthodox Christian convictions. Part of Qiṣṣa’s survey of Christian Scriptures also includes the nativity accounts and related passages. These passages, on the one hand, are used to show that Jesus had a human father and mother, in order to confound the idea of virginal conception and divine parenthood. On the other hand, the assertion of incarnation is traced to its inherent and most radical implications. The descent of God is imagined in the most graphic and physical details, and accordingly, God would have been confined in the womb of Mary and come in touch with the most basic functions of human existence. Consequently, this idea is rejected as most inappropriate, while at the same time the “confinement in the womb” theme is liberally used in the overall polemic to challenge Christian convictions.

Chapter 3

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem 3. 1 Introduction The book of “The Wars of the Lord,” often just referred to by its Hebrew name Milḥamot ha-Shem or Milḥamot Adonay, is one of the most important Jewish polemic compositions of the Middle Ages in Europe. It has been described as an “epoch making work,”1 and has subsequently received considerable attention from various, mostly Jewish scholars.2 Though some of the historical context surrounding Milḥamot ha-Shem is uncertain, the treatise would appear to be written in 1170 in southern France or Spain,3 which consequently would make it one of the first extant Jewish polemics composed

1

David Berger, “Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” HTR 68 (1975): 287–303, here: 298. 2 The best text edition is by Judah Rosenthal: Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot HaShem [‫( ]מלחמות השם‬ed. Judah M. Rosenthal; Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963) [Hebr.], though it lacks a critical apparatus and relies on Posnanski’s previous work on Milḥamot haShem. Various studies and introductions on the work and author exist, e.g.: Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 98–103, 282–90; idem, “The Christian Position in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milhamot Ha-Shem,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox (vol. 2, ed. Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, Nahum M. Sarna; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 151–70; Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 216–17; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 49–61; Rolf Schmitz, “Jacob ben Rubén y su obra Milḥamot ha-Šem,” in Polémica Judeo-Cristiana: Estudios (ed. Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodríguez; Iberia judaica 1; Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1992), 45–58; Carlos del Valle Rodríguez, “Jacob ben Rubén de Huesca. Polemista. Su patria y su época,” in Polémica Judeo-Cristiana: Estudios (ed. Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodríguez; Iberia judaica 1; Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1992), 59–65; Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church: Foundations of Jewish Christian Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 25–30; Judah M. Rosenthal, “Prolegomena to a critical edition of Milḥamot Adonai of Jacob ben Reuben,” PAAJR 26 (1957): 127–37; Rembaum, “Influence,” 165–66, 172–74, Posnanski, Schiloh, 141–43, Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.–13 Jh.), 238–43. 3 Rosenthal argues for Spain as the probable place of composition (though he does not further specify where exactly), in contrast, Netanyahu argues for southern France (Provence). See Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 128–29; and Benzion Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain: From the late XIVth to the early XVIth century, according to contemporary Hebrew sources (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966), 82, n. 3.

92

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

in Western Europe.4 It is highly intellectual in character and perhaps was originally en-titled “The Book of the Denier [of monotheism] and the Monotheist” (‫)ספר מכחד ומיחד‬.5 The author identifies himself as “Jacob ben Reuben,” who was probably born around 1136 in Spain,6 but besides what the introduction of Milḥamot ha-Shem mentions, not much is known about him.7 He writes that he had to flee northwards, probably on account of the Almohad persecution, where he subsequently may have befriended a learned Christian scholar, a priest, with whom he had several extensive exchanges over their respective faiths.8 The apparent product of these discussions is presented in Milḥamot ha-Shem, though some of the information definitely came from written Christian sources.9 The author also appears to have known Latin and he is perhaps the first Jewish scholar to have translated Christian writings from Latin to Hebrew, amongst them portions of Gilbert Crispin’s treatise Disputatio.10 4

Sefer ha-Berit was probably written around the same time, but in comparison it is not treating the New Testament so extensively as Milḥamot ha-Shem. 5 Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 127. 6 Or alternatively in 1150, see Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 128. 7 Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 3; also, Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 127–128. It is possible that the same author penned another polemical work entitled ‫היכל‬ ‫“( השם‬The Temple of the Lord”), see ibid., 130. Nevertheless, it has not been fully established that Jacob ben Reuben is the actual author of Milḥamot ha-Shem, cf. Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 98, n. 25. 8 See Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 128–29; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 49; Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem, 4–5. It is, however, not clear if these encounters are merely a literary device (they are penned in ryhmes), see Chazan, “Christian Position,” 160– 61. There is also a dispute over the identification of the place to which Jacob ben Reuben fled; Rosenthal, following Loeb et al, argues for Gascogne in France, which Berger and Rembaum also seem to favor, while Carlos de Valle Rodríguez, Chazan and Posnanski, following Gross, argue for Huesca in northern Spain. See Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 128–129; Isodore Loeb, “Polémistes Chrétiens et Juifs en France et en Espagne,” REJ 18 (1889): 43–70, 219–42, here 47; Berger, “Christian Heresy,” 298; Rembaum, “Influence,” 165; Carlos del Valle Rodríguez, “Jacob ben Rubén de Huesca;” Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 99–100; Posnanski, Schiloh, 141; also Heinrich Gross, Gallia Judaica: Dictionnaire géographique de la France d’après les sources rabbiniques (Paris: L. Cerf, 1897), 144. 9 Rosenthal has found textual indicators that Jacob ben Reuben wrote the work after his return from exile, see Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 129, see also ibid., n. 3; and Lasker, “Jewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” 101–102. 10 David Berger has argued that “it appears likely that the book shown to Jacob was a collection of [Christian] polemical and exegetical material taken from various authors which did not always identify its sources and which occasionally contained inaccurate ascriptions,” and thus must not necessarily have been Crispin’s Disputatio, see idem, “Gilbert Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben: A Study in Transmission of Medieval Polemic,” Speculum 49 (1974): 34–47, here 37. This also makes it a distinct possiblity that Jacob ben Reuben may have learnt some anti-Christian arguments from Christian apologetical sources. For the most recent edition of Crispin’s Disputatio see The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster

3.1 Introduction

93

Most pertinently, Milḥamot ha-Shem also contains a critique and translation of sections of the the Gospel of Matthew which could be some of the earliest translations of passages of Matthew in Western Europe.11 It was, as such, one of the first systematic critiques of the Christian faith based on its own scriptures in the European context, and as a result became quite influential. Several Jewish writers, e.g., Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ (the author of Even Boḥan), but also Christian apologists, such as Nicholas de Lyre (c. 1270– 1349) and the prominent Jewish convert Alfonso de Valladolid, knew at least some of the arguments contained in Milḥamot ha-Shem.12 In fact, in 1334, de Lyre, a Franciscan friar and one of the most important Christian exegetes of the High Middle Ages, even wrote a response to the chapter containing the New Testament critique.13 (ed. Anna Sapir Abulafia and G. R. Evans; Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8; London: British Academy; Oxford University Press, 1986). For Crispin’s role in the medieval discourse see Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in medieval Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 179–85. Furthermore, Posnanski has argued that Milḥamot ha-Shem “was patterned after the polemical anti-Jewish work Dialogus Petri cognomento Alphonsi, ex Judaeo Christiani, et Moysi Judaei (PL 157: 535–672) of the Spanish physician, astronomer and moralist Petrus Alfonsi (d. 1140) who was a convert to Christianity and a native of Huesca, Spain,” Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 133; see also Posnanski, Schiloh, 143, 349; Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue against the Jews (trans. Irven M. Resnick; FC Medieval Continuation 8; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2006). Although it is a possibility that Jacob ben Reuben stayed in Huesca, Rosenthal, in contrast, did not consider Milḥamot ha-Shem to be a response to Petrus Alfonsi, nevertheless he sees some similarities. 11 Berger points out that it “is clear, at any rate, that no complete Latin work was translated into Hebrew before 1170, and thus Jacob may own the twin distinctions of being the first Jew to translate both a substantial passage of a medieval Latin work and sections of the Latin New Testament into Hebrew,” Berger, “Gilbert Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben,” 36. The translation of the gospel text is, however, not very careful, and appears to have been based on the Vulgate, see Judah Rosenthal, “The Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reuben” [‫]תרגום של הבשורה על־פי מתי ליעקב בן ראובן‬, Tarbiṣ 32 (1962/63): 48–66 [Hebr.]. It is, however, not certain that Jacob ben Reuben translated Matthew himself or whether he relied on earlier material, cf. ibid., 50–51. 12 See Bernhard Blumenkranz, “Nicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reuben,” JJS 16 (1965): 47–51, rep. idem, Juifs et Chrétiens Patristique et Moyen Age (London: Variorum, 1977), chapter XVII (no pagination). Alfonso and Shem Ṭov, however, mistakenly held Joseph Qimḥi to be the author of Milḥamot ha-Shem; see Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 135; also the introduction to Rosenthal’s edition of Milḥamot ha-Shem, xvii–xxi. Another Jewish author who used Milḥamot ha-Shem appears to be Moses of Tordesillas. 13 Lukyn Williams summarizes some of de Lyre’s treatise, entitled Contra quendam Judaeum impugnatorem evangeli secundum Mattheum (Against a Certain Jew who Denounced the Gospel according to St Matthew), in Adversus Judaeos, 412–415. On de Lyre see also Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (2nd ed.; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), 170–195, esp. 185–187. The treatise de Lyre responds to addresses the same passages contained in chapter 11, however, the arrangement of New Testament passages is sequential (unlike in Milḥamot ha-Shem). Both de

94

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

Milḥamot ha-Shem’s impact, especially in light of the historical development and medieval debates, can therefore not be underestimated.

3. 2 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem The relations and religious debates between Jews and Christians, particularly in Spain in the twelfth and thirteenth century, have received great scholarly attention.14 This is partly due to the fact that in this period the three great monotheistic religions lived mostly peacefully together. The historical and cultural context, but also the factors that lead to a change of this situation therefore, hold great interest for the present. Jews had lived in Spain since Roman times. After the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula in the early eight century Jews fared, depending on the local ruler, moderately well. They had limited rights, yet were equal to Christians. Both were officially marginalized as dhimmi and suffered heavy tax burdens, but they were allowed to practice their religion relatively unimpeded, Lyre’s and ben Reuben’s texts have been briefly compared by Blumenkranz in his article “Nicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reuben.” He concludes that de Lyre did not have a full text of Milḥamot ha-Shem before him, but a treatise inspired by it: “Il semble assuré, d’abord, que Nicolas de Lyre n’a pas eu entre les mains le livre Milḥamot Adonaï de Jacob ben Ruben. Il es vrai, pourtant, que le Traité de polémique antichrétienne qu’il avait devant les yeux était fortement inspiré par la XIe Porte de ‘Batailles de Dieu’ de Jacob ben Reuben” (51). Joshua Levy also has compared the two texts in his “Sefer Milhamot Hashem, Chapter Eleven: The Earliest Jewish Critique of the New Testament” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2004), 255–265, but, following Cohen, comes to the opposite conclusion, cf. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 186, n. 4; cf. also the introduction to Rosenthal’s edition of Milḥamot ha-Shem, xx, n. 55. 14 Just to name a few: Anna Sapir Abulafia, Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives (New York: Palgrave, 2002); eadem, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London: Routledge Press, 1995); Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971); David Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate; Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Robert Chazan, Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2010); idem, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); idem, Daggers of Faith; idem, Fashioning Jewish Identity; idem, Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and Social History (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1973); Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews; Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages (London: Associated University Presses, 1982); Solomon Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (vol. 1; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989); Roth, Conversos; Kenneth R. Stow, Popes, Church, and Jews in the Middle Ages: Confrontation and Response (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007); Edward A. Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York: Macmillan, 1965).

3.2 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem

95

though without being allowed to proselytize. With the establishment of the Arab Emirate of Al-Andalus in 755 the whole of southern Spain flourished culturally and economically, especially in the tenth century, ushering in what has been called the first “Siglo de Oro” (The Spanish Golden Age).15 Toledo in particular became one of the major cultural focal points of the whole region and an important center for learning.16 Jews prospered and were heavily involved in commerce, the sciences, and politics in Al-Andalus. Compared to the rest of Europe, Jews in Iberia were generally better integrated in society, and less likely to encounter violent persecutions.17 On the level of daily life, friendly and cordial relations between ordinary Christians and Jews were the norm rather than the exception. Even though that was true also of medieval Europe in general, contrary to what we are led to believe in uniformed “histories” of Jews, it was not on so large or significant a scale as was the case in Spain. This convivencia [peaceful co-existence] included also the clergy: archbishops and bishops, monasteries and convents, local priests — all were constantly involved in business and social relations with Jews.18

In 1066, however, a first major persecution of Jews occurred in Granada when a Muslim mob lynched some 1,500 families.19 The situation became more oppressive for the Jewish population with the arrival of the Almoravid, a Moroccan Berber militia with more radical religious convictions. They had come to Iberia at the behest of the Muslim princes of Al-Andalus, the taifa, to combat the slowly advancing Christian reconquista, in which some Jews were fighting even on the side of the Christians.20 Due to the increasing pressure of 15 The exact nature of this period is disputed, not least for ideological reasons. María Rosa Menocal envisioned the Siglo de Oro as an age of great inter-religious tolerance, see her The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 2002), others, e.g., Mark Cohen has assessed her view as a “myth of an interfaith utopia,” see Crescent and Cross, 3–14. 16 See Roth, Conversos, 372–76, and esp. idem, “New Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo,” AJSR 11 (1986): 189–220. 17 Cohen, Crescent and Cross, xviii, xix, 22, 163, 169. 18 Roth, Conversos, 10. 19 Norman A. Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and a Source Book (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1979), 55–59, 211–225; Cohen, Crescent and Cross, 165–166; Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 45–46, 54. 20 See e.g. Roth, “New Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo,” 219. Beginning in the eighth century, the reconquista (the Christian reconquest of Iberia) slowly pushed southwards, gaining more territory and seeing its completion in 1492. But already by the middle of the 12th c. a large part of the Iberian peninsula was in Christian hands; on June 16, 1212, the Almohads suffered a crucial defeat at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa to the Crusader army, which reduced Muslim control in Iberia to the south. In 1492, with the fall of the Emirate of Granada, Muslim forces were completely driven out from the Iberian peninsula by the armies of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabella I and Fernando II. See e.g. Joseph F. O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 50–123.

96

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

discrimination and persecution, but also attracted by Christian rulers with promises of freedom and privileges if they were to help colonize northern Iberia, Jews began to leave the Muslim-controlled territories and moved northwards into Christian areas.21 At the same time the reconquista brought more areas, and the Jewish population therein, under the control of Christian rulers.22 Jews and Christians henceforth came to live in closer proximity. With the overthrow of the Almoravid dynasty by the Almohads, an African Berber dynasty with even more extreme religious views, Jewish life took a turn for the worse in southern Spain. By the middle of the 12th century the Almohads had taken control of the southern Iberian peninsula and enacted much harsher laws persecuting religious minorities violently. Because of these religious pressures Jacob ben Reuben may have moved to northern Spain or southern France, which at the time was still “part of a linguistic and cultural composite that stretched horizontally from the northern areas of the Iberian peninsuala through the south of France and onto the Italian peninsula.”23 However, Christian anti-Jewish legislation (in particular that of the Fourth Lateran council),24 growing anti-Jewish sentiment amongst the Christian populace, and the financial demands of Christian rulers would gradually and increasingly worsen the life of Jews in Iberia. At the same time Christians began to proselytize Jews. The establishment of the two mendicant orders, the Franciscans in 1209 and the Dominicans in 1215, played a significant role in this.25 Having done away with the earlier moderate Augustinian view of toleration of Jews, these orders took on a much more aggressive missionary stance.26 Raymond (Ramón) de Peñafort in particular, distinguished as papal penitentiarius and charged with the codification of medieval canon law (Liber extra/Decretales Gregorii IX), had a leading role. As an extremely prominent

21

Jonathan S. Ray, The Sephardic Frontier: The Reconquista and the Jewish Community in Medieval Iberia (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006), 15–35. 22 Toledo, e.g., was conquered by Alfonso VI of Castile in 1085. 23 Chazan, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 78, see also 78–90. 24 The Fourth Latern Council convened in 1215 at the behest of pope Innocent III, see esp. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.–13. Jh.), 400–33. Its antiJewish legislation, amongst other things, had significant financial ramifications as it limited usury on Jewish loans given to Christians, forced Jews to refrain from taking interest on loans taken out by Crusaders, and levied taxes on Jewish property formerly owned by Christians. It also legislated that Jews (and Muslims) had to dress differently so as to be distinguishable from the Christian population, and forbade Jews from holding public office or appearing in public during Easter. 25 How great of a role the Mendicants played is debated, cf. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, with Chazan, Daggers of Faith, 157–79; also John Y. B. Hood, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), x–xii, 106–111. 26 See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 19–50; see esp. Roth, Conversos, 3–47.

3.2 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem

97

figure in the Dominican order in Aragon and beyond, he influenced Jaime I to pass anti-Jewish legislation in Aragon, which included the establishment of the inquisition in Tarragona in 1242.27 In the same year Dominicans were given royal authority to deliver evangelistic sermons in synagogues making their attendance compulsory for Jews, an edict which was renewed in 1263.28 De Peñafort was furthermore instrumental in forcing a public debate between Jews and Christians that took place in the royal palace in Barcelona in 1263. The debate was primarily between Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman, better known as Nachmanides (or Ramban), and Pablo Christiani, a baptized Jew who had become a Dominican friar and was very actively and aggressively involved in proselytizing his former co-religionists.29 Christiani attempted to discredit Nachmanides and prove from the Talmud and Midrash — and not just the Hebrew Bible — that Jesus was the Messiah, which was a novel strategy that became a tool in Christian proselytization until the end of the Middle Ages and beyond (and is not infrequently encountered today).30 The so-called “Barcelona Disputation,” however, would only be one of the various public debates in the Middle Ages.31 The Jewish party, which was often forced to participate, was generally not allowed to prevail and had to fear for themselves and the well-being of the communities they represented.32 27 See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 103–108, 163–69; Roth, Conversos, 206; and Jean Longère, “Raymond of Peñafort,” Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages 2:1213–14. Peñafort as the compiler of canon law was, however, intimately acquainted with pope Calixtus II’s (1119–24) Sicut Iudaeis decree which affirmed Jewish privileges and stipulated that no force should be used against Jews. See Solomon Grayzel, “The Papal bull Sicut Iudeis,” in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neumann (ed. Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin; Leiden: Brill; Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1962), 243–80. 28 See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 82–83. However, soon after the renewal of the decree this was mitigated to a voluntary attendance, cf. Baer, History, 1:155–56. 29 See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 108–22; and Chazan, Daggers of Faith, 70–85. See also Baer, History, 1:152–56; but esp. Robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); Hans Georg von Mutius, Die christlich-jüdische Zwangsdisputation zu Barcelona (Judentum und Umwelt 5; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1982). 30 This strategy was first noticed with Peter Abelard and Alain de Lille in the twelfth century, cf. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 24–25, 28–31, cf. also 51–76, 122–28. The Jewish strategy to use the New Testament in polemics is, in some respect, reciprocal to this development; Christians used the “Jewish canon” to undermine Judaism, Jews used the “Christian canon.” 31 The best known of these forced debates is the “Disputation of Paris” in the court of the French King Louis IX, see the short summary in the chapter on Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, 4.2. For more see Maccoby, Judaism on Trial. 32 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 334–35. It was also de Peñafort who asked Thomas Aquinas “to compose a work that would help missionaries in Spain convert the Jews and Moslems there, and he responded by writing the massive Summa Contra Gentiles,” Hood, Aquinas and the Jews, 37.

98

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

In this period numerous Christian texts were written to further the missionary task of converting the Jews. Raymond Martini (Ramón Martí), a Dominican friar, who had been charged by de Peñafort with the study of Hebrew in order be able to read and evaluate the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish writings, published his massive Pugio Fidei (“The Dagger of Faith”) in 1278.33 Martini, in fact, had achieved a high proficiency in Hebrew and was extremely well-read in Hebrew literature. The Pugio Fidei was meant to be an instruction manual for the friars to convert Jews and Muslims, citing and using many Jewish sources, such as the Talmud, Midrashic works, and other early Jewish literature in their original language. Another prominent Jewish convert, Alfonso de Valladolid, formerly known by the name of Abner of Burgos, composed several anti-Jewish polemic works — which he wrote mostly in Spanish.34 Thus, the need for Jewish anti-Christian polemic, apologetics, and scholarly defense became increasingly pressing, and the many Jewish apologetic-polemical works from this time period testify to the new challenges.35 As for Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem is one of the earliest of the polemic works of this period. It reflects a rather sophisticated debate which would serve as a blueprint for the later polemic debate and many of its arguments appeared in subsequent polemic works.

3. 3 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem Milḥamot ha-Shem is arranged into twelve chapters or “gates” (‫)שערים‬. The first chapter contains doctrinal discussions of the Trinity, incarnation, and the virgin birth based on reason (‫)שכל‬.36 In this part, up to chapter 10, it is always 33

Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 241–55; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 129–69. On Martini see also Bernard Suler, “Martini, Raymond,” EncJud (2007) 13:584–85. 34 For Alfonso de Valladolid see Zvi Avneri, “Abner of Burgos,” EncJud (2007) 1:264– 65; Roth, Conversos, 190–92; Robert Chazan, “Alfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizing,” REJ 143 (1984): 83–94; also, Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-JudaeosTexte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13.–20. Jh), 377–78. 35 See Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 317–38. 36 On the philosophical argumentation and use of reason in the Jewish-Christian debate see Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, xxi–xxiv, 9–11, 25–43; and idem, “Jewish Philosophical Polemic in Ashkenaz,” in Contra Iudaeos (ed. Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa; TSMJ 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 195–214. A comparable overview of Islamic philosophical polemics is unfortunately not available, but see David Thomas, Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2008); idem, Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abū ʻĪsá al-Warrāq’s ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Oriental Publication 59; Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1996); and Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Encounters and Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History (2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio istituto di studi arabici e islamici, 2000).

3.3 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem

99

the Christian who begins and attempts to present rational proof for the Trinity, which the Jew subsequently rejects as irrational: Everyone who has understanding of knowledge and reason (knows about) the faith of these Christians and their worship — for they worship three powers — that their worship is not right, and that their faith does not recognize the acknowledged truth, since they say that the Creator who made them was born of a woman’s belly and brought forth on a birth-stool, and (that) he accepted the judgment of the cross by his own will in order to save the souls of the created ones from going down to the pit [or: hell]; and this is known to everyone who has understanding, that this is such folly that the ear cannot listen, and the eye is heavy from seeing; but the mouth is obliged to speak of their assertions and words to the many among the sons of our people who do not have deep insight.37

‫ שאין‬,‫יש לכל מבין לדעת ולהשכל כי אמונת הנוצרים האלה ועבודתם שעובדים שלש רשויות‬ ‫ באמרם כי הבורא אשר בראם נולד‬,‫ ואין אמונתם מהכרת האמת נכרת‬,‫עבודתם מיושרת‬ ‫ למען הציל ֹ נפשות הנבראים‬,‫ וקיבל דין צליבה ברצון נפשו‬,‫ והובא במשבר בנים‬,‫מבטן אשה‬ ‫ והעין‬,‫ עד שאין האוזן יכולה לשמוע‬,‫ וזה ידוע לכל מבין שהוא הבל ורעות רוח‬,‫מרדת שחת‬ ‫ שאין השכל יורד‬,‫ אך הפה חייב לספר טענותיהם ודברים לרבים מבני עמנו‬,‫כבדה מראות‬ 38.‫במעמקי ליבותם‬

In the first chapter likewise the incarnation is rejected as irrational and blasphemous, echoing some of the arguments already encountered in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor:39 When you say that the Creator, may he be blessed, who is in every aspect greater than any mind or heart can conceive, that he was completely enclosed in the deep darkness of the womb, and confined in the blackness of the belly, and that he was like (all other) infants that are not able to see light, then (it must be said that) this matter is a shame to speak of, and forbidden to listen to, and as for me, far be it from me to sin against the Lord with my tongue, and to bring such matter over my inadequate lips.40

‫ כולו נסגר‬,‫ מכל צד שהמחשבה והלב יכולים להרהר עליו‬,‫באמרך שהבורא יתברך כאשר הוא‬ ,‫ והדבר הזה גנאי הוא לאמרו‬.‫ ויהי כעוללים לא ראו אור‬,‫ ונכלא באפלת הבטן‬,‫במחשכי הרחם‬ 41.‫ מהעלות הדבר הזה על דל שפתי‬,‫ אנכי חלילה לי מחטא לי״י בלשוני‬,‫ועוד פלילי לשמעו‬

Chapter 2 deals with the Pentateuch and the question of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law, a topic already encountered in Qiṣṣa/Nestor. The following chapters 3–10 contain exegetical refutations of christological interpretations of passages in the Hebrew Bible, discussing in order: Psalms, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel, Job, and Proverbs.42

37

Translation modified from Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 50. Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 4. 39 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §74, §76, §82, §111 (see 2.5.3). 40 This and subsequent translations are my own if not otherwise stated. 41 Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 13. 42 Interestingly, this sequence is neither following the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Bible, nor of that in the Old Testament. 38

100

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

These first ten chapters of Milḥamot ha-Shem are presented as a dialogue between the “Denier” (‫ )מכחד‬and the “Affirmer” of monotheism (‫)מיחד‬.43 The dialogue is written in an elevated style of rhymed prose, perhaps reminiscent of the intellectual and rational character of the exchange between Jacob ben Reuben and his discussion partner, the priest. As in other dialogue literature, one party (here the “Denier”) is asking questions, to which the “Affirmer” gives a response. Yet, unlike in some dialogues in Christian literature, the opponent in Milḥamot ha-Shem is not merely a “straw man” or proxy for a lengthy monologue,44 rather this “denier of monotheism” is given ample opportunity to voice his position coherently and quite exhaustively, the dialogue appears as such rather authentic.45 It would thus seem that Jacob ben Reuben sought to carefully present the Christian position, at least how he understood it. In chapter 11 the dialogue format ends. The chapter is a shift from the previous part of the book, as it is now the “Affirmer” who asks the questions, while the “Denier” does not appear at all.46 A translation and interpretation of selected passages from the Gospel of Matthew are given which are then used as a means of a general critique of Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity. This second part of Milḥamot ha-Shem is, thus, more than just a defense against Christian ideas and exegesis. Not surprisingly Jacob ben Reuben begins the chapter with a cautious disclaimer.47 The last chapter argues that the Messiah has not yet come, mostly employing aguments form Saadia Gaon’s Emunoth veDe‘oth,48 and others.49 The New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, is hence mostly encountered in chapter 11. The larger part of Milḥamot ha-Shem either argues against Christian doctrine from reason, or by offering exegetical commentaries of passages from the Hebrew Bible that are considered to be Christian misinterpretations. 43 This term could perhaps be translated as “Unitarian,” although this would be (deceptively) anachronistic. 44 An example of this would be Anselm of Canterbury’s “discussion partner” Bodo in his work Cur Deus homo, whose (somewhat comical) task it is to affirm and usher along Anselm’s argument. 45 See Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 100. 46 See ibid., 283. 47 See below in 3.4. 48 Saadia Gaon (882–942 C.E.) was a prominent and influential leader and scholar of the Babylonian Jewry in the geonic period, see Abraham Solomon Halkin, “Saadiah (ben Joseph) Gaon,” EncJud (2007) 17:606–14. Emunot ve-De‘ot (“Beliefs and Opinions”) is the first principal philosophic treatment of Jewish theology, see Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions: Translated from the Arabic and the Hebrew by Samuel Rosenblatt (ed. Samuel Rosenblatt; Yale Judaica Series 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948; rep. 1976). 49 Rosenthal, “Prolegomena,” 132–33.

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

101

3. 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem Jacob ben Reuben’s treatment of the Gospel of Matthew in chapter 11 of Milḥamot ha-Shem is the main research interest of this study.50 Fortunately, Joshua Levy has recently prepared an updated critical edition of the chapter with a translation into English.51 Levy states that his goal was to “explore how two Jewish authors understood the Gospel of Matthew and the way in which Christians used it to support fundamental Christian doctrine.”52 His goals are, as such, quite close to those of this study. Levy identified three main polemic thrusts in Jacob ben Reuben’s use of Matthew: [T]he issues he addresses most often are central to Christianity: Jesus’s divine nature, Jesus’s divergence from the religion of the Israelites, and the Trinity. Jacob contends that when Matthew is read and understood properly, no aspect of Christian doctrine can be believed: Jesus cannot be seen as divine; Jesus repeatedly violates the laws he claims to fulfill; and Jesus’s statements lead a careful reader to question the validity of the Trinity. It is simply not possible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christian beliefs.53

Of these three aspects only the charge against Jesus’ divinity and the critique of the Trinity are of interest here. Jacob ben Reuben himself is rather cautious and aware of the danger of using the New Testament as basis of his critique. He opens the chapter with a disclaimer: [T]he All-Knowing Witness knows that I did not intend to argue with them or speak against them. Rather, I intended to be a conscientious witness for the diligent ones and to conceal it from the eyes of the worthless and reckless. Additionally, with regards to this chapter, God knows that it was not my intention to mention anything. Indeed my friends forced me, and 50 In 1980, Hans-Georg von Mutius has briefly presented the Jewish exegesis of the Gospel of Matthew in an article entitled “Ein Beitrag zur polemischen jüdischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Mittelalter.” He concludes that Jacob ben Reuben was one of the first to have shown that the New Testament was unfamiliar with the doctrine of the Trinity: “Sein Verdienst aber ist es, den Nachweis geführt zu haben, daß dem Neuen Testament das trinitarische Dogma noch unbekannt war und daß zwischen dem Jesusbild der kirchlichen Dogmatik und demjenigen der Evangelien eine Differenz besteht” (240). 51 Joshua Levy, “Sefer Milhamot Hashem, Chapter Eleven: The Earliest Jewish Critique of the New Testament” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2004), supervised by Robert Chazan. Levy consulted eight manuscripts, ibid., 18–25. He has judged MS Moscow Russian State Library, Guenzburg Collection 418 Italy (16th c.) as the best and most reliable manuscript. Levy’s critical edition is different from Rosenthal’s in places, and therefore ought to be consulted for his apparatus. I wish to thank Dr. Levy for graciously allowing me to cite so extensively from his unpublished work. 52 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” v. The other Jewish author investigated by Levy is Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut and his polemical treatise Even Boḥan. Levy compares Milḥamot ha-Shem with Even Boḥan, noting many similarities and finding that Shem Ṭov relied heavily on Milḥamot ha-Shem, see ibid., 116–76; esp. the table on pp. 139–42. 53 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 7.

102

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

urged me and beseeched me to mention something of it. Therefore I have mentioned a few of the errors of their book and their foolishness. I have revealed only a tenth of a tenth, because I was afraid. Please do not incriminate me or mention my name in connection with this, for it is good to fear the Lord our God and to adhere to him for eternity.54

‫ כי אם להיות עדות מסורה לזריזים‬,‫ ולא לדבר עליהם‬,‫היודע ועד ]יודע[ כי לא להתווכח עמהם‬ .‫וגם מהשער הזה ה׳ יודע כי לא היה בלבי להזכיר ממנו כלל‬. ‫ולהעלימה מעיני ריקים ופוחזים‬ ‫ על כן הזכרתי ממנו קצת משגיות‬.‫והנה חברי הכריחוני והביאוני והשיאוני להזכיר ממנו קצתו‬ ‫ ואנא מאתכם לבלתי האשימני‬.‫ ומעשר מן המעשר לא גליתי כי יראתי‬.‫ספרם וממעוותם‬ 55.‫ולבלתי הזכיר שמי על זאת לרעה כי טובה היא ליראה את ה' אלהינו ולדבקה בו כל הימים‬

The author presents himself here as a reluctant expert of the content of Gospel of Matthew, at least as it pertains to its polemic potential. How much of this polemic originated with him is not easy to determine; many of the arguments are similar to those in earlier Christian apologetical literature, though others are more novel. Although he cites arguments from Nestor ha-Komer in the latter part of chapter 11, the treatment of some of the passages in the Gospel of Matthew is distinct from Qiṣṣa/Nestor. The phrase ‫מהשער הזה )…( להזכיר‬ ‫ ממנו קצתו‬and the urging of Jacob ben Reuben’ friends perhaps suggests that that chapter existed already as an independent treatise, or as a draft.56 Regardless, Jacob ben Reuben’s disclaimer makes it clear that he is aware that the rational critique of Christian doctrines and the critique of Christian exegesis of the Hebrew Bible are a different matter from criticizing Christianity on the basis of the Gospel of Matthew. He appears to consider the latter as potent, which subsequently could have severe ramifications if employed in a debate.57 3. 4. 1 Outline of Chapter 11 The New Testament passages are usually cited by Jacob ben Reuben at some length thereby attempting to consider the context and literal meaning of a passage.58 On the other hand, it also becomes evident that Matthew’s overall intention is not taken into account, and that the passages are limited to what is

54

The translation is slightly modified from Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 57. Ibid., 26–27. Cf. Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 141. 56 The issue is if “gate” (‫ )שער‬means “tractate” here (it cannot mean “chapter,” as ben Reuben’s friends hardly could have urged him to cite from it and at the same time include it in Milḥamot ha-Shem), or whether it refers to the Gospel of Matthew (cf. ‫על כן הזכרתי ממנו‬ ‫)קצת משגיות ספרם וממעוותם‬, as Rosenthal has suggested, see idem, “The Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reuben,” 50–51. It is, however, noteworthy that Nicholas de Lyre appears to have encountered chapter 11 as separate treatise (see discussion above). 57 In our time, the fatwā issued against Sir Salman Rushdie serves as reminder that criticizing a religion by means of its sacred Scriptures can be dangerous business. 58 See Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 284, cf. also 127–40. 55

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

103

polemically expedient (nor would one expect this necessarily).59 The actual discussion of many passages is often quite short, while others evidently are more central to the author and his critique, in particular Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. The passages from the Gospel of Matthew that are cited and discussed in Milḥamot ha-Shem chapter 11 are given below in the order they appear: Matt 1:1–16 Matt 3:13–17 Matt 4:1–11a Matt 5:33–39 Matt 5:39–40 Matt 5:43–44 Matt 11:25–27 Matt 12:1–8 Matt 8:1–4a Mark 5:19–20 Matt 10:32 Matt 26:36–40, 45 Matt 21:18–19 Matt 28:16–19 Matt 15:21–25 Matt 12:30–32

Jesus’ Genealogy Jesus’ Baptism Jesus’ Temptation Jesus on the Law of Swearing Oaths and the lex talionis Jesus on Turning One’s Cheek Jesus Speaking on Enemy Love Jesus Prayer to the Father Jesus on Keeping the Sabbath (incl. allusion to Matt 5:17) Jesus’ Healing of the Lepers (contradicting Matt 12:7) Retelling of Exorcism (par. Matt 8:28–36, contradicting Matt 8:4a) Jesus’ open Confession (contradicting Matt 8:1–4a ) Jesus in Gethsemane Jesus’ Cursing the Fig Tree Jesus on the Kingdom and Authority Contradictions Arising Juxtaposing Matt 18:11–13 and 13:10, 12–15 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit

This is followed by partially citing some selected arguments from Qiṣṣa/ Nestor: Qiṣṣa /Nestor §29–30 Qiṣṣa /Nestor §37 Qiṣṣa /Nestor §40 Qiṣṣa /Nestor §52 Qiṣṣa /Nestor §53 Qiṣṣa /Nestor §55 and §57

Questions concerning the Hypostatic Union Jesus is a Messenger God is Judge, Jesus is Sent Obscure Reference Jesus Begging on his Knees (in prayer) Jesus is a Messenger and Distinct from God

The arguments based on Qiṣṣa/Nestor, which ben Reuben explicitly attributes to Nestor,60 will not be considered here again; the main point he takes from them is that Jesus saw himself as a messenger, distinct from God:61

59 This observation alone brings into doubt Levy’s assessment that “Jacob contends that when Matthew is read and understood properly, no aspect of Christian doctrine can be believed (…) It is simply not possible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christian beliefs” (s.a). Since Jacob ben Reuben was evidently (and explicitly) selective about the passages he presented, Levy’s claim is too sweeping. Surely ben Reuben also recognized that it was “possible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christian beliefs.” 60 See Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 53–55, 76–77, 84–85. 61 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §44, §55 and §57, see also 2.5.1.6. Interestingly, Jacob ben Reuben only cites Nestor up to §57, which might be further evidence for a literary seam at this point in Qiṣṣa/Nestor.

104

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

It further [follows] that he testified about himself, ‘I am a servant and prophet, and I am a messenger from God.’ Another time he said to the nation, ‘See the Lord my God and your God.’ He further said, ‘For I have not spoken from my heart but [from] the God who has sent me, the God [who serves as] a mouth to man.’62 ,‫ ופעם אחרת אמר לעם‬."‫ועוד שהוא מעיד על עצמו כי "עבד ונביא אנכי ושליח מהאלהים‬ ‫ "כי לא דברתי מלבי אבל האל שלחני השם פה‬,‫ ועוד אמר‬."‫"וראו את יי אדני ואדוניכם‬ 63."‫לאדם‬

The study will focus on the arguments against Jesus’ divinity for which the discussion of the following eight passages is relevant: Matt 1:1–16, Matt 3:13–17, Matt 4:1–11a, Matt 11:25–27, Matt 26:36–40a (Mark 14:32–37a, 40b–41), Matt 21:18–19, Matt 28:16–19 and Matt 12:30–32. The other passages are meant to demonstrate that Jesus contradicted the Mosaic Law or himself. Though Jacob ben Reuben does not fully explicate this, either scenario implies that Jesus could not have been God, for God cannot contradict his previous words (i.e. the Law of Moses), nor himself (as Jesus did).64 Many of the passages discussed here, as well as those which are not considered because they fall outside the range of this study, will also be encountered in later polemic works, partially because of their dependence on Milḥamot haShem. 3. 4. 2 Jesus’ Genealogy: Matt 1:1–16 After the introduction, Jacob ben Reuben’s begins by citing Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1:1–16), which is then followed by various questions and comments: And here, indeed, is truthfully the beginning of their New Testament. I asked him about this: Why does [the New Testament] mention Tamar, the wife of Judah, and not mention one of the wives of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob? Why does it mention Rahav the whore, Ruth the Moabite, and the wife of Uriah, and not mention one of the other wives, except for [these who] are flawed? And how can you testify thus about your God? Here you note his shortcoming, for you recall those who are flawed and leave out the others who are worthy and just.65

62

Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 78. Ibid., 54. 64 The issue with Jesus and the Mosaic Law is, thus, related to the debate about the incarnation and Jesus’ divinity in that they both, in some respect, concern the immutability and transcendence of God. Of course, to Christians God’s transcendence and immutability could never be as absolute and exclusive (in an Aristotelian sense) as for Jews or Muslims; if the man Jesus is taken to be God incarnate at least at some level God would be immanent and mutable. And if Jesus is understood to introduce changes to the Law — any change for that matter — than he would stand for a move away from the transcriptions of what is considered God-given orthodoxy. Whereas God cannot contradict himself, Jesus is thus understood as both contradicting himself and previous revelation. 65 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 59. 63

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

105

‫ למה הזכיר תמר אשת יהודה‬:‫ ואשאל לו על זה‬.‫והנה כן הוא באמת ראשית עדותם החדשה‬ ‫ולא הזכיר אחת מנשי אברהם יצחק ויעקב? ולמה הזכיר רחב הזונה ורות המואביה ואשת‬ ‫אוריה ולא הזכיר אחת מנשי האחרים כי אם אלה בעבור שהיה בהן פסולת? ואיך אתם‬ ‫ כי זכרתם את אלה הפגומות‬66‫מעידים עדות זה על אלהותכם? והנה אתם כמזכיר עון עליו‬ 67.‫והנחתם האחרות הכשרות והישרות‬

Jacob ben Reuben highlights the four women in Jesus’ genealogy, and in particular Rahab, “the whore” (‫)הזונה‬, and Ruth, “the Moabitess.”68 He questions how the “flawed” women (‫ )שהיה בהן פסולת‬could be mentiond in Jesus’ genealogy, yet the more admirable women were omitted.69 Chazan felt that the argument here is directed at the “storytelling style of the Gospel, urging that in a general way it is morally deficient.”70 Yet, Jacob ben Reuben primarily argues here that 1) this ancestral flaw is unbecoming for a contender of divinity (“How can you testify thus about your God?”), and 2) it is presumably deliberate of Matthew to “note his shortcomings” (‫מזכיר עון‬ ‫עליו‬, lit.: “sin/iniquity”). Levy comments here that “placing these women in Jesus’s genealogy does not make his lineage holier; Jesus’s past makes him more pedestrian and less special.”71 This, however, would ignore to some extent the context of the genealogy and Matthew’s intention. After all, Jesus is introduced as “Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” (‫ישו קרישט בן‬ ‫)דיד בן אברהם‬,72 which is then directly linked to the virgin birth in fulfillment 66 Lit.: “Here you remember sin on him.” William Horbury suggested that this may hint at the disgraceful title ‫ ממזר בן הנדה‬in Toledoth Yeshu. 67 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 29. 68 Hans-Georg von Mutius discusses the Jewish exegesis of Matthew in Milḥamot haShem noting that also in Midr. Tehillim 4:9 David’s Moabite ancestry is made an issue, see “Beitrag,” 233. He further remarks that Jacob ben Reuben certainly would have been aware that Ruth, according to the text of Targum Ruth 3:15, was held to be “Stammutter des Messiaskönigs,” ibid., 233–34, n. 8. 69 The same argument is raised in Even Boḥan (see 6.4.1). In fact, Shem Ṭov, seems to largely depend on Milḥamot ha-Shem here. The very same argument also appears in much earlier Christian sources, in Ambrose of Milan’s commentary on Luke, Exp. Luc. 3.17, we read: “For many wonder why Matthew considered the inclusion of the commemoration of Tamar into the Lord’s genealogy, a notorious woman in the opinion of many, why also Ruth, why also of that women who was Uria’s wife, who when her husband was killed moved in with David, while especially Sarah, and Rebecca, and Rachel, holy women, where nowhere mentioned?” Plerique etiam mirantur cur Thamar mulieris famosae, ut illis uidetur, Matthaeus conmemorationem in dominica generatione contexendam putauerit, cur etiam Ruth, cur eius quoque mulieris quae Vriae uxor fuit et occiso marito in Dauid nuptias commigrauit, cum praesertim Sarrae, et Rebbecae, et Rachel, sanctarum feminarum, nusquam fecerti mentionem (CCSL 14:84). 70 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 285. Levy agrees here with his doctoral supervisor, see idem, “Chapter Eleven,” 143. 71 Ibid., 143. 72 Ibid., 27.

106

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

of Isaiah 7:14 (Matt 1:22–23).73 It would seem, therefore, more likely that Jacob ben Reuben did not want to question merely the style of the gospel, but to emphasize Matthew’s authorial intention: perhaps Matthew wanted to deliberately show that Jesus was lesser than God (although Matthew clearly held Jesus to be very special). Also, in interpreting this in the sense that there is “sin on him” (‫ )עון עליו‬Jacob ben Reuben may have further intended to critique the claim of Jesus’ sinlessness, and consequently the notion of original sin and penal substitution.74 Thus the question is raised if Christians understand their own scriptures properly. His argument, however, is presented in a rather non-offensive manner. Where he could have been more explicit or derogatory, he merely points out the apparent oddity of the genealogy, and directs the Christian to question Jesus’ ancestry. For example, Jacob ben Reuben could have made the case that the four women are a possible indicator to Jesus’ illegitimate birth, after all Mary is the fifth woman mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1:16). The discussion here also differs from the discussion of the genealogy of Matthew in Qiṣṣa/Nestor. There the four women are not mentioned at all, and the main critique in the subsequent comment is that Jesus’ lineage points to Joseph, and not to Mary; in fact, her lineage is missing altogether in the

73 Perhaps Matthew’s inclusion of the four somewhat disreputable women in Matthew’s genealogy was meant to address polemics attempting to disqualify Jesus as Messiah, which Raymond Brown has called a “cryptic apologetic,” Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 71–72. These four women in the Davidic line would as such demonstrate that even if the circumstances of Jesus’ birth were questionable, this should not rule out Jesus as Messiah. Cf. the discussion in Luz, Matthew 1–7, 83–85; also W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume I: Commentary on Matthew The Gospel According to Saint Matthew I–VII (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 170–75; and Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSM 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 153–79. More recently Thomas P. Osborne has proposed the interesting idea that the inclusion of the four women has to be interpreted in light of the Mosaic law, for if the Law had been applied in their cases, David, after whom the whole genealogy is modeled, would never have been born, see idem, “Les femmes de la généalogie de Jésus dans l’evangile de Matthieu et l’application de la Torah,” Revue théologique de Louvain 41 (2010): 243–58. On this see also the important study by Jason B. Hood, The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations (Matt 1.1–17) (LNTS 441; New York: T&T Clark, 2011), who surveys most, if not all, current interpretations of these four (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah[’s wife]; see 89–138), and concludes that they have to be understood as “four righteous praiseworthy Gentiles” (159) which advances Matthew’s conclusion in Matt 28:16–20, that “the nations become righteous and faithful through submission and obedience to Judah’s royal son” (loc. cit.) 74 A topic that is also regularly discussed in the polemical discourses of the period, see e.g. Joel E. Rembaum, “Medieval Jewish Criticism of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin,” AJSR 7/8 (1982/83): 353–82.

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

107

gospels. The argument in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, thus, wants Joseph to be understood as Jesus’ biological father.75 Interestingly, of the eight manuscripts of Milḥamot ha-Shem Levy consulted, two append a discussion of Mary’s family line here:76 Furthermore, every daughter can [be] from the tribe of her father or from another tribe, except for the daughter who inherits [her father’s land], because of the land that “cannot be transferred to another tribe” (Numbers 36:9). Who will prove to us that she (Mary) was a daughter who inherits the land? Furthermore, if she was a daughter who inherits the land, who will prove that she was from the family of the son of David, and [therefore] able to marry [into] one of the remaining families of Judah.77

‫ועוד כי כל בת יכולה להיות משבט אביה לשבט אחר הוץ מבת ירושת נחלה בעבור הנחלה‬ ‫ אם היא היתה בת‬,‫ ומי יוכיח לנו שהיא היתה בת יורשת נחלה? ועוד‬.‫שלא תסור למטה אחר‬ ‫יורשת נחלה מי יוכיח שהיא ממשפחת בית דוד כי יכולה להנשא לאחד משאר משפחת‬ 78?‫יהודה‬

The underlying argument disputes how Jesus could claim Messianic ancestry when only Jesus’ human father was known to be a descendant of David. How could Jesus rightfully be considered the Messiah, if Christians understand him as only biologically related to Mary?79 Mary ought to have her own established Davidic genealogy, which was an issue evidently encountered very early on in the Christian tradition. The solution was to simply affirm that Mary was indeed from the house “and seed” of David.80 This, however, created the curious situation that the members of the same family clan would have come to marry each other, which already Eusebius of Caesarea explained by alluding to Numbers 36:5–9. Accordingly, Mary was able to marry Joseph because she did not have any brothers, and was, as such, required to marry “within the family” and tribe to preserve the ancestral name and inheritance. This is then the argument which Milḥamot ha-Shem addresses as doubly insufficient. Von Mutius proposes that he came to know about Eusebius’ assertion through the Latin version of Rufinus with which his Christian dialogue partner would have been familiar.81 However, it is debatable if this addition, which only occurs in two manuscripts, has its origin in 75

Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §80 (see 2.5.2). In MS Vienna National Library Hebrew 119, and MS Oxford Bodleian Library 2146 (Venice, 1625). 77 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 59, n. 45. 78 Ibid., 29, n. 105. 79 This has also been discussed by v. Mutius, “Beitrag,” 234. 80 See the discussion and footnotes in 2.5.2 above. 81 Mutius, “Beitrag,” 234. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.7.17: “And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe” (NPNF2 1:92). 76

108

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

Jacob ben Reuben. Not only is it missing in the other manuscripts, but the argument against Jesus’ messianic qualifications does not seem to fit with the rest of the arguments made in chapter 11. It does, however, also appear in Even Boḥan.82 3. 4. 3 Jesus’ Baptism: Matt 3:13–17 After recounting Matt 3:13–17 Jacob ben Reuben comments: We see that at the time of [his] baptism, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, but that before the baptism it was not in him. How do you say that he himself was made from the Holy Spirit that entered into the womb of his mother? For if he was [created] from [the Holy Spirit], why would he need another [spirit] at the time of baptism?83

‫ ואיך אמרתם שהוא‬.‫ אך קודם הטבילה לא היה בו‬,‫נמצא בשעת הטבילה ירד עליו רוח הקדש‬ ‫ מדוע נצרך בשעת הטבילה‬,‫עצמו נעשה מרוח הקדש שנכנס במעי אמו? כי אם הוא היה ממנו‬ 84.‫לאחר‬

The argument juxtaposes the descent of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism with the virginal conception by the Spirit. Jacob ben Reuben questions this from both sides: if the Holy Spirit descended on him, because “before the baptism it was not in him,” why then the virginal conception? And if the virginal conception by the the Holy Spirit were true, “why would he need another at the time of baptism?” Levy understands the argument as a critique of the Trinity: If Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit should have been within him in utero. We see here that a spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism. (…) The Christians claim that Jesus was created by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. However, another spirit descended at the time of baptism. This only makes sense if the procreative spirit, and by implication Jesus, was not part of the Trinity.85

While Jacob ben Reuben’s comment can, perhaps, serve as a critique of the Trinity, Levy appears to read too much into the rather terse argument.86 First, 82

See 6.4.1. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 60. 84 Ibid., 31. 85 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 81. 86 First, Levy’s initial line, “if Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit should have been within him in utero” (italics original) is an interpretive decision that is not necessarily implied in the argument. Likewise his comment: “[t]his only makes sense if the procreative spirit, and by implication Jesus, was not part of the Trinity,” not only may misconstrue Jacob ben Reuben’s argument, it is also not taking into account the Christian understanding. Christian doctrine affirms that the the Second Person of the Trinity, i.e. the logos, became incarnate, not the Holy Spirit. Further, the man Jesus Christ still can be “endowed” or “inhabited” by the the Third Person of the Trinity. If the “procreative Spirit” is understood here as the Holy Spirit one could posit a contradiction, yet it is not a valid critique of the Trinity as Christians understand it, but cf. Hermas 5.6.5. Also Levy’s further comment is not necessarily implied by Jacob ben Reuben’s argument: “Jacob accepts that Jesus was divinely conceived, which leads 83

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

109

one needs to decide if Jacob ben Reuben understood Jesus as being made from the Holy Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit (‫ ממנו‬/ ‫)נעשה מרוח‬. Levy seems to suggest that Jacob ben Reuben understood Christians to hold that Jesus was made out of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Spirit that entered Mary’s womb comprised the “stuff” Jesus was generated from. If so, then this could perhaps be seen a veiled critique of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the argument would then be based on the false assumption that Christians believed Jesus was the Holy Spirit incarnate, in which case it would be indeed redundant to be filled with the Spirit again.87 On the other hand, Jacob ben Reuben may simply have questioned how it could be that one who was made by the Holy Spirit was later in need to be filled with the Holy Spirit again (‫)מדוע נצרך‬, which is not a straightforward critique of the Trinity. It would mostly question Jesus’ character and, by implication, how Christians could think of him as divine if he was potentially morally deficient.88 him to assert that the descent of the Holy Spirit after Jesus’s baptism indicates that there was something wrong with the procreative spirit,” Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 89, see also 100. 87 The early church interpreters dealt extensively with the issue of Jesus’ baptism and the question of why Jesus was baptized, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), esp. 113–31. See also Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 321–23; and Robert L. Wilken, “The Baptism of Jesus in the Late Fathers,” StPatr 11 (1972): 268–77. Already in Matthew 3:14– 15 the issue is raised, which shows that Jesus’ baptism was felt to be problematic from the the first century onwards (cf. Justin Dial. 88.4). In the second century, Origen suggested that Jesus needed to be baptized to remove the stain (!) of his birth: “Every soul that has been clothed with a human body has its own ‘stain.’ But Jesus was stained [through birth] through his own will, because he had taken on a human body for our salvation,” Hom. Luc. 14.4 (GCS 49:86, FC 94:57; see context). Jerome reports in Pelag. 3.2 that the Hebrew gospel used by the “Nazarenes” included an exchange between Jesus and his family in which he explicitly denied being in need of baptism: “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance” (NPNF2 6:472; emphasis mine). In contrast, Ephrem affirms Jesus’ full humanity: “‘Jesus was about thirty years’ when he came to be baptized. This [was cause of] confusion for Marcion. For, if he had not assumed a body, why should he have approached baptism. A divine nature does not need to be baptized. Does not the fact that he as thirty years old also disclose his humanity?,” Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy), IV, §1a, 83 (emphasis mine), cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.9. Even more comparable to the Jewish argument above is a dialogue transmitted by Hegemonius (4th c.), who reports that the Manichaeans suggested that Jesus’ baptism indicated that Jesus had sinned; see Acta Archelai 59: “Manes said: ‘Therefore did Christ sin, because he was baptized?’,” Mark J. Vermes, Acta Archelai (MaS 4; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 139 [the critical text can be found in Charles H. Beeson, Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906), 87]. A similar argument also occurs in The Discussion of St. Silvester in Georgius Cedrenus’ (died c. 1100) Historiam Compendium, where Doeg, the fifth Jew, objects that the Christ should not be in need of baptism, see Williams, Adversus Judeaos, 342. 88 This is, in fact, how Nizzahon Vetus understood Jacob ben Reuben’s argument, see

110

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

3. 4. 4 Jesus’ Temptation: Matt 4:1–11a Jacob ben Reuben then moves to discuss Jesus’ temptation. Accordingly, Jesus was led into the desert by “the Spirit of Satan” (‫)ברוח שטן‬,89 which is followed by a translation of Matt 4:1–11, albeit without mentioning the angels who served or fed (διακονεῖν) Jesus afterwards.90 He then comments: What kind of praise is this to a divinity, that he could fast for 40 days and 40 nights and then be famished? Indeed, Moses, who was a prophet and not a god, fasted for 40 days and 40 nights and when he descended “from the mountain, a ray of light was upon his face.” Further, how can he have responded to Satan, “Man does not live by bread alone; rather man lives by all the utterances of God.” If so he should have been able to satisfy himself by all of his [own] utterances or [even by eating] wood or stones.91

‫ומה השבח הזה לאלוה בצומו מ׳ יום ומ׳ לילה ואחר כך נרעב? והלא משה שהיה נביא ולא‬ ‫ "כי לא‬,‫ ועוד איך השיב אל השטן‬.‫אלוה צם מ׳ יום ומ׳ לילה כאשר ירד מן ההר קרן אור פניו‬ ‫" אם כן היה לו להשביע בכל מוצא פיו או‬.‫על הלחם לבדו יחיה האדם כי על כל מוצא פי יי‬ 92.‫בעצים או באבנים‬

The argument is not finished here, but moves into a discussion of Jesus’ understanding of the Law where Jacob ben Reuben references several passages from the Hebrew Bible that demonstrate that it is permissible to test God (Exod 4:1, 1 Kings 18:24, 2 Kings 5:8, Mal 3:10, Judges 6:37, 39).93 The conclusion he wants to be drawn, though this is not explicit, is that Jesus’ response to Satan was not in accordance with the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus’ understanding of the Scriptures was evidently insufficient. What stands out in the argument above is that Jesus is less impressive when compared to Moses. Where the latter descended from the mountain after his fast without making any mention of being hungry — instead, Moses was even radiant — Jesus, in contrast, was “famished” (‫)נרעב‬.94 Chazan notes that 5.4.3. Cf. also Qiṣṣa §60: “He was sullied by sins until Yaḥuā ibn Zacharia the Baptist came and cleansed him,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:64 (cf. also §114). However, Levy is vindicated by Shem Ṭov who understands this passage as a critique of the Trinity, see 6.4.4. Also the idea expressed in Talmud and in the Toledoth Yeshu accounts that Jesus, as ‫בן‬ ‫פנדרא‬, was illegitimate would correspond to this argument, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. 89 Levy, “Chaper 11,” 31, 60. 90 In Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§142–145 the angels are also not mentioned, but the account there is more apocryphal and merely narrates the temptation scene without adding any kind of comment or argument, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:80–82, 164, 125–26; 2:75–78, 108, 129–30. On this cf. Nestorius, fr. 24 (Loofs, 333) and Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hom. catech. 15.25. 91 Slightly modified from Levy, “Chaper 11,” 61. 92 Ibid., 32. 93 See ibid., 33–34, 62–63. 94 The same argument is already raised by Ephrem: “Why then does [Scripture] not indicate concerning Moses or Elijah, that they were hungry, but it is written concerning out Lord that he was hungry? [This was] so that [Scripture] might confound those who say that the did

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

111

“Jacob juxtaposes the Exodus report on Moses atop Mount Sinai,” thus impliying “a sense of disjuncture between the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible.”95 Consequently, Moses has to be understood as greater than Jesus. More so, if Jesus were God he should not feel hunger at all. Furthermore, according to Jesus’ own appeal to Deuteronomy, he should have been able to nourish himself, either on his own divine utterances, or by causing the trees to bear fruit or by changing the stones into food (‫)בעצים או באבנים‬. Levy makes this even more explicit: If Jesus were divine, he should have said, ‘Man lives by all of my utterances.’ As a divinity, Jesus should have referred to himself; appealing to the word of God is an indication that Jesus was not divine.96

Since Jesus did not do any of this he cannot be God, thus, the Gospel of Matthew portrays him as merely human. Jacob ben Reuben’s argument looks impressive, but he also misses, or purposely neglects, Matthew’s point altogether: Jesus, who is clearly marked out at this stage as the “Son of God” (Matt 4:3, 6), and who later is being served by angels (Matt 4:11), is challenged to act independently from God. Also, the Christian understanding of the two natures of Christ is completely ignored.97 This is not to detract from the fact that this pericope posed difficulties for the early church interpreters. Their explanation of the temptation often downplayed the physical aspects of the narrative and made the temptation less acute for Jesus.98 3. 4. 5 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Matt 11:25–27 Right in the midst of discussing Jesus relationship to the Law, we find a critique of the Trinity based on Matt 11:25–27:

not assume a body (…),” Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy), IV, §7, 86. Interestingly, Theodore of Mopsuestia turned this comparison around. “There is an important difference between Jesus on the one side and Moses with Elijah on the other. Neither Moses nor Elijah was tempted after the fasting period. On the contrary, Christ fasted and was put on trial by the devil. It was not granted to Moses and Elijah to be tempted, speculates Theodore of Mopsuestia, for they were chosen for smaller services, but the Saviour who came to defeat death and to annul the previous decision had to be tempted,” Veselin Kesich, “The Antiocheans and the Temptation Story,” StPatr 7 (1966): 496–502, here 499, cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, In Evangelium Lucae Commentarii Fragmenta 4 (PG 66:720). 95 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 284–85. 96 Levy, “Chaper 11,” 90. 97 See the discussion under 5.4.4 98 See Klaus Peter Köppen, Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung der alten Kirche (BGBE 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961); also Kesich, “The Antiocheans and the Temptation Story;” and idem, “Hypostatic and Prosopic Union in the Exegesis of Christ’s Temptation,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965): 118–37. See also Luz, Matthew 1–7, 153–55.

112

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

And if he is God, when you said how he confessed before his Father, and indeed [when] you say that everything that is the Father is the Son and everything that is the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit, this is evidence of a lie by you. If everything was delivered to him by his Father, it follows that he lacks knowledge by himself, for there is nothing in his speech or his language except for what his Father teaches him.99

‫ואם הוא אלוה כאשר אמרתם איך היה מתודה לפני אביו והלא אתם אומרים כי כל מה שהוא‬ ‫ ואם‬.‫האב הוא הבן וכל מה שהוא הבן הוא האב והרוח נמצא זה מעיד עדות שקר על פניכם‬ ‫ כי אין כל בפיו ולשונו אך מה‬,‫ נמצא שהוא מחוסר ידיעה מעצמו‬,‫כל דבר נמסר אליו מאביו‬ 100.‫שלמדו אביו‬

Jacob ben Reuben wants to show that Jesus’ confession (‫ )מתודה‬to the Father indicates that there is a distinction between Jesus and the Father. More so, the content of the prayer demonstrates to ben Reuben that Jesus has been given knowledge (‫)ידיעה‬,101 which he presumably did not have in himself: Matt 11:27a is, thus, understood to mean that a special kind of knowledge from the Father was imparted to Jesus (v. 27b). What Jesus teaches about the Father, consequently, has been given to him (‫)שלמדו אביו‬. It follows that the trinitarian belief “that everything that is the Father is the Son, and everything that is the Son is the Father” is false. If everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, and vice versa, then there should be no need for the Father to give anything to the Son. Jesus should “by nature” know what God knows. But, once again, the Christian understanding of the two natures of Christ is not taken into account.102 In fact, Jacob ben Reuben’s argument, at least in this chapter of Milḥamot ha-Shem, would only “work” against Modalistic,

99

Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 65. Ibid., 37–38. 101 The translation of Matt 11:27 does not use ‫ידיעה‬, but ‫הכיר‬: “No one recognized the Son except for the Father, and the Father recognized no one except for the Son” (‫ושום אדם‬ ‫)לא הכיר הבן כי אם האב והאב לא הכיר שום אדם כי אם הבן‬, Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 37. Cf. “nemo novit Filium nisi Pater neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius” (Vg.), and “καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς” (NA27). In Matthew’s gospel the verb ἐπιγινώσκω denotes recognition or perception of something, cf. Matt 7:16, 20, 11:27, 14:35, and 17:12. It is thus debatable if Jesus is speaking in Matt 11:27 of a god-given knowledge which he previously did not possess. Rather, it seems more likely that he is saying that he is the only one who recognizes and perceives the Father clearly; something which he alone is able and willing to reveal to others (καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι). Jesus would, thus, actually stand on the side of God more than on the side of man. This is also how the early church understood the passage, see Luz, Matthew 8–20, 164–70. See also William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume II: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII–XVIII (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 281–87; see esp. the extensive bibliography on the passage, 297– 302. 102 The evangelists probably intentionally seeks to compare Jesus with Moses in Matt 11:25–30 by means of Exod 33:11–23, Num 12:1–8, and Deut 34:9–12, see Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 218–33. 100

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

113

Docetist, or Mono/Miaphysite Christologies, which means that his argument ultimately falls short in the later European context. Even if Jesus was ignorant and received divine knowledge this would pose no immediate difficulties to a Chalcedonian understanding of Jesus, nor does it necessarily contradict trinitarian thinking. 3. 4. 6 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–37a, 40b–41, par. Matt 26:36–40a, 45 Next to Jesus’ attitude to the Law, the most extensively discussed passage in the whole of chapter 11 is Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. Already in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor the Gethsemane scene was recognized,103 but for Jacob ben Reuben the passage becomes central in his critique of Christianity. He utilizes the pericope to make a whole set of arguments against the belief in the divinity of Jesus. He starts by citing the passage which is closer to the text of Mark’s gospel (Mark 14:32–37a, 40b–41) than to Matthew (Matt 26:36–40a, 45) — though the translation is dissimilar to both:104 103

Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53 and §§139–141 (see 2.5.1.5); cf. also the discussions in Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 and §10 (see 4.5.19–20), Nizzahon Vetus §176 (see 5.4.12), Even Boḥan §53 (see 6.4.19), and Ḥizzuq Emunah (see 8.4.3 and 8.4.11). Matt 26:39 is also briefly mentioned in a Muslim polemic. In a work attributed to Al-Ghazālī (1058–1111 C.E.; though it is disputed if he is the author), titled Al-radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat ‘Īsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīl (“The fitting refutation of the divinity of Jesus through what is evident in the Gospel”), the argument is made that Jesus expresses here that his will and God’s will are different (the same argument does not occur in this form in Milḥamot ha-Shem, but in later Jewish works). See Robert Chidiac, Al Ghazali: Une Réfutation excellente de la divinité de Jésus-Christ d’après les Èvangile (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études: Sciences religieuses 54; Paris: Leroux, 1939), 23* (f. 19r). The English translation of this passage (though only a paraphrase) can be found in J. Windrow Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology: A Study of the Interpretation of Theological Ideas in the two Religions: Part 2 Volume 1 (London: Lutterworth, 1955), 277; the German in Franz-Elmar Wilms, Al–Ghazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 76. See also Maha El Kaisy-Friemuth, “Al-Ghazālī,” Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online, 2012); idem, “Al-radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat ‘Īsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīl,” ChristianMuslim Relations (Brill Online, 2012); and idem, “Al-radd al-jamīl: Ghazālī’s or pseudo Ghazālī’s?” in The Bible in Arab Christianity (ed. D. Thomas; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 275–95. 104 Matthew appears to be weaker than some of the drastic language of Mark: “ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν” (Mark 14:33) (cf. “λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν” in Matt 26:37), where Jesus falls on the ground to pray, “ἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,” (Mark 14:35), he only falls ‘on his face:’ “ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ“ (Matt 26:39). In Mark Jesus prays “Abba! Father! All things are possible for Thee” (ἀββα ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι, Mark 14:35), which does not appear in Matthew. In Mark we read the plea, “Remove this cup from Me” (παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾿ ἐμο, Mark 14:36), in Matthew we find the perhaps less desperate “let this cup pass from me” (παρελθάτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, Matt 26:39). On this see also Luz, Matthew 21–28, 393–94. The passage in Milḥamot ha-Shem is similar to the Gospel of Mark in that the three disciples are named (though Peter is referred to here as Simon Kepha; cf. Mark 14:33), then Jesus likewise fell to the ground, and the disci-

114

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

And it came to pass that when Jesus and his disciples came to Gethsemane, he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray.” Three went with him: Simon Kepha, James, and John. He began to shake and he was very afraid. He said to them, “My soul is saddened to [the point of] death. Support me in this.” He passed from there. And he fell to the ground and he prayed saying, “My Father, may you pass the cup of death from me, but it will not happen apart from your will.” He returned to his disciples and found them sleeping; they did not know to how to respond to Jesus. He said, “Return, it is the time that the Son of Man will be given to the hand of the wicked.”105

‫ "שבו לי בזה עד אלך‬.‫ויהיה כאשר בא יש״ו עם תלמידיו עד גיא שמנים ויאמר לתלמידיו‬ .‫ ויחל להיות מרעיד ומתפחד מאד‬.‫" וילכו עמו השלשה שמעון כיפה ויעקב ויוחנן‬.‫ואתפלל‬ ‫ ויפול פניו ארצה ויתפלל‬.‫" ויעבור משם‬.‫ "עצבה נפשי עד מות השענו לי בזה‬,‫ויאמר אליהם‬ ‫" וישב אל תלמידיו‬.‫ אבל לא יהיה כי אם ברצונך‬.‫ "אבי אתה העבר כוס המות מעלי‬,‫ויאמר‬ ‫ "שבו היה העת אשר ינתן בן אדם ביד‬,‫ ויאמר‬.‫וימצאם ישנים ולא ידעו להשיב אל ישו דבר‬ 106".‫מרעים‬

Jacob ben Reuben begins his critique by pointing out that Jesus’ prayer to the Father by itself demonstrates that Jesus is not God. According to Job 22:28, Jesus ought to be able to just decree what he desires, yet, he prays and begs (‫)להתחנן‬: If this, your messiah, is a divinity, before whom did he pray and who required him to beg? Is it not written, “You will decree and it will be established to you.” [Job 22:28]107 And it is written, “You do and you say and it is established.”108

‫ "ותגזר‬,‫ואם זה משיחכם הוא אלוה לפני מי היה מתפלל ומי הצריכו להתחנן? והלא כתוב‬ 109".‫ "אומי׳ ועושה ומדבר ומקיים‬,‫" וכת׳‬.‫אומר ויקם לך‬

The second argument moves from the absence of divine authority in Jesus to the weakness of his human existence. Ben Reuben wonders how Jesus, as God, could experience fear, which is an argument that is heightened by his translation: Now he shakes and is afraid? Who has seen a divinity like this that shakes and is afraid? You respond to us about this [by saying] that the flesh shook, but that the soul was on the level of divinity. If so, why did he say to his disciples, “My soul is saddened to [the point of] death?”

ples did not know how to reply (cf. Mark 14:40b). The most intriguing difference is that Jesus “began to shake and he was very afraid” (‫ויחל להיות מרעיד ומתפחד מאד‬, emphasis mine). This however might originate in the Latin, for the Vulgate reads for Mark 14:33 “et coepit pavere et taedere.” 105 Modified from Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 69. 106 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 43. Cf. the last line to Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 150: ‫ויאמר כי הגיע העת אשר ינתן בן אדם ביד מרעים‬. 107 In other words Job 22:28 should have been fulfilled by Jesus. Perhaps there is an implicit contrast with Moses and Jewish pious figures here. Cf. Irving Jacob, The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 183–84, where Job 22:28 is applied to Moses and Honi ha-Ma‘agel. 108 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 70. 109 Ibid., 43.

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

115

Furthermore, there is no madman or simpleton in the world who does not know that sadness does not apply to flesh unless felt in the soul. It is impossible for one to suffer and the other not to suffer.110

‫ועתה היה מריעד ומתפחד? ומי ראה אלוה כזה שהיה נרעד ונפחד? ואתם משיבים אותנו על‬ ,‫ למה אמר לתלמידיו‬,‫ ואם כן הוא‬.‫זה שהבשר היה נרעד אבל הנפש היתה במדרגת האלהות‬ ‫"עצבה נפשי עד מות?" ועוד שאין משוגע ופתי בעולם שלא ידע שאין עצבון לבשר אם‬ 111.‫אפשר להיות האחד נכאב והאחר אינו נכאב‬-‫ ואי‬.‫בהרגשת הנפש‬

Jacob ben Reuben expresses his surprise over how Jesus could actually be afraid, even be seen as someone shaking with fear, which is an argument already made by Celsus.112 To him it is unthinkable to say that God could experience fear.113 He also is acquainted with a Christian response to this objection: that this is only a matter of Jesus’ flesh (human nature) and that his soul was nevertheless tranquil.114 This he quickly counters with Jesus’ own 110

Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 70. Ibid., 44. 112 In Origen, Cels. 2.24: “After this he [Celsus] wants to argue that the things that happened to Jesus were painful and grievous, and that it was impossible for him to prevent them being so, even if he had desired, saying: Why then does he utter loud laments and wailings, and pray that he may avoid the fear of death, saying something like this, ‘O Father, if this cup could pass by me’?” (Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 88; italics original), see also Williams, Adversus Judeaos, 87. 113 Jesus’ fear was already an issue in Qiṣṣa/Nestor (see §5, §28,§ 60, §108, §148), and it is also a frequent point of debate in other polemical works. 114 This (Christian?) answer would be in line with the so-called logos-sarx understanding of Jesus, which resurfaces also in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne §9 (see 4.5.13) and Nizzahon Vetus §176, §178, §181 (see 5.4.10, 12, 13); cf. also Saadia Gaon, The Book of Belief and Opinions (ed. Rosenblatt), 109. As such, the logos is seen to take the place of the soul in Jesus, thus being clothed in a human shell (sarx) devoid of a human soul, which in its more extreme form was professed by Apollinarius of Laodicea (c. 310–c. 390 C.E.). Thus Jesus’ inner being (his “soul”) would have been unaffected. This particular understanding of Jesus ultimately fell into disfavor because it meant that Jesus was not fully human, lacking a human soul. See, e.g, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 289–309. In fact, Sefer ha-Berit shows a superior, but ultimately similar, understanding in this respect to Milḥamot ha-Shem: “I ask you about the following matters: Was the Divinity which became incarnate in Mary’s womb itself the soul [‫ ]נשמה‬of Jesus, or did he have another soul like other mortals? If you say that he had no soul other than the Divinity which became incarnate, though there was in the flesh a life force [‫ ]נפש חיות‬other than the Divinity, i.e. the blood which is [also] in beasts and fowl, then the Divinity did not enter a man but an animal. Furthermore, since he had no rational soul [‫ ]נשמת־אדם‬other than the Divinity, to whom did the Divinity shout when he shouted My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Ps. 22:2)? How is it that he could not save himself and that he shouted to another? If you say that he had like other mortals a spirit which ascends on high in addition to the Divinity which dwelt in him, then Jesus is like any other man in his body and soul. He is neither God nor the son of God but the divinity adhered [‫ ]דבק‬to him. This passed on and his spirit and soul went to Paradise or Gehenna like the souls of the righteous or the wicked. This Jesus is neither God nor the son of God by virtue of the Divinity which entered him,” Talmage, The Book of the Covenant, 38–39 [Hebr. ed. pp. 111

116

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

words. His “soul is saddened to the point of death,” and moreover, soul and flesh cannot be divided in such manner anyway; fear is a holistic experience. In other words, Jesus really experienced fear; it follows that Jesus is passible. This, then, would be the first instance in chapter 11, where ben Reuben engages in some sense with a more Christian understanding of Jesus.115 It shows some awareness that certain features of Jesus’ life were understood according to his human nature (‫)הבשר‬, and some according to his divine nature. Jesus’ fear is attributed to the flesh (‫)הבשר היה נרעד‬, while Jesus’ soul was presumably unaffected since it was part of divine nature (‫אבל הנפש היתה‬ ‫)במדרגת האלהות‬. In this respect, Jacob ben Reuben’s response is very apt. Based on a close reading of the text (Mark 14:34, par. Matt 26:38), he points out that Jesus’ soul cannot be attributed to his divine nature since Jesus stated that his “soul is saddened to the point of death.” Jesus really was afraid. In fact, early church interpreters had in like fashion emphasized this verse, and in particular the suffering of Jesus’ soul, to counter Docetist tendencies and to emphasize that Jesus was truly human.116 However, Jacob ben Reuben’s

30–31]. Thus, Joseph Qimḥi likewise seems to suggest that incarnation can only be understood along the logos-sarx trajectory, i.e. the Divinity as “enfleshed” in the form of Jesus, whereas his second option, that the Divine aspect “stuck to” [‫ ]דבק‬a fully human Jesus does not allow one to deduce that Jesus as person was equal with God; in other words, that which is vere homo for Qimḥi cannot be vere Deus. Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq essentially repeats the same argumentation here: “I ask further: Did he pray for the salvation of his flesh or of his divinity? If you say the flesh, then his prayer was of no avail. If you say the divinity, divinity needs no salvation. I ask you further: When he was shouting for salvation, could he save himself or not? If you say that he could, he is to be considereda fool, for whoever can save himself does not shout for salvation by someone else. If he could not save himself and shouts, he is to be considered a weakling. Now, since you say that his divine nature united with the flesh, all of him [including] his divinity weakened. He cannot be partly weak and partly strong, since he was of compound nature. I ask you further: If he had a soul like the soul of other human beings, then Jesus and his soul are to be considered human. There is no difference between him and anyone else, for the divinity which entered him had already parted [from him]. Jesus is no God, for the divine nature had departed and the body remained inanimate like other corpses. If, however, you say that Jesus had no soul other than his divine essence, then according to your words, his divine essence was seeking aid. Yet it is not fitting to say that the divinity seeks aid, since He aids others and not vice versa, Heaven forbid!,” see Talmage “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 338 [f. 13v]. 115 Cf. Sefer ha-Berit, which offers a different argument instead: “Further, how [could] he pray to his father that that he might not die, saying You are my father. If it is possible, take the cup of death from me. Let this be only in accord with your will [cf. Matt 26:39]. Now if he prayed with respect to the [salvation of his] flesh, his prayer was not accepted, he was not to be considered a righteous man. (…) Further if he prayed with respect to [his] divinity, the Divinity needs no help from others (Heaven forbid!) but is a help to others,” Talmage, The Book of the Covenant, 77 [Hebr. ed. pp. 64–65]. 116 E.g., Ephrem wrote: “‘My soul is sorrowful,’ he said and was not ashamed, for he was sincere, he who hid nothing beneath deceptive appearance. [This was] to show that he had

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

117

riposte is ultimately insufficient to engage with a full exposition of the doctrine of the two-natures of Christ. Of course, that is not to say the passage was easy to deal with for Christians, to the contrary.117 Even if one assigns all human emotion and aspects of passability to Jesus’ human nature, on a rational level Jacob ben Reuben’s objection ultimately stands. While the doctrine of the two-natures “protects” the divine nature from the attribution of any change or limitation, Jesus as one person still experienced fear.118 The frequent discussion of the Gethsemane pericope in Jewish polemic works is, thus, by no means unwarranted. The third argument is that Jesus is unable to help himself: Furthermore, he testifies about himself that he does not possess the ability to save his flesh and his soul, because he said in his prayer, “If you are able, pass the cup of death from me. But whatever will happen will only happen according to your will.” It follows that the ability and the will [belong] to the Father, not to him. But you say that he and his Father are equal.119

‫ועוד שהוא מעיד על עצמו שאין היכולת בידו להושיע לא את בשרו ולא את נפשו שכן אמר‬ ‫" נמצא‬.‫ אבל לא יהיה כי אם ברצונך‬.‫ "אבי אתה כל יכול העבר כוס מות מעלי‬,‫בתפילתו‬ 120.‫ ואתם אומרים שהוא ואביו שוים‬.‫שהיכולת והרצון לאביו לא לו‬

This, by implication, means Jesus lacks divine ability. Jesus’ request to the Father shows that he does not have the capability to save himself. “It follows that the ability and the desire [belong] to the Father, not to him. But you say that he and his Father are equal.” The argument is essentially very similar to the first as it again points out that Jesus lacks divine attributes, i.e. divine power. Accordingly, the Christian belief in the Trinity is understood as clearly wrong; Father and Son are not equal. The fourth argument Jacob ben Reuben attaches to this pericope is linked to the difference between Jesus’ and God’s will. If Jesus, as God, wanted to save mankind, why does he appear so reluctant to carry it out? It is indicated in your teaching that Jesus willingly received all of these misfortunes for the sake of saving his children. Now if Jesus willingly accepted [them] what [for] are the supplications that he entreated? If it was not his intention to accept all of this, why did he not save his body? For he said to the disciples, “The soul is realized121 but the flesh is weak.” It follows that he lacked the strength to sustain his flesh. We have seen from Hananiah, Mishael,

clothed himself with weak flesh, and was united to a soul capable of suffering,” Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy), XX, §1, 292. See also Justin, Dial. 99.2, 103.8; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.22.2; Origen, Cels. 2.9. 117 For the history of interpretation of the entire pericope and the divergent Christian understanding of the passage see esp. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 398–409. 118 On this see esp. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.12). 119 Modified from Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 70. 120 Ibid., 44. 121 This is Levy’s rendering of ‫הרוח מקויימית‬. Perhaps better would be “confirmed,” “established,” or “firm;” the Vg. has promptus here.

118

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

and Azariah in the oven [that] “Their hair on their heads was not singed, their clothes were not damaged, and the smell of fire had not passed over them.” This one did not save his body, even from hunger or from any misfortune or grief. For when the first misfortune descended upon him he died immediately.122

‫ מה‬,‫ ואם ברצונו קבל‬.‫ונמצא בפירוש כי כל הצרות האלה קיבל ישו ברצון למען הושיע את בניו‬ ‫התחנוים האלה אשר היה מתהנן? ואם לא היה בדעתו לקבל את כל זאת מדוע לא הציל את‬ .‫" נמצא שלא היה לו כח לתמוך בשרו‬.‫ "הרוח מקויימית והבשר חלש‬,‫גופו? שכך אמ' לתלמידיו‬ ‫וראינו מחנניה מישאל ועזריה בכבשן "האש אשר שער ראשהון לא אתחרך וסרבלתהון לא‬ ‫ כי בהגיע‬.‫ אפי' מרעב ולא מכל צרה ויגון‬,‫" וזה לא הציל את גופו‬.‫שנו וריח נור לא עדת בהון‬ 123.‫הראשונה אליו מיד מת‬

Jacob ben Reuben starts out by interacting with the Christian teaching (‫ )בפירוש‬that “Jesus willingly received all of these misfortunes for the sake of saving his children.”124 He attacks this belief with the question, why Jesus, if it was his intention to be a savior, entreated God to deliver him from his destiny. Moreover, how can Jesus be said to willingly accept suffering, if he is depicted by Matthew to be reluctant at first. This, then, primarily undermines Christian soteriology. Christian belief is consequently at odds with Christian Scripture, which of course raises the further question whether other aspects of Christian belief are likewise inconsistent. Not surprisingly, the next question, though more polemical in character, addresses Jesus’ divinity: if Jesus did not want to endure the passion, why did he not just miraculously save himself? This is interpreted as a further indicator that he lacked divine ability. Jesus’ remark to Peter (Mark 14:38, par. Matt 26:41), “the soul is realized (fulfilled?) but the flesh is weak” (‫הרוח מקויימית‬ ‫)והבשר חלש‬,125 was evidently understood to mean that Jesus “lacked the strength to sustain his flesh,” which again proves that Jesus is not God. If God “was inside” Jesus would not need to call on the Father to make his flesh fall 122

Modified from Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 71. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 46. 124 In chapter 1 of Milḥamot ha-Shem the Christian elaborates on the reason for the incarnation: “He [God] saw, and knew, and understood everything that was under the sun, (even) before it existed, and he realized that there is no possibility to rescue the world from the hands of Satan other than to pass through the womb of a young woman — who was a virgin while she was pregnant with him, and even after he came out, her virginity was not ruined — and he saw that there was no (other) right thing (he could do) to save the world (…),” my translation based on the text of Rosenthal’s edition, 11. The “Jew argues that God could save humanity in a less demeaning manner. The Christian states that the incarnation was for a purpose achievable in no other way; God need not have redeemed humanity, but once he decided to do so, there was no other way than through incarnation. All of this recalls Anselm’s discussions in Cur Deus homo, discussions that may have influenced or been influenced by Gilbert Crispin and Odo of Tournai,” Daniel J. Lasker, “Jewish-Christian Polemics at the Turning Point,” 171. 125 The Latin reads here: “spiritus quidem promptus est caro autem infirma” (Vg.), the Greek: “τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής” (NA27). 123

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

119

in line with his wishes. This is particularly evident when one compares Jesus to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 3:1–30). Whereas they were saved by God, “this one did not save his body, even from hunger or from any misfortune or grief. For when the first misfortune descended upon him he died immediately.” The contrast between these three and Jesus shows that Jesus was lesser than they, while it also implies that God did not answer Jesus’ prayer. As a result, Jesus cannot be taken to be divine since he hungered, experienced human grief and pain, but more so, because he was ultimately powerless and in the end not even saved from his ordeal. 3. 4. 7 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Matt 21:18–19 The Gethsemane discussion is followed by briefly recounting Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree in Matt 21. Jacob ben Reuben adds a single question: If he is a divinity, how did he not know from his place that there was no fruit there?126 127?‫פרי‬

‫ואמ הוא אלוה איך לא ידע ממקומו שאין שם‬

The polemic potential of this scene in the gospels had already been noticed by earlier and later polemics.128 The same argument, in fact, is found in an earlier text attributed to Al-Ghazālī (on Mark 11:12): Jesus did not know about the absence of figs on the tree; since God is all-knowing, Jesus is evidently not God.129 Also, the discussion in much earlier Christian commentaries shows that the entire passage was understood to be problematic, in particular because of the display of Jesus’ hunger (which ben Reuben does not address).130 Then, Jacob ben Reuben adds to the already established argument another, which is meant to show that Jesus is inconsistent: Then after he went there needlessly, why did he get angry at the tree and curse it and cause it to wither? Indeed, he command. ‘Love your enemies and do good to your foes; pray for him and bless your god.’ This tree did not sin towards him at all and did not send for him to mock

126

Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 72. Ibid., 46. 128 Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §181 (see 5.4.10), and Even Boḥan §13 (see 6.4.16). 129 See Chidiac, Une Réfutation excellente de la divinité de Jésus-Christ, 18* (ff. 14v– 15r); J. Windrow Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology 2/1, 274; and Wilms, Al–Ghazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu, 71–72. 130 See the Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy), XVI, §1, 243, but cf. also the alternate explanations Ephrem gives for the passage, ibid., §§2–5, 243–45. In §3 he writes: “The fact that he was hungry can be attributed to the body, that is, whenever the [divine] power wished it. But, how could he, who was informed concerning the hidden things of the heart, have looked for fruit at an inopportune time? Understand therefore, that it was not because of hunger that he cursed the fig tree” (244, emphasis mine). In Christian tradition the fig tree was often interpreted to symbolize Israel, see Luz, Matthew 21–28, 21–22. 127

120

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

him, saying ‘Come to me and eat my fruit;’ why did your messiah punish it in this way? He contradicted his actions with every pressure that came upon him. He was unable to maintain consistency.’131

‫ "אהבו אויביכם‬,‫ למה כעס על העץ וקלל אותו ויינשהו? והלא הוא צוה‬,‫ואחרי שהלך שם בחנם‬ ‫" וזה העץ אשר לא פשע אליו מאומה ולא‬.‫ והתפללו עליו וברכו את אלהיכם‬.‫והטיבו לשונאים‬ ‫" על מה שלם אליו משיחכם ככה? וסתר‬.‫ "בא אלי לאכול פריי‬,‫שלח בעדו להתלוצץ בו לאמר‬ 132.‫ ואין יכול לעמוד אל דרך אחת‬.‫את מעשיו על כל אונס הבא אליו‬

Jesus’ self-contradiction, and the discrepancy between his words (cf. Matt 5:44) and deeds, are understood as undermining his character, and by implication any claim of divinity. There is, however, no indication here that ben Reuben also meant to object to the church’s attitude toward the Jews, inasmuch as the symbolism of cursing a fig tree and the connection to Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies could be understood this way.133 It may, perhaps, be a veiled attempt to point out that it is not just Jesus who is inconsistent when it comes to enemy love, but that is by no means certain. 3. 4. 8 Jesus Commissions the Disciples: Matt 28:16–20a Immediately after this ben Reuben cites Matt 28:16–20a and then raises the question: And now, how did he say, “Kingship of the heavens and the earth has been given to me”? Who gave [the kingship] to him? You said that he is God and Lord. How can you say that his Father is the giver [of kingship]? Indeed, you have said that he and his Father are equal.134

‫ ואיך‬.‫ "נתונה לי מלכות שמים וארץ"? ומי נתנה לו? אמרתם שהוא אלוה ואדון‬,‫ועתה איך אמר‬ 135.‫תמארו כי אביו הוא הנותן? והלא אמרתם שהוא ואביו שוים‬

Having earlier questioned Jesus’ limited knowledge, here Jesus’ limited authority is in view. The argument inevitably is directed against the Trinity.136 If Jesus was given kingship (‫ )מלכות‬by the Father, it was consequently not inherent to him. It follows that the Father and the Son are not equal: one is the

131

Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 72. Ibid., 46. 133 Citing Deut 24:19–20 (Lev 19:9–10), Ephrem explained that the cursing of the tree occurred because, “the owner of the tree did not obey the Law, but spurned it,” since “he had left [nothing] for the orphan and widows,” Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy), XVI, §1, 243, but cf. also the alternate explanations he gives for the passage, ibid., §§2–5, 243–45. The fact that Ephrem so thoroughly discussed the passage shows that he clearly felt the need to address various objections and interpretations. 134 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 73. 135 Ibid., 48. 136 Though it may relate to a more Johannine understanding, since it focuses on the relationship of Jesus with God as “Father” and “Son;” cf. “the Father and the Son are equal” (‫ )הלא אמרתם שהוא ואביו שוים‬to John 10:38, 14:7–10, see also 3.4.5 above. 132

3.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

121

giver, the other the recipient of authority. This, then, touches the issue of how Jesus could be subordiante to the Father if he is supposedly equal to him.137 3. 4. 9 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:30–32 After once more discussing Jesus’ statements as incosistent and self-refuting (comparing Matt 15:21–25 to Matt 18:11–13 and 13:10, 12–15), Jacob ben Reuben returns to discuss the Trinity. He provides a translation of Matt 12:30–32 (parr. Mark 3:28–29, Luke 12:10), where Jesus explains that sinning against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, and then asks: Now tell me, since you say that the Father and the Spirit are one entity and of equal intend. So, here is a person who mocks the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and he does not think in his heart that any one of these three is a divinity. Now, the Father and the Son forgive him but the Spirit does not forgive him. Now, how does the forgiveness of the Father and the Son profit this one, when the Spirit does not forgive him? Or, what harm will come to him since the two forgive, when the third does not forgive him? Where will his soul be, in heaven or in hell? If it is in heaven, it follows that the Holy Spirit lacks the strength to take vengeance upon him. If it is in hell, it follows that the Father and the Son lack the strength to save him. If the three of them are one, it follows that a piece [of the Trinity] forgives and a piece does not forgive.138

‫ והנה אדם הלעיג על‬,‫ועתה אמור לי אחרי שאתם אומרים כי האב והרוח ישות אחד ורצון שוה‬ ‫ והנה האב והבן פפרו לו‬.‫ ואינו מחשב בלבו שאחד משלש אלה יהיה אלוה‬.‫האב והבן והרוח‬ ‫ או מה היזק יש לו‬.‫ ועתה מה הועיל לזה כפרת האב והבן שהרוח לא כפר לו‬.‫הרוח לא כפר לו‬ ?‫ בגן עדן או בגהינם‬,‫אחד שכפרו לו השנים או]אם[ השלישי אינו מכפר לו? ואיפה תהיה נפשו‬ ‫ נמצא שאין‬,‫ ואם תהיה בגהינם‬.‫ נמצא שאיּן כח לרוח הקדש להנקם ממנו‬,‫אם תהיה בגן עדן‬ 139.‫ ואם שלשתם אחד נמצא קצתו מכפר וקצתו אינו מכפר‬.‫כח לבי לאב ולבן להושיע‬

A hypothetical situation is given in which a person blasphemes against the Trinity: the Father and the Son forgives, yet the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus’ words, does not.140 It follows that the persons of the Trinity are at odds

137 A similar argument appears in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq where it is assumed that Jesus quoted Psalm 2:8: “Further, when He said, ‘Ask of Me and I will give the nations for your inheritance,’ if he [Jesus] referred to the flesh, the nations were not his inheritance. For in his time, he neither ruled nor governed but was persecuted by his enemies and fled to Egypt, where he was detained for thirty years. There he learned most of the Egyptian arts. When he returned from there, he worked those deeds which are described in your books. Now, it is known to all who are learned in the Torah of Moses that all the signs and wonders Moses performed by the Egyptians [also] — with the exception of that of the lice, which they could not duplicate. However, if he said, ‘I will give the nations for your inheritance,’ with reference to his divinity, such a notion is unacceptable. For all the world is in His possession, since He is Creator and [the Father] could not say ‘I shall give’ except concerning that which [the Son] did not have,” Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 338–39 [f. 13v–14r]. 138 The translation has been modified, cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 75–76. 139 Ibid., 51. 140 A similar, but also more elaborate, argument appears in Nestor §28a (not in Qiṣṣa!):

122

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

with themselves, and appear not to be “one entity (‫ )ישות אחד‬and of equal intend (‫)רצון שוה‬.” The blasphemer is either destined for heaven, in which case the Father and Son are stronger than the Holy Spirit, or, if the blasphemer were to go to hell, the Father and Son would be weaker and lesser than the Spirit. Jacob ben Reuben sees a discrepancy with the Christian creed whichever way the situation is resolved. The three persons of the Trinity cannot be equal when Jesus makes an apparent qualitative distinction between them in Matthew 12 — which indeed is a fascinating argument. It follows, that Christian belief and Jesus’ words are inconsistent. Interestingly, the passage is not part and parcel of the Muslim polemic tradition,141 at least as far as I can tell, nor does this particular polemic argument explicitly appear in earlier Christian discussions or treatments.142 Although “Inform me now what you would say about a man who cursed the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, calculating that God is not the Father and the Messiah is not the Son, and afterwards he was sorry for what he said and it took place. [He now says]: ‘Truly You [God] are the Father and the Messiah is the Son,’ but he did not regret the curse with which he cursed the Holy Spirit. It is written in your erroneous book that ‘he who curses the Father can be pardoned, and he who curses the Son can be pardoned when he regrets [his previous actions], but he who curses the Holy Spirit cannot be pardoned either in this world or in the world to come’ [omitting Latin transcription]. Tell me: What good will the pardon of the Father and Son do this man of the Holy Spirit did not pardon him? Why should this man fear the Holy Spirit if these two substances [‫ ]קיניינין‬and the Messiah pardon him? Where will his soul go since the Holy Spirit does not pardon him? If God is angry at him for cursing the Holy Spirit, then I can show you that the Spirit is more precious to the Lord than the Messiah, since pardon is mentioned for cursing the Messiah but is not mentioned for cursing the Holy Spirit. If you say the three are one, where did this man go — the man who was pardoned by part of the divinity and not pardoned by another part? Now be careful with your words because they are contradictory,” Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:103–104 see also 1:145 and 2:97–98, 116–17. Rembaum has suggested that the passage is not based on Matt 12:32, but on the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas 44, see idem, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian polemics,” 69. 141 According to Accad’s exhaustive list Matt 12:30–32 is not used in Muslim polemics, cf. Accad, “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse,” 209. 142 For the history of interpretation see Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 348–49; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 206–209; also Eugène Mangenot, “Blasphème contre le Saint-Esprit,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (1905), 2:910–16. Nicholas de Lyre, as already mentioned above, takes note of this argument, see Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 414. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas does not discuss this particular question in Summa theologiae, II-II, Q. 14, which perhaps indicates that he was unfamiliar with this particular objection. Yet, one indicator that this argument may have been encountered earlier is some of the church interpreters’ insistence that blasphemy against the Spirit ought to be understood as blasphemy against the whole Trinity, and that the blasphemy against the Son, which is forgivable, only speaks of Jesus’ humanity. Aquinas, e.g., writes: “For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential

3.5 Summary

123

the argument here does not take into account the context of the passage,143 it is quite impressive, and recurs in a similar form in many subsequent polemic works.144

3. 5 Summary Robert Chazan, who has discussed the content of chapter 11 of Milḥamot haShem in Fashioning Jewish Identity,145 has categorized Jacob ben Reuben’s attack as comprising charges of inconsistency between it [viz. the New Testament] and the Hebrew Bible, accepted by both sides as the word of God; charges of internal inconsistency within the New Testament; charges of inconsistency between the New Testament material and widely known Christian doctrine; charges that the New Testament material is offensive to reason and/or moral sensitivity. The targets of this attack include the New Testament narrator, in this case the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and Jesus as the central figure in the Gospel. The result is a comprehensive assault on the writings Christians hold sacred, with the obvious implication that a faith based on such flawed literature must be a false faith, and a thorough attack on the central figure of the Christian faith, whose deeds and words are found wanting.146

This summary is helpful, although, when it comes to criticizing the divinity of Jesus, Jacob ben Reuben’s “assault” is not as comprehensive as Chazan described it. Admittedly, the discussion of the Law or any discussion of inconsistencies was deliberately excluded.147 The above passages, however,

name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man,” loc. cit. (trans. by the Fathers of the Engl. Dominican Province; New York: Benziger, 1947). 143 On the one side it ignores that the “blasphemy against the Spirit” in the context of Matt 12:22–23 is understood as interpreting divine activity, i.e. the healing of a demon possessed, as demonic. On the other side, from a trinitarian point of view, it can be argued that the entire Trinity decides to forgive (passivum divinum, Matt 12:31), namely, sins against the Father or Son, but not so with sins against the Spirit. Notice however that in the Gospel of Thomas 44, the Synoptic text is expanded with “He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven,” which purposely creates a trinitarian distinction! 144 This parable like story of a person cursing the Trinity is also heavily featured in subsequent polemical texts, see Yosef ha-Meqanne §41 (see 4.5.14), Nizzahon Vetus §223 (see 5.4.7), Even Boḥan §29 (see 6.4.12), yet not in Ḥizzuq Emunah II, §16 (see 8.4.7). 145 See Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 283–290. 146 Ibid., 284. 147 The most interesting of these is the charge that Jesus stated, according to Matt 15:24, that he was “only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” which according to ben Reuben is not in line with his practice to only speak in parables, so that his Jewish audience does not understand him (Matt 13:10–13), see Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 48–49, 73–74. This is, however, not a critique of the text, but of the person of Jesus.

124

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

which comprise roughly half of chapter 11, are more a critique of the belief in the divinity of Jesus, rather than an attack on the Gospel of Matthew. Rarely is the text or its author made an issue;148 it is the person of Jesus and the belief of the Christian in light of the text that is targeted, and not so much the integrity or authority of the Christian text. Chazan acknowledges this as well, for “Jacob’s criticisms focus far more fully on Jesus than on Gospel narration.”149 Thus, Chazan’s “obvious implication” is not that obvious. In fact, nowhere in chapter 11 is the Gospel of Matthew discussed as “flawed literature.” In the arguments examined it is not the text that is questioned, but the person of Jesus in regard to Christian belief. If anyone is “assaulted,” a term which is probably too strong for much of Jacob ben Reuben’s terse arguments, it is the Christian who believes Jesus to be divine.150 In fact, it would be counterproductive for Jacob ben Reuben to discredit the Gospel of Matthew where it works in favor of his argument.151 Jacob ben Reuben uses the Gospel of Matthew in at least two areas: one argues against Jesus’ use and understanding of the Law, while the other addresses Jesus’ divinity. In order to object to the Christian claim of Jesus’ divinity, Jacob ben Reuben highlights the limitations of Jesus’ human nature: Jesus does not appear to have a respectable background (Matt 1:1–16) and is perhaps of questionable character (Matt 3:13–17). Unlike Moses, he hungers and appears to lack the ability to nourish himself (Matt 4:1–11, 21:18–19). Jesus even expresses his dependence on God (Matt 11:25–27, Matt 26:36–40, 45). Most pertinently, Jesus is afraid and lacks strength, saving power, and proper intention (Matt 26:36–45, par. Mark 14:32–41). He also has limited knowledge and is inconsistent (Matt 21:18–19). This then also disputes the Trinity; the Son and the Father are evidently not equal. The Son even has to

148 The Gospel of Matthew is only once made an issue, and that in regard to the function of the four women in Jesus’genealogy, see 3.4.3 above. But even there the emphasis is that “your God” is morally deficient. 149 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 285. 150 It needs to be kept in mind that Jacob ben Reuben is not writing for Christians. The author’s introduction to the chapter is specific about its purpose: “I did not intend to argue with them [= the Christians] or speak against them. Rather, I intended to be a conscientious witness for the diligent ones and to conceal it from the eyes of the worthless and reckless” (s.a.). Whatever argument ben Reuben advances, it is to primarily assure the conscientious Jewish believer of the falsehood of the Christian religion. It is, as such, not an attempt to “assault” Christianity at all, rather to defend against the assaults coming from the Christian side, in particular against those friars and converts who were well-versed in Judaism. 151 Chazan acknowledges this in regard to Milḥemet Miṣvah, where Rabbi Me’ir “is willing to acknowledge the veracity of the Gospel accounts of the historical rejection and condemnation of Jesus by the Jews. Rather than a heinous sin, this is viewed by Rabbi Meir as decisive proof of the falsity of the faith based on the life and experience of Jesus,” Chazan, Daggers of Faith, 56.

3.5 Summary

125

receive knowledge and kingship from the Father (Matt 11:25–27, Matt 28:16– 19); in fact, he lacks universal knowledge (Matt 21:18–19). According to Jesus’ own statement, the Trinity would be in disunity with itself (Matt 12:30–32). When it comes to arguing against the divinity of Jesus, it is noteworthy that most of the arguments used in chapter 11 are not found in the same form in Qiṣṣa/Nestor.152 Milḥamot ha-Shem seems in comparison more refined, and thus provided the blueprint for later polemic works. Jacob ben Reuben, in fact, directs his arguments precisely against the paradox of how the man Jesus could be understood to be divine, especially if he is portrayed as limited and subordinate to God by Matthew.153 On the other hand, Jacob ben Reuben does not attempt to engage with any kind of developed understanding of the incarnation and the two natures of Christ.154 Jesus is simply understood as “God.” In fact, the fully developed doctrine of the two-natures of Christ is well-equipped to respond to most of his objections. A regular, medieval friar or member of the clerus presumably would have had no difficulty countering ben Reuben’s arguments. Though, it should not be overlooked that they only would have been able to do so because this doctrine was shaped precisely by questions such as presented in Milḥamot ha-Shem. And this should be taken seriously: a Jewish reader of the Gospel of Matthew questions here how Jesus in his frail humanity can be understood as divine, in particular, when his limitations, inabilities, prayer address, and different intentions mark him out as lesser than God. Christian doctrine might be able to engage with these arguments, but it is less able to 152

In particular the scene in Gethsemane in Qiṣṣa/Nestor (in §53, §108, and §§139–141) is much more basic and less developed. Also, Matt 11:25–27, Matt 12:30–32, Matt 21:18–19, and Matt 28:18–19 are not discussed in Qiṣṣa/Nestor. One wonders if Jacob ben Reuben actually had a long version of Qiṣṣa/Nestor. First, he only uses Qiṣṣa/Nestor arguments in the range of §§29–57. Second, he did not thread into his discussion a number of polemical arguments found in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, in particular where Qiṣṣa/Nestor treat the same topic as ben Reuben, as in the case of Matthew’s genealogy. More so, the genealogy in Milḥamot ha-Shem is dissimilar from that in Qiṣṣa/Nestor §80. Unlike Qiṣṣa/Nestor, Jacob ben Reuben discusses the four women, and his version is also significantly closer to Matthew. The genealogy begins: (…) ‫זה ספר תולדות יש״ו קרישט בן דוד‬, and finishes with ‫הוא אשר נולד ממנה יש״ו‬ ‫הנקרא קרישטו‬, see Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 27, 29. 153 Although Matthew is depicting Jesus’ distinction and subordination to the Father, when it comes to Matthew’s authorial intent it is clear that Jesus is portrayed not just as an ordinary man. To conclude that Jesus’ subordination to the Father signifies his mere humanity would be to misread Matthew, who, e.g., clearly emphasizes Jesus’ special character as well (as “God with us” and “Son of the living God” etc.). 154 Hans-Georg von Mutius has also argued that Jacob ben Reuben appears to not properly understand the Trinity, since he stresses only the equality and unity of the three persons of the Trinity, yet does not account for how the doctrine rather dialectically transcribes the properties of each individual person, see idem, “Beitrag,” 235.

126

Chapter 3: Milḥamot ha-Shem

respond to the paradox and offense that God is believed to have become a powerless, fearfully praying man. Of course, this has always been the major theological issue for Christianity, and ben Reuben’s argument is, thus, rather pertinent. Jacob ben Reuben’s arguments must be seen as an important step in Jewish anti-Christian polemics in the European medieval context, exerting great influence on subsequent polemical works. Rather than just arguing defensively against the christological interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, here an attack is mounted against Christianity based on Christianity’s own scriptures, which seemingly was more accessible than the arguments in Qiṣṣa/Nestor.

Chapter 4

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Joseph ben Nathan’s Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 4. 1 Introduction The social and religious pressures Jews encountered in medieval Christendom and the proximity to an emerging Christian society lead to the production of more apologetic-polemical works in Europe. Following Milḥamot ha-Shem other comparable treatises appeared, though not all featured the Gospel of Matthew. And, relatively soon after Jacob ben Reuben’s treatise, another major critique of Jesus’ divinity that utilizes gospel texts appeared in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne.1 “The Book of Joseph the Zealous” is an invaluable source for the polemic debates between Jews and Christians in France from 1220 to 1260 C.E.2 The work is largely a collection of disputations and, hence, provides access to the polemic arguments used by French rabbis in the 12th and 13th century. Though Yosef ha-Meqanne is mostly known for its account of the “Paris Disputation” of 1240,3 it also contains a very large collection of christological passages which were discussed and refuted by the Jewish disputants. What strikes the reader of the book is the great degree of freedom in 1

The work was initially called Teshuvot ha-Minim (“Answers to the Heretics”), see Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 31. For more on Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne see Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 150–53, 218; Trautner–Kromann, Shield and Sword, 90–101; Zadoc Kahn “Étude sur le livre de Joseph le Zélateur,” REJ 1 (1880): 222–46; 3 (1881): 1–38; Isaac Broydé, “Nathan ben Joseph Official,” JE (1901–1906) 7:269–270; Posnanski, Schilo, 145– 46; Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden: Von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (4th ed., 11 vols., Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1897; repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), 6:373–78; Ephraim E. Urbach, “Étude sur la littérature polémique au moyen-age,” REJ 100 (1935): 49–77, see 58–67. 2 See Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 91. Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne was composed some time before 1269, but the exact date is debated, see Erwin I. J. Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort,” in Studia Semitica Volume 1: Jewish Themes (ed. Erwin I. J. Rosenthal; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 241–42, n. 64, first published in Kirche und Synagoge (ed. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch; 2 vols.; Stuttgart: Klett, 1968; repr. Munich: dtv, 1988), 1:361–62, n. 64; and esp. Kahn “Joseph le Zélateur,” 227–34. 3 Hyam Maccoby provides a paraphrase of Rabbi Joseph’s account in Judaism on Trial, 153–62, as his account of the Paris Disputation “is turgid, and would be unreadable in a literal English translation” (20). For more see below.

128

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

the discussions. The Jew did not avoid the challenge. On the contrary, he was always ready to accept it. This fact is especially surprising, since it was compiled after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.4

The composer, Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan (surnamed “Official”) relates a number of debates, primarily of his extended family with Christians, which includes the names of the disputants and the places where these encounters occurred. Accordingly, the various members of the “Official family” were engaged in religious discussions not only with friars, but also several eminent dignitaries of the clergy, e.g., the Abbot of Cluny, the bishops of Meaux, Angoulême, Angers, Poitiers and Sens, and perhaps even Pope Gregory X.5 The principal participants in these controversies were the talmudist Nathan ben Meshullam of Melun (12th century), and his son Joseph (I) ben Nathan, who is not the author, but his rather bold grandfather.6 The author, Rabbi Joseph (II) ben Nathan, like his father before him, appears to have been a kind of business official at the court of the archbishop of Sens, “who was known for his sympathy with the Jews.”7 The proximity to the bishop and his family’s personal history must have given Rabbi Joseph unique access to Christian thinking, and this familiarity with Christianity is evidenced by the author’s knowledge of Latin and ecclesiastical texts. The polemic arguments in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne are largely exegetical discussions and are arranged according to the Hebrew Bible, which suggests that it was envisioned as a polemical handbook. The main focus of these discussions is the more conventional refutation of christological and allegorical interpretations of passages in the Hebrew Bible. However, in one of the chapters of Yosef ha-Meqanne we also find a lengthy list of arguments based on the New Testament. These discuss various contradictions in the New Testament and argue against the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, which will be further explored below.

4 Judah Rosenthal, “On ‘Sefer Yosef HaMeqane:’ with the Publication of a New Critical Edition,” Immanuel 2 (1973): 68–72, here: 70. 5 See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 151, n. 7. 6 Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 31, states that Joseph (I) ben Nathan is the grand-uncle of the author, but cf. Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 150, 152, and Kahn, “Joseph le Zélateur,” 229, 234–46. 7 Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 46; and Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 151– 52. The surname “Official” (‫ אופיסיאל‬or ‫ )אופציאל‬has been related to this administrative position, though it also could indicate that Rabbi Nathan and his son were official representatives of the Jewish community to the bishop, cf. Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 151; Graetz, Geschichte, 6:376; and Kahn, “Joseph le Zélateur,” 243–44. Sens is about 100 kilometers southeast of Paris, and most of the places mentioned in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne are also southeast or southwest of Paris.

4.2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

129

4. 2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Already from the short introduction it should be evident that Jews and Christians were in close contact in thirteenth century France. In fact, the Jewish presence and influence there was already coming to decline at the end of the thirteenth century, and it is a rather intricate task to retrace it.8 Unlike on the Iberian peninsula, the Jewish communities of northern France (generally speaking the region north of the river Loire)9 lived under Christian rule from the early medieval period onwards.10 These communities were smaller than those in the Mediterranean regions, and also fewer, in particular since the north of Europe was, generally speaking, more sparsely populated than the south. “In the Carolingian period, from 750–1000, the Jewish population continued to grow because of immigration and proselytizing, and various laws guaranteed the Jews full equality and protection.”11 With the waning of the Carolingian dynasty, the Jewish communities in France had to arrange themselves with the growing influence of local barons and feudal lords, but also with the ascendancy of the Capetian kings. The respective communities were often under different jurisdictions, and the policies of each realm could differ from place to place and from ruler to ruler. Within the larger society Jews were mostly a tolerated, but also resented minority, who were protected by secular or church authority. Partly out of necessity these local Jewish communities were self-governed, highly organized, and showed remarkable internal cohesion. Robert Chazan summarizes this period:

8

A large number of studies and summaries of Jewish life in medieval France are available, the more pertinent are: Robert Chazan, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 130–53; idem, Medieval Jewry in Northern France; William C. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip August to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989); and Anna Sapir Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations: 1000–1300 (Harlow: Pearsons, 2011), 61–87. 9 This region is also referred to as Zarfat (‫ ;צרפת‬originally only the Île-de-France), an important cradle of the Ashkenazic Jewry, not the least for the influence of the writings of its most illustrious scholar, Solomon b. Isaac of Troyes, better known as Rashi (1040–1105). For Rashi’s influence see Menahem Banitt, Rashi: Interpreter of the Biblical Letter (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1985), and Esra Shereshevsky, Rashi, the Man and his World (New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1982; repr. Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1996). On the Hebrew naming of individual regions in Europe and their delineation see Martin Przybilski, Kulturtransfer zwischen Juden und Christen in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters (Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 61 (295); Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 72–74. 10 See Bernhard Blumenkranz, “France,” EncJud (2007) 7:146–70. 11 Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 41.

130

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

Through the late tenth century and on through the eleventh century, then, northern French Jewry continued to develop, benefitting from the general progress of western European civilization and making its own contribution to that progress. Already tightly allied with the powerful feudal barony, the Jews were involved involving themselves ever more heavily in the burgeoning urban commerce and had begun to develop viable institutions of self-government. By the end of the eleventh century, north French Jewry was sufficiently mature to produce its first figure of renown, R. Solomon b. Isaac of Troyes [Rashi]. Relatively unscathed by the anti-Jewish outbreaks of the First Crusade, French Jewry proceeded into the twelfth century in a Spirit of growth.12

Yet, the eleventh century was not only a period of prosperity and peaceful bliss: Two local persecutions, in Limoges at the end of the tenth and in the early 11th century, may be connected with the general persecution which raged through France from 1007 for at least five years. Launched by the clergy, it was rapidly supported by King Robert II the Pious (996–1031), then propagated by the general Christian population. The pretext for the riots was the accusation that the Jews of Orléans had joined in a plot against Christians with Sultan al-Ḥākim, who had indeed destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Thus the object of universal hatred, the Jews of France were then, if the sources are correct, either expelled from the towns, put to the sword, drowned in the rivers, or put to death in some other fashion, the only exceptions being those who accepted baptism. When one of the Jewish notables of France, Jacob b. Jekuthiel, intervened with Pope John XVIII (1004–09), the latter sent a legate to France to put a stop to the persecutions. Those Jews who had been forced to accept baptism immediately returned to Judaism.13

Also, the watershed of the first Crusade at the end of the eleventh century did not leave the French Jewry untouched. Unlike in Germany, however, the persecutions were limited to a few localities: in 1096 the Crusaders massacred the Jewish population of Rouen, the capital of Normandy, sparing only those who accepted conversion.14 Jews were also attacked in other places, such as Metz in the east and Monieux in the south.15 During the Second Crusade (1147–49) violence against the Jewish communities was mostly preempted due to the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, the principal author of this crusade.16

12

Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 29. Blumenkranz, “France,” 7:149. Also, See Rengstorf and Kortzfleisch, Kirche und Synagoge, 1:111–13; see also Robert Chazan, “1007–1012: Initial Crisis for Northern-European Jewry,” PAAJR 38/39 (1970–1971): 101–17. 14 See Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A social and intellectual history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 117–18; also, idem, “New Light on the Persecution of French Jews at the Time of the First Crusade,” PAAJR 34 (1966): 1–63. 15 See Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy, 124–30. 16 Also during the Third Crusade (1189–1192) the leadership of the church intervened on behalf of the persecuted Jews of France. See Chazan, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 53–54. 13

4.2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

131

In the twelfth and thirteenth century, the time period most directly relevant to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (and also for subsequent texts examined here), three major issues determined the fate of the Jews of France: money, politics, and Christian piety. In particular the close financial relationships between Jews and local rulers, which was initially of mutual advantage, eventually proved to be disastrous. Whereas before Jews were engaged in all manner of enterprises, during the course of the twelfth century there was a significant shift towards money lending.17 This, however, gave cause to increasing feelings of animosity from the Christian populace, which in addition were fanned by religiously motivated ressentiments.18 Although the nobility of France was always in need of fresh capital (in particular because of the Crusades) and had greatly benefitted from the lending services and taxation of “their Jews,” they eventually were not willing or able to protect Jewish communities any longer. Specifically, the ascent of the the Capatian kings and the increase of their power over the French feudal lords proved to be detrimental: The history of the Jews in medieval France is inexorably linked to the efforts of the Capetian kings of France to expand their royal remit beyond the Île-de-France with Paris at its centre to the other areas which we now call France. (…) Control over Jews and the income they delivered through taxation was one of the markers of the extent of royal authority. When Philip Augustus expelled the Jews from his kingdom in 1182, only the Jews of Île-de-France were affected; when Philip IV did the same in 1306 Jews throughout France had to leave their homes.19

King Louis IX’s reign from 1226 to 1270, during which Rabbi Joseph composed Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, saw an extraordinary increase in the possessions and political power of the French crown. Already his grandfather, Philip Augustus (ruled 1179–1223), had wrested much of northern and western France from the hands of the English crown. Likewise his son, Louis VIII (ruled 1223–26), was able to increase royal power by procuring Avignon

17

See Chazan, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 132–33. This includes the highly irrational myth of ritual murder of Christian children by Jews (see also 5.2). One of the more severe incidents occurred in Blois, a town in northern France between Orleans and Tours. In 1171, thirty-one Jews were burnt to death following ritual murder charges by order of Count Theobald of Blois. The remaining Jews were held captive by the count. Nathan ben Meshullam, a principal character in the religious dialogues in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, was heavily involved in the aftermath of this incident. One of his dialogue partners, the Archbishop of Sens, William Whitehands (Guillaume aux Blanches Mains), the brother of Count Theobald, mediated between the Jewish community and his brother. See Robert Chazan, “The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organization,” PAAJR 36 (1968): 13–31. 19 Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations, 61. See also Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews. 18

132

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

shortly before his death.20 Languedoc was gained in the aftermath of the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229).21 Then, in 1242, the royal army decisively crushed a coalition of southern nobility aligned with the English king. This meant that the Jews who lived in these areas came under the direct control of the Capetians. Whereas the Jewish population previously was able to evade all too oppressive legislation by local rulers through migration, the significant expansion of the jurisdiction of the king of France made this henceforth more difficult. The Capetian kings, in fact, followed a rather exploitative policy in their treatment of the Jewish population. Their anti-Jewish legislation was partly motivated by the need for capital, and partly by religious fervor. Philip Augustus had the homes of the Jews in his realm ransacked in 1180. Then, two years later, all Jews in his domain were expelled and their property confiscated. Yet, having come to the conclusion that it was more beneficial to have Jews in his realm rather than sending them to his neighbors, Philip readmitted Jews to his territory in 1198. He subsequently regulated the moneylending business in 1206 and 1219, ultimately serving his own interests.22 But already his more pious son, Louis VIII, removed the official endorsement of Jewish moneylending in 1223. Also, Louis IX (or rather the queen regent)23 took more aggressive measures against Jewish moneylending when the seizure of Jewish debts was ordered in 1227 and 1228.24 A steady stream of

20

After a short reign of three years, Louis VIII suddenly died in 1226. His son, Louis IX, born in 1214, was twelve years old at the time. Due to his young age his mother, Blanche of Castile, ruled in his place, perhaps until 1234. Much of the significant increase in royal power, but also anti-Jewish legislation must, therefore, be attributed to her and her councilors, see Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 128–41. 21 However, the French crown did not gain full control over Languedoc till the early 14th century. The south of France was a dense conglomerate of principalities with a very different culture and history than the north. Louis IX’s Jewish legislation only began to be enforced in Languedoc in 1245. Both Archbishop and the Viscount of Narbonne resisted Capetian influence and prevented the full application of royal legislation. At the time, Narbonne was one of the largest cities of Languedoce with a significant, well-integrated, and well-organized Jewish community. The reluctance of its rulers towards the Capetians made it even more so into a “haven for migrants” (165). See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 162–68; also Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 43–45; and Jean Régné, “Étude sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du Ve aux XIVe siècle,” REJ 55 (1908): 1–36, 221–43; 58 (1909): 75–105, 200–25; 59 (1910): 58–89; 61 (1911): 1–27, 248–66; 63 (1912): 75–99. 22 See Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations, 67. 23 Although the queen mother is portrayed in the “Paris Disputation” in a somewhat mitigating role, the fact that the numerous earlier anti-Jewish legislation was decreed under her de facto regency suggests she had little scruple to draw financial gain from the Jewish communities of France. See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 157; also Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 101–104; idem, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 148–49. 24 See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 128–32.

4.2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

133

subsequent royal ordinances mandated further seizures, renewed earlier legislation, and eventually outlawed usury altogether.25 This legislation had obvious financial benefits for the Capetians, but this remission of debts also solicited favors for the French crown from many of those who were indebted to Jewish lenders. Yet, in King Louis’ case the principal root for this exploitative and restrictive anti-Jewish legislation is found in the religious convictions of the monarch. The personal piety of Louis IX, as well as that of his mother, was legendary in medieval Christendom. His entourage was heavily flavored with ecclesiastical personnel, often devoted members of the new and influential Dominican and Franciscan orders; his major goal was a political realm that would encourage the widest possible fulfillment of Christian ideals.26

These ideals were not taken lightly by Louis, and his legislation shows the extend of his devotion to his faith and his willingness to enact the previously often unheeded wishes of the church. Louis took the duty of a Christian prince to defend Christendom and safeguard the fabric of Christian society very seriously. He was a devotee of the Virgin Mary and went on two illfated crusades in 1248 and 1270. He legislated against prostitution and supported the work of the new papal inquisition against heresy which was especially active in the newly conquered regions in the south. His royal policies were, in other words, infused by his Christian outlook. It is not for nothing that he was remembered as Saint Louis; he was canonised in 1297.27

Louis felt responsible for the spiritual state of his realm. Where other rulers had overlooked, endorsed, or exploited the practice of moneylending, Louis and his mother sought to eradicate usury which they considered reprehensible.28 The seizures of Jewish debt and the repeated attempts to outlaw usury, eventually culminating in the general expulsion of Jews from France in 1306, testifies to the desire to uproot the practice altogether. Louis’ overall “hope, even expectation, was that the Jews would take up and limit themselves to more honorable occupations.”29 In this, they were only following the lead of

25 See Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 100–24. The topic of usury is examined in Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword. The frequency of these ordinances attests to the wide-spread practice and social impact of moneylending, but also that Capetian power only gradually and reluctantly was followed and enforced in the principalities of France. 26 Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 101–102. 27 Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations, 78. 28 This view was based on Deuteronomy 23:19–20 which initially had been used to endorse moneylending between Christians and Jews. See Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 58–62; and James W. Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his political and economic Situation (Judaic Studies Library; 2nd ed.; New York: Hermon, 1976), 360–69. On Louis IX see also Margaret Wade Labarge, Saint Louis: Louis IX, Most Christian King of France (Boston: Little, Brown, 1968). 29 Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 135.

134

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

the church, as papal legislation increasingly and persistently began to focus on relegating Jewish life.30 With the passage of time, ecclesiastical concern over Jewish lending broadened considerably. From an initial focus on Church objects, Church revenues, and crusaders, ecclesiastical leadership began to exhibit concern with the broad population of Christian borrowers and the harm Jews might inflict upon them.31

With Louis, the clergy’s disapproval of usury fell not on deaf ears. Also other previously ignored, long-held demands of the church were increasingly enforced under his rule: The regulations of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), interpreted as the compulsory wearing of the Jewish badge, were at first imposed in Languedoc, Normandy, and Provence (by councils held in 1227, 1231, and 1234); a royal decree enforcing this in the kingdom of France was not promulgated until 1269.32

Moreover, during Louis’ reign severe persecutions of Jews took place in 1236 in the western provinces, in Brittany, Anjou, and Poitou, although these regions were not under the direct authority of the king.33 Louis IX did not only take action against moneylending which had become a major element of Jewish economic life in the 12th and 13th century. He also moved against a major aspect of Jewish religious life: the Talmud.34 After Louis and his mother had been made aware of the Talmud and received the accusation that it contained anti-Christian blasphemies, they ordered a trial in Paris. The ensuing “Paris Disputation,” which is recalled in Sefer Yosef haMeqanne, is a pivotal event in the medieval inter-religious encounter between the church and the Jews.35 30 An exhaustive list of all anti-Jewish papal legislation can be found in Solomon Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century: 1198–1254 (Vol. 1), and Solomon Grayzel and Kenneth Stow, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century: 1254–1314 (Vol. 2; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary in America, 1989). 31 Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 61. 32 Blumenkranz, “France,” 7:152. 33 See ibid., 7:150. 34 See esp. Ḥaim M. Merḥavia, Christianity’s Image of the Talmud: The Attitude to the post-biblical Literature of Israel in the Christian World of the Middle Ages (500–1248) [‫ היחס לספרות ישראל שלאחר המקרא בעולם הנוצרי בימי־הביניים‬:‫התלמוד בראי הנצרות‬ (1248–500)] (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1970) [Hebr.]. 35 Both sides penned an account of the dispute, which allows for a unique view of this debate. The Jewish perspective is edited by Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan (see below), the Christian account, Extractiones de Talmut, is attributed to a Dominican friar Theobald (Thibaut) and first was published by Isidore Loeb, “La controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud,” REJ 1 (1880): 247–61; 2 (1881): 248–70; 3 (1881): 39–57. See also Judah M. Rosenthal, “The Talmud on Trial: The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240,” JQR 47 (1956): 58–76, 145– 169; Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 163–67; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 65–69; also Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 153–61, see esp. 153, n. 18.

4.2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

135

The direct cause of the dispute was a papal letter sent to the bishops and rulers of England, France, and the Iberian peninsula, urging them to confiscate the Talmud on account or their alleged anti-Christian passages. In the twelfth century Peter Abelard and Alain de Lille already had become aware of the Talmud and its importance, and subsequently attempted to utilize it for the proselytization of Jews. But in particular the denunciations of Nicholas Donin of La Rochelle, a Jewish convert to Christianity, fueled this new, negative view of the Talmud.36 In 1238, Donin travelled to Rome to successfully instigated the pope to condemn the Talmud. While the papal wish was not heeded by most, King Louis IX zealously followed Gregory IX’s directive. Thus, on the 24th of June 1240, after having ordered the confiscation of copies of the Talmud earlier in March, which were handed over to the Dominicans and Franciscans, a tribunal was arrayed at the royal court in Paris overseen by the queen-mother. The Christian delegation was represented by Nicholas Donin and others, amongst them also the archbishop of Sens, Walter Cornutus,37 the Jewish side by four of the most prominent rabbis of France: Yechiel of Paris (who was Rabbi Joseph’s teacher), Moses of Coucy, Judah of Melun, and Samuel ben Solomon of Château-Thierry. Nicholas Donin argued amongst other things that the Talmud contained blasphemous anti-Christian and immoral passages, and therefore ought to be banned, a polemical attack which the Jewish side naturally sought to dispel. The dispute was conducted in Latin and can be reconstructed sufficiently well.38 Although the rabbis seemingly were able to courageously argue against the accusation leveled against the Talmud, the result was that 24 cart-loads filled with Jewish books were publicly burned in 1242. This first condemnation of the Talmud was officially repeated in 1248 by Pope Innocent IV (after having first decreed that copies of the Talmud were to be returned), and was renewed by Louis IX in 1253.39 The Talmud would remain the target of Christian attacks and censorship for centuries to come. 36

See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 154. Largely through the actions of Donin Christians came to believe that the Talmud contained heretical and anti-Christian passages, but also that it prevented its readers from correctly reading the Hebrew Bible, thus keeping them from converting to Christianity. This attack on the Talmud and post-biblical rabbinic authoritative tradition in general was also (conveniently) unrelated to the exegetical controversies over the meaning of passages in the Hebrew Bible, or from debating Christian doctrine. See esp. Robert Chazan, “The Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239– 1248),” PAAJR 55 (1988): 11–30. 37 Rabbi Joseph, unlike his father Nathan, appears to not have had religious debates with the bishop of Sens, see Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 152, 155. 38 See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 155–160; Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 19–38; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, 60–76; Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort,” 216–23 [1:336–42]; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 45–47; Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 153–61. 39 See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 161.

136

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

It is precisely amidst this turbulent climate of increasing anti-Jewish legislation and religious pressures that Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne was composed, and it thus bears witness to the various encounters of the Jews of France with the Christian rulers and clergy. The exegetical arguments compiled in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne and the discussion of the New Testament therein must have been an important consolation in the every day struggles with progressively more inhospitable neighbors and against the mounting pressures exerted by the French crown and ecclesial authorities.

4. 3 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Besides several fragments, there are two main manuscripts of Sefer Yosef haMeqanne: MS 712 Bibliothèque Nationale Paris (MS Paris), and MS 187 Stadtbibliothek Hamburg (MS Hamburg). Of the two, only the former is complete and contains the section that discusses New Testament passages: The Paris manuscript of the book presents an extensive criticism of the New Testament in its last eight pages. It contains forty Hebrew quotations from the New Testament, of one to eight verses each, and eleven quotations from the Latin Vulgate in Hebrew transliteration, of which nine are from the New Testament, one (unidentified) quotation is apparently from a patristic source, and one is an abbreviated and simplified phrase from the Athanasian Creed.40

In 1970, Judah Rosenthal published his critical edition of the entire polemic treatise, for which he mainly used MS Paris.41 Following Ephraim Urbach’s study, he also considered a further manuscript, MS Or. 53 Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Roma Collezioni Vittorio Emanuele (MS Rome)42 which likewise contains a critique of the New Testament.43 Yet, concluding that this particular section is not related to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, he published it separately from his main edition of the treatise.44 In fact, the discussion of the 40

Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 31. See Rosenthal, “On ‘Sefer Yosef HaMeqane’,” 68; and Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 380. Rosenthal’s edition is the main source text for this study: Judah Rosenthal, Sepher Joseph Hamekane – Auctore R. Joseph b. R. Nathan Official (saec. XIII) Ex manu scriptis edidit et notis instruxit Judah Rosenthal [‫( ]ספר יוסף המקנא‬Jerusalem: Meqiṣe Nirdamim, 1970) [Hebr.]. The manuscripts are described in the introduction, 29–31. 42 See Angelo di Capua, “Catalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele,” in Cataloghi dei Codici Orientali di alcune Biblioteche d’Italia (Vol. 1; Florence, 1878), 1:46, no. 8. 43 Cf. Urbach, “Études sur la littérature polémique au moyen-âge,” 51–56. This manuscript is very complex and includes several distinct compositions, see below. 44 See Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 379–80; also Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 30. MS Rome 53 has been divided into various sections; three (labelled A1, A2, and B) are relevant to this study: A1 (ff. 13v–19v) in Judah Rosenthal, “A Jewish Criticism of the New Testament from the Thirteenth Century” [‫]בקורת יהודית של הברית החדשה מן המאה הי״ג‬, in 41

4.3 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

137

New Testament in MS Rome (A1) is quite different to the respective section in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne and shows more similarities to Nizzahon Vetus.45 David Berger has therefore argued that MS Rome shares a common source with Nizzahon Vetus.46 This means that Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan’s entire critique and use of New Testament passages in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne has been preserved only in a single manuscript. Still, MS Paris is probably a transcription of the original, copied soon afterwards, and should therefore be reliable.47

Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in honor of I. Edward Kiev (ed. Charles Berlin; New York: Ktav, 1971), 123–39 [Hebr. section]; A2 (ff. 21r–25v) in Judah Rosenthal, “A Religious Debate between a Sage named Menahem and the Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani” [‫ויכח דתי בין חכם בשם מנחם ובין המומר והנזיר הדומיניקאני פּאבלו‬ ‫]כריסטיאני‬, in Hebrew Contemplation in America: Studies on Jewish Themes Vol. 3 [‫הגות‬ ‫( ]עברית באמריקה‬ed. Menahem Zohori; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1974), 3:61–74; and parts of B (ff. 35r–43v) in Judah Rosenthal, “Sections of a Debate” [‫]פרקי ויכוח‬, in Shalom Baron/Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume — Hebrew Section [‫ספר היובל לכבוד שלום בארון – חלק‬ ‫( ]עברי‬ed. S. Lieberman and A. Hyman; vol. 3; Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974), 3:353–95. Some further folios (1r–2v, 3r–8v, 9v, 11r–12v, 31r–35r, 62v– 63v; though I am not certain the folio references given by Rosenthal are accurate) have been published, see Judah Rosenthal, “Words of a Debate from Sefer ha-Meqanne” [‫דברי ויכח‬ ‫]מתך ספר המקנה‬, Qobez al Yad 8 (1975): 295–323 [Hebr.]; also Urbach, “Études sur la littérature polémique au moyen-âge,” 51–56. A2 has been further scrutinized by Chazan and Rembaum who showed that it consists of several separate compositions, see Robert Chazan, “A Medieval Hebrew Polemical Melange,” HUCA 51 (1980): 89–110; and Joel E. Rembaum, “A Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscript,” AJSR 5 (1980): 81–99. New Testament passages are cited and discussed extensively in A1 and B. In A2 (f. 22a) four gospel passages are discussed (Matt 1:16, 13:52–58, 13:53–58, 28:16–19), which have parallels in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, Nizzahon Vetus, and B (see 5.4.1 and 5.4.14). 45 See Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 379–80, esp. n. 21. Yet, very perplexingly, Berger has decided to refer to the first part of MS Rome as a “version” of Sefer Yosef haMeqanne (380), although its New Testament section is not the same as that of MS Paris (which is why Rosenthal treated it separately). The fact that MS Paris, MS Rome (A1), and the main version of Nizzahon Vetus (MS T) have differing New Testament sections, and that MS Rome (B, and also A2) have New Testament critiques similar to Nizzahon Vetus, Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, and also Milḥemet Miṣvah, requires further investigation, which unfortunately is not possible here. 46 Consequently, Berger consulted MS Rome for his critical edition of Nizzahon Vetus, which is why MS Rome does not receive a separate chapter here. He has argued that it is a “virtual certainty” that MS Rome predates Nizzahon Vetus, see idem, Jewish-Christian Debate, 375. In contrast, Albert Ehrman has argued that Nizzahon Vetus preceded MS Rome, but his argument has not found much support, cf. Albert Ehrman, “When was the ‘Sefer Nitzakhon’ written?,” HTR 71 (1978): 154–57; and Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 375. 47 So Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 29; and Kahn, “Joseph le Zélateur”, 223–24. This, of course, assumes that the New Testament section (in MS Paris) originally was a part of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne which by no means is certain. As previously mentioned, MS Hamburg lacks this section entirely, and MS Rome (A1) has a different New Testament section.

138

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

4. 4 Overview of the Use of the NT in Yosef ha-Meqanne As already indicated, Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is a rich source and contains much more than a discussion of New Testament passages. Nevertheless, we restrict ourselves here to the latter. In the introduction Rabbi Joseph provides a list of all the biblical passages discussed in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, starting with the Pentateuch and finishing with Daniel.48 A second list gives an overview of the arguments based on the New Testament passages, including a headline for each argument.49 Only those passages that relate to Jesus’ divinity will be discussed:50 Translation

NT passage

Original

§1

A son born to a woman is not greater than John

Matt 11:11a (Lat.)

‫בן ילוד אשה לא נתעלה‬ ‫גדול מיוהנן‬

.‫א‬

§2

The wedding of the architriclinus

John 2:2–4 (Lat.)

‫בנשואי ארטקלין מלך‬

.‫ב‬

§3

He said to Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem”

Matt 23:37

‫אמר לירושלים ירושלים‬ ‫ירושלים‬

.‫ג‬

§4

The eater of meat and drinker of wine

Matt 11:19a (Lat.)

‫האוכל בשר ושותה יין‬

.‫ד‬

§5

Just as the soul and flesh are one (body)

Symbolum

‫כמו שהנשמה והבשר יחד‬

.‫ה‬

§6

His soul suffered unto death

Matt 26:38, 41 (Lat.)

‫כאבה נשמתו עד מות‬

.‫ו‬

§7

The moles have a place

Matt 8:20 (Lat.)

‫החפרפירות מקום יש להם‬

.‫ז‬

§8

The Father is not begotten

Symbolum Quicunque

‫האב לא נזרע‬

.‫ח‬

§9

He who sins against the Father will be forgiven

Matt 12:31–32

‫החוטא באב יתכפר לו‬

.‫ט‬

‫שצעק לאב כשהיה צלוב‬

.‫י‬

‫פגע בשמרנית ההולכת‬

.‫יא‬

Quicunque51

§10 He called out to the Father when he was being crucified

Matt 26:39 (Lat.)

§11 He met the Samaritan woman

John 4:7–15, 23, John 14:13–14

48 The list of contents is in Ms Paris ff. 3a–4b, in Rosenthal’s edition on pp. 7–13. There are some minor typos in the index (pp. 12–13), which I have corrected to match the text. 49 See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 12–13; also Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 32–34. 50 Which are those those marked in bold in the list, which are twenty-two sections in total and represent half of the whole chapter. 51 For §5 and §8 see the discussion in 4.5.13.

139

4.4 Overview of the Use of the NT in Yosef ha-Meqanne

Translation

NT passage

Original

§12 Your Lord defiled (himself) and was a liar

Matt 9:20

§13 He praised himself and said the “Son of Man” knows

Matt 13:37 vs. John 8:54

§14 Everything that goes into a man’s mouth

Matt 15:17

§15 Are you able to drink?

Matt 20:22–23 (Lat.)

§16 Iacob[ia] begat Joseph, husband of Mary

Matt 1:16, 18, 21

§17 After the angel had testified and gone

Matt 1:25 (Lat.)

‫אחר שהעיד והלך המלאך‬

.‫יז‬

§18 I did not come for the pious

Matt 9:13

‫לא באתי בעבור החסידים‬

.‫יח‬

§19 There was a robber who went down to hell

Mark 3:27 (?)

‫גזלן היה כשירד לגהינם‬

.‫יט‬

§20 How can you say that he is God?

Deut 18:15–17

‫היאך אתם אומרים‬ ‫שהוא אלוה‬

.‫כ‬

§21 Joseph the husband of Mary

Matt 1:16 (Lat.)

‫יוסף אישה של מרים‬

.‫כא‬

§22 And it happened when the angels returned

Matt 2:13–14

‫ויהי כאשר שבו המלאכים‬

.‫כב‬

§23 Then all the inhabitants of Jerusalem came out

Mark 1:5

‫אז יצאו יושבי ירושלים‬

.‫כג‬

§24 After Jesus came down the mountain the people came

Matt 8:1–4

‫ברדת יש״ו מן ההר‬ ‫הלכו עם‬

.‫כד‬

§25 When Jesus spoke to the owner of the field

Matt 9:6

‫שאמר יש״ו לבעל השדה‬

.‫כה‬

§26 And Jesus crossed the Euphrates

Matt 8:18–20

‫ויעבר יש״ו נהר פרת‬

.‫כו‬

§27 The foxes have burrows

Matt 8:18–20

‫לשועלים יש חפורות‬

.‫כז‬

§28 If he performed a sign to the

Matt 9:6

‫אם עשה האות לבעל‬ ‫השדה‬

.‫כח‬

‫אדוניכם טמא היה ושקרן‬

.‫יב‬

‫הלל עצמו ואמר‬ ‫בן אדם יודע‬

.‫יג‬

‫כל מה שיכנס בפה אדם‬

.‫יד‬

‫היכולים אתם לשתות‬

.‫טו‬

‫יקופא הוליד יוסף בעל‬

.‫יו‬

52‫חריא‬

owner of the field53 §29 When the scribe said to him: “I will go after you”

Matt 8:21–25

‫שאמר לו הסופר אלך‬ ‫אחריך‬

.‫כט‬

§30 And they found him on the mountains of Galilee

Matt 28:16–20

‫וימצאוהו בהר הגליל‬

.‫ל‬

52

Maria rhymes with ‫“( חריא‬excrement”), see Kurt Schubert, “Das christlich-jüdische Religionsgespräch im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Kairos 19 (1977): 161–86, esp. 171. 53 Or: “demon possessed.”

140

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

Translation

NT passage

§31 And Jesus called his disciples

Matt 10:1, 9–10

‫ויקרא יש״ו לתלמידיו‬

.‫לא‬

§32 And Jesus came to his disciples

Mark 9:14f, 19f

‫ויבא יש״ו לתלמידיו‬

.‫לב‬

§33 And a man came to him falling on his knees

Mark 10:17–21 (Matt 19:16–21)

‫ויבא אליו איש כורע‬ ‫על ברכיו‬

.‫לג‬

§34 And he told his disciples: “Do not to worry!”

Luke 12:22–24 (Matt 6:25–26), John 8:26

‫ויאמר לתלמידיו אל תדאגו‬

.‫לד‬

§35 And he came to Samaria, and he was weary

John 4:7–9

‫ויבא שומרון ויעף‬

.‫לה‬

§36 And there was a wedding in Galilee

John 2:1–4

§37 Why was Joseph required…

Matt 1:23, 26:39, 20:28

§38 The Father, Son and Spirit are three

Matt 27:46

‫ האב והבן והרוח שלשתן‬.‫לח‬

§39 In the hour of his death he forgave him

Luke 23:34

‫ בשעת מיתתו מחל לו‬.‫לט‬

§40 When the hour will come that those who are buried [hear him]

John 5:25–30

§41 The sinner against the Father will be forgiven

Matt 12:31–32

§42 The first Adam, when [God] breathed

none

§43 The thing which the Jews did to him [are they acc. to his knowledge and will?]

Passion (and Exodus

Original

‫ויעש חופה בגליל‬

.‫לו‬

‫מפני מה הוצרך יוסף‬

.‫לז‬

‫שתבא השעה שהנקברים‬

.‫מ‬

‫ החוטא באב יתכפר לו‬.‫מא‬ ‫ אדם הראשון שנפח‬.‫מב‬ ‫מה עשו לו היהודים‬

.‫מג‬

34:30b)54

Quotations from the Gospel of Matthew represent the majority of the New Testament passages, though they are not identified as such. Seven of them are in Latin, spelled with Hebrew letters, though the “Latin is frequently distorted in the Hebrew transliteration, which represents phonetically a (northern French?) dialect pronunciation.”55 The passages are mostly presented as an anthology, though they are thematically related. In fact, the section containing the New Testament mostly critiques Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity, but a few arguments are directed against Mary’s perpetual virginity of and other topics. 54

Jesus cannot save himself from the cross, yet people were afraid of Moses. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 32. As in Nestor the use of “Christian vernacular” is to demonstrate the competence of the debater, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:32. 55

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

141

How much of this section is Rabbi Joseph’s own argument and how much is derived from other sources is hard to tell. Although the list would suggest the sections are assembled randomly, there is perhaps logic to the arrangement. In particular the arguments in the first part of the chapter appear to be linked to each other: §§1–4 dispute Jesus’ superiority, §§5–10 dispute Trinitarian doctrine, and §§11–13 argue against Jesus’ moral integrity.56 Afterwards the arguments become more spurious and less related, some arguments are even repeated (e.g. §9 and §41) and parallels to a variety of sources are evident. Rabbi Joseph himself indicates that much of his material in Sefer Yosef haMeqanne came from other Jewish scholars, of whom he mentions some forty by name.57 Also, the relationship to Milḥamot ha-Shem is not clear, but considering that Rabbi Joseph was familiar with so many other Jewish scholars and their writings it would seem probable that he had come across Milḥamot ha-Shem.58 For the sake of better access and comparability, but also because the bulk of arguments appear more random, the following discussion will be arranged according to the Gospel of Matthew. Although this will undo the original sequence of the arguments, attempts will be made to take note of the contextual arrangement. All twenty-two arguments will be included, and the Hebrew numbering will be maintained as reference guide. The study will be based on Rosenthal’s critical Hebrew text.59

4. 5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne The twenty-two sections that discuss the Gospel of Matthew in relationship to Jesus’ divinity recapitulate some of the argumentative strategy of Qiṣṣa/ 56

The inner coherence of this section coincides with a concentration of Latin quotes in the first ten sections, which might indicate that they came from a common composition. The opening section also serves as an introduction, see 4.5.11. 57 See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 24; also Kahn, “Joseph le Zélateur,” 3–10. 58 Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 31, has noted that in the New Testament section “[o]nly two passages in Matthew (8:1–4; 28:16–19) are cited by both Milḥamot ha-Shem of Jacob ben Reuben and the Paris manuscript of Joseph the Zealous, but the differences between them make it quite clear that the latter had no knowledge of the earlier.” Lapide’s assessment is not entirely correct, as the discussion of Matt 12:31–32 in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (see 4.5.13) is almost the same as in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.9). While it is not possible to assertain if Rabbi Joseph had direct knowledge of Milḥamot ha-Shem his argument is sufficiently similar to attest that he had at least encountered that particular argument. 59 The New Testament section in MS Paris is on folios 39a–43a, in Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 125–37. Each of the twenty two arguments is referenced with the section numbering retained from the overview (see above) and a separate title numeration, e.g., 4.5.1. Also, §§26–§27 are fused into one argument (see 4.5.6).

142

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

Nestor and Milḥamot ha-Shem. By far the most frequently encountered argument is that Jesus is not God, though this often is only implied. 4. 5. 1 Jesus’ Mission: Matt 1:16, 18, 21 (§16) Unlike in other polemic works, the genealogy of Jesus is not much discussed in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne. Instead, the annunciation is used to advance several arguments against the purpose of Jesus’ coming: Iacob[ia] begat Josef, the husband of [M]ary. When his mother Mary was enaged to Joseph, before they were one flesh, she was found to be pregnant [Matt 1:16, 18]. And the angel said to her: “He will save Israel from their sins” [cf. Matt 1:21]. And in another place he says: “If I had not come they would not have sinned” [cf. John 15:22]. It is clear that he contradicted his words [here], and it is also clear that [this] is a lie, [since] he did not save [Israel]. And [what] if [he saved] a few of them? It is clear that Moses saved the whole [of Israel], and therefore he (should) be made King Messiah.60

‫ נמצאת‬,‫ טרם היו לבשר אחד‬,‫ כשנתארסה אמו מריא ליוסף‬.‫יקופיא הוליד יוסף בעל חריא‬ ‫ אם לא באתי‬:‫ ובמקום אחר הוא אומר‬.‫ הוא יושיע את ישראל מעונותיו‬:‫ אמר לה המלאך‬.‫הרה‬ ‫ ואם על מקצתם? — הרי משה הושיע‬.‫ שלא הושיע‬,‫ הרי כחש‬,‫ ועוד‬.‫ הרי סתר דבריו‬.‫לא חטאו‬ 61.‫ וכן יעשה מלך המשיח‬,‫הכל‬

The passage clearly is based on Matthew, though the angel is talking to Mary instead of Joseph, which is perhaps a common mistake (it also happens in Nestor §74): according to Matt 1:21 Jesus has come to save Israel, however, this 1) contradicts his own statement in John 15:22, and 2), it is not true since he did not save all of Israel. The first argument sees a contradiction in that Jesus is said to have come to save sinners (Matt 1:21), whereas Jesus himself says that before he came nobody could effectively be considered a sinner (John 15:22). The second argument is a comparison to Moses, who is hailed as greater than Jesus. Moses brought all of Israel out of Egypt, whereas Jesus failed to convince, but more crucially to save the majority of Jews, which is an empirical argument.62 Thus, the existence of Jewish communities within Christendom exposes Jesus’ salvific mission as failure, which probably was a stinging argument. It implies that Jesus, at the very least, is as a “lesser” Messiah. The fact that 60

This and the subsequent translations into English are my own. Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 129. 62 This argument probably aims at the heart of the Dominican and Franciscan endeavor to convert Jews. It is comparable to the Christian argument that the long experience of Jewish dispersion, in particular under Christian dominance, demonstrates God’s preference for Christianity. This effectively reverses the “historical argument” that the “victory of Christianity” demonstrates its superiority (in that the temple was destroyed, and that Jews were scattered throughout the world). Instead, early Christianity, and in particular medieval Christendom, had not been able to convince the majority of Jews living amongst them of the truth of Christianity. 61

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

143

Jesus is shown to contradict himself, and effectively even lies, would further disqualify him, both in therms of being a Messianic contender, and as a divine being (cf. 4.5.9). In the subsequent sections Matthew’s nativity account is referenced twice. Several arguments are presented that are directed against less central doctrines, but are somewhat related to above argument. Starting with §17 Mary’s perpetual virginity is criticized by means of Matt 1:25. Then, in §18, it is again argued from Matt 9:13 that Jesus only came for sinners, he therefore must not have come for Abraham’s descendants; §19 takes issue with the idea of hell and Jesus’ victory over Satan in hell; §20 with the fact that people were able to speak to Jesus, while at Sinai God’s presence was too overbearing to endure, which shows that Jesus can really only be a human (‫משמע בן‬ ‫)אדם בשר ודם ילוד אשה‬.63 In §21 Rabbi Joseph returns to Matt 1:16 in order to repeat his argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity.64 4. 5. 2 Jesus’ Birth: Matt 1:23, 26:39 and 20:28 (§37) Although the genealogy is not further discussed in Yosef ha-Meqanne, the birth of Jesus and the surrounding context still receive some attention: And further, [based on] what is written for them: why was Joseph required to be with her old [as he was]65 as if he was her husband? According to what is written for them, she was to be stoned [as] a harlot, but (then) he was ordered to be with her, and when the Jews saw this they were not stoning [her]. Yet, this is a lie, because there is no [such thing as] stoning on account of harlotry, except for a girl that is [already] engaged [cf. Deut 22:23–24].

‫ שאשה‬,‫ מפני מה הוצרך יוסף להיות ישן עמה כעין בעלה? — לפי שכתוב להם‬:‫ועוד כתוב להם‬ ‫ שאין סוקלין על‬,‫ וכשיראוה היהודים לא יסקלות וזה שקר הוא‬,‫ ונצטוה להיות עמה‬,‫זונה תסקל‬ .‫ כי אם נערה המאורסה‬,‫זנות‬ And they also say that Isaiah prophesied about him: “Behold, the virgin/maiden is pregnant” [Isa 7:14]. And if he said this [indeed] about him [= Jesus], why [then] did he make him [=Joseph] father? ?‫ מדוע עשה לו אב‬,‫ ואם עליו נאמר‬."‫ "הנה העלמה הרה‬:‫ועוד שאומרים שישעיה נבא עליו‬

63

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 130; cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal), 60–61. There it is argued that according to Deut 18:15–17 (cf. Acts 3:22, 7:37) Jesus could only be lesser than God, as he is designated as a “prophet like Moses.” 64 See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 130. Accordingly, Joseph had intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus (cf. Matt 1:16): “One needs to reply: [If] he still has not tried to be her husband, then why is he called her husband? It should have said: ‘the fiancée of Mary’ [and not husband]. So how is it that [you] are telling lies in you prayers, when [you] say that no man ever came to [be with] her?” (‫ עדיין לא נסית לבעלה ולמה נקרא אישה? היה‬:‫ויש להשיב‬ ‫ שכן אומרים שמעולם לא בא עליה‬,‫ ארוס של מרים והיאך מספרים שקר בתפלתם‬:‫)לו לומר‬. Cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 29, 59; and Nizzahon Vetus §88 and §154 (see 5.4.1). 65 Or perhaps: “to sleep with her.”

144

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

Moreover, we find nowhere in “your Torah” that he is [actually] called ‘Immanuel,’ only ‘Jesus,’ nor do we find that his is remembered by that name. .‫ ובאותו שם לא מצינו שהוזכר‬,‫ כי אם יש״ו‬,‫ לא מצינו בכל תורתכם שנקרא עמנו אל‬,‫ועוד‬ It is [indeed quite] a “miracle” that all the things that are in flesh and blood [= humanity] are [likewise] in Jesus,66 [since] he clearly said: “Let this cup pass from me, for it is not in my will” [cf. Matt 26:39, par. Mark 14:36] while he was among his enemies and they tormented him. But if he is [really] God, who can cancel out his will? Also, he said that he only came in order to receive sufferings and to give his soul [as] ransom for many [cf. Matt 20:28], yet after this he said: “Let this cup pass from me.” It is clear that [these two passages] are contradicting each other. And it is written: “God is not a man that he should lie, and a ‘son of man’ that he should change [his mind]” [Num 23:19].

‫ כי‬,‫ "העבר ממני כוס זה‬:‫ שהרי אמר‬,‫נפלאת היא שכל הדברים שיש בבשר ודם יש ביש״ו‬ ,‫ מי יכל לבטל רצונו? ועוד‬,‫ ואם אלוהים הוא‬.‫ כשהיה בין אויביו והיו מיסרין אותו‬,"‫איננו ברצוני‬ ‫ העבר ממני כוס‬:‫ האחר כך אמר‬,‫שאמר שלא בא אלא לקבל הצרות וליתן נפשו פדיון לרבים‬ 67.'‫ ובן אדם ויתנחם‬,‫ 'לא איש אל ויכזב‬:‫ וכתוב‬.‫ הרי שהניהם סותערין זה את זה‬.‫זה‬

Initially, the argument appears to interact with more of a folk story about Jesus,68 but soon turns to Matthew and questiones the identity of Jesus as Immanuel (Matt 1:23). Moreover, Joseph’s role is under scrutiny, in particular why he was necessary at all. If Jesus’ birth was indeed miraculous according to Isa 7:14, why not relate a nativity account without a father figure? Then, a second argument is launched relating to Jesus’ will where Matt 26:39 is used to point out Jesus’ inefficacy. This is, again, similar to the first and third argument in the discussion of the Gethsemane pericope in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6),69 and part of this argument also occurs in Nizzahon Vetus.70 The fact that Jesus did not want to die is linked with the incarnation in form of a sarcastic outburst (‫נפלאת היא שכל הדברים שיש בבשר ודם יש‬ ‫)ביש״ו‬: since Jesus is seen as frail human with a human will distinct from God, from the Jewish viewpoint his humanity cannot be understood as a miracle in the true sense; Jesus very obviously was human. In other words, to recognize a human as human cannot be considered a miracle. The comparison to Matt 20:28, although it is more of a paraphrase, introduces then a contradiction: if Jesus really came to give his life as ransom, he should not have 66

In other words, all the things pertaining to humanity are applicable to Jesus. Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 135. 68 Matthew and Luke do not explicitly mention the possibility that Mary could be stoned (though one could see this implied by Matt 1:19), and neither is this detail mentioned in The Protoevanglium of James, The Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, nor The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour. Perhaps this confuses the story of John 8:3–11 with Mary. 69 See Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 44, 70. However, here in §37, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane is envisioned as occurring during Jesus’ passion, “while he was among his enemies and they tormented him.” 70 Cf. Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §168, 181, 118 [Hebr. section], see 5.4.12. 67

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

145

asked God to deliver him from his suffering. Jesus is consequently seen as someone who changes his mind, does not have the will power to carry out a mission, and is unable to bring about what he desires — which disqualifies him in as divine contender. Thus, the section uses three passages from Matthew’s gospel, from nativity to passion, to critique Jesus and Christian belief. 4. 5. 3 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Matt 2:13–14 (§22) A recurring theme in Yosef ha-Meqanne is the topic of Jesus’ fear.71 In section §6 (see 4.5.19) Jesus’ experience of dismay in Gethsemane is already a topic, though the discussion there is on a more theological level directed against the Trinity. Here, however, the argument focuses specifically on Jesus’ flight to Egypt: Moroever, it is written for them: “And it came about after the angels [or: messengers] had left to seek out Jesus, behold, one angel appeared [to Joseph] in a dream, and he said to him: ‘Take your boy and his mother and go flee to Egypt and stay there [until] it is [again] said [to you]: ‘Go, arise! [cf. Matt 2:13], [for] soon the cursed Jews are to seek the boy and [want] to destroy him.’” So Joseph fled to Egypt [cf. Matt 2:14]. Now, why would that be? If he is God why would he be afraid of any man? And the angels of God, did they fear any man when they came to carry out [their] mission openly? No human had the power to harm them, as it was said in [the passage concerning] Lot: “they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness” [Gen 19:11]. And there in [the passage on] Elisha: “And Elisha prayed to the Lord: ‘Please strike this people with blindness,’ and He struck them with a blindness, as Elisha had asked” [2 Kings 6:18]. And there: “And [the king Jeroboam] stretched out his hand… and said: ‘Seize him!’ But his hand became rigid…, and he could not draw it back” [1 Kings 13:4].

‫ ואמר‬,‫ הנה מלאך אחד נראה בחלום‬,‫ ויהי כאשר שבו המלאכים לבקש יש״ו‬:‫עוד כתוב להם‬ ‫ עתידים‬,‫ לך קום‬:‫ )עד( ֵ]ֵעוד[ אומר‬.‫ ושב שם‬,‫ ולך ברח למצרים‬,‫ קח את הנער ואת אמו‬:‫לו‬ ‫ אם אלהים הוא למה‬,‫ וכל כך למה‬.‫ ויברח יוסף למצרים‬,‫ארורים יהודים לבקש הנער ולאבדו‬ ‫ כדי לעשות שליחותן‬,‫היה ירא משום אדם? והלא מלאכי אלהים כשבאו לא יראו משום אדם‬ ‫ "ואת האנשים אשר פתח הבית‬:‫ כמו שנאמר בלוט‬,‫ ולא היה כח ביד שום ]אדם[ להזיקן‬,‫בגלוי‬ ,‫ הך נא את הגוי הזה בסנוירים‬:‫ "ויתפלל אלישע אל י״י ויאמר‬:‫ וכן באלישע‬."‫הכו בסנוורים‬ ‫ תפשוהו ותיבש‬:‫ "וישלח )המלך( ]ירבעם את[ ידו…לאמר‬:‫ וכן‬. "‫ויכם בסנוירים כדבר אלישע‬ 72."‫ ולא היה יכל להשיבה אליו‬,…‫ידו‬

The text is quite interesting, in particular curious is the reference to the coming of “the cursed Jews” (‫)עתידים ארורים יהודים‬. It would seem that the author/polemicist considers this descriptor as belonging to the actual gospel

71

For the possible influence of Toledoth Yeshu on the notion of Jesus as someone “on the run” see William Horbury, “The Trial of Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C.F.D. Moule (ed. Ernst Bammel; Studies in Biblical Theology 2.13; London: SCM, 1970), 103–121 (here: 112–12; 115, n. 40). 72 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 130.

146

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

text.73 The argument questions why God would command Joseph to flee with his family. The implication is that if Jesus and his mission were so important in redemption history, why did God not protect them? God had worked on behalf of various people in the Hebrew Bible, so why not in behalf of Joseph? The same is true for Jesus, if he were God, why would he be afraid of anything (‫?)אם אלהים הוא למה היה ירא משום אדם‬74 It is further argued that the angels themselves should be powerful enough to defend those under their protection, escape is not necessary.75 The same set of arguments has been used by Celsus a good thousand years earlier.76 4. 5. 4 Jesus’ God-given Judgment: Luke 12:22–24, par. Matt 6:25–26 (§24) The next argument to be considered is based on Jesus’ sermon in Luke 12 (par. Matt 6:25–26), which focuses on the subordination of Jesus to God: 73

The notion that Jews were cursed was common in Christendom and related to Matt 27:25 (cf. 1 Thess 2:15–16), the cursing of Cain (Gen 4:11), and the accusation of deicide. It is already found in the Apostlic Constitutions 6:25 (ANF 7:461); in Athanasius, Ep. fest. 6 [Easter 334] (NPNF2 4:521); Jerome, In psalmos 108 [Homily 35] (CCSL 78:213, FC 48:262); Augustin, Faust. 12.11 (PL 42:259, NPNF1 4:187); and Agobard (d. 840), in his letter to the Bishop of Narbonne entitled “On Being Wary of Eating and Associating with Jews” (De cavendo convictu et societate Iudaeorum) (CCCM 52:231–34). Closer to the time of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is Peter Abelards’s (1079–1142) letter to Louis VII (PL 189:365– 67) denouncing the Jews as accursed. See also Hood, Aquinas and the Jews, 62–76; Bernhard Blumenkranz, Les Auteurs Chrétiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaïsme (Études Juives 4, Paris: Mouton, 1963); Lisa A. Unterseher, The Mark of Cain and the Jews: Augustine’s Theology of Jews and Judaism (Gorgias Dissertations 39; Early Christian Studies 9; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2009); and Jeremy Cohen, “The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars,” Traditio 39 (1983): 1–27. For an overview of the (controversial) debate over the origins of Christian anti-Semitism see Nicholas De Lange, “Origins of Anti-Semitism” in Anti Semitism in Times of Crisis (ed. Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz; New York: New York University Press, 1991), 21–37; also, John G. Gager, The Roots of Anti Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 11–34; Marcel Simon, “Christian Anti-Semitism,” in Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 202–33, repr. in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation (ed. Jeremy Cohen; New York: New York University Press, 1991), 131–173; and James Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (London: Soncino, 1934). 74 Cf. the same argument in Nizzahon Vetus §159 (see 5.4.2). 75 Though the angels sent to rescue Lot only lead him away from the city, cf. Gen 19:17. 76 Cf. Origen, Cels. 1.66: “Why also when you were still an infant did you have to be taken away to Egypt lest you should be murdered? It is not likely that a god should be afraid of death. But an angel came from heaven, commanding you and your family to escape, lest by being left behind you should die. And could not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account guard you, His own son, at that very place?” (Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 60); cf. also Cels. 1.61; Justin, Dial. 102.3; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 84.

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

147

It is also written to them: “And he said to his disciples: ‘Do not worry about what you shall eat and what you shall wear. Is the soul not more than to eat and the body more than to dress? Notice the ravens, they are not sowing or harvesting, yet the Creator sees them. Are you not much more?’ [cf. Luke 12:22–24, par. Matt 6:25–26]. But [just as] I am hearing, I am judging his judgement rightly; which is not seeking my own will, but the will of the one who sent me [cf. John 5:30].” From [the fact that he had to] hear [God’s judgement first] it is clear that the two do not have the same will.

‫ אין הנפש אלא למאכל‬.‫ 'אל תדאגו מה תאכלו ומה תלבשו‬:‫ "ויאמר לתלמידיו‬:‫עוד כתוב להם‬ .‫ אתם לא כל שכן‬.‫ השגיחו העורבים שאינם זורעים וקוצרים והצור רועה אותם‬.‫והגוף למלבוש‬ ‫ שופט משפטו ישר שאיני מקבש רצוני אלא רצון מי ששלחני'" — הרי משמע שאין‬,‫ואני שומע‬ 77.‫רצון שניהם שוה‬

The main argument is clearly spelled out, “the two do not have the same will” (‫)הרי משמע שאין רצון שניהם שוה‬. Jesus’ submission, deference, and reliance on the Creator serves to demonstrate that they have different volition. Jesus ultimately ought to be understood as distinct, subordinate, and lesser than God, which also puts the Trinity into question. This kind of argument, which points out Jesus’ expressions of his own will over against God’ will, has already been encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem in the discussion of the Gethsemane pericope (see 3.4.6), and also in Qiṣṣa §40 a similar argument is made (also based on John 5:30).78 More curious is the quotation of Luke 12:22–24 (par. Matt 6:25–26) as it is essentially superfluous, for the argument rests entirely on John 5:30. Rabbi Joseph’s sources could have already have joined Luke to John, and he simply may have thought they belonged together, but this still begs the question why these two passages were joined in the first place. Perhaps Jesus is associated with the ravens to underline his “creatureliness” and dependency on God. As they dependent on God for their existence, Jesus has to depend on communications from the Father. 4. 5. 5 Jesus was Sleeping: Matt 8:21–25 (§29) Matthew 8–9 is frequently referenced in Yosef ha-Meqanne and its respective parallel sources (MS Rome, Nizzahon Vetus).79 This might indicate that this particular portion of Matthew was available to whoever penned the original argument. In fact, the arguments in §§24–29 are all based on Matt 8–9.80 In 77

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 134. See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:60, 2:38; cf. also Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53 (see 2.5.1.5) and ibid., 1:62, 109; 2:100. For other similarities to Qiṣṣa/Nestor see also Rembaum, “Influence,” 167, 175–76. 79 Cf. 5.4.5, and the following arguments in 4.5.6–9. 80 Also §7, §12, and §18 use Matt 8:20, Matt 9:20, and Matt 9:13 respectively (see 4.5.7 and 4.5.10). Moreover, §24 cites Matt 8:1–4; §25 uses Matt 9:1–5; §§26–27 use Matt 8:18– 20; §28 Matt 9:6; and §29 uses Matt 8:21–25. Of all of these only §7 quotes a verse from 78

148

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

§29 it is argued that Jesus’ words and actions disqualify him from being divine: And it is also written for them in the same passage, where the scribe said: “I will follow you,” [that] one of his dicsciples said to him: “‘Let me first to bury my father.’ Jesus said to him: ‘Let the dead bury [him], come after me!’ He entered as boat and behold, there was a great storm on the sea, and the boat was thought to [or: about to] break, but Jesus was sleeping, and his disciples came and woke him up” [cf. Matt 8:21–25]. For from this [passage we learn about] a great evil, that is, that he should say to his disciple, ‘desist from burying your father.’ Why, there is no greater good deed than burying even those dead who are not one’s relatives, and this is certainly the case with regard to one’s own father. And also, it says he was asleep! It is written: “See, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” [Ps 121:4]. :‫ אמר לו אחד מתלמידיו‬."‫ "אלך אחריך‬:‫ שאמר לו הסופר‬,‫ועוד כתוב להם באותו מקום‬ ‫ נכנס בספינה והנה‬.'‫ 'הנח לקבר מתים ובא אחרי‬:‫ "ענה לו יש״ו‬."‫"הניחני עד שאקבר את אבי‬ ‫ וכי יש רעה‬."‫ וישן יש״ו ויבאו תלמידיו ויעוררוהו‬,‫ והאניה חשבה להשבר‬,‫סערה גדולה בים‬ ,‫ 'הנח מלקבר אביך'? והלא אין מצוה גדולה מלקבר מתים נכרים‬:‫גדולה מזו שאמר לתלמידו‬ 81."‫ וכתוב "הנה לו ינום ולא יישן שומר ישראעל‬.‫ כי אמר שהוא ישן‬,‫ ועוד‬.‫וכל שכן אביו‬

Two arguments are advanced here: the first is is a critique of Jesus’ heartless attitude towards the man who desires to bury his father before following Jesus, which is understood as an outrage and great evil, and certainly at odds with Jewish (or Christian) customs.82 The second is against Jesus’ divinity. Since God does not sleep, and Jesus is reported to have slept in the boat, Jesus consequently cannot be not divine. This latter argument was already encountered in Qiṣṣa/Nestor §84, §89, and §91 and will be repeated in later polemic works.83

Matthew in Latin. Perhaps this section of Matthew (8:1–9:20?) was available to the respective author (in Hebrew?), which could then account for the frequent use of this passage. Alternatively, these arguments must have been purposely arranged, though loosely, according to the order of the pericopes found in Matthew (in which case the author/compiler would appear to have know that these passages were all from the same general section of the Gospel of Matthew). 81 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 132–33. 82 While this is not necessarily prescribed in the Torah, it is nevertheless a strong tradition and expectation that one buries the dead, see e.g. m. Pe’ah 1:1, m. Ket. 11:1. Markus Bockmuehl has argued against Martin Hengel and E. P. Sanders that Matt 8:22 is not an attack on the Torah (as a transgression of the command to honor ones parents; Exod 20:12, Deut 5:16), but has to be interpreted as Jesus requiring a special duty to him which is even more important than caring for the burial of a deceased relative. See idem, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakha and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 23–48; esp. 31–32, 47. See also Luz, Matthew 8–20, 19–20; and Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 56–58, who briefly discusses how early (and modern) church interpreters try to soften Jesus’ statement here. 83 In Qiṣṣa/Nestor §84 the scene where Jesus is sleeping in the boat is mentioned, while §89 also refers to Psalm 121:4. See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:69, 115; 2:54– 55, 103, 135.

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

149

4. 5. 6 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 8:18–20 (§§26–27)84 The next four arguments, which are likewise all based on verses in Matt 8–9, point to Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” as indicative of the fact that Jesus is only human. This, of course, follows a trajectory already encountered in Qiṣṣa/Nestor (cf. 2.5.1.1), but in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne different New Testament passages are used to argue the point: “And Jesus went across the Euphrates, and a scribe came and said to him: ‘Rabbi, I will follow you to the place where you will go.’ Jesus answered him: ‘The foxes have burrows and the bird[s] of heaven have nests, but I — the ‘Son of Man’ — have no ground to lay my head’” [Matt 8:18–20]. Now if he is God, why does he call himself “Son of Man”?

‫ ענה לו‬."‫ אלך אחריך אל המקומות אשר תלך‬,‫ "רבי‬:‫ ויבא סופר ויאמר לו‬,‫ויעבר יש״ו נהר פרת‬ ."‫ ואני בן אדם אין לי קרקע להשים ראשי‬,‫ ולעוף השמים יש קנים‬,‫ "לשועלים יש חפורות‬:‫יש״ו‬ 85?‫ למה קרא עצמו בן אדם‬,‫ואם אלוהים הוא‬

Though Matt 8:18–20 is in the background, the context appears obscure at first, as Jesus is envisioned to have crossed the Euphrates (and not the lake in Galilee). This might indicate, however, that this particular argument originally was based on a Latin source, and that the compiler had no in-depth familiarity with the canonical Matthew.86 Nevertheless, the argument works well with the immediately preceding section (§25, see 4.5.8), as it provides a second proof text that Jesus calls himself “Son of Man.” The question, “Why does he call himself son of man?,” is thus meant to show that Jesus understood himself to be human, which is how this terms is understood by all of the polemical texts surveyed in this study.

84 While the table of contents in Rosenthal’s edition of Yosef ha-Meqanne lists this section as two arguments respectively, it is in fact only one short argument, on this see Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 132. 85 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 133. 86 The identification of the body of water as Euphrates would appear to be based on the Latin trans fretum (“across the straight/channel/seas,” for the Greek πέραν, “across” [from something]), which perhaps is homonymous with Euphrates. The same also can be seen in the parallel passage in MS Rome (A1), f. 14a: “It is written for them in another place, that Jesus saw scores [of people] surrounding him, and he went across the River Euphrates, and a scribe came to him…” (‫ וירא ישו כתות סביבותיו וילך מעבר לנהר פרת ויבא‬,‫כתוב להם במקום אחר‬ ‫)סופר אחד ויאמר לו‬. The Latin for Matthew 8:18 reads here: videns autem Iesus turbas multas circum se iussit ire trans fretum (Vg.). And also in MS Rome (A1) the discussion of Matt 8:18–20 follows Matt 9:6, but the argument is more extensive. The same passage is also used in Nizzahon Vetus §168; “It is further written in their book of Mark: ‘When Jesus saw great multitudes about him he crossed the Euphrates River. And a certain scribe came and said…’” (.‫ וירא ישו כיתוב רבותסביבותיו וילד מעבר לנהר פרת‬:‫עוד כתוב להם בספר מרקוש‬ ‫)ויבא סופר אחד ויאמר‬, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate, 180, 118 [Hebr. section]. It would appear that this was either a well known argument, and/or that one of these texts (or a common source) was the origin of this argument.

150

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

4. 5. 7 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 8:20 (§7) Matt 8:20 is also discussed in an earlier section which stands separately from those in §§24–29. Unlike the arguments in that section, Matthew 8:20 is quoted in Latin and is used to point out the lowly condition of his humanity:87 Vulpes foveas habint vul[u]qres coeli niqos [nidos]: Fili[us] homini[s] non habet reclinet caput suu[m]. Explanation: Moles have holes that provide cover for them, birds have a part of the sky for their nests, [yet] the “Son of Man” did not have for himself ubi [or: anywhere on which] to rest his head. That [means that] he was so poor that he had no place for himself to rest his head or to live. :‫ וולקריש צילו ניקו פילי אומוני נון אביץ ריקלניש קבוץ שואו — פירוש‬,‫וולפוש פואביש אבינט‬ ‫ בן אדם לא היה לו‬,‫ עופות לצד השמים קיניהם‬,‫)חפו חפירות( ]חפרפרות[ מקום צל ֹ יש להם‬ 88.‫ שהיה עני כל כך שלא היה לו מקום לכפות ראשו ולדור בו‬,‫ִאפא יכוף ראשו‬

The argument is not very elaborate and simply states that Jesus as “Son of Man” is poor, and as such it is not necessarily an argument against Jesus’ divinity per se, though it lends further support to understand the term “Son of Man” as an exclusively human identification. It is, e.g., left unsaid that Jesus’ poverty is in stark contrast with God, or other prominent figures of the French clergy. 4. 5. 8 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 9:6 (§25) Another “Son of Man” saying, here Matt 9:6, is employed.89 Three uses of the term “Son of Man” in this part of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne are, as such, derived from Matt 8–9, two of which are based on Matt 9:6. The argument in §25 is very terse and is consists of a single, short line: And it also written for them that Jesus said to the owner of the field who was lying on his bed: “Arise, go, so that you may know that the son of man is ruling on the earth, [and] forgiving sins.” Then Jesus said to the owner of the field: Take your bed and go to your home [cf. Matt 9:6] — he clearly calls himself a “Son of Man” here.90

87 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §102, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:71, 119; 2:59, 105, 138. 88 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 127. 89 Cf. the table in 4.4. Before Matt 8:18–20 is cited in §§26–27, a similar argument is presented based on Matt 9:6 in §25. After §§26–27, Matt 9:6 is used again in section §28. 90 It is not clear why the paralytic of Matt 9:6 (parr. Mark 2:10–11, Luke 5:24) is identified as “owner of the field” (‫)בעל השדה‬. The argument also appears also in Nizzahon Vetus, there the paralytic is designated as ‫“( בעל השידה‬demon possessed”?), cf. Berger, JewishChristian Debate, §168, 316. Berger sensibly suggests that ‫ בעל השידה‬might be a corruption of ‫“( בעל השיתוק‬paralytic”); cf. also Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 132, n. 1 (§25). The arguments in Yosef ha-Meqanne §§25–28 are very similar to MS Rome (A1), f. 13b–14a, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism” [‫]בקורת יהודית‬, 125. There, the respective passage reads ‫“( שאמר ישו לבן השידים‬Jesus spoke to the son of the demons”), but one line below the man

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

151

‫ לבעבור תדע כי בן אדם‬,‫ קום לך‬:‫ שאמר יש״ו לבעל השדה השוכב על המטה‬,‫ועוד כתוב להם‬ ‫ שא מטתך ולך לביתך — הרי שקרא‬:‫ אז אמר ישו בלעל השדה‬.‫ סולח הטאות‬,‫ בארץ‬91‫משול‬ 92.‫עצמו בן אדם‬

Even though Jesus forgives, which in the Christian reading often signifies a divine perogative,93 Jesus calls himself here a “Son of Man” (‫)בן אדם‬. By implication, Jesus must have understood himself as a mere human. In contrast, the medieval exegesis of Matt 9:6 mostly explained the verse, by means of the communicatio idiomatum, as affirmation that Jesus is equal to God, the Father.94 4. 5. 9 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 9:6 (§28) The second time Matt 9:6 is used, it is argued that Jesus contradicts himself, and has to be understood as a liar: Moreover, if he performed this sign for the owner of the field (or: demon possessed) [in order] to make known his power and might, why did he say to the owner of the field (or: demon possessd): “In order that you may know that the son of man is ruling” [cf. Matt 9:6]? Why did he answer [him then with] a lie, since he said: “I have no ground to lay my head?”

‫ "למען‬:‫ למה אמר לבעל השדה‬,‫ אם עשה האות הזה לבעל השדה להודיע כחו וגבורתו‬,‫ועוד‬ 95?‫ אין לי קרקע להשים ראשי‬:‫ שאמר‬,‫תדע כי ּבן אדם מושל"? למה ענה שקר‬

That Jesus is a liar (‫ )שקרן‬is also argued in §12 (see 4.5.10) and §16 (4.5.1), though the argument here simply reasons that if Jesus as the “Son of Man” is indeed ruling (‫)בן אדם מושל‬,96 then it should follow that he has the authority to appropriate for himself a place to sleep. Moreover, if Jesus is divine, he should “own” everything anyway. As such, Jesus must be understood to be lying here. If he indeed has no place to lay his head, then he is ultimately not ruling (nor could he be divine). And vice versa, if he were ruling, then he must be lying, inasmuch as he would have a place top lay his head. Jesus’ limitation in regard to his physical existence stands as such in contradiction to

is called ‫“( בעל השידים‬the demon possessed”). This is also found in the “Basle Nizzahon,” see William Horbury, “The Basle Nizzahon,” JTS 34 (1983): 497–514, see 509, repr. and rev. in Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (idem; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 243–61 (256). 91 MS Rome (A1) has ‫( שולט‬control, command) here. 92 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 132. 93 See Hilary, In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius 8.6 (PL 9:961, SC 254:200). In the early church the pericope was also related to the Trinity, see Luz, Matthew 8–20, 29–30. 94 See Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man,’ 87–92. 95 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 132. 96 Matt 9:6 in Greek reads: “ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου” (NA27), the Latin, “quoniam Filius hominis habet potestatem” (Vg.). ‫ מושל‬corresponds thus to ἐξουσία or potestas.

152

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

his claims. Since Jesus owns very little, he cannot be compared to the One who owns everything. 4. 5. 10 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman: Matt 9:20 (§12) Also in §12 Jesus is accused of being a liar, which is based on a discussion of Jesus’ encounter with the hemorrhaging woman of Matt 9:20. Already in the immediately preceding section a woman is featured, the Samaritan of John 4, in an argument against Jesus’ divinity.97 Here, in §12, it is reasoned that Jesus actively defiled himself in his meeting with the woman of Matt 9: Your Lord was unclean and a liar. The woman hemorrhaging for 12 years came before him, and he touched her clothing and healed her, according to your words. Consequently, he made himself unclean and transgressed the words of the Torah.

‫ אם כן‬.‫ לדבריכם‬,‫ נדה של י״ב שנה באה לפניו ונגע בלבושה ורפאה‬.‫אדונכם טמא היה ושקרן‬ 98.‫טמא עצמו ועבר על דברי תורה‬

Already in the preceding section we find a somewhat different reading from the canonical accounts. There, the Samaritan woman initiates the conversation with Jesus, asking if he wants something to drink (cf. John 4:7).99 Here, we find another reversal, instead of the woman touching Jesus (cf. Matt 9:20), it is actually Jesus who touches her clothing.100 This reading is certainly polemically expedient, and perhaps not accidental, but that does not necessarily mean the texts were deliberately altered by Rabbi Joseph as he seems to think this is part of Christian Scripture (‫)לדבריכם‬. Whatever the case, Jesus is

97 Accordingly, Jesus should not have directed the woman to worship the Father (cf. John 4:23), but him; this then shows that Jesus and the Father are distinct; see Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 128. The Samaritan woman appears in three separate arguments: in §11, in §35, and §38, see Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 128, 134, and 136. In §35 it is questioned why Jesus, if he was God, would be tired and in need of something to drink (‫אם אלוהים הוא למה‬ ‫)נתיעף וצמא למים‬. A Christian response is given, i.e. that this is speaking of his human body (‫)הבשר מדבר‬, which then is countered with a question: “Was it [then] not [so] that the whole time while the Holy Spirit was in him, that he did not exert himself and did not grow tired?” (‫ ?)הלא כל זמן שרוח הקדש בתוכו לא יעף ולא יגע‬In other words (resolving the double negative), it is questioned how Jesus could grow weary while the Holy Spirit was in him, cf. 4.5.13 and 4.5.19; also Nizzahon Vetus §181, §176, and §178 (see 5.4.10, 12, 13). 98 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 128. 99 This, however, may simply be based on the Vulgate, which reads for John 4:7: venit mulier de Samaria haurire aquam dicit ei Iesus da mihi bibere, which can be read either as “he said to her,” or as “she said to him.” 100 Also here the Vulgate can, in fact, be read as Jesus touching the woman, as the verb tetigit can be masculine or feminine, and likewise the pronoun eius, cf. Matt 9:20 (Vg.): ecce mulier quae sanguinis fluxum patiebatur duodecim annis accessit retro et tetigit fimbriam vestimenti eius.

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

153

understood to actively defile himself; therefore, he is someone who transgresses the Law. Jesus, by implication, cannot be considered divine since he lacks upright behavior. 4. 5. 11 Jesus and John the Baptist: Matt 11:11a (§1) The entire section on the New Testament in Yosef ha-Meqanne begins with an intricate rhyme leading into a quote of Matt 11:11 in Latin: It is written for them in the Gospel [omitting wordplay]: Inter nato[s] mulier[um] non surrexit maior (di’) Ioanne Baptista(l) [cf. Matt 11:11a]. [That means:] A son born by a woman is not greater than John the Baptist. Jesus, according to [their own] words, was born by a woman, for a mulier is a married woman. And the mother of Jesus, according to them, was not deflowered.

‫שוֹר ֵר ִשית‬ ְ ‫ "לא יוכלו נקיון" ִאינְ ֵטר נַ טוֹ מוליאר נון‬,‫ בצער ופסיון‬,‫כתוב להם בעון גליון נגע שגיון‬ ְ ‫ַמאיור די יַ ְהאן ַב ְש ִט‬ ‫ י׳ש׳ו׳ לדבריהם‬.‫יש ַטל — בן נולד ]מ[אשה לא נתעלה גדול ַמי ַֹהנן מטביל‬ 101.‫ ואם י׳ש׳ו׳ לדבריהם לא נבעלה‬,‫ כי מולייר היא בעולה‬,‫אם כן היה נולד מאשה‬

The rhyme, which starts off the argument and the whole gospel critique section, is based on the translation of the word “gospel” (‫)עון גליון‬. By itself ‫עון‬ ‫ גליון‬is already a polemic wordplay on the Greek euangelion and means something like “scroll of wickedness, or “margin of perversion.”102 The term is coupled with ‫[( נגע שגיון בצער ופסיון‬in the gospel] “he/it touched caprice in grief and passion”), and Hos 8:5 ‫“( לא יוכלו נקיון‬Will they never be capable of purity?”). The end-rhyme connects the ideas of sheet/scroll (‫)גליון‬, caprice (‫)שגיון‬, passion (‫)פסיון‬, and (im)purity (‫)נקיון‬. This gives us a sense of the author’s views of the New Testament as containing heretical ideas, in that God is understood to suffer, and that Jesus and Christians are impure (i.e. not Law-abiding), if not foolish people. Having thus set the tone for his New Testament critique, Rabbi Joseph goes straight into a Latin paraphrase of Matt 11:11. The argument that follows is not explicit, and could be read in two ways: The first would be to take Matt 11:11 and apply it straight to Jesus: since Jesus is born by a woman, he is consequently not greater than John, and thus only human.103 The second way is more intricate, but contextually more likely. In this reading, Matt 11:11 is understood as support of Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the Christian conviction that Jesus is indubitably greater than John. 101 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 125. Notice that the abbreviation for Jesus is different here than in other sections: ‫ י׳ש׳ו׳‬cf. ‫יש״ו‬. 102 See Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 175, n. 24, but also Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies, 151–52. 103 Cf. the discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 251–52. A similar argument is raised and refuted in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones 1.60.1–3.

154

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

Since he was born by a woman (‫)אשה‬, one can therefore argue that this woman cannot be a mulier, that is, a woman that is not a virgin (‫)בעולה‬. It follows that Mary must have been a (perpetual) virgin (‫)לדבריהם לא נבעלה‬.104 In the next argument (§2) this interpretation is then challenged by quoting John 2:4,105 where Jesus himself calls Mary a mulier.106 Mary, therefore, cannot be a perpetual virgin, and by implication Jesus is not greater than John the Baptist; he is merely human. Thus, two major doctrinal teachings of the church are challenged. Jesus is less than a prophet, and Mary is not a virgin107 — Jesus’ divinity and the incarnation are at stake. If this second

104 Thomas Aquinas lists in his Catena Aurea (Matt 11:11) the following comment by Rabanus Maurus (c. 780–856): “(…) What need to recount one by one the praises of John the Baptist; “I say verily unto you, Among them that are born of women, etc.” He says women, not virgins. If the same word, mulier, which denotes a married person, is anywhere in the Gospels applied to Mary, it should be known that the translator has there used ‘mulier’ for ‘femina;’ as in that, “Woman, behold thy son!” [John 19:26],” S. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels — Vol. I. Part II (2nd ed.; ed. John Henry [Newman] and James Parker; Oxford: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1864), 412. I could not locate this passage in Rabanus Maurus, Expositio in Matthaeum (I–IV) (ed. Bengt Löfstedt; CCCM 174; Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), but a similar comment appears in Anselm of Laon’s (c. 1050– 1117) Enarrationes in Matthaeum 11 (PL 162:1350), cf. also Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechesis 3.6 (PG 33:436, FC 61:112). It is also noteworthy that Jerome warned of the potential difficulty of Matt 11:11: “So then, John is put ahead of those born by women and who come from intercourse with a man. But he is not put ahead of him who was born of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit,” (CCSL 77:80, FC 117:131). 105 In §36, a paraphrase of John 2:1, 3–4 is also employed, and it is once more questioned (as in §2) why Jesus designated his mother as a non-virgin (‫)בעולת איש‬, see Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 135. The wedding at Cana is also mentioned in MS Rome (A1), f. 14b, but the discussion is more extensive there and focuses on the fact that Jesus calls Mary “mother,” which is something impossible to say if he were God, and then proceeds to discuss Mary’s virginity and Isa 7:14. In fact, Yosef ha-Meqanne §§36–37 is much terser than the argument in MS Rome (A1), ff. 14r–15v, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism” [‫]בקורת יהודית‬, 7–126. 106 See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 125. The paraphrase of the wedding at Cana includes an additional detail: Mary tells Jesus that they have neither bread nor wine (but cf. John 2:3). Yet, Jesus only turned water into wine. This, then, is used to argue that Jesus apparently is unable to provide food (out of nothing) (‫לפי זה לא היה לו יכולת לתת להם‬ ‫)לאכל‬, which contradicts the (Christian) aphorism: “per potentia[m], non per natura[m], creator fecit creatura[m].” Consequently, Jesus cannot be understood as equal to the Creator: “Thus, your god does not have the ability in himself to create created things (‫אם כן‬ ‫)אלוהותכם אין בו יכולת לבראות בריות‬. This argument is continued in §3 (see 4.5.18). The Latin rhyme is reminiscent of a poem by Adam of St. Victor (early 12th c.): “Potestate, non natura, fit creator creaturam,” see Richard C. Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry (3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1874), 113; also Margoth E. Fassler, Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustine Reform in twelfth-century Paris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 206–10. Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne appears to interact with contemporary French theological thought (see also the footnote under 4.5.13). 107 The perpetual virginity of Mary is criticized also in §17 and §21.

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

155

reading is correct, and it would seem so, then the argument is quite sophisticated and presupposes a good knowledge of the New Testament. 4. 5. 12 Jesus on Gluttony: Matt 11:19a (§4) This section is thematically linked to the previous arguments (see above), as it relates back to the wedding in Cana (§2), and it is again based on Matt 11 (‫עוד‬ ‫)כתוב שם‬. And, as already observed in §1, one of Jesus’ own statement is used: It is also written there: Qui manducat caro [carnem] e[t] vinum bibit luxurios[us] est. Explanation: The one who eats meat and drinks wine is a glutton and transgressor. Yet, he ate meat and drank wine at the wedding of the architriclin[us].108

‫ האוכל בשר‬:‫ קי מנדקוט קרו אי וינום ביבית לוקשור אש אישט — פירוש‬:‫עוד כתוב שם‬ 109.‫ והוא אכל בשר ושתה יין בנשואי ארטקלין‬.‫ושותה יין זולל ובעל עבירות‬

Not only is Jesus lesser than John and lesser than the Creator, he must also be understood as a glutton and sinner, inasmuch as Jesus calls those who eat meat and drink wine gluttons and sinners. But since he did the same at the wedding at Cana, he himself must be a glutton. This is, of course, an artificial (and superficial) argument, but it is definitely related to the previous sections. It is quite evident that the author did not understand Matt 11, or perhaps did not have full access to the gospel text, otherwise he probably would not have used a line of Jesus’ rebuttal of the very polemic that is being employed here (cf. Matt 11:16–19). 4. 5. 13 Quicunque and Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:31–32 (§9) Rabbi Joseph bases the subsequent arguments on the Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult), which he appears to knows by that name (‫)קילקונקיבט‬. In §5 Rabbi Joseph argues in a surprisingly direct fashion that the crucifixion of Jesus would denote the death of God. After quoting a line from the Athanasian creed in Latin that “just as the soul and the flesh are one man, so God and Man is one Christ” (sicut anima et caro unus est homo, ita Deus et homo unus est Christus), Rabbi Joseph simply states that this would consequently mean that “when the flesh was killed, also the Divinity was killed”

108

The author believes that the wedding at Cana was in fact the wedding of ‫מלך ארטקלין‬ which Rosenthal relates to the term architriclinus (“head steward”), see Joseph Hamekane, 125, n. 1 (§2), cf. John 2:9 (ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος; Vg.: architriclinus). These type of differences to the canonical texts — there are more (cf. 4.5.3, 4.5.6, and also §2) — seem to suggest that the author did not have full access to the New Testament, or that there was a deliberate change of the text. 109 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 126.

156

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

(‫)אם כן כשנהרג הבשר נהרג האלהות‬.110 The simile (sicut… ita) is understood very literally: the soul (‫ )הנשמה‬as representing divinity, and the flesh as representing humanity, which creates a rather Apollinarian reading of the creedal statement whereby Jesus is seen as being composed of the divine (soul) and the flesh.111 However, this interpretation of the creed is most certainly contraire to Athanasius’ understanding. In a second step, Rabbi Joseph proceeds to the Gethsemane pericope and continues to argue that Jesus’ experience is incompatible with divine existence (see 4.5.19). Then, in §8, Rabbi Joseph quotes a line which is again related to the creed: “The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both” (Pater ingenitus, Filius genitus, Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedens).112 Based on this, the argument is made that the Son came to exist after the Father (‫)אם כן האב קודם לבן‬, and furthermore, that there was once a time when the Father was without the Spirit (‫)אם כן היה עת שהאב היה בלא רוח‬.113 Although this critique is based on a misunderstanding of the term genitus (“begotten”), it inadvertently retraces some of the issues discussed in, e.g., the Arian controversy.114 Then, in §9, Rabbi Joseph turns to the Gospel of Matthew again to reinforce this argument from the New Testament: 110

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 126. Already in Milḥamot ha-Shem this quasi logos-sarx Christology was encountered (see 3.4.6). The same understanding is also evident in Nizzahon Vetus §176, §178, §181 (see 5.4.10, 12, 13), and interestingly also Celsus understood this to be the Christian position, cf. Cels. 6.69. 112 The same argument occurs in Nizzahon Vetus §165, see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 178. But, pace Berger and Lapide, this is not directly referring to the Athanasian Creed, cf. Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 315; and Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 211, n. 65. The respective line in the creed reads: “Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.” The phrase, “Pater ingenitus, Filius genitus, Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedens,” stems from Alcuin of York (735–804 C.E.), who was responsible for the revision of the Vulgate, and who used it in his explanation of the Athanasian Creed, see his De symbolo 509 (41) (PL 101:1271). Also, Anselm of Laon (c. 1050–1117) uses the phrase in his Sententie, see Franz Bliemetzrieder, Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919), 8 (fol. 86d). Anselm, like Alcuin before him, was a very influential theologian in northern France and beyond, and was a rival of Peter Abelard (1079–1142). He was also the teacher of William of Champeaux, the bishop of Châlons-en-Champagne, who was a supporter of Pope Callixtus II and friend of Bernard of Clairvaux. The fact that Rabbi Joseph is citing a line which probably originated with Alcuin, and was repeated by Anselm of Laon grounds his anti-Christian critique in the contemporary historical context of northern France. Not only does it demonstrate that there was close contact to the educated French clergy, it also shows how Jewish debaters offered a tailor-made response to Christian arguments. 113 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 127. 114 See Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 106–22. 111

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

157

It is also written there: there is forgiveness for the sin [of blasphemy] against the Father and the Son, but there is no forgiveness for the sin against the Holy Spirit [cf. Matt 12:31–32]. It follows that [these two] do not have the [same] holiness as this [one], and they [also] do not have the [same] power, unless [of course] they are not one entity.

‫ אם‬.‫ אבל החוטא ברוח הקודש אין לו מחילה‬,‫ החוטא באב ובבן יש לו מחילה‬:‫עוד כתוב שם‬ 115.‫ אם אינם דבר אחד‬,‫ ואיך כח זה כזה‬,‫כן אין קדשות של זה כזה‬

This is the first discussion of Matt 12:31–32. The second discussion is placed at the end of the whole chapter (see 4.5.14 below), and both are quite similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem. The different responses by the members of the Trinity (two forgive, one does not) demonstrate the disjunction between them. They are, as such, not one entity, nor are they equal. It is evident that this particular argument on the blasphemy against the Spirit was used within a greater argument that sought to dispute the Trinity both on doctrinal (Quicunque vult and Anselm’s Sententie) and scriptural grounds (Matt 26:38 and 12:31–32).116 This seeks to meet the Christian side on their turf, and demonstrates more deliberation of the related issues than an outright objection based on impropriety (e.g. God in the womb). 4. 5. 14 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:31–32 (§41) At the end of the chapter, in §41, the above argument is repeated,117 but in a more extensive manner: And it is also written for them: “The one who sinned against the Father, it will be forgiven him, and likewise if one sinned against the Son, but the one who sinned against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” [cf. Matt 12:31–32]. This would mean that there are two powers [ruling the universe]. And if so, [what if] someone has cursed the Father, and the Son and the Spirit, and he repents and is forgiven by the two, but [since] whoever sins against the Spirit and repents shall not be forgiven — what happens in this case, what will be the judgment and verdict of such a person, since the two forgive him but the third will not forgive? Where would this one go, since one part of the divinity has forgiven him, yet the other part has not forgiven him? From this one can deduce that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are not one.

‫ אבל החוטא ברוח הקודש לא‬,‫ וכן החוטא בבן‬,‫ "החוטא באב יתכפר לו‬:‫ועוד כתוב להם‬ ‫ ואם כן מי שקילל האב והבן והרוח ונתחרט יתכפר‬.‫ אם כן משמע דשתי רשויות הן‬."‫יתכפר לו‬ ,‫ אם כן מה יהיה משפטו ודינו של זה‬.‫ אבל מי שקלל הרוח ונתחרט לא יתכפר‬,‫לו על שניהן‬

115

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 127. The gospel text, however, does not mention the Father, but the polemicists bring out the implication expressed on the Christian side, e.g. by Augustine Serm. 71.14 (24), see esp. William Horbury, “The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Boḥan,” in Matthew 19–28: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (W. Davies and Dale C. Allison; ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 729–38 (here: 732–3). 117 Perhaps this is a secondary addendum to the overall composition. 116

158

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

.‫ששניהם כפרו והשלישי לא כפר? ואנה ילד זה שמקצתו האלהות כפר לו ומקצתו לא כפר לו‬ 118.‫מכאן יש להשיב שהאב והבן והרוח אינם אחד‬

The scenario of a person sinning against all three persons of the Trinity and the question of such a person’s fate is the same as already encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.9). The additional point made in Yosef haMeqanne is that Matt 12:31–32 actually promotes a kind of heretical dualism or ditheism (‫)משמע דשתי רשויות‬.119 This presumably either criticizes a ditheism of Father and Son, which relates more to the classic understanding (and critique) of “two powers in heaven,” or it is perhaps directed against the distinction between Father and Son on the one side, and the Spirit on the other. In the following section (§42) several more questions related to the Spirit are collected and listed, which ultimately all are directed against Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity.120 The argument here clearly attempts to deconstruct the Trinity in demonstrating the inherent paradox from the side of the Son, but also from the side of the Spirit. If the Son is effectively not equal to the Father, and neither the Spirit, the whole construct of the Trinity is undermined. The argument, if not the whole chapter, not only seeks to disprove Jesus’ divinity, this is already assumed, but also challenges the doctrinal superstructure of the Christian conviction that God is triune. And so, what started with a critique of Jesus in §5 and §6 turned into a rather intricate argument against the Trinity in §8 and §9 (and also in §§41–42). 4. 5. 15 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 13:37 (§13) After the discussion of the hemorrhaging woman in §12 (see 4.5.10), which argues that Jesus defiled himself, Jesus’ integrity is attacked again. This is done by juxtaposing the term “Son of Man” (cf. 4.5.6–9) in Matt 13:37 with John 8:54: He praised himself and said: [the] “Son of Man” sows the good seed [Matt 13:37]. Yet in another place he is saying: “I will not praise myself, for my praise is nothing” [John 8:54].

118

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 137. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature (London: W. C. Luzac, 1886–1903, repr.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 1499; and esp. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), who describes this particular heresy as “interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God” (x; emphasis original). This is essentially similar to Daniel Boyarin’s argument about the Son of Man in Daniel 7, see The Jewish Gospel, 56–59. Alan Segal has been critiqued by James F. McGrath and Jerry Truex, “‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism,” JBS (2004): 43–71. 120 See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 137. 119

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

159

‫ "לא אהלל עצמי כי הלולי‬:‫ ובמקום אחר הוא אומר‬."‫ "בן אדם יזרע זרע הטוב‬:‫הלל עצמו ואמר‬ 121."‫ריק‬

Jesus is presented as praising himself, which is achieved by taking the term “Son of Man” in Matt 13:37 as a self-reference to Jesus. Since this “Son of Man” is sowing good seed, Jesus is understood as praising himself. This is linked to a paraphrase of John 8:54, where Jesus claims that he is not praising himself, which then would stand in contradiction to Matt 13:37. Not only can Jesus be characterized as potentially proud, he is also someone who contradicts himself. It is, however, evident that this is a rather contrived argument. On the one side, it is quite a stretch to understand Matt 13:37 as Jesus (proudly) praising himself. On the other side, the canonical text of John 8:54 is not a statement, but a conditional clause: “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless.” 4. 5. 16 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mk 10:17–21 (Matt 19:16f) (§33) Since Yosef ha-Meqanne is focused mostly on disputing Jesus’ divinity it is not surprising that the “Rich Young Ruler” is also discussed, though the actual argument is rather short: And it is also written for them: “A man came to him falling on his knees, and he said to him: ‘Oh good [one], what must I do to inherit the life of the world to come?’ He said to him: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Do you not know the commandments: “Do not murder, do not commit adultery etc.”?’ He said: ‘All these I have kept.’ And he loved him very much. And he said to him: ‘Still [one] more [thing] you have to do. Give all you own to the poor and you will have your treasure in heaven, and come, follow me!’” And now, why was he so strict about being called good if he is God? And moreover, why did he not command him to have himself baptized, since that is such a choice commandment of theirs? Instead, in [practicing] righteousness he promised him the life of the world to come.

‫ 'טוב מה אעשה שאנחל חיי העולם‬:‫ ויאמר לו‬,‫ "ויבא אליו איש כורע על ברכיו‬:‫ועוד כתוב להם‬ ,‫ לא תרצח‬:‫ אינך יודע המצות‬.‫ 'למה תקראני טוב? אין טוב כי אם אלהים לבדו‬:‫הבא?' ויאמר לו‬ .‫ 'עדיין יש לך לעשות יותר‬:‫ ויאמר לו‬.‫ ויאהבהו מאד‬.'‫ 'כל אלה שמרתי‬:‫ וכו׳?' אמר לו‬,‫לא תנאף‬ ‫ אם‬,‫ למה הקפיד שקראו טוב‬,‫ ועתה‬.'‫ ולך אחרי‬,‫ ויהי אוצרך בשמים‬,‫תן כל אשר לך לעניים‬ ‫ אלא‬,‫ למה לא צוהו להטביל את עצמו שהיא המצוה המובחרת להם‬,‫אלוהים הוא? ועוד‬ 122.‫בצדקה הבטיחו לחיי העולם הבא‬

The quote is actually based on Mark, and not Matthew.123 Jesus’ strict response to why he was addressed as good, much like in the various manuscripts of Qiṣṣa/Nestor §51 (see 2.5.1.4), serves as demonstration that Jesus 121

See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 128. See ibid., 134. 123 The man is said to be kneeling before Jesus (cf. Mark 9:17) and it is further remarked that Jesus loved him (cf. Mark 9:21), which is not mentioned in Matthew (and likewise also not in the parallel section in Qiṣṣa/Nestor; the argument must have been derived from elsewhere). 122

160

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

did not consider himself as divine, though this is not fully verbalized (Qiṣṣa/ Nestor make much more of the passage). A second, very astute, question is then meant to challenge the practice of baptism, and the role of salvation by baptism over against the keeping of Torah. Rather than commending baptism, Jesus extols the virtues of keeping the Law for the attainment of righteousness.124 4. 5. 17 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee: Matt 20:22–23 (§15) Next is a challenge of Jesus’ divinity by means of Matt 20:22–23, which is thematically related to the preceding §14 (both deal with eating): He also said: “Potestis bibere calices [calicem] cum [quem?] ego [bibiturus sum]” [Matt 20:22, par. Mark 10:38]? Explanation: “Are you able to drink what I will drink?” And they answered: “Yes, we are able.” He said: “From what I drink, you will drink, but I am not able to appoint you [seats], not to my right, and not to my left, for it belongs to him [for whom] my Father decreed it” [Matt 20:23, par. Mark 10:40]. It follows that he is not able carry out his [own] will, and again it becomes apparent that the Son and the Father are not one. ?‫ היכולים אתם לשתות כמו שאשתה‬:‫ פוט אישטיט ביברי קליצס קום איגו — פירוש‬:‫עוד אמר‬ ‫ כי‬,‫ אך לא יכלתי להושיבכם לא לימיני ולא לשמאלי‬,‫ משתייתי תשתו‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ כן יכולנו‬:‫והם ענו‬ 125.‫ ועוד נראה כי הבן והאב אינו אחד‬,‫ אם כן אינו יכל לעשות רצונו‬.‫לאותו שגזר אבי עליו‬

The exchange over the position of the sons of Zebedee is also used in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor §97 and §150 (see 2.5.2).126 Here, however, the argument emphazises what was missing in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, which is to point out that Jesus seemingly lacked the authority to bring about what he was asked. Since Jesus does not have the power to bequeath the privileges of heaven to his disciples, it follows that the Son and the Father are not one. Jesus is consequently lesser than God. The passage was also difficult for many early church interpreters, because “it appeared to be a trump card in the hand of the Arians.”127 It is remarkable that

124

Cf. the similarity to Nizzahon Vetus §184 (see 5.4.9). Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 128–29. 126 See ibid., 137. Cf. the Arian argument in Panarion 69.19 and 69.58 on Matt 20:22–23: “Do you see (…) how he has no authority independent of the Father’s, who has the authority to give it to anyone he chooses?,” The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sects 47–80, De Fide) (trans. Frank Williams, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 376; also Shlomo Pines, The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity, 13, n. 35. 127 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 544. Luz points here to Ambrose, Fid. 5.5 (CSEL 78:238, NFPN2 10:291f): “‘How,’ they say, ‘can the Son of God be the only true God, like to the Father, when He Himself said to the sons of Zebedee: ‘Ye shall drink indeed of My cup; but to sit on My right hand or on My left, is not Mine to give to you, but to those for whom it has been prepared of My Father’?’ This, then, is, as you desire, your proof of divine inequality; though in it you ought rather to reverence the Lord’s kindness and to adore His grace; if, that is, you could but perceive the deep secrets of the virtue and wisdom of God.” 125

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

161

the much earlier Arian argument is almost completely preserved in Yosef haMeqanne.128 4. 5. 18 Jesus’ Lament over Jerusalem: Matt 23:37 (§3) Continuing from the wedding at Cana pericope (§2), where Jesus’ inability to provide bread is understood as indicator of his inequality with the Creator (see 4.5.11), Rabbi Joseph proceeds to question how Jesus could be understood as divine: He said to Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem. I spoke in order to gather you under my feet like a hen her chicks” [cf. Matt 23:37]. But is it not written: “He spoke and it was” [Ps 33:9] and “whatever the Lord desires he does in heaven and on earth” [Ps 135:6]? ."‫ "ירושלים ירושלים"; "אמרתי לאוספך תחת רגלי כתרנגולת לאפרוחיה‬:‫אמר לירושלים‬ 129."‫ ו"כל אשר חפץ ]י״י[ עשה בשמים ובארץ‬,"‫ "כי הוא אמר ויהי‬:‫והכתיב‬

The passage itself may have been used by a Christian to argue for the preexistence of Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus appears to identify himself with God’s role in salvation history.130 But, Rabbi Joseph reasons here that the Creator speaks and it happens. Jesus, in contrast, lacks the power to bring about his intentions. A New Testament passage that was used in support of Jesus’ divinity is thus turned into its opposite. Rabbi Joseph effectively advances two arguments: first, Matt 23:37 is never something omnipotent God could really declare; and second, in saying this, Jesus cannot be understood as God.131 Put another way, God in his omnipotence can simply decree, Jesus is evidently not able to do so.132 It is clear that Rabbi Joseph is maintaining that this sort of saying is not suitable talk for someone who is considered to be equal to omnipotent God. 4. 5. 19 Jesus in Gethsemane: Matt 26:38, 41 (§6) The first time the Gethsemane pericope is used in Yosef ha-Meqanne is in support of an argument against the Trinity that began in §5 (see 4.5.13), where it followed a discussion of a line of the Athanasian Creed: “Just as the soul and the flesh are one man, so God and Man is one Christ” (sicut anima et

128

See 9.2.1 and 9.2.2. Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 126. 130 See Luz, Matthew 21–28, 161, n. 34. See esp. Gathercole, The Pre-existent Son, 210– 21, for a discussion of Matt 23:37 in relationship to the development of Christology, and how the verse can be understood as a claim to the pre-existence of Jesus. 131 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6); Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 43, 69. 132 The New Testament passage was perhaps deliberately modified (‫ )אמרתי‬to make this point stronger. In fact, already in the previous section additional words are put into Mary’s mouth on which the rest of the argument was based. 129

162

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

caro unus est homo, ita Deus et homo unus est Christus). Rabbi Joseph follows this up with Matt 26:38, 41: When he was [about to be] crucified, he said: “tristim [est] anima mea usque [ad] mortem etc. caro promptus est.” Explanation: “My soul is as loathing [even] to death, and the flesh is irritable and agitated.” And they are saying [with this] that the soul [of Jesus] is in fact the Divinity, as it is written: “The spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lord” [Prov. 20:27]. Consequently, the god[head] of the created one is agitated. :‫ טרישטם אנימא מיאה אושקא מורטם איץ קרו פרוםנטוש אישט — פירוש‬:‫כשנצלב אמר‬ :‫ דכתיב‬,‫ כי הנשמה הוא האלהות‬,‫כאיבה נשמתי עד מות והבשר רוגזת ורוגשת; והם אומרים‬ 133.‫" אם כן אלהות הנוצר רגש‬.‫"נר אלהים נשמת אדם‬

This argument is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6), where also the fact that Jesus said his soul was perturbed is in focus. Likewise, Jesus’ soul is taken to be the locus of divinity (‫)כי הנשמה הוא האלהות‬. This, of course, would mean that Jesus’ divine aspect would have shared, even caused, these emotions of fear and distress (‫)אם כן אלהות הנוצר רגש‬. While the argument is more sophisticated, as it rests on a line from the Athanasian Creed (see 4.5.13), Matt 26:38, and Proverbs 20:27, it still has a distinct “Apollinarian flavor.” Also, the argument is not harvesting the polemical potential of the Gethsemane passage any further, as done in Milḥamot ha-Shem, though the next argument below (§10) advances the argument more. 4. 5. 20 Jesus in Gethsemane: Matt 26:39 (§10) The second use of the Gethsemane pericope follows very soon after in §10: It is also written there that he cried to the Father when he was crucified: “Pater mi, si possibil[e] est transeat[un] a mi calis [calix]” [cf. Matt 26:39]. Explanation: My father, if it is possible let my ordeal stop. It follows that he was not able to remove the ordeal from himself, but [only] his father. Consequently, they are not one entity.

‫ פאטיר מיי שאיפוייש בייל אישט טרנשיאון‬:‫ שצעק לאב כשהיה צלוב‬,‫עוד כתוב שם‬ ‫ אם יכל להיות הפסק הצרה שלי — אם כן לא היה יכל להסיר‬,‫ אב שלי‬:‫אמיקליש — פירוש‬ 134.‫ אם כן אינם דבר אחד‬.‫ כי אם אביו‬,‫הצרה ממנו‬

This passage is already discussed with a different emphasis in Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53 (see 2.5.1.5). In Qiṣṣa it was argued that Jesus’ prayer demonstrated that he was just human. The argument of Jesus’ inability is closer to Nestor: Jesus’ request to God demonstrates his own inability. Consequently, Jesus is not God (Nestor), which then means that Jesus and God are not one (Yosef haMeqanne). While this is an argument against the Trinity, the premise is that God in his omnipotence can help himself. Jesus, however, is seen to lack this divine attribute; he is consequently not God. 133 134

Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 126. Ibid., 127–28.

4.5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

163

4. 5. 21 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Matt 27:46 (§38) Jesus’ fear and display of physical needs is also used in another attack on the Trinity. Several strands from the entire chapter are bundled, perhaps providing a kind of summary: They are saying that the Father and the Son and the Spirit, that these three are one. The Father and the Spirit should be able to be one entity, since [both] do not eat, nor drink, nor sleep, nor grow weary, nor get scared. But the Son clearly eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and gets weary, and scared as when he was [for example] in the boat, or when he got weary and asked of the Samaritan woman to give him [to drink] from the well.135 He [also] got scared when he said: “My God, My God, why have you left me?” [Matt 27:46].

‫ האב והרוח יכולין להיות דבר אחד שאינם אוכלים‬.‫ שהאב והבן והרוח שלשתן אחד‬,‫אומרים‬ ‫ שהרי הוא‬,‫ אבל הבן הרי הוא אוכל ושותה וישן ויעף ומפוחד‬,‫ושותים וישנים ויעפים ומפוחדים‬ ,‫ ונתפחד‬.‫ ויעף כששאל לשומרונית לשתות על המעיין‬.‫ כשהיה בספינה‬,‫אכל ושתה וישן‬ 136.‫ אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬:‫כשאמר‬

According to Rabbi Joseph, Jesus’ exclamation on the cross shows his fear, which among many other things, is unbecoming for the divine. God is in no no need of nourishment, nor can he be scared, become weary, or grow tired. But not so Jesus, his humanity effectively prevents him from being identified as divine, which is an argumentative strategy already encountered in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor. As can be observed throughout this kind of polemical tradition, and not just in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, humanity and divinity are understood as strictly exclusive, which is the underlying assumption of this argumentative strategy. Any human trait observed in Jesus, therefore, becomes an indicator that he is not divine. Here, it is the fact that Jesus is afraid that disqualifies him. This use of Matt 27:46 is different from earlier sources: Jesus’ fear is highlighted instead of using the content of Jesus’ prayer as sign of his disjunction or distinction from God.137

135 This account of the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman does not correspond to what is seen §12 (cf. 4.5.10). Here, in §38, it is actually Jesus who initiates the conversation. Moreover, John 4 is used in an argument in §35, where it is again Jesus who initiates the dialogue. This probably indicates that this particular argument came originally from a different (Latin based?) source. In fact, the arguments in the range from §§30–33 and from §§35– 36 occur in the exact same order, and with very similar content, in Nizzahon Vetus §§182–84 and §§185–186, though Nizzahon Vetus is perhaps more elaborate than Yosef ha-Meqanne. Then, §38 is also mirrored in the first part of Nizzahon Vetus §188 (see 5.4.5). On this see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 189–94, 127–31 [Hebr. section]; and also his comments, 320–21. 136 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 136. Cf. MS Rome (A1), f. 17a, Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 130, which has the same argument though it is not as terse as in Yosef haMeqanne. 137 See Qiṣṣa/Nestor §45 (see 2.5.1.2), where neither Jesus’ death, nor his fear, are discussed (cf. 4.5.19).

164

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

4. 5. 22 Jesus Commissions his Disciples: Matt 28:16–20 (§30) The final argument considered here uses Jesus’ words to the disciples in Matt 28:16–20 to argue against the possibility that he could be divine: And his disciples went and found him on the mountain of Galilee, and some of them worshipped him, but there were also some who did not believe in him. And he said to them: “See, the kingdom of heaven and earth has been given me; go and teach all nations a baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son and the ‘Impure Spirit’” [cf. Matt 28:16–19]. Who gave him that kingdom? You say, “the Father?” — But are the two not equal in might and one is not greater than the other in anything? And, moreover, he said: “See, I am with you until the end of the world” [Matt 28:20], but [he did not say] until the world to come. :‫ ויאמר להם‬.‫ ויש מהם שלא האמינוהו‬,‫ וישתחוו לו מקצתם‬,‫וילכו תלמידו וימצאוהו בהר הגליל‬ ."‫"הנה נתונה לי מלכות שמים וארץ; לכו ולמדו כל הגוים טבילה בשם האב והבן ורוח הטומאה‬ ‫ לא זה גדול מזה‬,‫ המלכות? אם תאמר האב? — והלא שנהין שוין בגבורה‬138‫מי נתן לו אותו‬ 139."‫ אבל לא לעולם הבא‬,‫ "הנני עמכם עד סוף העולם‬:‫ שאמר‬,‫ ועוד‬.‫משום דבר‬

The argument is put in the form of rethorical questions, if not imaginary dialogue. Jesus’ commission of his disciples and the trinitarian baptismal formula is used — not without a polemical outburst (‫ — )רוח הטומאה‬to question the veracity of the Trinity. If Jesus has been given authority from the Father, then it follows he is not equal to God.140 The argument is strikingly similar to the use of Matthew 28 in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.8), where the same type of questions are used, though it is somewhat more extensive here: according to Rabbi Joseph Jesus should have said that he was with the disciples until the “world to come,” i.e. forever, and not just to the end of this world. This effectively would mean Jesus is limited and temporal, hence he cannot be God. In the following section §31, Jesus’ comission of the disciples is then related to the earlier comission in Matthew 10, where the disciples are given the power to drive out “the Impure Spirit” (‫ )רוח הטומאה‬from the land. This 138 Perhaps better ‫אותה‬, cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.8), and also Nizzahon Vetus §182 (see 5.4.14). 139 Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 133. 140 The difficulty of this passage was also seen by Christian interpreters. Bede, e.g., writes in his commentary on Matthew 27 (PL 92:130): “This He speaks about [his] humanity which He took, according to which ‘He was made a little lower than the angels’ [Heb 2:9].” See also Luz, Matthew 21–28, 625: “The ancient church understood this claim to power [in Matt 28:18] on the part of the risen Jesus in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity. The resulting difficulty was that the power over creation cannot be bestowed at a certain point in time to someone who ‘always had [the power] because he is from the Father and by nature (φύσει) God.’ Cyril of Alexandria also explains that ἐδόθη (‘was given’) was spoken only οἰκονομικῶς…καί ἀνθρωπινώτερον (‘corresponding to the plan of salvation… and humanly speaking’). The Chalcedonians solved the problem by saying that v. 18b is speaking in particular of the human nature of the Son of God that after his death is finally united with the Logos.”

4.6 Summary

165

juxtaposition with Matt 28:16–19 does not receive any further discussion, it is only pointed out that the disciples were not to take along a staff, bread, clothes, or sandals.141 This, perhaps, functions as a veiled critique of the reliance and display of earthly possessions by the church of medieval Christendom. But, in the next section (§32), Rabbi Joseph points to Mark 9:14–17, 19–20 (par. Matt 17:14–17), where the disciples are seen to be unable to exercise divine power. He includes in his quote of this passage Jesus’ frustration with the disciples in asking how long he has to be with them (Mark 9:19), which he then turns into an argument referring back to Matt 28 (‫כי דרך אלוה‬ ‫)לדור עם בני אדם‬.142 Thus, Jesus’ promise of his presence and authority is questioned by the disciples’ inability to exercise this authority. In other words, Jesus’ promise of being with the disciples until the end of the age is contradicted by their lack of divine authority, which perhaps implicitly can be extended to the contemporary followers of Jesus in Rabbi Joseph’s time. Though Matt 28:18–20 does not promise the authority to heal or exorcise demons, and the argument is anachronistic in that it relates an earlier commission of the disciples to a later sending, the (original) author of this argument still has created an impressive linking of Matt 28:18–20; Matt 10:1, 9–10; and Mark 9:14–20, which requires considerable knowledge of the New Testament. A further question is attached to this section, namely, how Jesus is not able to know how long the demon had possessed the boy, for God does not need to ask questions (‫)אם אלוהים הוא למה שאל‬.

4. 6 Summary The discussion of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is mainly concerned with critiquing the assertion of Jesus’ divinity, but in particular the Trinity. With this Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne stands in the trajectory of earlier works, and Rabbi Joseph’s arguments against Jesus are in places similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem and Qiṣṣa/Nestor. His arguments also share the same philosophical assumption with previous works, i.e. that it is effectively impossible for God to become human. For Jesus to be divine he would have to portray and exercise all attributes of divinity without the presence of any kind of limitation. The intricacies of the Christian dogma of Jesus, namely being at the same time truly divine and truly human, appear to be rudimentarily appreciated, but by not engaging with any kind of deeper Christian reasoning this view is essentially ignored (which is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem). The interpretation of the Athanasian Creed in this context is clearly misconceived, 141 142

See Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, 133. Ibid.; cf. also Nizzahon Vetus §§182–3.

166

Chapter 4: Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

which results in a reading closer to Arian and Apollinarian views of Jesus (see 4.5.13).143 While many of the presented arguments are very terse and have more the character of an abbreviation, some sections clearly show some in-depth knowledge of Christian scripture and familiarity with Christian theological thought (in §5 and §8, see 4.5.13), whereas in other places an argument can be more contrived (in §13, see 4.5.15). Especially Matt 9–11, Matt 12:31–32, and Matt 26:38–39 play a prominent role in the polemical argumentation. Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan presents Jesus as self-contradictory and all-too human individual. Like others before him, he emphasizes depictions of Jesus’ humanity against the notion that he could be divine. Jesus’ humanity has to be seen as altogether incompatible with divine nature. Moreover, Rabbi Joseph seeks to demonstrate that the Son and the Father are not equal, e.g., by showing that God’s will and Jesus’ will are distinct and different. Jesus is beholding to God’s will, yet clearly has also his own intentions. He is also powerless to bring about his own will, both in terms of actualizing it and in that he is not acting independently from God. Also, the pericope on the blasphemy against the Spirit (Matt 12:31–32, see 4.5.13–14), much like in Milḥamot ha-Shem, serves to show that there is a qualitative difference between the Spirit on the one side, and Father and Son on the other. In Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan’s view, Jesus is, therefore, only human — in fact he is too human to qualify in any way as divine. More importantly, the notion of the Trinity is understood as contradicting the New Testament record and Jesus’ own life and sayings, and this is achieved without any rational or metaphysical argument, though it clearly looms in the background (see 4.5.19).

143

This view is also reflected in Nizzahon Vetus §§181, 176, 178, and §145 (see 5.4.10, 12, 13) and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6). The particular understanding expressed in Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizzahon Vetus is, of course, not identical with Apollinarianism or Arianism proper, since both of these views are still distinctly Christian and maintained that Jesus played a highly elevated and significant role in redemption history.

Chapter 5

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 5. 1 Introduction Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan, usually referred to by its latinized name, Nizzahon Vetus,1 is one of the more comprehensive Jewish polemic anthologies available.2 The bulk of its arguments come from the twelfth and thirteenth century, though some appear to be much older, in particular those that are similar to Qiṣṣa/Nestor.3 Like Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, this work is a collection of arguments focusing on the refutation of christological interpretations of passages from the Hebrew Bible, which also includes a section on the New Testament. The basic structure and various arguments that appear in this “Book of Old Confutation”4 have very clear parallels in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, Milḥamot ha-Shem, 1 The work is distinguished by the epithet “old” (Hebr: yashan; Latin: vetus) from Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, which was also known by that title, and a further work, Yom Ṭov Lipmann-Mühlhausen’s Sefer Niṣṣaḥon, a later and influential collection of polemics inspired by Nizzahon Vetus. A third treatise, written by Rabbi Mattityahu, unrelated to Nizzahon Vetus, has also come to be known under the name Sefer Niṣṣaḥon. See Ehrman, “When was the Sefer Nitzaḥon written?,” 154, n. 2; and idem, “The Sefer Nitzahon: A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974), 2–3, n. 7; also Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 32–35. There are also other texts which were known by the name Niṣṣaḥon, which indicates that this title was understood more as a genre. On this see Horbury, “The Basle Nizzahon,” 502–504 (1983), 249–51 (1998); and Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 227. 2 This is also the reason David Berger has used it as a means to introduce the whole topic and the range of themes seen in the Jewish-Christian debate in the Medieval period in his Jewish-Christian Debate. 3 See William Horbury, review of David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, JTS 34 (1983): 329–37, esp. 334, 336–37; also Rembaum, “The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer,” 181–83. 4 The meaning of Niṣṣaḥon (‫ )נצחון‬is interpreted by various authors differently; “polemic,” “victory,” “debate,” or “confutation” have been employed, see Ehrmann, “The Sefer Nitzahon: A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaism,” 10–11. The translation “confutation” follows Oliver Rankin’s suggestion (based on Steinschneider’s work), see Oliver S. Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970), 49; and Moritz Steinschneider, Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century: With an Introduction on Talmud and Midrash — A historical essay from the German of M. Steinschneider (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1857), 317, n. 25.

168

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne.5 Similar arguments to those in Nizzahon Vetus are also found in MS Rome,6 Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣvah,7 the “Basle Nizzahon,”8 Moses ben Solomon’s Ta‘anot,9 and other subsequent polemical works. It might therefore seem redundant to include it in this study, yet, Nizzahon Vetus is one of the most important Ashkenazi polemics available and therefore cannot be overlooked.10 Nizzahon Vetus was compiled by an anonymous author who most likely lived in France or Germany in the thirteenth or early fourteenth century, though the exact origin and dating has been debated.11 More recently, Hanne Trautner-Kromann has suggested in her book Shield and Sword Alsace-Lorraine as the place of composition since it is an area where the French and German language historically have overlapped. She bases this on the observation that Nizzahon Vetus compiles the arguments used by French speaking polemicists for a German audience, mostly indicated by the use of several

5

However, it is important to note here (again) that the New Testament section in Yosef ha-Meqanne (MS Paris) cannot be the source of what is compiled in Nizzahon Vetus (that is, in the NT section) as there is only a partial overlap (see the respective footnotes under 4.5.2, 4.5.6, 4.5.8, and 4.5.21). In the few places where the same arguments are discussed, Yosef haMeqanne appears to be much terser and more of an abbreviation of what is presented in MS Rome (A1). This might indicate that MS Rome (A1), and also Nizzahon Vetus, give access to the original (or better: earlier) argument, which may or may not have significance for the dating of each respective compilation, depending on if the New Testament section was original to each composition. 6 See the previous discussion under 4.3, see also below 5.3. 7 See the discussion under 1.5. 8 See Horbury, “The Basle Nizzahon,” 500–501 (1983), 247–48 (1998). 9 According to Berger the non-philosophical sections in Ta‘anot (“Objections”) are actually verbatim copies from Milḥemet Miṣvah, see idem, Jewish-Christian Debate, 37, n. 106. He further notes that “most of the remaining material in this section of Ta‘anot is found in the Rome ms. version of Yosef ha-Meqanne and in N.V.” (ibid.), but Daniel J. Lasker, “Jewish Polemics against Christianity in Thirteenth-Century Italy,” in Ḥazon Naḥum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and History (ed. Yaakov Elman and Jeffrey S. Gurock; New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1997), 251–63, has argued contrary to this that this is not original to Ta‘anot and only a later anthology of Milḥamot ha-Shem and Yosef ha-Meqanne (see p. 254). The treatise remains largely unpublished, see Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 232. For the philosophical section see Stanislaus Simon, Moses ben Salomon von Salerno und seine philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit den Lehren des Christentums (Ohlau i. Schl.: H. Eschenhagen, 1931). 10 The other important Ashkenazi polemical treatise is that of Yom Ṭov LipmannMühlhausen, also called Niṣṣaḥon, see Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 223–25; also Frank E. Talmage, Introduction to Sefer HaNizzahon: Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen (“Kuntresim:” Texts and Studies 59–60; Jerusalem: Hebrew University; Dinur Center, 1983–84) [Hebr.]. The text is being edited by Ora Limor and Limor, Ora, and Israel I. Yuval as Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen: A Critical Edition. Forthcoming. 11 See Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 17, 33–35. See also below.

5.1 Introduction

169

German words.12 Regardless of origin, this anthology certainly would have been read in the Ashkenazi communities of northern France and Germany. Next to the precise context of the author, equally uncertain is the dating of Nizzahon Vetus. Leopold Zunz suggested in his short description of the work a date of 1240–1260.13 Isidore Loeb felt it was inspired by Yosef ha-Meqanne, and therefore belonged to the second half of the thirteenth century.14 Ephraim Urbach has dated it to the fourteenth century.15 Haim Ben-Sasson has dated it to the twelfth and thirteenth century.16 Albert Ehrman has placed it in the first half of the thirteenth century,17 while David Berger has dated the work more conservatively to the late thirteenth or the early fourteenth century.18 While a 12

In Nizzahon Vetus §33 (Türschwell), §51 (Zeichnisse), §64 (Taufe), §224 (Krippe), §231 (Stillmess; and a prayer in German), and §236 (Beichte). Though it must be said that bilingual French and German speakers were certainly not just confined to Alsace-Lorraine, cf. Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 102, esp. n. 43; and Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 35. It should not be overlooked that some German terms already appear in MS Rome (B, f. 35r), see Rosenthal, “Sections of a Debate,” 374 (Türschwell, Schwelle, Dorpel), cf. also Nizzahon Vetus §33. The use and origin of these German words has been debated already by Urbach, “Études sur la littérature polémique,” 72. On the other hand, the “King of France” (‫)מלך צרפת‬, “Paris” (‫)פריישא‬, and “Orleans” (‫ )אורלינשא‬appear in a parable which is used to answer a Christian objection that without the temple Jews are unable to atone for sins, cf. Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §214, 208, 146 [Hebr.], which is also found in MS Rome (B, f. 43r) (as ‫ פריש‬and ‫ ;)אורלינש‬also Rosenthal, “Sections of a Debate,” 392. The “King of France” appears again in another parable in Nizzahon Vetus §233 (here against the argument that even if Christians are mistaken in worshipping Jesus as God, it is nevertheless giving honor to God), whereas in MS Rome (A2), f. 24r, it is the “King of Spain,” see Rosenthal, “A Religious Debate,” 70; and esp. Berger, 338. These kinds of parables that use a king as protagonist are not uncommon to rabbinic literature. 13 See Leopold Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur: Erster Band (Berlin: Veit, 1845), 86. 14 See Isidore Loeb, “La Controverse religieuse entre les Chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge en France et en Espagne,” RHR 17 (1888): 311–37; 18 (1888) 133–56, here 329. 15 See Urbach, “Études sur la littérature polémique,” 60. 16 See Haim H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 556. 17 Albert Ehrman has argued in his dissertation that “it is almost a virtual certainty” that Nizzahon Vetus was compiled before 1236 (Emperor Fredricks II’s imperial edict), see Ehrman, “The Sefer Nitzahon,” 5; a claim which he subsequently has presented with some modifications in the already mentioned article. Against Urbach, and effectively against Berger, he argues based on historical and content observations that Nizzahon Vetus predates MS Rome 53 and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, which in his judgment “was written in Germany sometime between 1220–42,” cf. idem, “When was the Sefer Nitzaḥon written,” 155. Berger argues the exact opposite, see below. 18 See Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 33 (esp. n. 90). Berger, following Urbach and Posnanski, has made a good case that the content of at least certain sections of MS Rome (in particular section B) predate Nizzahon Vetus with “virtual certainty” and subsequently works “on the assumption that that the material preserved in R served as a source for our work” (375). He is careful to point out that MS Rome is not necessarily a direct source of Nizzahon

170

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

more definitive date would have been desirable, it ultimately has no bearing on the content of Nizzahon Vetus discussed below. Trautner-Kromann has further suggested that “the systematic structure of the work and its didactic tone give it the clear appearance of a textbook for Jews countering Christian doctrine and polemicizing against Christians.”19 Yet, Ben–Sasson has cautioned that not all of Nizzahon’s arguments could have been used in actual debates, as some of them are quite sharp: Sometimes it is clear that the arguments were intended as guides and patterns for later debaters; and it is reasonable to assume that they sometimes record only what the Jew would have liked to say to Christians had he been free to fully express his view, for it is unlikely that some of the recorded arguments were actually voiced to Christians with impunity.20

In fact, the arguments in Nizzahon Vetus often exhibit some “Ashkenazi chuzpe” and sarcasm, directly attacking various Christian beliefs and conventions, such as baptism.21 And so, while Nizzahon Vetus certainly was meant to inform and strenghten the recipients for private and public encounters with Christians in France, Germany, and beyond, it is difficult to say if the arguments contained in it were employed liberally. This is all the more the case when it comes to the New Testament.22

5. 2 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus Following the “Paris Disputation” of 1240 and the burning of the Talmud, the situation for the Jewish communities of France did not improve. To the contrary, anti-Jewish ressentiments and Christian religious fervor continued to nourish a climate of periodic harassment, violence, and financial exploitation, which finally culminated in Philip IV’s banishment of all Jews from his

Vetus, but contains similar material, an observation with which Horbury concurs. This is significant insofar as Berger consulted MS Rome (esp. sections A1 and B) to edit Nizzahon Vetus. In his estimate MS Rome bears testimony of a common source with Nizzahon Vetus. Horbury in his study of the “Basle Nizzahon,” which is related to MS Rome, agrees with Berger’s view and finds that MS Rome (at least parts of it) and the related “Basle Nizzahon” is “a composition indepted to material also used in N.V.,” idem, “The Basle Nizzahon,” 511 (258). In other words, there is no direct relationship between Nizzahon Vetus and MS Rome, but both draw independently on a common source which predates both. 19 Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 103, see also 102–104. 20 Ben-Sasson, History, 555–56. 21 See Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 20–21, and Jeremy Cohen, “Medieval Jews on Christianity: Polemical Strategies and Theological Defense,” in Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians through the Ages (ed. Eugene J. Fischer; Studies in Judaism and Christianity; Mahwah, N.J.: Stimulus Foundation; Paulist Press, 1993), 77–89, esp. 82. 22 See David Berger, “Mission”, 589–91.

5.2 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus

171

kingdom accompanied by the confiscation of all their possessions and outstanding debts in 1306.23 In the latter half of the thirteenth century, before the expulsion, two factors in particular further amalgamated the mounting pressures experienced by the Jews of France. The first is the appearance of new anti-Jewish motifs bearing witness to the increasing suspicion of Jewish malevolence towards Christians, which also gave cause to additional violence against Jews.24 This included the accusation of the ritual murder of Christians, the so called blood libel,25 the poisoning of wells, and also accusations of host desecration.26 In 1288, thirteen Jews were 23

This general expulsion followed earlier precedent. In 1182 Philip August expelled the Jews from the Île-de-France; other local expulsions followed: in 1240 Jews were expelled from Brittany, in 1288 from Gascony, in 1289 from Anjou and Maine, in 1290 from England, in 1294 from the county of Nevers. See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 178– 238; Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 191–205; Graetz, Geschichte, 7:243–45. Jews were readmitted to France in 1315, but only some reluctantly returned, which was again followed by violence and persecutions, see Friedrich Battenberg, Das Europäische Zeitalter der Juden: Von den Anfängen bis 1650 (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000), 1:91–95. For the last decades leading up to the expulsion, see Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 154–90. 24 Some of these motifs were, in fact, not new. Already in 1144 the Jews of Norwich were accused of the ritual murder of a boy, which perhaps was based on a misunderstanding of the Jewish practice of the burning of an effigy of Haman for the Purim festivities, already attested in late antiquity; see Elliot Horowitz, “‘And It is Turned Around:’ Jews against their Enemies in the Festivities of Purim” [‫ יהודים מול שונאיהם בחגיגות הפורים‬:‫]׳נוהפוך הוא׳‬, Zion 59 (1994): 129–68 [Hebr.]; Cecil Roth, “The Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accusation,” Speculum 8 (1933): 520–26; and more controversially Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 164–70. Also, in 1171, in Blois thirty Jews were burned for ritual murder charges (see 4.2). Then, in 1247, a similar ritual murder accusation lead to the death of ten Jews in Valréas in Dauphiné, see Bernhard Blumenkranz, “Dauphiné,” EncJud (2007) 5:441–43. The ritual murder charge has been a hotly contented issue in recent research, see John M. McCulloh, “Jewish Ritual Murder: William of Norwich, Thomas of Monmouth, and the Early Dissemination of the Myth,” Speculum 72 (1997): 698– 740; also David Nirenberg, review of Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, AHR 112 (2007): 562–64; and Kenneth R. Stow, Jewish Dogs: An Image and Its Interpreters — Continuity in the Catholic-Jewish Encounter (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006). 25 That is, the alleged need for Christian blood in Jewish rituals. See Haim H. BenSasson, Yehuda Slutsky and Dina Porat, “Blood Libel,” EncJud (2007) 3:774–80. 26 See Robert C. Stacey, “From Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration: Jews and the Body of Christ,” Jewish History 12 (1998): 11–28, and Miri Rubin, “Desecration of the Host: The Birth of an Accusation,” in Christianity and Judaism: Papers read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (ed. Diana Wood; Studies in Church History 29; Oxford: Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1992), 169–85; also eadem, Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).

172

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

martyred in Troyes for the alleged ritual murder of a Christian.27 Two years later a woman in Paris supposedly stole a consecrated host to redeem a token given to a Jewish pawn broker, which he then allegedly tried to destroy. The man was subsequently tried and condemned to death.28 King Philip IV, who would expel the Jews of France a few years later, appears to have given some credence to this story, which may have influenced his increasingly negative attitude towards the Jews in his realm.29 The second factor which compounded the situation of the Jews of Europe are the efforts of the church to convert the Jews of France and on the Iberian peninsula.30 This campaign, which was driven by various individuals in the Dominican and Franciscan orders, began in the south of France, moved to Catalonia, and then into northern France.31 At times this included the practice of coercing whole communities of Jews to listen to Christian sermons, a strategy which was also endorsed and recommended by the pope and lead to some compulsory debates.32 The not infrequent discussions between Jews and Christians on matters of religion became thus less amicable, certainly less voluntary, whereas the new Christian arguments used in these debates further increased the need for apologetical guidance.33 One of the important witnesses of these encounters is Rabbi Me’ir ben Simeon who was involved in various disputations with high clergymen in Narbonne, at the time one of the largest towns in southern France.34 His Milḥemet Miṣvah contains numerous records

27

See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 190–91; Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 180–81. 28 See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 191–94; Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 181–82. See also Friedrich Lotter, “Hostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfälschung bei den Judenverfolgungen von 1298 (‘Rintfleisch’) und 1336–1338 (‘Armleder’),” in Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Teil V: Fingierte Briefe; Frömmigkeit und Fälschung; Realienfälschungen (6 vols.; Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Schriften 33/V; Hannover: Hahn, 1988), 5:533–83, esp. 536–38. 29 See Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, 194. 30 This has been well-investigated by Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith, and Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews. See also Berger, “Mission to the Jews,” and 3.2. Recently, Robin Vose has argued that this campaign was perhaps not as important to the missionary orders as previously thought, see Robin Vose, Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); also Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity,” 6. 31 See Chazan, Daggers of Faith, 4. 32 See ibid., 39–48. 33 See ibid., 49–85. 34 See esp. Stein, Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth Century Narbonne, 8–22; also Robert Chazan, “Anti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the Jewish Response,” PAAJR 41/42 (1973–1974): 45–67; and Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 73–84. See also the summary by Ram Ben-Shalom, “Between Official and Private Dispute:

5.2 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus

173

of disputes over issues of doctrine and usury, amongst them an account of a Dominican missionary preaching in the synagogue of the city,35 and exchanges with various bishops in the middle of the thirteenth century.36 Similar debates also occurred in the north of France in the second half of the century.37 The missionary orders were also active in Germany. In 1278 Pope Nicholas III ordered the Dominicans and the Franciscans to preach to the Jews of Germany and Austria, a request which his predecessor Nicholas IV, himself a friar, renewed in 1288.38 This is then perhaps also what gave impetus to the compilation of Nizzahon Vetus for a German speaking Jewish audience. Previously, the Jews of medieval Germany had fared much worse than their French compatriots: during the first Crusade in 1096 the Jewish communities of the Rhineland, in Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Trier, Metz, Cologne, Xanten, and other towns, suffered religiously inspired genocidal violence. Although mitigated by various bishops and the German Emperor Henry IV, nevertheless, several thousand Jews were murdered or driven into a martyr’s death, and whole communties were plundered and massacred.39 The Jewish communities in the Rhineland were attacked also during the Second Crusade. In the thirteenth century, Jews initially enjoyed relative security in Germany, partly on account of being under the royal protection of the German emperors as serfs belonging to the royal chamber (servi camere, Hofjuden), which in turn allowed the emperors to levy hefty protection taxes.40 Yet, there

The Case of Christian Spain and Provence in the Late Middle Ages,” AJSR 27 (2003): 23–71, esp. 35–39, 47–51. 35 See Robert Chazan, “Confrontation in the Synagogue of Narbonne: A Christian Sermon and a Jewish Reply,” HTR 67 (1974): 437–57. The Dominicans and Franciscans are known to have had prospering convents in Narbonne at the time, see Richard W. Emery, Heresy and Inquisition in Narbonne (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941; repr., New York: AMS, 1967), 127–30. 36 These disputations must have occured in the wake of a civilian revolt against the archbishop Pierre Amiel, see Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 44; and esp. Emery, Heresy and Inquisition, 77–113. The various disputations recorded by Me’ir ben Simeon, much like those in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, testify to the frequent religious disputations in this period. 37 See Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 17, esp. n 37; also Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, 149–53, and idem, Daggers of Faith, 44–45, 103. 38 See Zvi Avneri, ed., Germania Judaica Band II: Von 1238 bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (2 vols. in 3, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968), 1:xxxiii; and Grayzel and Stow, The Church and the Jews, 2:142–45, 171–72, also 165–67. 39 For more see, e.g., Shlomo Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusade (Madison: The University of Wisconsin, 1977); and more recently Jeremy Cohen, Sanctifying the name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), but also Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, esp. xvii–iii, 135–204. 40 See Friedrich Lotter, “Germany,” in Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia

174

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

were still numerous local attacks, and at the end of the thirteenth century violence against Jews became more widespread and severe.41 In 1298, Jews of 146 villages and towns in the regions of Franconia, Swabia, Hessia, and Thuringia became victims of anti-Jewish riots in the wake of concocted charges of host desecration,42 and during the rebellion of 1336–1338 many more Jews lost their lives in persecutions. But the most severe violence came with the arrival of the Black Death in Europe in 1347. The Jews of Europe, and especially those in German speaking realms, were blamed to have caused the plague by poising wells. Thousands were massacred and driven away, so much so that in the middle of the fourtheenth century no larger Jewish communities were left in the cities of Germany.43 If Nizzahon Vetus was indeed written for the benefit of the Jewish communities of Germany, it would have to be in use before the middle of the fourteenth century, and perhaps was prompted by the first papal letter in 1278 urging the friars to engage Jews in the German speaking realms.

5. 3 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus Nizzahon Vetus became accessible for a wider audience through the publication of Johann Christoph Wagenseil’s Tela Ignea Satanae (“Satan’s Fiery Darts”) in 1681.44 This protestant scholar and erudite Hebraist had come in the possession of a manuscript of Nizzahon Vetus, which he published with a Latin translation in his extensive collection of Jewish polemic works.45 Wagenseil’s fervor had driven him to seek out Jewish polemic texts in many places, even as far as North Africa, so as to “fill his quiver with Satan’s fiery darts” to enable himself and others to more effectively convert Jews.46 He

(ed. Norman Roth; New York: Routledge, 2002), 296; also Guido Kisch, The Jews in Medieval Germany: A Study of their Legal and Social Status (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949), 107–59. 41 See Lotter, “Germany,” 298–99; also, Avneri, Germania Judaica Band II, 1:xxxiv. 42 See Avneri, Germania Judaica Band II, 1:xxxv. 43 See Battenberg, Das Europäische Zeitalter der Juden, 1:121. 44 Johann C. Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanae (Altdorf: Joh. Henricus Schönnerstædt, 1681; repr. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1965, 1968; Farnborough: Gregg, 1970; Jerusalem: L. Achim, 2001). Tela Ignea Satanae proved to be an immensely influential work as the Latin translations therein made Jewish anti-Christian arguments accessible to a large audience; in particular Rabbi Isaac of Troki’s polemic Ḥizzuq Emunah made great impact (see chapter 8). 45 Nizzahon Vetus is found in part II of Tela Ignea Satanae (1681), pp. 1–260 (in the original there are four parts in two volumes). 46 See Graetz, Geschichte, 10:279, also 277–80. On Wagenseil see also Peter Blastenbrei, Johann Christoph Wagenseil und seine Stellung zum Judentum (Erlangen: H. Fischer, 2004). Although Wagenseil was comparatively positive-minded towards Jews, it is interesting that

5.3 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus

175

based his Nizzahon Vetus edition on such a find, a single manuscript from Strasbourg, which was subsequently lost.47 At the beginning of the twentieth century Adolf Posnanski also collated a large and critically edited corpus of Jewish polemic texts, though certainly with a different motive than Wagenseil, part of which was also an annotated edition of Nizzahon Vetus. However, most of the collection was never fully published and remains shelved at the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem.48 Mordechai Breuer and David Berger, almost simultaneously and independent from each other, prepared each a critical edition of Nizzahon Vetus.49 Both based their editions on Wagenseil’s text, and both consulted and relied on Posnanski’s unpublished material.50 They also compared the New Testament section in T with MS Rome.51 Following Posnanski, both Breuer and Berger he perceived these Jewish texts as darts or arrows, i.e. as attacks on his Christian convictions, whereas from a Jewish point of view their primary function would have been to defend against Christian attacks. 47 Commonly referred to as T (for Tela Ignea Satanae), though it is not clear if Wagenseil’s edition is faithful to his Vorlage; see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 374, n. 2. 48 See David Simonson, “Eine Sammlung polemischer und apologetischer Literatur,” in Festschrift für Aron Freimann zum 60. Geburtstage (ed. Alexander Marx and Herrmann Meyer; Berlin: Soncino-Gesellschaft der Freunde des jüdischen Buches e.V., 1935), 114–20. 49 David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, fully published in 1979 by the Jewish Publication Society of America (based on his 1970 Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia University, “The Nizzahon Vetus: A Critical Edition, with a Translation and Commentary on the First Part”); and Mordecai Breuer, Sefer Niẓẓaḥon Yashan (Niẓẓahon Vetus) — A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic [‫( ]ספר נצחון ישן‬Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1978) [Hebr.]. A further, albeit unpublished study of the text was prepared by Albert Ehrman, “The Sefer Nitzahon: A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974). See also William Horbury, review of David Berger, The JewishChristian Debate in the High Middle Ages, JTS 34 (1983): 329–37; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 102–16; and Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 246–47. 50 See Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 373–82; and Breuer, Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan, 9– 13. Ehrman based his study on T only, see idem, “The Sefer Nitzahon,” 3–8. In his thorough review of Berger’s editorial work, William Horbury has pointed out that Berger’s edition depends mostly on only two sources, which are essentially T and a defective manuscript, MS 147 Staatsbibliothek München (MS Munich), which only contains some 40% of what is found in T. Except for five pages in MS Munich, the New Testament section is essentially preserved only by Wagenseil’s text, see Horbury’s review in JTS, 334. The New Testament critique in Nizzahon Vetus, besides its parallels in MS Rome, is consequently mostly witnessed by only one, now lost, manuscript that was edited and published by a Christian scholar, see ibid., 332. 51 Berger, esp. in the New Testament section, consulted also the quotations of Nizzahon Vetus preserved by Sebastian Münster, however without giving proper consideration to the variants present in Münster’s works; so Horbury’s review and critique in JTS, 332–34; cf. Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 377. Already, Urbach noted that a significant part of MS Rome (B) is mirrored in Nizzahon Vetus: “Une lecture superficielle suffit déjà à en montre la parenté avec Nizzahon vetus et en comparant les deux écrits de plus près on constante que

176

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

have also re-arranged T. In both editions the arguments are layed out after the sequence of books in the Hebrew Bible with an addendum of arguments discussing New Testament passages.52 Nevertheless, Horbury has cautioned that “even after the editor’s [Berger] many detailed improvements to the text, some of the material before us might reflect a date appreciably later than that of the author of N.V.”53 This is, of course, more relevant to a study of the development of arguments, rather than of the arguments themselves.

5. 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus The section that deals with the New Testament is located in the latter part of Nizzahon Vetus. In Berger’s edition the arguments are given in §§154–245, in Breuer’s edition in §§172–212. Besides these sections, some verses of the Gospel of Matthew are also discussed in §§1–153, the first part of Nizzahon Vetus dealing with the Hebrew Bible. Berger’s edition will be given preference here, largely on account of his critical apparatus, translation, and extensive notes.

90% de leurs matériaux son communs, et cette communauté va très souvent jusqu’à une concordance littérale,” idem, “Études sur la littérature polémique,” 73; but cf. Horbury, “The Basle Nizzahon,” 498, and 511, who amongst other things cautions that this percentage is probably too high. Further, Urbach argued that (at least parts of) MS Rome came from a disciple of the son of a Hungarian proselyte to Judaism (who may have lived during the second half of the 12th c.). If this indeed the case, this proselyte may have been an important source for at least some of the New Testament critique in Nizzahon Vetus, see idem, “Études sur la littérature polémique,” 72–77. This, of course, would be comparable to Qiṣṣa/Nestor, and it is also a well-known phenomenon for Jews who convert to Christianity to provide insights about their former religion, see Limor, “Judaism examines Christianity,” 111–12. 52 Breuer has also arranged the arguments in his edition in order of the books in the New Testament and their chapter and verse sequence (thereby completely dissolving the order of T, which itself had suffered from a dislocation of the folios of an early manuscript, see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 388; but cf. also Horbury’s review in JTS here, 334). Breuer’s Matthew section contains most of the arguments based on the Gospel of Matthew, which is in §§172–189, pp. 132–43. His New Testament section is entitled: Be diligent in studying Torah so that you might be able to answer Epicurus (‫הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה כדי‬ ‫)שתשיב לאפיקורוס‬. Some of the arguments that employ New Testament passages, and at times more apocryphal and other material, have been relegated by Breuer to two further sections; Questions for the Christians (‫)שאלות אל הנוצרים‬, pp. 155–79, and Answers for the Christians (‫)תשובות אל הנוצרים‬, pp. 181–94. The result is a very different Nizzahon Vetus version compared to Wagenseil’s edition (Altdorf). 53 Horbury’s review in JTS, 334. It needs to be pointed out again that similarities between Berger’s (and Breuer’s) Nizzahon Vetus and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne must be approached very carefully as all involved editors consulted the various sections of MS Rome, a fact which may account for some of the presence (or absence) of textual parallels.

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

177

The following table will list all passages (and allusions) which refer to the Gospel of Matthew discussed in Nizzahon Vetus in the order they appear in Berger’s edition, which is listed under a title for the respective passage and and a short summary of the argument. The order follows Berger’s edition (rather than Breuer). Due to the topic limitations, namely, the use of the Gospel of Matthew and arguments directed against the divinity of Jesus, only some of the arguments will be discussed in more detail (those in bold, see below). Berger54 NT Passage

Title & Summary of the Argument

§5

Matt 27:46

Jesus’ Words on the Cross: the Son did not aid the Father in creation, therefore the Father did not help the Son on the cross.

§23

Matt 9:11

Jesus came for sinners, not for the righteous: the righteous patriarchs are therefore not in hell (sheol).

§28

Matt 1:2–16

Jesus’ Genealogies: Jesus was either Joseph’s son, or one cannot prove that he had royal lingeage.

§71

Matt 5:17–19

The Sermon on the Mount: Christians contradict their Scriptures since Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.

Matt 1:2–16

Jesus’ Genealogies: Jesus was either Joseph’s son, or one cannot prove that he had royal lingeage.

§85

Matt 10:34

“I came not to send peace on earth:” Isaiah 9:6 does not refer to Jesus, since he said he was not a peacebringer.

§88

Matt 1:16

Jesus’ Genealogy: unless Joseph is Jesus’ father you cannot prove that he had royal lingeage.

§96

Matt 27:46

Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Jesus was not saved by God.

§145

Matt 27:46

Jesus’ Words on the Cross: by praying Psalm 22 Jesus admits that he is a sinner, therefore he is not God.

§72

55

I he were God he also would not need to pray in this manner. How did divinity reside in Jesus, as incarnate Spirit, or as addition to his humanity?

54

Cf. the sections in Tela Ignea Satanae (Akademon reprint), see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 385–88. 55 See 5.4.5.

178

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Berger

NT Passage

Title & Summary of the Argument

§154

Matt 1:1–16, 17

Jesus’ Genealogies: why is Joseph called the husband of Mary? Why is his lineage traced through Joseph, and not Mary?

Luke 3:21–31 John 1:45–46

Mary’s genealogy was evidently not known, and she was not of royal descent. Also, the two genealogies contradict each other.

§157

Matt 5:17

The Sermon on the Mount: Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. Since Jesus did not abandon ritual washing (baptism), he did not abrogate circumcision.

§158

Matt 5:18

The Sermon on the Mount: according to Jesus, Christians should keep Torah.

§159

Matt 2:13–14

The Escape to Egypt: if Jesus were God, why did he have to flee? Not even angles are afraid (cf. §205).

§160

Matt 3:5–6

Jesus’ Baptism: What sort of God needs to be purified, even three times (at conception, John’s baptism, and when the Holy Spirit descended)?

Matt 3:13, 16–17 §162

Matt 4:1–11a

Jesus’ Temptation: Why would God need food at all? And why did Jesus become hungry? How could Satan ever tempt Jesus if he were God?

§163

Matt 1:24b–25

Jesus’ Genealogy: Jesus is evidently Joseph’s firstborn son.

§166

Matt 8:1–4

Jesus heals a Leper: Jesus appears ambivalent towards the Law, while he tells the man to show himself to the priest, he also permits people to transgress the Law.

§167

Matt 13:53–58

The Relatives of Jesus: Mary had other sons and daughters (she consequently was not a virgin).

§168

Matt 9:6

Jesus as Son of Man: based on these passages it is evident that by calling himself “Son of Man” Jesus affirms that he is exclusively human (and not God).

56

Luke 9:52–53, 13b–14, 58 (par. Matt 8:18–20) Matt 26:39; 20:28; 28:18 §170

56

Matt 11:25–30

Jesus’ Prayer of Thanksgiving: since Jesus offered thanks to God he was not God.

Cf. §28, §71, §157, §158 where Jesus is said to uphold Torah. Thus, §166 would appear to reflect another polemical strand (and/or polemical source) concerning Jesus’ attitude towards keeping Torah (likewise in §169, §170, §172, but cf. §190).

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

179

Berger

NT Passage

Title & Summary of the Argument

§171

Matt 12:1–7a, 10–12

Plucking Grain on Sabbath: Jesus permits work on the Sabbath.

§172

Matt 8:21–22, 19:22

Following Jesus: Why does Jesus tell the man he should refrain from burying his father since there is no greater obligation?

Matt 8:23–26

The Calming of the Storm: Jesus slept in the boat, but God does not sleep (Ps 121:4).

§174

Matt 15:21–28

Jesus and the Canaanite Woman: Jesus said he came to save Israel, nevertheless he also caused them to stumble and to be blind.

§176

Mark 14:32–42, (par. Matt 26:36–46)

Jesus in Gethsemane: since Jesus fearfully prayed to God, he cannot be God.

§177

Mark 13:24–34a Jesus on the Eschaton: the Son is ignorant of certain (par. Matt 24:29–33, 36) things, he consequently must not be equal to God, who was before him.

§178

Mark 15:33–34 (par. Matt 27:45–46)

Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Why did Jesus cry out on the cross — after all the crucifixion was according to his will?

§181

Mark 11:11–14a (par. Matt 21:17–19a)

Jesus and the Fig Tree: Why was Jesus hungry? Did Jesus not know about the presence of figs? Was Jesus angry with the tree, although he said to love ones enemies?

§182

Matt 28:16–20

Jesus’ Commission of the Disciples: Who gave authority to Jesus? Jesus will not be with the disciples till “the world to come.”

§184

Mark 10:17–21 (par. Matt 19:16–21)

The Rich Young Man: Jesus affirmed that eternal life comes from keeping the Law.

§187

Matt 12:46, 13:1–4, 8– 13, 14b–15a, 16.

The Parable of the Sower: Jesus is devious because he usually speaks in parables.

§188

John 4:5–7 Matt 27:46; 8:24–25

Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Jesus’ fear and need to sleep proves he is not God, and that there is consequently no Trinity.

57

57

Here the argument is made that Matt 12:47–13:18 shows that “on this occasion he did not speak in a devious manner,” because Jesus unlike his practice elsewhere actually explained his parable to the listeners, see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 193. Teaching in parables (or with metaphors etc) is thereby understood as something “devious,” a verdict which can only be understood as polemically motivated.

180

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Berger

NT Passage

Title & Summary of the Argument

§193

John 2:7–9

Jesus’ Miracles: the miracles performed by Jesus do not compare to those in the Hebrew Bible.

Matt 14:19–20 Luke 7:14–15 John 11:44 Matt 4:23 Matt 14:25 et par. Matt 4:2 §194

§197

Mark 13:4, 32 (par. Matt 24:3, 36)

Jesus on the Eschaton: Jesus excludes himself from being divine.

John 14:23–24 John 5:30–31

Jesus’ Sending Statements: Jesus is sent by and depends on God. They are thus two.

Matt 26:21

Jesus and Peter: Jesus confesses to Peter that he rebelled against God.

Matt 16:20 §201

Matt 12:40

Sign of Jonah: Jesus could only have been dead for three days and two nights.

§203

Matt 17:20

Moving Mountains by Faith: since Christian can not perform such miracles they evidently do not believe in God.

§207

Luke 22:31–32

Jesus prays for Peter: if Jesus were God, why would he need to pray?

Matt 13:57 Matt 12:18

Escape to Egypt: Jesus fled from Herod, just like other prophets. Jesus in Nazareth: Jesus calls himself a prophet and a servant of God.

§215

Mark 14:41 (par. Matt 26:45)

Jesus predicts his betrayal: the fact that the “Son of Man” is betrayed in the “hand of sinners” shows that he is an actual human being.

§221

Matt 5:17–18

The Sermon on the Mount: Why do Christians ignore the Sabbath and circumcision?

§223

Luke 12:10 (par. Matt 12:31–32)

The Blasphemy against the Spirit: Why does one who sinned against the “Impure Spirit” not find forgiveness if all three (members of the Trinity) are one?

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

Berger

NT Passage

Title & Summary of the Argument

§232

Matt 5:39

The Sermon on the Mount: Jesus and his Law.

John 10:33

Jesus’ Rejection by the Jews: Jesus was crucified because he made himself out to be God.

John 4:22

181

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: salvation comes from the Jews. 58

§234

Matt 23:23–24

Jesus proclaims Woes on the Pharisees: Jesus implicitly called himself a camel here (obscure).

The list of arguments reveals that the passages and arguments against Jesus’ divinity are often similar to those found in already examined texts, though they are usually more extensive in Nizzahon Vetus. The discussion below will rearrange the arguments according to the sequence of the Gospel of Matthew, and will combine appropriate sections in Berger’s edition under a single heading.59 We begin with the genealogy of Jesus, a preferred topic in every text surveyed so far. 5. 4. 1 Jesus’ Genealogy: Matt 1:1–17, 25 (§154, §88, §28, §72) In contrast to Yosef ha-Meqanne, discussions of Jesus’ genealogy and his nativity occur frequently in Nizzahon Vetus. However, essentially the same argument is repeated, which is that Jesus is really Joseph’s biological son.60 In 58

Cf. also §§197–200, §217, §232, §235, where more obscure (or peculiar) details and arguments are presented. Other arguments clearly are related to Toledoth Yeshu accounts, e.g., §202 and §205. That these type of arguments were included by the medieval compiler either indicates that their apologetic-polemical function was deemed more important than useability in debates, or that the compiler simply was not familiar enough with Christian texts to judge that these passages did not come from the New Testament. 59 The Hebrew text will be given as reconstructed by Berger, the English translation will often be slightly adapted to give a more literal translation. The customary citation of the Hebrew text is abridged in this chapter and only reproduces the more relevant lines. In contrast to many other texts of the apologetic-polemical genre, in particular those examined in this study, Berger’s edition of Nizzahon Vetus is easily accessible and well-edited. 60 There is a (rhetorical) exception to this in §180, where after a citation of Luke 2:43–48 we read the question: “Who, then, was this father that his mother mentioned? If she meant Joseph, then how can Jesus be called God? On the other hand, if she was referring to his father in heaven, then it follows that he was his sinner, for he angered his Creator,” see Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 188. The argument sets up a false dilemma question; either Jesus had a human father, in which case he could not be divine, or God is his father, but then, according to the passage, he has disobeyed his heavenly father. It is clearly assumed here that having human parents excludes someone from being divine. This argument also appears in MS Rome (A1), f. 14r, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 125.

182

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

§28, §72, §88, §154, and §163 it is reasoned that, although Christians profess that Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph, two genealogies trace the Davidic line to Joseph, who is called “the husband of Mary.” This then demonstrates that Jesus is Joseph’s son, otherwise Mary’s genealogy should have been provided — which Christians nevertheless do not known. Two implications follow, though not always explicitly: Jesus had only human parents — he therefore is exclusively human61 — and Mary could not have been a virgin (whether pre- or postnatally).62 Nizzahon Vetus §154 is representative for this kind of argument and includes a full citation of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:1–17).63 Besides the comparison with Luke 3:21–31 which bears little significance to the question of Jesus’ divinity, which is why it is likewise omitted here,64 the main thrust of the argument seeks to demonstrate that Jesus was actually Joseph’s son: It is written in those ‘sinful notations’ which they call Evangelium that Jesus’ line of descent comes from kings. Thus, they say that so-and-so begat so-and-so until “Mattan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary (‫ )אישה של מרים‬of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christus [Matt 1:15–16]. Now, this is how we answer them: If she had not yet had sexual relations nor was even married to her husband, then why is he called her husband?65 (‫ אם עדיין לא נבעלה ולא נשאת לבעלה למה נקרא אישה‬:‫)וכך אנו משיבין להם‬.66 It should have said ‘the betrothed of Mary,’ thus, they would not be stating a lie in their prayers when they say that he never had any relations with her. Moreover, if they want to inform us that he is from a royal family, why was his genealogy related to that of Joseph, who was [allegedly] not his father and with whom he had no [blood] relationship at all? (‫ אם הם רוצים‬,‫ועוד‬

‫להודיעינו שהוא ממשפחת מלכים למה העביר תולדותו לתולדות יוסף שלא היה אביו ולא היה‬ ‫)לו עמו שום קורבה‬. Rather than relating and retracing the genealogy of Joseph, he [= the gospel author] should have recounted Mary’s by saying so-and-so begat so-and-so until

61

In Nizzahon Vetus §220 it is argued that “Joseph had relations with her in the normal manner and she bore his child,” Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 215. 62 This is made explicit in Nizzahon Vetus §145 (cf. §167); see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 154. 63 Qiṣṣa/Nestor §80 and Milḥamot ha-Shem also contain longer quotations of Matthew’s genealogy, cf. Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:68, 114; and Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 58–59. The former do not mention the four women in Matt 1:3, 5, 6, whereas Nizzahon Vetus and Milḥamot ha-Shem include the women, but do not discuss them (see 3.4.2); cf. also the discussion of Matthew’s genealogy in Even Bohan (see 6.4.1). 64 This argument also mentions that the names and the number of generations between Matthew and Luke’s genealogy do not match, see Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §154, 168. 65 Berger notes here that he adopted the reading of MS Rome instead of T’s reading, which states: “Nor was she married for the purpose of having sexual relations,” ibid., 310. The passage appears in MS Rome A2 (f. 22r), Rosenthal, “A Religious Debate,” 65. See also Yosef ha-Meqanne §21 (see 4.5.2). Without further comments this argument is primarily aimed at the perpetual virginity of Mary. 66 For the Hebrew text see Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §154, 106 [Hebr. section].

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

183

“So-and-so begat Mary who gave birth to Jesus.” But [it seems], they did not know Mary’s genealogy, and [it follows that] she did not come from of a royal family. If someone, then, argues that she was a relative of Joseph, you can find the respective answer in the aforementioned discussion [§88] of the passage, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse...” in Isaiah.67

In §88, which critiques the Christian exegesis of Isaiah 11:1–3, this secondary Christian objection was already discussed: He [the Christian] might then tell you: We have a tradition that the Jews always married their relatives; thus Mary was a relative of Joseph and his genealogy is hers as well, both of them having been descended from David. You should then respond by telling him: Have you come to put together a puzzle and make a god through fabrication and by being evasive?68 (‫וכי‬ ‫)בדברי בידוי ובעק]י[פין אתה בא לחוד חידה ולעשות אלוה‬.69

It is explicitly stated that the Christian responses to the Jewish objections are to be understood as an evasive maneuver (‫ )בעקיפין‬which seeks to preserve the notion that Jesus is divine, which is nevertheless a fabrication (‫)בידוי‬. That Matthew (and also Luke) trace Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph consequently demonstrates Jesus’ exclusive humanity. Accordingly, the Christian confession that Jesus is divine must be a later invention that the text does not sustain — although this does not take in to account the full context or intention of Matthew’s gospel.70 It was already seen in the discussion of Matthew’s genealogy in Milḥamot ha-Shem that Matthew’s (and Luke’s) authorial intention is portrayed in contradiction to the creedal understanding of Jesus. Rather, Matthew’s genealogy has to be understood as an indication that Joseph is Jesus’ natural father, which is also explicitly argued in §28:71 67

Modified from Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §154, 167. The argument continues and turns to John 1: “Furthermore, it is written in the book of John that ‘Philip found Nathaniel an told him, We have found that which is written in the Law and the Prophets in Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth.’ And Nathaniel said to him, ‘Can a good thing come out of Nazareth?’ So Philip told him, ‘Come and see Jesus’ [John 1:45–46], and when he came before him, he said, ‘Indeed this is truly the son of Joseph.’” You see, then, that both Philip and Nathaniel testified that he was the son of Joseph, and yet the Christians say that he had no father although the above passage is written clearly in the Gospels,” Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 169–70. The text is obviously not congruent with the canonical version of the Gospel of John, in particular Nathaniel’s response to Jesus in v. 49. Comparative reversals were also observed in Yosef ha-Meqanne §11 and §12 (related to the Gospel of John, see 4.5.10). 68 Modified from Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §88, 107. 69 Ibid., §88, 61 [Hebr. section]. 70 In this instance the fact that Jesus is called the husband of Mary (Matt 1:16) is overemphasized at the expense of statements that express the contrary, or at least force a modification of this understanding (cf. Matt 1:18, 25). However this selective literalism is a feature of most “exegetical polemic” literature. 71 Also, in §163 Nizzahon Vetus cites Matt 1:25 in Latin calling Jesus Joseph’s firstborn: “Et non cognovit eam done peperit filium suum primogenitum qui vocatur Jesus,” see Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, 178, emphasis mine.

184

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Now, if you say that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, who was virum [of Mary], then he and Jesus have nothing [in common] in this genealogy. If, however, you trace his lineage through Joseph, then you must admit that he had a father. But unless you trace his lineage through him, how can you prove that he stemmed from Judah (and from David)?72

The Jewish argument requires the Christian to choose between two unacceptable positions: either Jesus is only a man, who was conceived by Joseph and Mary (by natural conception), or he cannot be verified as the Davidic Messiah. This is the same argument as in two manuscripts of Milḥamot haShem, and as discussed earlier, the issue of Jesus’ Davidic lineage must have been used very early in the Jewish-Christian dispute.73 With this Nizzahon Vetus perpetuates an argument that Christians had responded to much earlier (though their response is clearly rejected as too fantastic), and this is likewise the case with the discussion of the birth of Jesus, which is similar to what has been seen in earlier polemical texts.74 In fact, Nizzahon Vetus also raises the issue of the inapproprietness of the idea of God being in the womb (in §39, §62, §128, §143, and §145).75 Since this was already examined earlier,76 we move on from Jesus’ genealogy and birth to a discussion of another aspect of the nativity: the flight to Egypt. 5. 4. 2 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Matt 2:13–14 (§159) As seen in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, the flight to Egypt is used to question Jesus’ divinity. In Nizzahon Vetus §39, after citing Matt 2:13–14, we read: What was the reason for all this? If he were God, why should he have been afraid of the king? (‫)וכל כך למה אם אלהים הוא למה היה ירא מן המלך‬.77 Do we not see from the angels of our God and his servants that they were not afraid of flesh and blood? They carried out their divine missions openly, and no man had the power to touch them or harm them at all…78

The argument is almost the same as in Yosef ha-Meqanne (and Origen, Cels. 1.66):79 if Jesus was divine why should he run away from danger? Even the 72

Modified from Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §28, 61. See the discussion under 3.4.2. 74 This is the same strategy seen in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, see 2.5.2. 75 In §39 it is denied that something holy could come from something as reprehensible as a womb [which is clearly related to Qiṣṣa/Nestor, cf. 2.5.3, see also Nizzahon Vetus §62]. In §128 it is questioned how Christians could claim that only the Son was in the womb of Mary, since he is constantly united with and inseparable from the other two members of the Trinity. In §143 Jesus is said to be wrapped in placenta and encompassed in the womb, §145 is discussed in 5.4.13. See again Berger’s essay “God in the Womb and the Problem of the Incarnation,” in Jewish-Christian Debate, 350–54. 76 See 2.5.3. 77 Berger, Jewish Christian Debate, §159, 111 [Hebr. section]. 78 Modified from ibid., §159, 173–74. 79 Cf. Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne §22 (see 4.5.3). The most striking difference between the 73

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

185

angels of God do not have to fear anything from men, but Jesus in contrast is seen as acting out of fear. In the following Jesus is then compared to Lot and Elisha, who both had been assisted by angels. In contrast to them, Jesus has no angels that aid or protect him, and he is told to escape rather than to remain in public. He is, as such, powerless and does not appear to be in good standing with God. Where Elisha’s prayer was heard, Jesus may have presumed that God would not answer him. It is hence not Jesus’ experience of the emotion of fear that is the issue, but that he, reputedly as a divine figure, had to flee from Herod.80 In this regard it is unbecoming for Jesus and incongruent for the divine to be seen as escaping from the exigency of a human king. 5. 4. 3 Jesus’ Baptism: Matt 3:13, 16–17 (§160) In Nizzahon Vetus §§160–161 the practice of baptism is questioned in and of itself, and as part of this discussion Jesus’ divinity is challenged. After citing Matt 3:13 and 16–17,81 the question is posed why Jesus needed to be baptized: What was the purpose of this? What sort of God must be sanctified from impurity just like flesh and blood (‫?)וכי יש אלוה שצריך לקדשו מטומאה כבשר ודם‬82 And moreover, it is written for them already in another place that a spirit had originally entered Mary when she became pregnant (‫ שכבר כתוב להם במקום אחר שרוח נכנס במרים אמו לכתחילה‬,‫ועוד‬ ‫)כשנתעברה‬. Where, then, had that spirit gone? If you will answer that the spirit became impure (‫ )נטמא‬in her womb, then it follows that she was impure like other women.83

two is that Nizzahon Vetus has “for Herod was about to seek the boy” (‫כי עתיד הורדוס לבקש‬ ‫)את הנער‬, whereas in Yosef ha-Meqanne it is: “for soon the cursed Jews are to seek the boy” (‫)עתידים ארורים יהודים לבקש הנער‬. It is clear that this difference (Herod/Jews) is deliberate, as can be seen in the following question: “Why was he afraid of the king?” (‫למה היה‬ ‫)ירא מן המלך‬, which in Yosef ha-Meqanne is “Why was he afraid of any man?” (‫למה היה‬ ‫)ירא משום אדם‬. Nizzahon Vetus is, as such, closer to the nativity account in Matthew, which is also very similar to MS Rome (A1), ff. 14a–14b, Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 127 (including the reference to Herod). According to Berger’s notes, Milḥemet Miṣvah also has a similar argument, idem, Jewish Christian Debate, 312–13. 80 In Nizzahon Vetus §205, Luke 2:1, 7 is conflated with the flight to Egypt, asking: “Now, why did he not protect himself? Indeed, why did he not reveal himself to those searching for him and tell them, “Here I am, but there is nothing you can do to me, for I have been born and shall live for thirty-three more years?” This is then related to an episode from Toledoth Yeshu, see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 203, and the note on p. 328. 81 Cf. ibid., §160, 111 [Hebr. section]. While the passage from Matthew follows the syntax of the Vulgate, it is worthwhile noting that the heavenly declaration, the Bat Qol, reads ‫זה בני בחירי בו רצתה נפשי‬, which adds ‫ נפשי‬to the Latin “hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui.” In Milḥamot ha-Shem the declaration is ‫זה בני נאהב אשר ישר לי מאד‬, cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 30. 82 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §160, 111 [Hebr. section]. 83 Modified from ibid., §160, 174. For the parallel section in MS Rome (A1), f. 13v, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 124.

186

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

After this, a second thrust follows, which repeats the same argument in another form: Furthermore, there is a warning in their Torah that a man should be baptized only once, and one who does this more than once is considered a heretic (‫)מין‬.84 And yet this one, who I would think needed no further sanctity, as his own divinity ought to make him holy, this Jesus was sanctified by the hands of a man (‫וזה שהייתי סבור שלא היה צריך לקדושה אחרת כי אם‬ ‫ וישו נעשה קדוש על ידי אדם‬,‫)מאלוהותו היה קדוש‬.85 Indeed, he was sanctified three times. Initially, when he entered his mother’s womb there was a holy spirit (‫;)הייתה רוח הקודש‬ then, when he was baptized by John like [all other] men there was a holy spirit; finally, when he came out of the Jordan there was a holy spirit. Thus, there were three such occassions.86

Berger has already summarized the two distinct arguments contained in these paragraphs: “1. Why was the baptism necessary in the light of Jesus’ presumed purity? 2. Why did a new spirit descend upon him if the holy spirit was already within him? The first question appears in Sefer Nestor HaKomer (…), and the second is found in Jacob ben Reuben.”87 The first line of argument has already been encountered and discussed in Milḥamot ha-Shem. In Nizzahon Vetus the argument is heightened by the omission of Matt 3:14–15.88 As the differences between Mark’s and Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism indicate, it is likely that already Matthew perceived the need to further comment on the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (cf. Mark 1:9–11, Matt 3:13–17, Luke 3:21–22, John 1:29–34).89 Accordingly, John the Baptist is shown to object to Jesus’ baptism as something unnecessary. But Jesus’ reply in Matt 3:15, that this baptism was meant to “fulfill all righteousness” (πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην), clearly explains the event as something that transcends the realm of purification.90 This then indicates that the issue echoed in Jewish 84

Perhaps Ephesians 4:5 is referred to. The author may have heard this arguments made against the Cathar or perhaps Waldensian movements, though that would of course depend on actual baptism practice of these groups. Arguments made by these “heretical” movements against the Catholic standpoint are known to appear in Jewish polemics, cf. David Berger, “Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” HTR 68 (1975): 287–303. Jesus’ repeated need to be purified, therefore, might even imply that he was a heretic. 85 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §160, 112 [Hebr. section]. 86 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §160, 174. 87 Ibid., 313. Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §60 and §114 (see 3.4.3). 88 Milḥamot ha-Shem does not omit Matt 3:14–15, cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 30: ‫אני‬ ‫ הניחה לי כי כן יאות לנו למלאת האמת‬,‫ראוי להיות ממך ואתה בא אלי? ויש״ו ענהו ויאמר לו‬. 89 See the discussion under 3.4.3. 90 The understanding of Matt 3:15 is a contended issue in Matthean scholarship. Both “fulfill” (πληρόω) and “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) are theologically charged and central to the interpretation of Matthew, esp. since it is the first sentence Jesus is saying in the gospel. For a discussion of this verse and both related terms see Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias (WUNT I/177; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 2004), 127–32.

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

187

medieval polemic was already perceived by the authors of the New Testament itself. However, in Nizzahon Vetus this “higher” evaluation of Jesus’ baptism is inverted. Where John the Baptist feels that Jesus is “too worthy,” the polemicist argues the opposite by insinuating Jesus’ (repeated) need for purification. On account of his alleged divinity and his divine purity he should not have to undergo ritual cleansing of any kind. Nevertheless, the fact that he was baptized puts in question his purity and with this also his alleged identity. The second argument is related and builds on the notion that baptism is a form of ritual purification, though it is also based on the further assumption that baptism in some way endowed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. Thus, in three separate events Jesus is seen as coming in touch with the Holy Spirit: he was conceived by the Spirit; the Spirit was present at the actual ritual of baptism; and finally the Spirit came in form of a dove upon him. After each of these it is said the Spirit was present (‫)הייתה רוח הקודש‬. In Milḥamot ha-Shem only the birth of Jesus and the appearance of the dove were in view, here baptism itself is understood as a means by which the Holy Spirit comes.91 The fact that it is questioned if the Spirit left Jesus (‫ )להיכן הלך אותו הרוח‬shows that the author did not think that Jesus was composed of the Holy Spirit. The force of the argument lies on the assumption that the Spirit left Jesus at some point, returning to him at his baptism. This could be construed as an argument against the Trinity, but this is not done so. The argument is essentially similar to the first, since the most plausible reason for the Spirit leaving would be that Jesus had become impure, which again would point to his human identity. The third argument, which Berger left uncommented, is the question of agency. The fact that John the Baptist is the one who baptizes Jesus is used to argue against Jesus divinity (‫)כשנטבל על ידי יוחנן‬: John has to provide Jesus with an alternate means of purification (‫)לקדושה אחרת‬, which means Jesus’ purity (or holiness) is bestowed by a man (‫)נעשה קדוש על ידי אדם‬. This of course is not what one would suspect if Jesus was divine, as God’s holiness and purity are assumed to be inherent to God. The qualities of independence

91

The argument implies that the Spirit was present, or even entered Jesus in the actual immersion. This would then reflect familiarity with the contemporary medieval (but also quite early) sacramental understanding of baptism, whereby after the baptism the newly baptized was christened with oil, which was understood as being anointed with and imparted with the Holy Spirit, e.g. in Peter Lombard’s Sententiae 4.7.3 (45). See also Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 247, 353–54, 426–27, 479–81, 531, 760–61, 786, 855; Peter Cramer, Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–1150 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life & Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 211–12; Bryan D. Spinks, Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 112–13, 121–23, 141; J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West (ACC 47; London: SPCK, 1965), 38–39, 54–57, 91–92; and Leonel L. Mitchell, Baptismal Anointing (ACC 48; London: SPCK, 1966).

188

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

and superiority as something “native” to the divine is also reflected in the following discussion of the temptation. 5. 4. 4 Jesus’ Temptation: Matt 4:1–11a (§162) In §162 Jesus’ temptation is recounted by citing Matt 4:1–11a.92 We are then presented with a familiar, but much more elaborate and sophisticated argument, parts of which were seen already in Milḥamot ha-Shem. Various significant expansions and additions are evident:93 Now why was he relating that he fasted forty days and forty nights? What sort of praise of God is it to say that he needs food and drink? Or do all of the angels of our God, who serve before him, need food or drink? Moreover, Moses, who was flesh and blood, was nourished by the glory of the divine presence (‫)משה שהיה בשר ודם היה ניזון מזיו שכינה‬94 forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water, and so was Elijah. And furthermore, the Jews were even unable to look upon the countenance of Moses until he placed a veil over his face because he had approached his Creator, but this one, who called himself God, how much more [ought it to be true] about him?95

The initial question, why Matthew relates the temptation story at all (‫כל כך‬ ‫)למה שהוא מספר שהיה צם‬, which already appears in Milḥamot ha-Shem, and the added question, how this would support the claim that Jesus is divine (‫ומה‬ ‫)שבח יש זה לאלהים שהוא צריך לאכילה‬, implies already from the start that even Matthew did not really think that Jesus was divine.96 With this, then, first the intention (and/or intelligence) of the gospel author is under scrutiny. Matthew’s allusion, which relates Jesus to Moses’ fast of forty days and forty nights (cf. Exod 34:28, Deut 9:9, 11, 18, 25; 10:10),97 is then turned

92 As in Milḥamot ha-Shem, the section quoted from Matthew stops after the first half of v. 11 omitting any mention of the angels, which might indicate that the argument is not based on the reading of the actual gospel text, but was received by the compiler of Nizzahon Vetus as part of the polemical tradition. The overall argument is, of course, more poignant without the latter part of v. 11. 93 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.4). Berger and Breuer (following Posnanski) also reference here Moses of Salerno’s Ta‘anot, cf. Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 314; and Breuer, Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan, 136–37. What is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem in the above argument is the question what achievement it is for a divine being to fast for forty days; the initial comparison to Moses; the question of why Jesus responded with citing Deut 8:3; and why Jesus, as God, was not able to “feed himself.” The question of how God would be in need of nourishment is added, and the comparison with Moses is much more elaborate. Further additions are the question why Jesus, if he was divine, ever would need physcial nourishment; why he did not make bread after all; and finally, the temptation in and of itself is made an issue, for how could Satan think he could tempt God? 94 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §162, 114 [Hebr. section]. 95 Ibid., §162, 177. 96 Alternatively it might imply that Matthew was not very sophisticated. 97 So already Irenaeus, Haer. 5.21.2; see also, Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 358.

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

189

around in Nizzahon Vetus. Where Matthew seeks to draw a parallel,98 the polemic emphazises the disparity between Jesus on the one side, and Moses, Elijah, and the angels on the other side: Jesus only fasts for forty days, but Moses fasts much longer.99 Whereas Moses, the angels, and Elijah were nourished by God himself (without mentioning that they were in any need), Jesus is said to be hungry (cf. also §181 and §193).100 After Moses spent time with God he was radiant, Jesus in comparison lacked divine radiance.101 The argument continues:

98

However, Matthew not only relates Jesus to Moses, he clearly portrays Jesus as somebody who greatly supersedes Moses. After all, Satan’s attacks are based on Jesus’ premise that Jesus is indeed “the Son of God” (εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, Mat 4:3,6), see Luz, Matthew 1– 7, 151, n. 32. Even if it is argued that this is not a claim to divinity or a divine title, at least it denotes Jesus’ superior identity over that of Moses (cf. Matt 3:17, 8:29, 16:16, 17:5, 21:37, 26:63). On the presence of Moses typology in Matthew see Allison, The New Moses, esp. 165–72, 267–70. He writes in his conclusion that Matthew “wrote a book in which Moses, while remaining normative, becomes a symbol for someone greater, a promise awaiting fulfilment, a book in which the exodus becomes history anticipating eschatology” (273), and “superiority to Moses is not argued. Rather it is simply assumed” (274). 99 Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §193 and Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 200. 100 The argument that Moses and the angels are nourished by the glory of God (‫ניזון מזיו‬ ‫ )שכינה‬is also mentioned in rabbinic midrash; see esp. Ira Chernus, Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982), 74–87 (“Nourished by the Splendor of the Shekinah”). Chernus notes that in an anonymous, perhaps late, midrash the term ‫ ניזון‬is also used, explicitly linking Moses to angels who are both nourished by God, cf. ibid., 85. In Nizzahon Vetus §181 the same issue of Jesus’ hunger and Moses’ divine nourishment is raised, there in a discussion of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:11–14). Cf. also Cels. 1.70. 101 Moses is not infrequently compared to Jesus in the writings of the New Testament (e.g. in Hebrews 1:1–3 and 3:1–6, John 1:17, 9:29 et al). In 2 Cor 3:7–18, the apostle Paul discusses the relationship of the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a similar type of dialectic comparison as encountered in Nizzahon Vetus. Paul emphasizes that Moses’ brilliance was fading (τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην, v. 7), whereas Jesus’ followers receive glory beyond glory (v. 18). For an in-depth analysis see Otfried Hofius, “Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther 3: Hartmut Gese zum 60. Geburtstag,” in Paulusstudien (2nd ed.; WUNT I/51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 75–120, esp. 86–107. Also, Jesus’ transfiguration account (Matt 17:2–3, Mark 9:3–4, Luke 9:29–30, 32), where Moses is depicted as conversing with a transfigured, radiant Jesus (in Matthew 17:2 it is in particular Jesus’ face that is said to be shining as the sun [τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος]), may have served as a counterpoint to show that Jesus is more “glorious” than Moses. On the transfiguration account as a comparison to Moses on Sinai see e.g. Bruce D. Chilton, “The Transfiguration Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” NTS 27 (1981): 115–24, esp. 121–23; and Jarl E. Fossum, “Ascensio, Metamorphosis: The ‘Transfiguration’ of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels,” in The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 71–94. This comparison and supersession is pushed to the extreme by A. D. A. Moses, Matthew’s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (JSNTSup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

190

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Also, why did he become hungry? If you say that it was “because of his flesh,” [and that] “the flesh could not fast forty days and forty nights if [had] not [been] for the Holy Spirit” (‫א״ת‬ ‫)מפני הבשר הבשר היאך יכול לצום מ׳ יום ומ׳ לילה כי אם מרוח קדש‬.102 Then, [if] it was the Holy Spirit who gave him the strength to fast forty days and forty nights; in that case, why did he not sustain him indefinitely (‫ )למה לא פירנסו כל הימים‬without food or drink and without hunger or thirst?

In response to the question why Jesus became hungry, implying that this would be unnecessary and impossible if Jesus were God, a Christian objection is addressed. If it was possible for Jesus to become hungry only in regard to his human nature, though he nevertheless needed to Spirit to sustain him during his long fast, why could he not have been (miraculously) sustained by the Spirit indefinitely (‫למה לא פירנסו כל הימים בלא אכילה ובלא שתייה ובלא‬ ‫?)רעב וצמא‬103 The argument shows, however, that the only acceptable mode of incarnation precludes the limitations of humanity: Jesus could perhaps be God if he did not exhibit the physical exigency of human nature. In other words, the Jewish position reflected in this argument does not deem it conceivable that God could actually become human, at most God could appear in human form. We then read: In addition, when Satan told him, “Since you are God, make these stones into bread and eat,” why did he reply that it is because, “man shall not live by bread alone?” This reply is flawed (‫)תשובה זו משובשת היא‬, for Satan could have answered him: “It is precisely because man does not live by bread alone but rather by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God that you should make bread out of these rocks, for man lives by what proceeds out of the mouth of God, wether [it comes] from trees [i.e. plant produce] or wether from the stones (‫)שהרי על מוצא פי ה׳ יהיה האדם בין מן העצים בין מן האבנים‬.” Moreover, why did Satan tempt him in all these ways? After all, everyone knows that Satan is an evil angel who knows both manifest and hidden things just as any other angel does, and if it had been true that Jesus was divine, why should Satan have troubled him so much, and not [rather] been afraid of him?104

These last two arguments use the actual temptation account in a more direct fashion to reject Jesus divinity. This is based 1) on account of Jesus’ answer, and 2) on account of Satan’s superior knowledge. If Jesus was truly divine, that is the Creator, there should have been no need for him to create food, but if that need should ever arise it should doubtlessly be possible for him. Thus, the argument takes Deut 8:3 to mean that the divine word sustains reality in some form. Jesus, as God, should consequently have been able to speak food into existence, even from something

102

Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 115 [Hebr. section]. It is perhaps possible that this argument was used by Christians in a debate, but it assumes that Christians believe that Jesus’ physical body needed to be sustained by the Holy Spirit (or perhaps the divine aspect of Jesus) in order to operate (in this case, fast 40 days). 104 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §162, 177. 103

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

191

inedible.105 Further, Satan as angel, i.e. as super-human entity, should have been aware that tempting God was an impossibility and an overall futile endeavor. This, however, misunderstands the temptation narrative in Matthew. The point of the pericope is that Satan attempts to coax Jesus into acting like no human could, and that precisely under the presupposition that Jesus is the “Son of God” (Matt 4:3, 6). It is not sensible to tempt an ordinary human to miraculously create bread out of stones. Thus, the temptation as presented in Matthew operates under the premise that Jesus as Son of God is somehow able to follow Satan’s suggestion.106 Instead, Jesus chose to only behave like a human, who has to depend on God. The “temptation” for Jesus, therefore, is to remain fully human. The objections raised in Nizzahon Vetus and other comparable treatises, ultimately, do not do justice to Matthew’s text. 5. 4. 5 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 8:20, 9:6, 20:28 (§188, §168, §215) As in Yosef ha-Meqanne,107 Matthew 8 and 9 provide the launchpad for several arguments, which in Nizzahon Vetus are found in §168, §172, and §188. In the latter two we encounter the by now familiar objection to Jesus sleeping in the boat (Matt 8:23–26): in §172, after a critique of Jesus’ reply to the petitioner who first wanted to bury his father before following Jesus (Matt 8:21–22), it is questioned how Jesus as God could sleep in the boat (‫אם אלהים‬ ‫)הוא היאך ישן‬.108 A few sections later, in §188, the same issue of Jesus’ sleep is raised again, though neatly structured and directed against the Trinity: You have said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one entity (‫אב ובן ורוח הקדש‬ ‫)אחד הוא‬.109 This might be granted [in regard to] the Father and the Holy Spirit, for neither one nor the other eats, sleeps, becomes fearful, or gets tired. But how is it ever possible for the Son to be like the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he ate, and slept, and grew tired, and was afraid? He grew tired, as it is written in their Torah, “And he came to Jacob’s well and was tired, and he asked the Samaritan woman for water” [John 4:5–7]. He was afraid, as it is written, “My Lord, my Lord, why have you forsaken me” [Matt 27:46]? He slept, as it is written in a passage which I have already discussed, “The wind came accross the sea, yet Jesus was asleep. His disciples came and awoke him” [Matt 8:24–25].110

105

See also Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 314. This would suggest that Matthew saw Jesus either as a human with “divine powers” (who could turn stones into bread), or as a divine being that experienced hunger. 107 Cf. Yosef ha-Meqanne §7 and §§25–28 (see 4.5.6–9, 15); also Qiṣṣa/Nestor §84, §89 and §91. 108 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §172, 183; 121 [Hebr. section]; cf. Yosef haMeqanne §29 (see 4.5.5). 109 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §188, 131 [Hebr. section]. 110 Modified from ibid., §188, 193. 106

192

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

The passage is very similar to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne111 and Qiṣṣa/Nestor,112 and follows the same line of argumentation, but appears in a more structured form here. However, Matthew 8 and 9 are also used to advance another argument against the divinity of Jesus, which is Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man,” and again this is parallel to Yosef ha-Meqanne.113 In §168, three verses from Matthew (Matt 9:6, 8:20, and 20:28) are used to demonstrate that the term “Son of Man” (‫ )בן אדם‬is to be understood as an indicator of his exclusively human identity. The first two verse, Matt 9:6 and 8:20, are followed by Num 23:19, Psalm 146:3, Psalm 116:11, and Jeremiah 17:5, which are cited to demonstrate that God is not a man, nor a “Son of Man.” This then is commented on: Indeed, all these passages are [applicable] to Jesus, who was named “Son of Man,” just as they indicated in the gospels where in every place possible he himself called himself “Son of Man” — filii homo (‫)פילי הומא‬.114 In fact, he lied and relented (‫)והוא כזב ושיקר וניחם‬, as it is written in their Gospels how Jesus beseeched [God] and said: “My father, you can do everything; take away this cup from me; nevertheless, let it not be as I desire, but as you desire” [Mark 14:36, par. Matt 26:39]. If he was God, then he lied, for who is able to cancel out his will? [In this] he also relented (‫)וניחם‬, inasmuch he came for the reason of undergoing sufferings, as it is written in the gospels, “The son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” [Matt 20:28]; afterwards, however, he said, “Take away this cup from me” [Matt 26:39], and so it is clear that he relented (‫)הרי שניחם‬.115

This paragraph sets out two goals: to show that Jesus lied, i.e. to demonstrate that he is inconsistent, and that he relented or changed his mind (‫והוא כזב‬ ‫)ושיקר וניחם‬. Both are seen to stand in contrast to the nature of God. The additional reference to the scene in Gethsemane (Matt 26:39) reinforces that Jesus, as God, would have exhibited a change of mind (‫)ניחם‬, but also that this change of mind would effectively belie the purpose of undergoing suffering according to Matt 20:28. This then weaves together several strands of argumentations against the divinity of Jesus, which nevertheless give somewhat of

111 See Yosef ha-Meqanne §38 (see 4.5.21). Notice esp. the use of the Talmudic discourse terminology in Nizzahon Vetus, ‫( בשלמא…היכי משכחת לה‬cf. b. Rosh HaShana 6b), which is not in Yosef ha-Meqanne, but appears in MS Rome (A1), f. 17r, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 130. See the respective entries in Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud — The Steinsaltz Edition: A Reference Guide (New York: Random House, 1989), 107, 113. The argument also occurs in the anthology related to Ta‘anot, see Berger, 321, and Breuer, Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan, §250, 169. 112 See Qiṣṣa/Nestor §45 (see 2.5.1.2). 113 Cf. Yosef ha-Meqanne §§25–29. The topoi and the sequence of arguments and quotations are very similar; cf. also MS Rome (A1), ff. 13v–14r, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism,” 125; and Qiṣṣa/Nestor (see 2.5.1.1); see also Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 316. 114 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §168, 118 [Hebr. section]. 115 Modified from ibid., §168, 180–181; cf. Horbury, “The Basle Nizzahon,” 509 [256].

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

193

a convoluted and superficial impression.116 Still, the overall implication is that this is not congruent with what is believed about God, for God does not lie or change his mind. Two related questions follow: Moreover, if he performed this sign to make known his power and strength, (when he healed the demon possessed), why did he say: “in order that you may know that the ‘Son of Man’ rules on the earth?”[Matt 9:6]? He should have said to him “God rules on earth.” Moreover, if he was God, why did he answer that scribe with a lie, when he said to him that “he had no ground where he could lay his head” [Matt 8:20]? Is it not written, “The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine” [Lev 25:23]. And it is also written, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” [Psalm 24:1]. In fact he himself told them elsewhere, “I was given dominion in heaven and in earth” [Matt 28:18].117

Again, Matt 9:6 and Matt 8:20 are used to buttress the argument that “Son of Man” has to be understood as a reference to Jesus’ humanity. This then lies within the already observed trajectory of earlier polemic and does not advance any different arguments (which is a common observation for many parts of Nizzahon Vetus). In similar manner also Mark 14:41 (par. Matt 26:45), which is parallel to Qiṣṣa/Nestor §39,118 is used in Nizzahon Vetus to show that Jesus was only a man: Here, this is how one can prove to the heretics that Jesus the Nazarene was really (only) a human and not God (‫)ישו הנוצרי היה בן אדם ממש ולא אלוה‬,119 for it is written in the gospels that Jesus said to his disciples, “The hour now nears when the son of man will be betrayed into the hand of sinners” [Mark 14:41].120

These passages then show that the term “Son of Man” in Nizzahon Vetus is not only understood literally, but that these verses were most likely selected and cited to underline that Jesus used this term in situations where his human characteristics are evident: in Matt 20:28 as someone who serves; in Matt 8:20 as someone who is poor; and in Mark 14:41 (par. Matt 26:45) as someone who is betrayed in the hands of humans. Again, this not different from previous polemic works, and is as such only a recapitulation. 5. 4. 6 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Matt 11:25–30 (§170) Jesus’ prayer in Matt 11:25–30 is used in Nizzahon Vetus similar to earlier arguments, though it is interpreted in a different direction: 116 The arguments clearly were “received” and taken from earlier sources as the parallels in MS Rome and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne suggest. 117 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §168, 181. 118 See 2.5.1.1. 119 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §215, 146 [Hebr. section]. 120 Modified from ibid., §215, 209.

194

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Now, did he have to say. “I give thanks before you”? If he was God, what sort of thanks must he give (‫?)אם אלהים הוא מה הודאה צריך לו‬121 Is not everything that is hidden from all the world known to him, yet he says, “I give thanks before you …”122

On the same passage Jacob ben Reuben has already based a rather formidable attack on the Trinity.123 Though the argument here is still based on God’s omniscience, it is not an attack on the Trinity; the target is clearly Jesus’ divinity. In Milḥamot ha-Shem, Jesus’ prayer is understood as confession (‫איך‬ ‫)היה מתודה לפני אביו… נמצא זה מעיד עדות שקר‬, here it is taken as a thanksgiving prayer to God. It is as such questioned how Jesus, if he were God, would need to thank God (‫)אם אלהים הוא מה הודאה צריך לו‬. God does not need to receive anything, much less has to be grateful to someone for giving something. Jesus, in contrast, is thankful to the Father. As God, however, he should not be in a position where he needs to receive any revelation at all as all things are known to God. This argument, then, is a variation on what is found in Milḥamot ha-Shem. 5. 4. 7 Blasphemy against the Spirit: Luke 12:10, par. Matt 12:31–31 (§223) The passage on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which was seen in most of the texts surveyed so far, is also appropriated in Nizzahon Vetus, albeit with a polemical twist, and based on Luke: It is written for them in the book of Lucas in the gospels: “Whoever sins against the father will find forgiveness, and [whoever sins] against the son will find forgiveness, but [whoever sins] against the Impure Spirit (‫)רוח הטומאה‬124 will not find forgiveness, not in this world or in the world to come” [Luke 12:10]. But if the three of them are one, why should not the person who sinned against the impure spirit (‫ )רוח הטומאה‬find forgiveness?125

It is evident that Nizzahon Vetus merely abbreviates this argument, which is already known from Milḥamot ha-Shem and Yosef ha-Meqanne.126 That the Holy Spirit becomes the “Impure Spirit” (‫)רוח הטומאה‬127 is of course polemic, and shows that the compiler does not shrink from using more derogatory terms.128 Nevertheless, the argument remains essentially the same, 121

Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §170, 119 [Hebr. section]. Modified from ibid., §170, 182. 123 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.5). 124 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §223, 150 [Hebr. section]. 125 Modified from ibid., §223, 215. 126 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.9) and Yosef ha-Meqanne §9 and §41 (see 4.5.13– 4.5.14). The argument also occurs in MS Rome (A1), f. 19v, see Rosenthal, “Jewish Criticism”, 135, there, however, in a discussion where the Christian is said to raise the issue of sin against the Holy Spirit (‫ )רוח הקודש‬quoting Luke in Latin. 127 In Yosef ha-Meqanne §30 the term “Impure Spirit” (‫ )רוח הטומאה‬is likewise used (see 4.5.22). 128 In an earlier argument Peter is, e.g., called a donkey (‫)פיטר חמור‬. This is a pun based 122

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

195

that is, that there must be a disparity within the Trinity. Thus Luke 12:10 (par. Matt 12:31–32) would appear to conflict with Christian doctrine, i.e. the belief in the Trinity. 5. 4. 8 Jesus’ Statements of Being Sent: Matt 13:57, 12:18 (§207) Jesus’ sending statements were already used in Qiṣṣa/Nestor to argue against the divinity of Jesus.129 In Nizzahon Vetus a very similar discussion is encountered in §207, asserting among other things that Jesus is a prophet and messenger: It is written in the book of Simon ben Cepha, i.e., Peter, that Jesus told Peter the ass: “Satan is engaged in seeking to kill you, but I, Jesus, shall petition from God that he would refrain from shortening your days” [cf. Luke 22:31–32]. Now, if he himself were God why should he have had to petition others for Peter? Moreover, he himself did not call himself God, but only ‘prophet,’ or ‘servant,’ or ‘his messenger.’130

Each of the latter three identifications of Jesus are then supported by a New Testament passages. To show that Jesus understood himself as prophet a paraphrase of Matt 13:57 is quoted: Thus, he testifies about himself that he is a prophet and not a god, for he clearly said, “A prophet is not held in contempt save in his own counry” [Matt 13:57].131

John 12:49 is cited to show that Jesus was a messenger, followed by Matt 12:18 which is meant to demonstrate that Jesus was simply a servant: Moreover, in the third book of Matthaeus he testified about himself that he was born from the womb, [just] like all men, and that he is the servant of God, as Isaiah said, “Behold my ser-

on Exodus 13:13 (‫)פטר חמור‬, see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 302, but it could also refer to b. Šabb. 116a; see also 5.4.8 below. We find the same also in §197: “It is written for them that Jesus said to Peter the ass, ‘Peter, amongst us is one, who will betray me this night, and I will be captured and brought to judgment’ [cf. Matt 26:21]. Peter then said to him, ‘Since you know the future, you must be God; why, then, did you not tell me [this] until now?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Tell no man that I am God [cf. Matt 16:20], for from the time that I have abandoned the Torah of my native land, I have rebelled against my Creator and against his Torah,’ modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §197, 201. Of course, the argument has more the character of a parody and is only very loosely based on Matt 16:20–21 and 26:21. The argument certainly would not have been effective in an actual debate or dialogue with Christians, in particular high clergy. It is interesting, though, that the conviction that Jesus disobeyed Torah and rebelled against his Creator (‫ )מריתי נגד בוראי‬is put into the mouth of Jesus himself; which is incongruent with the discussions of Matt 5:17–19 in Nizzahon Vetus which argues the opposite (cf. §71, §157, §158). 129 See 2.5.1.6. 130 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §207, 204. 131 Modified from ibid., §207, 204. The same passage is mentioned §167; however, there the fact that Jesus had siblings is discussed.

196

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

vant, I shall support him” [Matt 12:18, Isaiah 42:1]. All this is explained above in its proper place in Isaiah.132

It is as such argued that Jesus as prophet, messenger, and servant, cannot be understood as God, which occurs in similar form in Qiṣṣa/Nestor.133 Moreover, Jesus himself (‫)עצמו‬, which is repeatedly stressed, declared that he is a prophet, messenger, and a servant.134 The argument is quite clear: God is not a prophet, he sends prophets; God is not a messenger, he sends messengers; God is not a servant, he is served. Jesus consequently understood himself as God’s agent, but not as God himself. Thus, Jesus’ self-understanding contradicts Christian belief.135 5. 4. 9 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Mk 10:17–21, Mt 19:16–21 (§184) The the so-called “Rich Young Ruler” pericope, is used in Nizzahon Vetus, in contrast to previously surveyed sources, only to emphasize that Jesus endorsed Torah, that is, at least in Wagenseil’s manuscript.136 However, this is not how Qiṣṣa/Nestor and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne have appropriated this passage from Matthew, since they employed this story in order to demonstrate that Jesus did not consider himself divine.137 In Nizzahon Vetus, after quoting Mark 10:17–21 we simply read:

132 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §207, 205. A discussion of Isaiah 42:1 to which the reader is referred to in the text is not found in Nizzahon Vetus, at least as it is available today. This might indicate that the argument was cropped from another source that contained such an argument, or it might suggest that Nizzahon Vetus was originally longer. In fact, the whole argument would appear to be derived from Qiṣṣa/Nestor, in particular on account of the reference to the “third book of Matthew,” which is reminiscent of Qiṣṣa/ Nestor §57 (see esp. Qiṣṣa). Moreover, a discussion of Isaiah 42 actually follows in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor §58, all which might demonstrate that Nizzahon Vetus is indebted to Qiṣṣa/Nestor, that is, at least in this particular argument. 133 In Milḥamot ha-Shem we also find a terse recapitulation of Nestor §55 and §57, cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 54–55, 78. 134 See the discussion in 2.4, and cf. the parallels in Qiṣṣa/Nestor (see 2.5.1.6). 135 The question of Jesus’ self-understanding, especially in relation to how he uses the term “Son of Man,” in regard to later doctrinal formulations has been a contended issue in recent New Testament studies. On this see, e.g., James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 612–762; also N. T. Wright, “Jesus’ Self-Understanding,” in The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God (ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 47–61; but cf. Sigurd Grindheim, God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? (LNTS 446; London: T&T Clark, 2011). 136 Cf. also Nizzahon Vetus §172 (see 5.4.5). 137 Cf. the respective argument in Qiṣṣa/Nestor §51 (see 2.5.1.4) and Yosef ha-Meqanne §33 (see 4.5.16).

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

197

Now, he did not say: “Go and be baptized.” Rather, he commanded him to observe the ancient commandments, and [it was] on [the basis of] those commandments [that] he promised him life in the world to come.138

MS Rome, as Berger notes in his critical annotations, raises the question why Jesus replied, “Why do you call me good?”139 This element is, however, missing in Wagenseil’s text.140 If parallel texts like Yosef ha-Meqanne, especially MS Rome, and older texts as Nestor contain this argument, why would Nizzahon Vetus which otherwise collated so many arguments not raise this point, especially after quoting the whole New Testament passage? It is therefore conceivable that Wagenseil found the argument too potent and redacted it from his manuscript.141 5. 4. 10 Cursing the Fig Tree: Mark 11:11–14a, par. Matt 21:17–19a (§181) After recounting the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11:11–14a an intricate argument in the form of an imaginary dialogue is presented which anticipates possible replies from the Christian party: And why was he hungry? You may say that it is because of his flesh (‫)מפני הבשר‬,142 but have we not seen that Moses, may he rest in peace, who was flesh and blood, fasted forty days and forty nights because he had drawn near to the Shekinah? Why then did this one of whom you say that he himself was God experience hunger in his flesh? You may then say that the spirit was hungry, but how could that be true, since the spirit does not eat anything? Moreover, [the fact] that Jesus went to see if there were any figs on the fig tree — did he not know from the place from which he saw the tree whether there were figs or not? You may say that he said this in respect to his flesh (‫)כנגד הבשר דבר זה‬,143 however, does the flesh think or know anything? Does not the whole world know that it is not the flesh which knows or understands anything, but [only] the spirit? Consequently, I am amazed at this (‫;)בזאת אני מתמיה‬ if he was God and the spirit of God was in him (‫)אם הוא אלהים ורוח אלהים בו‬, why did he not know from that place that there was no fruit there? Moreover, even if he did not find any fruit, why did he curse the tree?144

Three seperate points are discussed: 1) Jesus’ hunger, 2) his ignorance about the absence of fruit, and 3) the fact that he cursed the tree. While these arguments are not new, there is still a significant expansion of what is present in Milḥamot ha-Shem:145 first, Moses is compared to Jesus: since Moses was not 138

Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §184, 191. Ibid., §184, 129, n. 432 [Hebr. section]: “Now, he himself established on the basis of this [reply] that that he is not God” (‫)עתה שהוציא עצמו מן הכלל שלא היה אלוה‬. 140 Cf. Tela Ignea Satanae (1681), 221. 141 Berger has noted that Wagenseil modified some of Nizzahon Vetus’s “harsh-anti Christian” expressions, see Jewish-Christian Debate, 373. 142 Ibid., §181, 126 [Hebr. section]. 143 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §181, 127 [Hebr. section]. 144 Modified from ibid., §181, 189. 145 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.7). 139

198

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

hungry after 40 days (because he was nourished by the Shekinah),146 he is superior to Jesus. Jesus, on the other hand, was hungry after 40 days, which demonstrates he did not draw near to the Shekinah, and also implies that he is not divine. Then, a distinction is made between Jesus’ flesh (‫ )בשר‬and his spirit (‫)רוח‬, which is carried over into the next segment, where Jesus’ ignorance is discussed. Accordingly, if Jesus were God, specifically on account of the Spirit in him, he should have known that the tree had no fruit. Since he did not know about the absence of fruit, he was not omnipotent and consequently not divine.147 The distinction between flesh and spirit here is mostly anthropological (and not christological), that is, the flesh is understood as mindless matter, whereas the spirit is understood as the mind or center of the human person. The argument operates thus under the premise that Jesus’ divinity is located in or is equal to his spirit, which again is more similar to an Apollinarian or logos-sarx understanding of Christology, and was already seen in Yosef ha-Meqanne. That Christians somehow distinguish Jesus’ humanity and divinity is thus recognized, but also misrepresented. The argument continues and juxtaposes Luke 6:27–89 arguing that Jesus’ harsh treatment of the tree is not in line with his own dictum of love, just as it is argued in Milḥamot haShem (see 3.4.7). 5. 4. 11 Jesus’ Ignorance: Mk 13:24–34a, par. Mt 24:29–33, 36 (§177, §194) After quoting Mark 13:24–34a (par. Matt 24:29–33, 36) we find the following argument: Now, it surprises me very much that he said that the Son does not know the day and hour he will come. If he is like his father, who is able to hide any word or any deed from him? Moreover, he himself would be coming without his own knowledge; it is thus obvious that he lacked his father’s knowledge. It is written for them in Marcus that when his students asked him when the end would be, he answered that it is hidden from the angels and from the Son, but the Father and the Holy Spirit know [cf. Mark 13:32]. If, according to your words, they are all equal both in power and knowledge (‫)ואם כדבריכם שכולם שוים הם הן בכוח הן בדעת‬,148 why is something hidden from one which is known to the others (‫ ?)חבירו‬It must be because the Son is not as “old” as [the] Father (‫)שאין הבן קדם כמו אב‬.149

146

See the discussion under 5.4.4. Already Ephrem knew this argument (see 3.4.7). 148 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §177, 125 [Hebr. section]. 149 Modified from ibid., §177, 187. Berger translates ‫ אלא מפני שאין הבן קדם כמו אב‬as: “It must be because the son is not preexistent like the father” (emphasis mine). This seems a bit too bold of a translation as it introduces Christ’s pre-incarnate ontological existence into the discussion which so far has not been part of the debate (though ‫קדם‬, “before,” could be translated this way). It also would imply that Jesus’ pre-existence somehow became an issue that was considered by Jewish polemicists. 147

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

199

The New Testament passage comes (again) as a surprise to the author,150 specifically that Jesus is depicted as someone with limited knowledge. Since Jesus apparently “lacked his father’s knowledge,” he subsequently ought not to be understood as equal to God, which both puts into question Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity. The last line, “the son is not as ‘old’ as [the] Father” (‫אין‬ ‫ )הבן קדם כמו אב‬is rather intriguing, as it effectively supplies a reason for Jesus’ ignorance that undermines the Trinity, and perhaps might be a faint critique of Jesus’ pre-existence. In other words, Jesus did not know the particular day because it was determined before Jesus existed. The rest of the argument is similar to what was already encountered Qiṣṣa/ Nestor §39,151 here in Nizzahon Vetus §177 the argument is, however, more developed. Nevertheless, in Nizzahon Vetus §194 the exact argument of Qiṣṣa/Nestor is given: Now, here is [another] answer: It is written for them in the fifth book of the book of Marcus that Jesus’disciples asked him about the day of the resurrection, when that day would be. Jesus answered them, “Nobody in all creation knows that day or hour, not the angels above nor any man, but God alone” [Mark 13:4, 32]; he thus excluded himself from the divine (‫)והוציא את עצמו מן האלוהות‬.152

The last line, “thus he excluded himself from the divine” (‫והוציא את עצמו מן‬ ‫)האלוהות‬, is the inversion of the last line of Qiṣṣa §39 (which is not in Nestor): “Were he a God, he would not have presented himself as a ‘son of man.’”153 5. 4. 12 Jesus in Gethsemane: Mark 14:32–42, par. Matt 26:36–46 (§176) Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane is also in Nizzahon Vetus an important key text. After quoting Mark 14:32–34 we read:154 Now, to whom was Jesus praying? And for [what] was he in need of prayer and supplication? Is it not written, “He speaks and carries out; he decrees and fulfills” [Job 22:28]? Yet, it says

150

A similar comment is made in Nizzahon Vetus §181 (see 5.4.10). See 2.5.1.1. 152 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §194, 200 and 138–39 [Hebr. section]. 153 Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:60, 2:38. 154 The quotation is a conflation of Mark 14:32–42 and Matthew 26:36–46, and is more elaborate in Nizzahon Vetus than in Milḥamot ha-Shem. In Nizzahon Vetus Peter is also called Simon Cephas, which also occurs in Qiṣṣa/Nestor §141. Matt 26:39 is also quoted in Latin in Nizzahon Vetus §168, but Berger beliefs this particular passage is a gloss, see Jewish-Christian Debate, 316 (presumably because it is not found in MS Rome and Ta‘anot). Interestingly, the argument assumes that Jesus prayed this after he was crucified, cf. Berger, 180. It might be a coincidence, but in Justin Martyr’s Dial. 99 the Gethsemane passage is discussed after Jesus’ cry on the cross. 151

200

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

he began to be fearful and to tremble (‫)התחיל להתפחד ולהחרד‬155 and that he told his disciples, “My soul is sorrowful unto death (‫)עציבה נפשי עד מות‬.” You may argue that he is referring to the flesh, which was fearful, but it says, “My soul is sorrowful.” Moreover, in every place you say that this matter refers to the flesh (‫)דבר זה נגד הבשר‬, but is it really possible to say that? The whole world knows, after all, that the flesh does not speak [by itself] or knows anything at all; it would be like a stone, if it was not for the impetus of the spirit (‫)מכח הרוח‬. Furthermore, Jesus prayed that his father remove this cup from him; in effect, then, he was saying (‫)כלומר‬, “You can remove it from me, but not I.” He also said, “Let it not be as I will, but as you will.” If so, then the wills are not equal, and if they have two wills, it is established that Jesus is not God. You also say in every place that Jesus accepted all these troubles willingly in order to redeem his sons (i.e. followers). Now, if that was his desire, then why these supplications? [On the other hand,] if he did not wish to accept all this, why did he not save his body? In fact, he told them, “The spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak” (‫הרוח קיים אבל הבשר‬ ‫)חלש‬.156 It is written for them: “Jesus said when he was crucified: ‘My soul is as loathing [even] to death, and the flesh is indignant and agitated’ (‫כאיבה נפשי עד מות והבשר רוגזת‬ ‫[ ”)ורוגשת‬cf. Mark 14:34].157

The above section contains several sophisticated points which are or the most part similar to the respective parallel section (source) in Milḥamot ha-Shem:158 1) Jesus’ prayer in and of itself indicates that he was lesser than God,159 2) Jesus’ divine or spiritual nature (spirit) ought to have controlled his humanity (flesh), nevertheless, Jesus is depicted here as weak and fearful,160 3) Jesus’ will and the Father’s will have to be seen as two seperate and independent wills (thus Jesus cannot be God),161 4) Jesus’ prayer contradicts the idea that Jesus really intended to bring about salvation, and 5) Jesus was not able to save himself.162 Then, the argument becomes again more anthropological and expands on Milḥamot ha-Shem:

155

Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §176, 123 [Hebr. section]. Ibid., §176, 124 [Hebr. section]. 157 Ibid., §176, 185–86. 158 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6) and Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 and §10 (see 4.5.19–20). 159 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§139–141. The same idea appears in a discussion of Psalm 31:6 (Luke 23:46) in Nizzahon Vetus §148: “You may then argue that he prayed and cried not because he wanted to be saved but because people normally pray when they are in trouble; thus, he too prayed because he behaved like an ordinary mortal in every respect” (‫דרך בני‬ ‫גם הוא כמו כן לפי שבכל דרכיו היה נוהג כדרך כל הארץ‬...‫)האדם‬, see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate, §148, 157 [Hebr. section]. 160 This is less aggressively argued here than in Milḥamot ha-Shem, cf. the subsequent points and Qiṣṣa/Nestor §108. 161 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53. Berger notes that this argument occurs also in Milḥemet Miṣvah (MS Parma, f. 91a), Jewish-Christian Debate, 319. 162 This argument already occurs already in the gospels, cf. Matt 27:42–43, Mark 15:31, and Luke 23:35. 156

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

201

Now, tell me who [in a person] wills and who desires? Obviously the soul! They call that desire ratio in Latin, and no one can be without these three things: body, soul and ratio; and it is from the soul that ratio proceeds forth. How, then did Jesus say, “Let it not be as I will, but as you will”? Did that soul not come from the father, and did his father [in the end] not desire [for him to drink] that cup? Do not dismiss me by saying that he was speaking [thus] on account of the flesh (‫)כנגד הבשר דיבר‬,163 because the flesh does not know [what is] good if it were not for the spirit. And if you still dimiss me by saying that he was speaking [thus] on account of the flesh, since the flesh is [naturally] fearful, and that it is impossible to not act according to its [natural] manner, and that the [natural] manner of the flesh is to have thoughts of women, to sleep, to hunger — then how could the flesh ever fast forty days and forty nights? And if you should say that no [impure] thought took control in him because of the Holy Spirit within that flesh, then if so, why did that same spirit not have the power to save the flesh from fear and hunger? Nevertheless, we know that he was fearful, hungry, and sorrowful, for he clearly said, “My soul is sorrowful.” It is not written “my flesh,” but rather “my soul!”164

The Gethsemane pericope in Nizzahon Vetus, like in Milḥamot ha-Shem before, is used as a major New Testament passage to argue against Christianity, in particular against Jesus’ divinity. The critique already voiced in the discussion of Jesus’ temptation and the cursing of the fig tree resurfaces here and is fused into a more wide-ranging anthropologic-christological argument. The objections to Jesus’ divinity thus become more universal and less sporadic, and encompass several accounts in the gospels. The basis of the argument is again the anthropological makeup of Jesus, where Jesus’ spirit is understood to be the divine element that has to be fully aligned with God, both in terms of will and power.165 The expectation is that, if Jesus were divine and endowed with the divine spirit, this should not result in the kind of Jesus seen in Gethsemane or in any of the other gospel narratives. Specifically the expression of Jesus’ will is an issue, and in this, the Jewish point of view is comparable with that of the proponents of Monotheletism. Jesus, as is argued here, ought to have one will, which is exercised by the spirit or soul, viz. his divine nature, nevertheless Jesus’ will is seen to be contrary to the will of God (as understood by Christians). This disparity consequently reveals that Jesus was not divine.166 Because this argument is similar to Monotheletism, it probably would not impress Christian opponents, since the doctrine of the two-natures of Christ as defined by Dyothelitism addressed this issue.167 163

Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §176, 124 [Hebr. section]. Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §176, 186. 165 This particular understanding was already encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6), Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 (see 4.5.19), and earlier in Nizzahon Vetus (see 5.4.4 and 5.4.10). 166 Cf. this to a similar Muslim argument in Thomas, Early Muslim Polemic Against Christianity, 203–17. 167 In the definition the Sixth Ecumenical Council/Constantinople III (680–681) it is remarked: “We likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations 164

202

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

Dyothelitism precisely attempts to avoid the conclusion that the Jewish polemicist is aiming at, though the Jewish argument is really more Apollinarian in nature. Still, the Jewish argument traces an issue that was taken up and discussed within Christendom much earlier, though certainly not for the same theological considerations that lead to the debate over Dyothelitism. Lastly, and again similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem, Jesus is compared to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who, unlike Jesus, fearlessly faced their ordeal in the furnace: And therefore, I am amazed (‫)נפלאת לי‬168 since we see Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were human beings and were thrown into a burning furnance, which is [by no means] an easier death than that [of Jesus], that they were neither fearful nor sorrowful, nor were they harmed at all; not in the flesh and not in the soul — not even their clothing [was affected], as it is written, “… upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of their head singed, neither were their garments changed, nor had the smell of fire been passed on them” [Dan. 3:27]. But as for him, he did not save his soul and body, not even from fear. If you say that this was in accordance with his will and desire, if so, then why these supplications?169

The last line argues that Jesus’ prayer indicates that his crucifixion was not according to his will. The further fact that Jesus did not save himself shows that he did not have the power to alter his situation, and that his will is consequently not God’s will since God did not acquiesce to his request. This, of course, has not only ramifications for the claim that Jesus is divine, but it also for soteriology. 5. 4. 13 Jesus on the Cross: Mk 15:33–34, par. Mt 27:45–46 (§178, §145) The next argument to be considered is related to above distinction between God’s and Jesus’ will, now based on Jesus’ prayer on the cross: It is written for them: “And in the sixth hour the world was darkened until the ninth hour and at the ninth hour he cried out, ‘My Lord, my Lord, why have you forsaken me?’” [Mark 15:33–34]? If he was God, why did he cry out that way? Were not all the tribulations that came upon him in out of his [own] will and according to what he considered right, since he accepted everything with love, and [consequently] all these things happened to him according to his will?170

indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will” (NPNF2 14:345); emphasis mine. 168 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §176, 124 [Hebr. section]. 169 Modified from ibid., §176, 186–87. Berger notes that the reference to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah also occurs in Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣvah (MS Parma, f. 127b), idem, 319. 170 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §178, 187–88.

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

203

This argument links back to Gethsemane and the Christian conviction that the incarnation and suffering of Jesus was part of the purpose of Jesus’ coming. The fact that God presumably forsook Jesus is not an issue here, but that Jesus expressed his desperation, which is seen contrary to his mission and plan. Accordingly, Jesus’ prayer conveys a discrepancy between Jesus on the one side, and the assertion that Jesus as God had come to suffer death for the purpose of saving mankind. Jesus’ prayer on the cross is also appropriated in a lengthy discussion of Psalm 22 in Nizzahon Vetus §145, which is also similar to Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§53–54: [According to] the heretics’ interpretation Jesus said this psalm at the time of his hanging. In their books [it says], “My God, my God, remember me; why have you forsaken me?” and it is also written likewise in the books of the heretics: “My God, my God, look at me. Why have you forsaken me? The words of my transgression are far from my salvation.” You see then that Jesus himself admits that he is a sinner, and so how can you say he is a God?171

Here Jesus’ outcry is understood as expressing his sinfulness.172 The passage goes on and further argues that Jesus could not have been righteous because God forsook him (in contrast to Psalm 37:25): We see also that Jesus was complaining that God forsook him (‫גם נמצא שישו היה מתלונן על‬ ‫;)מה שעזבו אלהים‬173 consequently, he could not have been a righteous man, for thus Ecclesiastes said, “I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging for bread” [Psalm 37:25].

Then, the issue of Jesus’ relenting is also emphasized (cf. 5.4.5): Ask the heretics who are saying that Jesus came to redeem the world by his death, why he cried out for help. Did he forget why he came to the world, or did he change his mind and regret his descision when he experienced tribulations (‫וכי שכח למה בא לעולם או אם‬ ‫?)כשהרגיש הצרות ניחם ונתחרט‬

A Christian interpretation of the passage, which understands the dual appellation as an indicator of the Trinity, is also recalled:

171 Modified from Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §145, 150. The text seems to be based on the Vulgate of Psalm 22 (21). The “books of the heretics” (‫ )ספרי המינים‬appears to refer to the Septuagint or Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Bible. 172 This is obviously very different from how Matt 27:46 was interpreted by Christians, see Luz, Matthew 21–28, 545–51, though this passage was also difficult for the early church interpreters. Origen et al interpreted Jesus’ cry soteriologically as referring to the sin Jesus assumed on behalf of those he came for, ibid., 545–46. See also, Georges Jouassard, “L’abandon du Christ d’après saint Augustin,” RSPT 13 (1923): 310–26; idem, “L’abandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition Greque des IV et V siècles,” RevScRel 5 (1925): 609–33. 173 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §145, 94 [Hebr. section].

204

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The heretics say [that he addressed] two powers (‫)שתי רשויות‬174 — the Father and the Spirit — and that is why he cried out, “My God, my God” when he was hanged, as he explained beforehand. If so, then he was a wicked man since he was forsaken (‫)א״כ רשע היה כיון שנעזב‬.

A a little further on in the discussion of Psalm 22, we then find an interesting paragraph, which ties back into the “anthropological argument:” How can you say that Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” After all, it says in the Gospels that the spirit came from heaven, entered Mary, and took on flesh (‫רוח‬ ‫)בא מן השמים ונכנס בחריא ולקח לו בשר‬.175According to this, when God left that body what speech or spirit would remain within it? If, however, you will say that Jesus had a body and a soul like ordinary men and also divinity [in addition] (‫)וגם אלוהות היתה בו‬, then why should the divinity have had to enter Mary in the filthy place? The spirit could simply have entered him after his birth. If it is true that it entered after his birth, then a similar phenomenon is found among other men as well such as Moses, Elijah and other prophets. Similarly, it says with regard to David, “Do not take your holy spirit from me” [Psalm 51:13]. Now should we say that they were divine because they possessed the holy spirit? If you then say that you affirm Jesus’ divinity because of the public miracles he performed, the we may point out that Moses also performed many miracles…176

What becomes evident in this passage is that the Jewish debater (at least in this argument) recognizes three potential paradigms for Jesus, though all of them, and in particular the “genuine Christian” paradigm, are subsequently rejected for Jesus. The first was already observed in several instances. In this “Apollinarian view” (or logos-sarx view) Jesus is understood as a human body enlivened by the divine spirit, and incarnation is understood as a divine spirit becoming “enfleshed” (‫ )לקח לו בשר‬in the womb of Mary.177 When the divine spirit left, 174

A similar reference to the “two powers” is already in Nizzahon Vetus §142, where it is argued that “Jesus himself is responsible for the disbelief in him since no one saw him ascend from earth to heaven [that is, from the tomb]… Indeed all of these verses would have to be explained in reference to two powers (‫)שתי רשויות‬, since the body most certainly did not escape the curse of Adam,” see Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 146, and 91 [Hebr. section]. Berger relates this passage to a similar discussion in Milḥemet Miṣvah, idem, 298. Cf. also Yosef ha-Meqanne §41 (see 4.5.14). 175 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §145, 95 [Hebr. section]. 176 Modified from ibid., §145, 151, Cf. the discussion of Jesus’ baptism in §§160–161 (see 5.4.3), and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.3). 177 Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §188: “Furthermore, with regard to all things he did and said which are inappropriate for God, you immediately put me off and try to say that he said this in accordance with the flesh. If so, then the flesh and the holy spirit are not one thing,” Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 194. Here the Christian distinction between Jesus’ divine and human nature is also understood anthropologically as relating to Jesus’ spirit and the flesh. The subsequent discussion in §188 then argues that the spirit and flesh act together, and cannot be considered separately, which is done by means of a parable of a blind man (flesh) which is carried by a lame man (spirit), who collude to steal fruit. One could not say only one

5.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

205

as Jesus’ words on the cross are interpreted, Jesus should only have been a lifeless shell.178 Since this was not the case, Jesus was merely human — so the implication. The Christian response to this is then tackled: Jesus’ divinity is something that is additional to his human nature (‫)וגם אלוהות היתה בו‬, which is a rare recognition of the more orthodox Christian understanding. However, this paradigm is not further considered and rejected on account of the inappropriateness of the divine aspect of Jesus being united with Jesus’ humanity in the womb of Mary.179 Accordingly, it would have been more becoming if this divine aspect had attached itself to Jesus after birth. But this is hardly an adequate reason and does not take the Christian view seriously, which becomes evident, for in the second step the the argument quickly moves away from this paradigm. The third view then envisions Jesus as a person that is endowed with the Spirit like David or other prophets. In this paradigm, however, Jesus is hardly comparable, in particular, to Moses and Elijah.180 The result is that Jesus cannot be deemed divine according to any of these three paradigms, he must therefore simply be human. Like in the above discussion of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane we see several strands of argumentation come together, though the overall argument remains apologetic-polemical. Effectively, there is no serious deliberation of the Christian view of Christology, although this is also not necessary since the intended Jewish audience was meant to be encouraged in their resolve against Christian attempts of proselytization. Jesus’ outcry on the cross is also mentioned and used in other sections: in §5, §96, and §188. In §5, after a discussion of Genesis 1:26, a parody is appended in which Matt 27:46 is used to express that God had abandoned Jesus, because at creation the Son did not come to help the Father when he made Adam, and that God in turn left the Son to his own devices.181 In §96 it is said of the sinned, i.e. that only one is involved. In other words, the distinction between human and divine nature (though clearly misunderstood) is not possible; Jesus’ humanity and his alleged divinity cannot be neatly separated. 178 Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §188: “…according to you, the flesh died at the very moment when the holy spirit departed, and you admit that after the flesh died he could not do good or evil…,” Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 193–94. 179 The same objection would also have been applicable in the first paradigm discussed. 180 The same argument appears in Nizzahon Vetus §188: “If you argue that the three are considered one because the holy spirit that was in the flesh, then the same should be said of every prophet who had the holy spirit,” Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, 193. 181 This is a response and a pun on the Christian interpretation that the plural of ‫אלהים‬ points to at least two persons being involved in the creation, to which it is replied that the singular verb ‫ ברא‬then would indicate that one of these persons, i.e. the Son, rebelled and refused to create Adam.

206

Chapter 5: Nizzahon Vetus

that Psalm 22:1 (and/or Matt 27:46) “was written so as to teach Israel how to answer the the heretics.”182 This could equally refer to Psalm 22:1 or to Matt 27:46. Since Psalm 22:1 only can be used polemically because it is used by Jesus on the cross, it would seem more sensible to say that the passage referred to (‫ )פרשה זו‬is in fact Matt 27:46 — which then would imply that the commentator felt that the gospel of Matthew providentially included a passage that allowed polemicists to refute Christian claims, which is perhaps why Matt 27:46 and Psalm 22:1 appear so frequently in Nizzahon Vetus.183 5. 4. 14 Jesus Commissions the Disciples: Matt 28:16–20 (§182) Lastly, we look at Jesus’ commission of the disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. After recounting Matt 28:16–20, the following, by now familiar, argument is given: I am astounded (‫)והננו מתמיה‬,184 what is this that he said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth”? [Matt 28:18] Who gave it to him? If you say that his father gave it to him — are he and his father two then? Are not the two of them part of one [entity]; neither being greater than the other, not in rule, nor in power, nor in understanding (‫והלא שניהם חלק‬ ‫ ?)אחד הם; לא זה גדול מזה לא בממשלה ולא בכח ולא בבינה‬Moreover, he said, “Lo, I am with you all days until the end of the world” [Matt 28:20]; which is like saying, ‘Until the end of the world I will be with you, but I will not be with you in the world to come.’185

This final argument has already been encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem and Yosef ha-Meqanne,186 and also in §168, where Matt 28:18 was briefly mentioned.187 Since the argument is identical, no further discussion is warranted. This concludes the examination of the arguments in Nizzahon Vetus.

5. 5 Summary Nizzahon Vetus presents an impressive number of arguments on various passages in the Hebrew Bible and also in the New Testament. Many of the arguments, in particular those who use the Gospel of Matthew, have clear parallels in earlier and later polemical works. However, in comparison to Qiṣṣa/Nestor, Milḥamot ha-Shem, and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, the argu-

182

Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §96, 114, 67 [Hebr. section]. Matt 27:46 also appears in §188, there to demonstrate that Jesus was afraid (see 5.4.5). 184 Berger, Jewish-Christian Debate, §182, 127–28 [Hebr. section]. 185 Modified from ibid., §182, 190. 186 Cf. the chapter on Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.8); Yosef ha-Meqanne §30 (see 4.5.22). 187 See 5.4.5. This argument also appears in MS Rome (A2), f. 22r, and (B), f. 56v, see Rosenthal, “A Religious Debate,” 67; see also Rembaum, “Reevaluation,” 96. 183

5.5 Summary

207

ments in Nizzahon Vetus are generally more extensive and bundle several strands of arguments into a more comprehensive rejection of Jesus’ divinity (see e.g. 5.4.13). Since the work is clearly an anthology, an overarching coherent argument is less evident, and several individual arguments can lack in logical consistency.188 The major passages that are used to argue against Jesus’ divinity are focusing on some key pericopes in the gospel, in particular the temptation (5.4.4), the cursing of the fig tree (5.4.10), Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (5.4.12), and his prayer on the cross (see 5.4.13). With this, the author (or compiler) clearly sought to convey that Jesus can only be understood as a human. Jesus is also potentially impure (5.4.3), changes his mind, is inconsistent, poor, and as “Son of Man” understands himself as belonging to humanity (5.4.5). He is furthermore portrayed as someone who prays to God (5.4.6, 5.4.13), and saw himself as a messenger and prophet (5.4.8). One ought to conclude that he is not divine, and hardly can be compared to other figures of Israel’s past. Next to the divinity of Jesus, also the Trinity is rejected (see 5.4.7 and 11), though it is also evident that the genuine Christian understanding, specifically of Jesus, is not taken into account. As in Yosef ha-Meqanne, the Christian view is seen along the lines of a logos-sarx trajectory,189 and where the argument approaches the genuine Christian view, it is not sincerely considered (5.4.13). Likewise, the overall intention and context of Matthew is rarely in view, although the gospel text is frequently quoted at length, and the respective interpretation of the passage is fixated on polemical exigency. Yet, Matthew’s authorial intention is considered at one point (see 5.4.4) where it is questioned why the temptation account is related at all, since it hardly can be used as passage to support Jesus’ divinity. At another point the author suggests that the Christian attempts to argue for the divinity of Jesus can only be judged as fabrications in light of the textual witness (see 5.4.1). Overall, the Gospel of Matthew was only considered in a more fragmented manner, which for the most part was probably due to the unavailability of the entire Gospel of Matthew to Jewish apologists. Eventually, Jewish scholars got a hold of the entire gospel texts, which will be considered in the next chapter.

188 189

See Cohen, “Medieval Jews on Christianity,” 82. See 5.4.10, 5.4.12, and 5.4.13.

Chapter 6

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Even Boḥan 6. 1 Introduction A study of the use of the Gospel of Matthew by Jewish readers cannot omit a discussion of Even Boḥan (“Touchstone” or “Approved Stone”).1 In it we have the first clear evidence of a Jewish scholar engaging with the entire, although somewhat peculiar, text of the Gospel of Matthew. Even Boḥan is a late 14th century polemical treatise in which the author, the prominent Spanish Rabbi Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ, provides a systematic and comprehensive treatment of Christianity.2 Ibn Shapruṭ’s tract was designed to be a manual of instruction for indecisive Jews whose knowledge of Judaism was slackening, to teach them that Judaism was viable, vital, and rational religion, in no way inferior to Christianity. In addition, Ibn Shapruṭ intended to launch a full-scale counterassault against Christians’, and especially apostates’, attacks against Jews and Judaism.3

Shem Ṭov was a native of Tudela (in Navarre). He finished the first draft of Even Boḥan most likely in 1384, which would make it one of the last great polemic works before the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 in Seville.4 He revised Even Boḥan in 1385 and again in 1405, among other things expanding it with 1

The title of the work is based on Isaiah 28:16. See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 168, 241; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 151–55; Norman (Nachman) E. Frimer and Dov Schwartz, The Life and Thought of Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut [‫ כתביו הגותו של ר׳ שם טוב אבן שפרוט‬,‫ דמותו‬:‫( ]הגות בצל האימה‬Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1992) [Hebr.]; and Loeb, “Polémistes chrétiens et juifs en France et en Espagne,” 219–30. 3 Libby Garshowitz, review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ: “La Piedra de Toque” (Eben Bohan): Una Obra de Controversia Judeo-Cristiana, JQR 90 (2000): 457–65, here 457. 4 Shem Ṭov may even refer to the precursors of these riots in Even Boḥan. He writes that the Jews “are beaten and punished by the nations… they seize us and deprive us of our money… destroying by conversions… and acting malicously by spreading false accusations… (folios 106v–107r, pages 366–373),” Libby Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan (Touchstone), chapters 2–10, based on Ms Plutei 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from other manuscripts” (2 vols.; Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1974), 1:vi. 2

210

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

the “Refutation of the Apostate Alfonso” (Alfonso de Valladolid/Abner of Burgos).5 In the first chapter Shem Ṭov discusses at length what he considers the basic principles of the Jewish faith, explaining on a more rational-philosophical level the unity, existence, and incorporality of God. Much like Jacob ben Reuben, he proceeds to deal with the Christian exegesis of the Torah, prophets, and other writings, filling altogether nine chapters. Chapter eleven discusses various passages from the Talmud and Midrash which Christians were using, e.g., to argue that Jesus is the expected Jewish Messiah. Finally, the twelfth chapter contains a translation and critique of the Gospel of Matthew.6 Later revisions added further sections to the inital twelve chapters. In fact, the additional efforts by its author and the many extant manuscripts of Even Boḥan, coming from a wide period of time and places, testify to its popularity, and need, in a time when many Jews converted to Christianity.7 Not much is known about Shem Ṭov’s personal life, though he was recognized as scholar, doctor, and scientist. In 1378, due to the war between England and Castile, he fled Navarre and settle in Tarazona. The king of Aragón, Pedro IV, granted him the right to practise medicine, but a few years later, in 1391, Shem Ṭov had to leave Tarazona and return to Tudela over accusations that arose from his money lending activities, which even involved the royal court. During his stay in Tarazona, in 1379, Shem Ṭov had a high-profile debate with Cardinal Pedro de Luna in Pampelona, the capital of Navarre, which probably provided some of the impetus for the later composition of Even Boḥan, as recollections of the debate are included in the treatise.8 Later Cardinal de Luna became the anti-pope Benedict XIII (1394–1417), who was in close contact with the friar Vicente Ferrer,9 and was also one of the principal

5

See Libby Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed. Barry Walfish; vol. 1, Jewish History 6; Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993), 299–306; eadem, review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ; and Roth Conversos, 188–91. On the complicated history of the two recensions of the first version of Even Boḥan see esp. William Horbury, “The Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Bohan,” Sefarad 43 (1983): 221–37; also, Garshowitz, 298, 310, nn. 2 and 3. 6 See Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 1:x–xi. 7 See Garshowitz, review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ, 458. 8 See, e.g., MS Laur. Plutei 2.17, f. 89r (‫)שאל הקרדינאל‬, also Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 1:iv–v. 9 See José-Vicente Niclós (Albarracín), “La disputa religiosa de D. Pedro de Luna con el Judío de Tudela D. Shem Tob ibn Shaprut en Pamplona (1379): El contexto en la vida y la predicación de Vicente Ferrer,” REJ 160 (2001): 409–33, esp. 410–15. Friar Vicente Ferrer (c. 1350–1419) was a highly successful and influential Dominican preacher who converted thousands of Jews to Christianity, see Roth, Conversos, 12, 49–50, 67, 134; also Haim Beinart and Zvi Avneri, “Ferrer, Vicente,” EncJud (2007): 6:764.

6.2 The Historical Context of Even Boḥan

211

characters of the infamous disputation in Tortosa from 1413–14.10 The last time we hear of Shem Ṭov is in 1405, when he appears in the south, in Lucena in Cordoba, where he revised Even Boḥan.11

6. 2 The Historical Context of Even Boḥan The history of Jews in Castile and Aragón-Catalonia in the fourteenth and fifteenth century is complex and has been hotly debated.12 Shem Ṭov’s and Profiat Duran’s life stories are directly influenced by the central currents of Spanish history, in particular the wave of conversions of Jews to Christianity, which both sought to counteract. During the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century great numbers of Jews converted to Christianity in Spain.13 Unfulfilled messianic expectations, a changing social structure, the missionary campaigns of the friars (especially those of Vicente Ferrer), a lack and crisis of leadership by the rabbis (of whom many converted), the influence of speculative mysticism (qabalah), but also financial advantages lead to a majority of the Jewish population to convert.14 While some of these conversions were under duress, in particular after the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 in Seville, most conversos chose to follow Christianity voluntarily.15 These converts subsequently became the primary target of the so-called Spanish Inquisition(s),16 allegedly to assertain 10 See Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 82–101, 168–215; Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 169–76; See also and Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 1:v. 11 See Frimer and Schwartz, Life and Thought, 14–18; Garshowitz, “ Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 1:i–iv; and José María Sanz Artibucilla, “Los Judios En Aragón y Navarra. Nuevos datos biográficos relativos a Sem Tob ben Ishaq Saprut,” Sefarad 5 (1945): 337–66. 12 The subsequent brief overview is based mostly on Norman Roth’s position (rather than on that of Baer, Nethanyahu, Beinart, or others) as presented in his Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. On this see also Eleazar Gutwirth, “Conversions to Christianity amongst fifteenth-century Spanish Jews: An alternative Explanation,” in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume: Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period (ed. Daniel Capri et al; Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University; Rav Chen, 1993), 97–121. 13 Roth has tentatively estimated that “the overwhelming majority of the Jews in Spain converted during the years of 1400–1490. Thus, if there was a total of, say, 250,000 Jews by the end of the century, there must have been at least three times that number of conversos. This would result, in other words, in a population of close to one million Jews at the end of the fourteenth century, a figure not at all inconceivable,” Conversos, 376 (emphasis original). 14 Ibid., 10–13, 32, 318, 382 n. 18. 15 Roth, Conversos, 11–12, 15–47, 317 (et al). The term conversos refers to ethnic Jews who have become Christians. While this technically only should refer to the first generation of converts, the term is usually used for subsequent generations as well. 16 The inquisition(s) initially only had jurisprudence over various Christian heretics (e.g.

212

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

the sincerity of their conversion, although the real purpose was to eliminate the political, ecclesiastical, and economical influence of the conversos, who often held some of the most prominent positions in the kingdoms of Iberia.17 Understandably, relations between conversos and Jews were often strained. At times, Jews even testified in inquisition trials against these “apostates,” whereas some prominent conversos also developed anti-Jewish attitudes.18 Among these conversos were several scholars who very actively involved in proselytizing their former coreligionists: Abner of Burgos, a former rabbi who took on the Christian name Alfonso de Valladolid (ca. 1270–1347);19 and during Shem Ṭov’s lifetime another former rabbi, Solomon ha-Levy, who took the name Pablo de Santa María, who even became the bishop of Cartagena (1403–15) and Burgos. Pablo had great success in converting Jews to Christianity, and it is most likely that Shem Ṭov (and Profiat Duran) considered him and Alfonso de Valladolid (that is, his writings) as their most dangerous opponents.20 Considering that Shem Ṭov wrote in Hebrew, he must have been more concerned with dissuading those Jews who were in danger of being converted, though recently converted Jews probably still could be reached through this medium.21 The wave of conversions in Iberia certainly were part of what prompted the composition of Even Boḥan, but Shem Ṭov also found inspiration in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem, which he erroneously attributed to ben Reuben’s contemporary Joseph Qimḥi, the author of Sefer ha-Berit. He explicitly informs his readers that he felt it necessary to include a discussion of the New Testament, following the precedent set by Milḥamot ha-Shem: the Cathars), and later only over supposedly relapsed conversos (which was in most cases a false charge). Jews were not the target of the inquisition, though in some instances Jews were also tried, usually when “suspected” of having been involved in reconverting conversos to Judaism. 17 See, e.g., Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1998). The underlying reasons for the Spanish Inquisition and persecution of Jews has been extensively debated. Norman Roth has shown that the main reason for the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition was due to the anti-semitism and political opportunism of a few “old Christians,” which was entirely unrelated to religious practice as many of the conversos and their descendants had become full-fledged Christians. This view has received mixed responses, cf. Roth, Conversos, xvii–xx (“Preface to the Paperback Edition”), 317–59 (“Afterword”). See also John Edwards, “New Light on the Converso Debate? The Jewish Christianity of Alfonso de Cartagena and Juan de Torquemada,” in Cross, Crescent and Conversion (ed. Simon Barton and Peter Linehan; The Medieval Mediterranean 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 311–26. 18 See Roth, Conversos, 188–198, 212–16. 19 See ibid., 188–91; and Chazan, “Alfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizing.” 20 See Roth, Conversos, 136–42; and Joseph Kaplan, “Pablo de Santa Maria,” EncJud (2007) 15:562–63; also Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 244–48, 259–76. 21 See also the discussion in 6.3.

6.3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

213

I also saw to it to transcribe and include here their books of the gospels so that we might be able to answer them. And I have also seen an important book called Sefer Milḥamot ha-Shem, which they say was composed by the sage R. Joseph Qimḥi… and the author of Sefer Milḥamot ha-Shem became for me the foundation (or: founder) upon which this book (is built).22

‫ והנה ראיתי‬.‫גם ראיתי להעתיק ולכתוב הנה ספרי האואנגי֗ ליוש שלהם להשיב מתוכם עליהם‬ ‫ ואומרים שהחכם ר׳ יוסף קמחי חבר…בעל ספר מלחמות‬,‫ספר נכבד נקרא ספר מלחמות יי׳‬ 23.‫יי׳ להיותי מיסד ספר זה עליו‬

Shem Ṭov even followed the pattern of Milḥamot ha-Shem and fashioned Even Boḥan as a dialogue between the “Unitarian” (‫ )המיחד‬and “Trinitarian” (‫)המשלש‬.24 His first draft even comprised twelve chapters (‫ )שערים‬as ben Reuben’s treatise, perhaps intending that Even Boḥan would become an updated 14th century version of Milḥamot ha-Shem — and this it arguably was. In fact, as Joshua Levy has already shown, many of Shem Ṭov’s comments on the Gospel of Matthew are taken from Milḥamot ha-Shem.25 Even Boḥan stands, as such, in the tradition of defending and strenghtening the Jewish faith against the considerable and deseperate changes for the Iberian Jewry in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century.

6. 3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan The twelfth chapter of Even Boḥan includes the Gospel of Matthew in which the entire gospel text is given in Hebrew. The gospel text is split into 116 sections, possibly reflecting the division of the Vorlage of the translation.26 22

All translations are my own; in fact, no full translations of Even Boḥan exists to date. Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 2:2–3, 4–5 (ff. 2r–2v). 24 That is, the “affirmer of the Oneness of God” and the “affimer of the Trinity.” The terms “Unitarian” and “Trinitarian,” while technically appropriate, are anachronistic and have the potential to be misleading since they can be associated to the later post-reformation dispute amongst Protestants, see chapter 8, and 3.1. 25 Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 116–69. Levy has demonstrated that Shem Ṭov is well aquainted with Milḥamot ha-Shem and presents many of his argument in an abridged form, which is why he is also referred to as the “abridger” of Milḥamot ha-Shem (144), see also 6.4.20. 26 Niclós has found the division of the gospel text to be similar to that of a Provençal vernacular Bible, MS Paris Français 6261, see José-Vicente Niclós (Albaracín), “L’Évangile en Hébreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut: Une traduction d’origine judéo–catalane due à converti, replacée dans son Sitz im Leben,” RB 106 (1999): 358–407, see 391–93. This assessment, however, appears to be based only on a footnote by Samuel Berger and not a comparison with the actual manuscript, cf. Samuel Berger, “Nouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provençales et catalanes,” Romania 19 (1890): 505–61, see 539, n. 1. Also Horbury has suggested that the 116 sections are a vestige of a medieval Christian division, citing as an example the 132 section version of the Vulgate Codex Cavensis, see William Horbury, “The Hebrew Text of 23

214

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

Appended to half of these pericopes are 58 polemic remarks, voicing questions and points of critique on various issues, mostly on Jesus’ disposition to the Law and his divinity.27 The gospel text itself has become a focus of study and intense debate, primarily because it differs from the canonical text in places,28 but also because it is the earliest available version of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.29 In particular Christian scholars were concerned, and at times quite controversially, with the textual origins of this Gospel of Matthew. George Howard,

Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Boḥan,” in Matthew 19–28: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (W. Davies and Dale C. Allison; ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 729–38 (here: 735–36). 27 Other topics are the perpetual virginity of Mary, baptism, and contradictions with the Hebrew Bible or other New Testament texts. 28 The gospel text has unusual additions and omissions by which it “judaizes” and “dechristologizes” (so Lapide) various passages, see Pinchas Lapide, “Der «Prüfstein» aus Spanien: Die einzige rabbinische Hebraisierung des Mt-Evangeliums,” Sefarad 34 (1974): 227– 72. See also George Howard, “Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew: A Literary, Textual, and Theological Profile,” in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995), 177–234; idem, “The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew,” JBL 108 (1989): 239–57; idem, “The Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthew,” JBL 105 (1986): 49–63; and esp. Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew.” 29 Besides various partial translations given in Jewish polemics, and a Hebrew translation of the second chapter of Matthew in Raymond Martini’s Pugio Fidei, at least one more “premodern” extant Hebrew versions of the entire Gospel of Matthew has been recognized. Confiscated from the Jews of Rome and taken by Jean du Tillet, Bishop of Brieux, this version of the Gospel of Matthew was published by Martin Le Jeune with a Latin translation by Jean Mercier in Paris in 1555 (Evangelium Matthaei ex Hebraeo fideliter redditum), subsequently re-edited and republished erroneously under the assumption it was Shem Ṭov’s version by Adolf Herbst in Göttingen in 1879 (Des Shemtob ben Schaprut hebraeische Übersetzung des Evangliums Matthaei nach den Drucken des S. Münster und J. Du Tillet-Mercier neu herausgegeben). Also, Sebastian Münster notes to have found a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew, which he heavily emended and subsequently published in 1537 under the title Evangelium secundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica, cum vesione Latina atque succinctis annotationibus [‫)]תורת המשיח‬. For further discussion see William Horbury, “The Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Study,” in Hebrew Study From Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. W. Horbury; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 106–31; George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 160– 75; Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 13–94; Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel: Translated, with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 3–17; and Alexander Marx, “The Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: with Appendices on the Eben Bohan and on the Earlier Hebrew Translations of Matthew,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects: In memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus, 1867–1923, late Chief of the Jewish Division, New York Public Library (New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1929), 247–73, esp. 270–73, repr. in Bibliographical Studies and Notes on Rare Books and Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (ed. Menahem H. Schmelzer; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1977), 444–71.

6.3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

215

Robert F. Shedinger, Thomas F. McDaniel, and James G. Hewitt have, to varying degrees, suspected that the provenance of this Matthew text predates the medieval period, perhaps was even related to the various “lost” gospels written in Hebrew, mentioned by Papias, Origen, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome.30 Others, however, most notably the late William Petersen,31 but also Pinchas Lapide, William Horbury, Libby Garshowitz, and José-Vicente Niclós have identified the text as medieval. The latter group has argued that this Hebrew gospel is, in fact, a medieval translation, possibly related to Tatian’s Diatessaron, although the actual provenance of the text is far from sure and a final conclusion has not been reached.32 What is certain is that the text is not Shem Ṭov’s own translation, as initially assumed by Lapide.33 However, despite the great interest in the text, Shem Ṭov’s use of the Gospel of Matthew and his comments have been given little attention. In fact, the first (and so far only) publication omitted to present the polemic comments altogether.34 The only available summary of the actual content of Shem Ṭov’s polemic on Matthew’s gospel has been given by Libby Garshowitz,35 30

Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.24.6, 3.25.5, 3.27.4, 3.39.16, 5.10.3, 6.25.4; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.9.4, 30.3.7, 30.13.1–22.4; and Jerome, Comm. Matt. 2.12.13, Epist. 20.5, 120.8, Pelag. 3.2., Vir. 3. See also Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 51–53. For a comprehensive list of the various citations and statements about this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by the church fathers see James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1–118. For an in-depth study of the possibility of a Hebrew language background to the Gospels see Guido Baltes, Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Hintergrund der Evangelien (WUNT II/312; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 31 A rather heated exchange on this issue between Petersen and Howard can be found in the online journal TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vols. 3 and 4. Online: http:// rosetta.reltech.org/TC/index.html#page=home. 32 The discussion over the provenance of the text is rather extensive and complicated. More recently Niclós has argued that the gospel text is a translation from a medieval Catalan vernacular Bible, see idem, “L’Évangile en Hébreu,” cf. Lapide “Prüfstein,” 232–34. William Petersen has argued that the text is related to a Western harmonized gospel tradition also found in the middle Dutch family of harmonies, see idem, “The Vorlage of Shem-Tob’s ‘Hebrew Matthew’,” NTS 44 (1998): 490–512; also Horbury, “The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Boḥan.” 33 Cf. Lapide, “Prüfstein,” 227–28. 34 George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987); and idem, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995). But already in one of the first reviews of this book Shaye Cohen had urged the full publication of Shem Ṭov’s critique of the gospel for a comprehensive understanding of the text, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, review of George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text, Bible Review 4 (June 1988): 8–9. Howard nor anyone else has so far heeded this suggestion. 35 Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 307–309. But see Howard’s observations on the polemical comments, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 173–75.

216

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

who also intends to prepare and publish a critical edition of Even Boḥan based on her doctoral thesis.36 Nevertheless, Shem Ṭov’s comments on the Gospel of Matthew have not yet become available as a critical text. The basis for the following must, therefore, be based on a manuscript, MS Bibliotheca Medicea–Laurenziana (Florence) Plutei 2.17, which Garshowitz has assessed to be the most reliable source, and chosen as her main text.37 However, in order to relate to Howard’s critical edition of the gospel text, this manuscript will also be compared to MS British Library Add. 26,964, which was the principal manuscript for Howard’s edition of the Matthean text.38 Shem Ṭov himself elaborates on the reason of including the Gospel of Matthew in his polemics: I intended to complement this, my treatise, which I have entitled Even Boḥan by transcribing (‫)להעתיק‬39 the gospels, even though they belong to the books which are absolutely forbidden 36 Libby Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan (Touchstone), chapters 2–10, based on MS Plutei 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from other manuscripts” (2 vols; Ph.D. diss, University of Toronto, 1974). 37 Henceforth, MS Plutei 2.17, available online at the Bibliotheca Medicea–Laurenziana. Online: http://teca.bmlonline.it/TecaViewer/index.jsp?RisIdr=TECA0000028127&keyworks =Plut.02.17. For a description and summary of this (first recension) manuscript see Antonio Maria Biscioni, Bibliotheca Ebraicae, Graecae Florentinae sive Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianae Catalogus (Florence: Ex Caesareo Typographio, 1757), Tome II, 218–228 [see also idem, Bibliotheca Medio-Laurentiana Catalogus Tomus Primus: Codices Orientales (Florence: Ex imperiali typographio, 1752), 76–78]. The actual description of the manuscript is very short: “Cod. Hebr. chart. MS charactere Rabbinico faec. circiter XVI. in fol. min. Constat fol. 199,” ibid., 228 (78); accordingly the manuscript would be from the 16th century. Garshowitz has described the manuscript in her dissertation as “written at the end of the fifteenth century in North Africa in a Spanish rabbinic hand,” eadem, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan,” 1:xlv, further noting that it is “Dr. Beit-Aryeh’s opinion that MS Plut. is the earliest manuscript copy of those which were collated for this [her] edition of the Touchstone,” ibid., 1:cxxxix, n. 28 (see also her description of the manuscript in 1:xlv–xlvi). The manuscript is in good condition and easy to read, the writing is in semi-cursive Sephardic script. 38 Howard’s three principal sources for his critical edition of the Hebrew Matthew text are British Libary MS Add. 26,964 (= Margoliouth MS 1070; henceforth MS BL) for Matt 1:1– 23:22; Jewish Theological Seminary of America MS 2426 (= Marx 16; = Adler 1323) for Matt 23:23–end; and MS 2234 (= Marx 15), cf. Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, xii–xiii; and Marx, “Polemical Manuscripts,” 252 (449). His choice of manuscripts is somewhat unfortunate because the latter two belong to later recensions of Even Boḥan (thus only MS BL was used for a comparison), on this see Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 310, n. 2; and pp. 457–65 of her review of José-Vicente Niclós’ Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ. See also her dissertation, 1:lxiii–cvii, but esp. Horbury, “The Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Bohan;” also Frimer and Schwartz, Life and Thought, 34–38. Besides some smaller differences, the polemical comments in MS Plutei 2.17 appear to be mostly identical to those in MS BL. See also Frimer and Schwartz, Life and Thought, 30–31. 39 In the past it has been understood that Ibn Shapruṭ claimed he translated the gospel himself, but based on this and other passages this is doubtful. In the heading of the chapter

6.3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

217

for us to read lest the unexperienced students come under their sway. Nevertheless, I wanted to transcribe (and critique) them for two reasons: The first is (that I wanted) to answer the Christians from them, but specifically the apostates (‫)מומרים‬40 who talk about their faith, yet who do not know a thing about it. They interpret passages of our Holy Torah regarding (their faith) contrary to the truth and contrary to their (own) faith.41 And through this (endeavor), praise will come to the Jew who debates with them and catches them in their own trap. The second reason is (that I wanted) to show to the leaders of our exalted faith the shortcomings of those books [that is, the gospels] and the errors contained in them.42

The Gospel of Matthew is singled out as the foremost of the Christian gospels, but it would seem that the intention was to deal with all four gospels: I will begin with the book of Matthew since he is the first (or: most fundamental) among them.43

Then, at the end of the chapter it is remarked: And with this the Gospel of Matthew is concluded, after this shall follow the Gospel of Mark.44

Shem Ṭov is called the author (‫)המחבר‬, while in the rest of the text he refers to himself (?) as ‫מעתיק‬, as such he likens himself to those that are adjured in the latter part of the introduction not to copy (transcribe) the gospel text without the critical annotations: ‫והנני משביע לכל‬ ‫האונגיליוש אם לא יכתוב בכל מקום ההשגות‬ ֗ ‫מעתיק בחי העולם לבל יעתיק ספרי‬. On the translation of ‫ להעתיק‬see Garshowitz’s discussion in “Shem Ṭov ben Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 298 and 312–3, note 31; cf. especially the use of the verb in polemical comments §13 (f. 139r), §14 (f. 139r), §26 (ff. 144v–145r) and §34 (f. 148v) in MS Plutei 2.17. 40 The ‫ מומרים‬here are clearly not forced converts or non-practicing Jews, but converts who actively follow Christianity. Perhaps Shem Ṭov even has specific people in mind, e.g., Alfonso de Valladolid, or Pablo de Santa María. See Roth, Conversos, 5 and 188–91. 41 Hebrew: ‫האחת להשיב מתוכם לנוצרים ובפרט למומרים שמדברים בענין אמונתם‬ ‫ ומפרשים פסוקי תורתנו הקדושה בענין זה הפך האמת והפך‬.‫ואינם יודעים דבר ממנה‬ ‫אמונתם‬. 42 This and all other translations are my own, all based on MS Plut 2.17 (here f. 134r). This passage is somewhat different to what is found in MS British Library MS Add. 26,964: “(I wanted) to show to the leaders of their faith proof…” (‫להראות לבעלי אמונתם הראה‬ ‫)חסרון הספרים ההם‬. In MS Plutei 2.17, and also in MS Neofiti 17.2 (according to Lapide, “Prüfstein,” 232), the purpose of the chapter is to inform Jewish leaders about the content of the gospels. However, in the British Libary manuscript it is more focused on debating Christians, which appears to be a deliberate change, as it is maintained in several other comments, cf. comments §3 (f. 178v), §31 (f. 194v), §32 (f. 196r), §40 (f. 202r). These two purposes, of course, are not mutually exclusive; the comments themselves are at times phrased as questions directed to Christians (e.g. in comment §26: ‫)ששית יש לשאול לנוצרים‬. 43 MS Plutei 2.17 (f. 134r): ‫ואתחיל בספר מאטיב אשר הוא השרשי בהם‬. 44 MS Plutei 2.17 (f. 162r). However, it is possible that this line was part of the original translation and not Shem Ṭov’s, in particular since no further gospels were appended to either the first or second recension of Even Boḥan. Also, the colophon that follows is distinctly Christian and Shem Ṭov perhaps thought it was part of the gospel text (see next footnote).

218

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

It is important to note here that Shem Ṭov, although he perceives the reading of Christian texts as a danger, includes an entire gospel text into his apologetic-polemical work. This undertaking was perhaps less precarious, if not even necessary, if the gospel had already become available in Hebrew through the proselytizing activity of the friars and conversos.45 Whatever the case may be, the existence of du Tillet’s Gospel of Matthew and presumably also Münster’s Vorlage suggests that there was an interest in disseminating the content of the gospel within the Jewish community. If the friars and conversos were serious about converting Jews, the existence of Hebrew translations of the gospels should perhaps be expected, although the official church probably would have not been pleased with their production (in particular after the Council of Valencia in 1229 outlawed vernacular gospels, which however confirms their wide-spread use). It is therefore not implausible that there could have been “rogue translations,” of which Shem Ṭov’s Hebrew Matthew might be a an example. Either way, Shem Ṭov chose to include the Gospel of

45 Garshowitz and Nichlós have speculated that the gospel translation into Hebrew is the product of a Jewish convert. See Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 299–306; and Niclós, “L’Évangile en Hébreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut,” 367–70, 396–407. In fact, the Hebrew gospel text in MS Plutei 2.17 (f. 162r) has a suspiciously Christian colophon, which might corroborate this theory: among other things, the last line of the colophon (and chapter) praises Jesus as “the King of the Jews” (‫)ישוע נוצרי מלך יהודים‬. This Christian colophon, when taken in context with the anti-Christian pecularities of the Hebrew translation, nevertheless, is a riddle. It was either added to the initial gospel translation, or alternatively to the Even Boḥan chapter at a later point. The latter seems less likely, for why would a Christian colophon appear exactly on f. 163r of MS Plutei 2.17 and not at end or beginning of the entire manuscript? However, if the colophon was already part of the original translation before Shem Ṭov received it, then one still needs to decide whether it was written by the translator (in which case the translator was probably a proselyte or missionary), or whether it was a later addition by a second hand. The latter seems more probable, because the abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton in the colophon is different from that in the main text of the chapter: In the colophon we find two small lines and a backward slash that protrudes upwards [/''] or [/'], whereas in the gospel text and polemical comments it appears as [C''], two yod (or small vertical lines) and an Arabic medda encircling them, similar to Tetragrammaton substitute no. 21 in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton,” PAAJR 2 (1930): 39–67. Besides other Christian liturgical elements, the colophon also contains a version of the pater noster different from what is translated in Matt 6:9–13 (ff. 138v–139r), it is therefore likely that the colophon was added at a later point. The issue with any of these possibilities is that it is difficult to maintain that Shem Ṭov (or a later redactor) significantly altered the text by making the gospel text less Christian (e.g. by omitting the word “Messiah” in many places, etc.), while at the same time keeping such a blatantly (and superfluous) Christian statement in the colophon. If Shem Ṭov received and retained the colophon (and it was not a later addition to MS Plutei 2.17), then we must also assume that he himself did not altered his Vorlage much, in which case he already received the gospel text as a mishmash of Christian and Jewish elements, which was perhaps the result of an anti-christological (antimessianic) and a Christian redaction.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

219

Matthew in Even Boḥan, parts of which he himself deemed deceivingly attractive. Speaking about the Sermon on the Mount he writes: Know and understand that these teachings are altogether found in the books of the prophets, the books of David and Solomon, and in the books of the sages of blessed memory (‫)חזל‬, and (also) in the books of the teachings of the philosophers. And the authors of this book46 [the Gospel of Matthew] put them in the beginning in order to attract with them the heart of the people and (in doing so) make them think that all their words are (in fact) words of the living God, and that they would drink (more of) them (so as to cause a) thirsting after their words. And if I had not wanted to avoid the extend (of work necessary) I would have listed for every matter the place where it comes from in the works of the prophets, and the sages, and the philosophers, so (as to show) that they did no come up with even a single word by themselves. So, understand these, my words, and may you pay attention to them; let not the smoothness of their tongues and that which is good in their sayings deceive you!47

Shem Ṭov affirms here that the Sermon on the Mount is attractive to a Jewish audience, and he clearly seeks to diffuse this attraction by consistently arguing here (and elsewhere) that Jesus’ teachings have altogether Jewish origins. This is a significant departure from Jacob ben Reuben’s strategy who denounces Jesus’ teaching. It is also dissimilar to most other Jewish evaluations of Jesus seen so far and bears similarities to Profiat Duran.48 And, although Shem Ṭov clearly felt that the Matthew was flawed and deceptive, even dangerous, nevertheless he presents the gospel in its entirety, confident that it is useful in challenging the claims of Christianity. To him it shows that Jesus is more Jewish than Christians and conversos may want to admit.

6. 4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan As mentioned already, there are a total of 58 comments interspersed throughout the gospel text, of which twenty are to a greater or lesser degree related to Jesus’ divinity. Another twenty discuss Jesus’ teaching in regard to Law/ Torah adherence.49 The remaining arguments are more random and discuss further contradictions by comparing Matthew to passages from Hebrew Bible. The following table lists the twenty comments that are related to Jesus’ divinity:50 46

Lit. “the founders of this book” (‫)מיסדי זה הספר‬. Shem Ṭov distinguishes the gospel author(s) and the translator of his Vorlage, see Garshowitz “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 312–3, n. 31; and Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 173–75. 47 This is comment §17, which follows after Matt 7:24–29 (MS Plut 2.17, f. 140r). 48 See the discussion in 6.4.2. 49 Comments §§8–18 (Matt 5:1–8:4), §21 (Matt 9:9–13), §26 (Matt 12:1–8), §34 (Matt 15:1–10), §40 (Matt 19:13–16), §§45–49 (Matt 22:23–24:25). 50 An additional comment (§3), which deals with the presence of the word “Ephratah” in Matt 2:6, although unrelated to the discussion of Jesus’ divinity, is included in the discussion

220

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

51

Comment Matthew

Summary of the argument

§1

Matt 1:1–16 (Jesus’ Genealogy)

a) What about the other genealogy? (Lk 3:23b–25a, 31b–32a) b) Why mention the four flawed women? c) How can we know that Mary is from the family of David? d) Why did Matthew present the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary?

§4

Matt 2:13–15 (Flight to Egypt)

a) How could God tell his son to flee?

§6

Matt 3:13–17 (Jesus’ Baptism)

a) Has Jesus two spirits?

§7

Matt 4:1–11 (Temptation)

a) How could God be tempted? b) How could Satan rule over God? c) How could Satan think he could tempt Jesus? d) How could God be hungry? e) Jesus should have lived from his own words. f) Jesus is wrong about not testing God. g) Jesus has a God over him that he does not want to test. h) How could Satan offer the world to God?

§18

Matt 8:1–4 (Jesus’ Healings)

a) Elisha’s miracle was greater than Jesus’ miracles.

§22

Matt 9:18–26 (Jesus raises a girl)

a) Elijah and Elisha also performed resurrections.

§23

Matt 9:32–38 (Jesus’ Miracles)

a) Miracles do not prove Jesus’ divinity. b) Virgin birth is implausible. c) Adam is mor excellent than Jesus, yet he is not God. d) Ascension does not make one divine. e) Resurrection does not make one divine. f) (Special) birth does not make one divine. g) Post-natal virginity can be explained medically. h) The nativity account is dubious and unverifiable.

below because of its potential relevance for the issue of the authorship of the translation and origins of the Hebrew gospel. Additionally it may even indicate a relationship of dependence of Kelimmath ha-Goyim on Even Boḥan, see 6.4.2. 51 Questions in italics are similar to the arguments in Milḥamot ha-Shem. For a similar list see Levy, “Chapter,” 139–42.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

221

Comment Matthew

Summary of the argument

§24

Matt 11:11–15 (Jesus & John)

a) How is it that John the Baptist has doubts about Jesus? b) Jesus did not reveal his plans to him, contrary to Amos 3:7 c) Why did Jesus not perform great signs to convince all? d) John the Baptist ought to be greater than Jesus.

§25

Matt 11:25–30 (Jesus’ Prayer)

a) How can Jesus teach God if he had to learn himself? b) How is it that he needed to be taugth at all? c) How is it that he needed to receive something if all is his? d) God and Jesus are two seperate entities. e) The Father knows more than the Son.

§28

Matt 12:22–29 (Jesus’ Exorcism)

a) Jesus’ “tertium non datur” argument challenged.

§29

Matt 12:30–37 (Blasphemy )

a) How can there be a difference in blaspheming the Trinity? b) Where does a person who curses the Spirit go afterwards?

§30

Matt 12:38–45 (Jesus’ Signs)

a) If Jesus’ miracles really happened, why another sign?

Matt 15:29–38 (Jesus’ feeds 4000)

a) Why are the disciples so often describes as weak of faith? b) Why did the disciples not recognize that Moses and Elijah did greater miracles?

§37

Matt 16:13–20 (Peter’s Confession)

a) Who rules, the “Son of Man,” the “Son of God” (or Peter)? b) Why was Jesus amazed about Peter’s confession? c) Why could Jesus be mistaken for John if he was so well known on account of his miracles?

§38

Matt 17:1–8 (Transfiguration)

a) What need is there for Elijah to inform Jesus?

§42

Matt 21:10–22 a) Can God hunger? (Cursing the Fig Tree) b) Jesus did not know about the absence of fruit. c) The tree was innocent, why curse it?

§35

52

52 Although this argument is included in this list, it is not discussed in-depth and only briefly touched on in the discussion of comment §30 where Shem Ṭov’s argues against Jesus’ alleged performance of miracles, see 6.4.13, n. 196. The lacking recognition of Jesus by the disciples (and by the Pharisees, which is an important benchmark for Shem Ṭov in his overall argument), however, is a novel argument and an important link to Kelimmat ha-Goyim, cf. 6.4.14 and 7.3.3.

222

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

Comment Matthew

Summary of the argument

§44

Matt 22:15–22 (Paying Taxes)

a) Jesus did not fulfill messianic expectations. b) Jesus was afraid of Caesar.

§50

Matt 24:27–36 (Jesus’ Ignorance)

a) That generation already passed away. b) Jesus does not know what the Father knows.

§53

Matt 26:31–44 a) How is it that Jesus was asking for a change of plans? (Jesus in Gethsemane) His and God’s will are not equal. b) The spirit has a creator. c) Jesus was afraid. d) Jesus is unable to help himself or to alter his fate. e) Jesus was, in fact, under (divine) compulsion. f) Why persecute the Jews if Jesus fulfilled God’s plan willingly? The killers ought to be blameless.

§56

Matt 27:27–66 (The Crucifixion)

53

§58

a) Who carried the cross, Simeon or Jesus? b) How is it that Jesus did not know he was given vinegar? c) How is it that the hanging took so long? Why are there thieves?

Matt 28:16–20 a) To whom but God could Jesus have prayed? (Words on the Cross)

Most of above comments are rather short, but three arguments are more elaborate: Comment §7, which is based on Jesus’ temptation (Matt 4:1–11); comment §23 which follows Matt 9:32–38; and comment §53, which is on Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Matt 26:31–44). With the first and the last Shem Ṭov stands well within his own polemical tradition, which is not surprising since he wrote 200 years after Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem, and over a 100 years after Christians had started to proselytize Jews in Europe.54 In other words, the repertoire of arguments is already centuries old in Shem Ṭov’s time. Considering his own debate experience, the arguments of the Jewish-Christian exchange are by no means new to Shem Ṭov; neither those of his own tradition, nor those of his opponents. Many of the arguments he employs have parallels in earlier works. But, Shem Ṭov not only repeats standard arguments, he also adds to them and innovates entirely new 53

Discussed together with comment §56, see 6.4.21. See the discussion under 3.2, 4.2, 5.3, and 6.2. For a fixed date for this activity one could, e.g., take Raymond Martini’s Pugio Fidei which was published in 1278, see Ina WilliPlein and Thomas Willi, Glaubensdolch und Messiasbeweis: Die Begegnung von Judentum, Christentum und Islam im 13. Jahrhundert in Spanien (Forschungen zum JüdischChristlichen Dialog 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 16–18, 23–27. 54

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

223

approaches. It is particularly here that we are able to get a glimpse of his own arguments and thoughts. 6. 4. 1 Jesus’ Genealogy: Matt 1:1–16 (§1)55 Shem Ṭov’s first comment follows Matthew’s genealogy (which excludes Matt 1:17).56 His remarks and questions throughout are arranged systematically so that he assigns numbers to each argument, as in much of the rest of this chapter: ֗ Shem Ṭov, the transcriber, said: There are four questions for us in this (section). The first is that the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, traces concerning this matter another and altogether different (or: strange) genealogy to David, which is: “Joseph, the son of Eli, son of Matan, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Lamech, son of Joseph, son of Mattatah, son of Pinchas, son of Nahum, son of Eli etc.,” through to “the son of Nathan, son of David,” which is not through Solomon (as in Matthew’s genealogy).57 Second, why did he include (all those) flawed women by name? (He mentioned) Tamar, and Ruth, and Rahab, and Bathsheba, but he did not remember Sarah, and Rebecca, and Rachel, and Leah. And as if that was not enough that he had to include them, he (also) brought up Uriah, so that he could bring up (the topic of) sin. Third, what use is there to this kind of genealogy that is based on the husband of his [= Jesus’] mother, inasmuch as his mother could (very well) have been from another tribe? And if it was a matter of “no inheritance-estate may be passed from tribe to tribe” (cf. Num 36:9)58 — this is (in the section) on a daughter who inherits land — (when it comes to) Mary, who can tell us that this is in fact the case for her? And even if she was a “daughter who can inherit,” it would have been still possible for her to be from another family of the tribe of Judah, (and) not from the family of David, for in the tribe of Judah there are many great and (also) inferior families.

55

The headings always indicate the gospel passage in Matthew after which Shem Ṭov inserts his comments. 56 If this omission of v. 17 is not a transcription error, the only plausible motive for omitting the verse would be Christian; that is, only a Christian would have an interest in passing over the potential embarrassment that the the last set of fourteens names only adds up to thirteen. That Jesus would thereby become the 41st person in the genealogy, however, may have been an intentional arrangement by Matthew as a sign for the dawn of a new age, see KarlHeinrich Ostmeyer, “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt. 1.1–17,” NTS 46 (2000): 175–92. 57 The genealogy is not in Mark 3, but in Luke 3:23b–25a, 31b–32a, although with some differences when compared to the textus receptus. In Shem Ṭov’s version we find Lamech instead of Jannai (Ἰνναι), Pinchas instead of Amos (Ἀμώς), and Eli instead of (H)esli (Ἑσλί). The most peculiar difference is Pinchas. Shem Ṭov mistakes Luke for Mark also in comment §52 (f. 158v), though in comment §54 (f. 160r) he attributes Mark correctly. 58 In other words, Mary would have been required to marry within her own tribe. That Joseph is from the tribe of David should therefore indicate that she herself must have been from the house of David, which then would also be true of Jesus. For the history of this argument see the discussion under 3.4.2.

224

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

Fourth, and this is the most difficult (question), for there is no reply against it: Why did he present (here) the genealogy of her husband, (rather than) to trace her to her father or her brother, (that is) if she had any?59

‫ פרק ֗ג מונה‬61‫שבאונגיליו מרק‬ ֗ ‫ הראשונה‬60.‫אמר שם טוב המעתיק יש לנו בזה ֗ד שאלות‬ ‫ יוסף בן עלי בן מתן בן לוי בן מלכי בן למך‬.‫היחס בענין אחר משונה מכל וכל עד דוד וזהו לשונו‬ ‫ שנית למה‬.‫ עד שלמה‬64‫ בן עלי וכו֗ עד בן נתן בן דוד לא‬63‫ בן פנחס בן נחום‬62‫בן יוסף בן מתתה‬ ‫ ולאה‬67‫ ורחב ובת שבע ולא זכר שרה ורבקה ורחל‬66‫ תמר ורות‬.‫ הפגומות בשם‬65‫מנה הנשים‬ ‫ שלישית אי זה יחס לישו מצד בעל‬.‫ העון‬68‫ולא די שמנה אתהן אלא שזכר את אוריה למזכרת‬ ‫ זהו‬.‫אמו והנה אמו היתה יכולה להיות משבט אחר ואי משום לא תסוב נחלה ממטה אל מטה‬ ‫ ואפי֗ תהיה בת יורשת אפשר תהיה‬.‫ ומרים מי הגיד לנו שכן היתה‬.‫בבת יורשת נחלה‬ ‫ ממשפחת דוד שבשבט יהודה רבו המשפחות גדולות‬69‫ממשפחה אחרת משבט יהודה לא‬ ‫ רבעית והיא הקשה שאין עליה תשובה למה הביא היחס לבעלה היה לו להביאה עד‬.‫ופחותות‬ 70.‫אביה או אחיה אם היו לה‬

Joshua Levy, who has compared Shem Ṭov to Milḥamot ha-Shem, has shown that many of Shem Ṭov’s arguments in Even Boḥan are an abbreviation and expansion of Jacob ben Reuben’s critique.71 Shem Ṭov appears to collect what he considers the most pertinent arguments and arranges them systematically, which will be seen throughout the remainder of this chapter. He does not explicitly critique Mary’s perpetual virginity here, the virgin birth is just assumed,72 but he questions the overall purpose and use of the genealogy that links Jesus to Joseph. This is probably a better strategy than getting bogged down in a long discussion of Isa 7:14. In fact, only by assuming (at least for the sake of argument), that Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father, which is a noteworthy deviation from the general Jewish argument,73 can he question Matthew’s intention in linking Jesus to Joseph. If Jesus were indeed conceived without Joseph’s involvement, why relate Joseph’s genealogy at

59

Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §154 here, where it is argued that the Christians did not know Mary’s genealogy, see 5.4.1. 60 MS BL: ‫תשובות ר״ל שאלות‬. 61 MS BL: ‫שבאוונג״יילייו מאר״קו‬. 62 MS BL: ‫מתתי‬. 63 MS BL: ‫נחם‬. 64 MS BL: ‫ולא‬. 65 MS BL: ‫נשים‬. 66 MS BL: ‫רות‬. 67 MS BL: ‫רבקה רחל‬. 68 MS BL: ‫להזכיר‬. 69 MS BL: ‫ולא‬. 70 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 134v. 71 Cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 139, 143–44; and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.2). 72 But cf. 6.4.8, 6.4.9, and also comment §2 (f. 134v–135r), where Mary’s virginity is explicitly disputed. 73 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §73, §74, §77, §§78–80, §§99–100, §107, §152 (see 2.5.2); and Nizzahon Vetus §§197–200, §217, §232, §235, but cf. §154 (see 5.4.1).

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

225

all? And why not Mary’s? Shem Ṭov did not just copy Milḥamot ha-Shem, he expanded and developed Jacob ben Reuben’s argument, a process which was already observed in Nizzahon Vetus §154 (see 5.4.1). As in Milḥamot haShem, he also raises the issue of Matthew’s intention by asking “Why did he include (all those) flawed women by name?,” concluding that Matthew purposely wanted to raise the issue of Jesus’ sinfulness. Shem Ṭov does not explicitly answer his questions, but there is no doubt that he wanted his readers to understand that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ genealogy undermines the claims of Christian theology. 6. 4. 2 Bethlehem Ephratah: Matt 2:1–12 (§3) Although comment §3 is unrelated to the discussion of Jesus’ divinity, it has been included here because it clearly establishes that Shem Ṭov is not the translator of the Hebrew Gospel, and it might even indicate that Profiat Duran is indebted to Shem Ṭov’s critique of the Gospel of Matthew. The translator/author of the gospel text in Even Boḥan is criticized here for erring about the addition “Ephratah,” that is, Shem Ṭov notes that it is not present in what is considered the standard version of the Gospel of Matthew at the time.74 It is, of course, nonsensical to criticize differences to an authoritative version of Matthew if Shem Ṭov had translated the text himself. He clearly knows that there is another, different version of Matthew. He even can refer to Jerome, that is, either the Vulgate or his commentary on Matthew, to argue that “Ephratah” is missing in what is considered the original text:75 The transcriber said: The translator (‫)המגיד‬76 wrote them, “and you, Bethlehem-Ephratha.”77 He erred (here) because it is not (written that way), (it is) thus (only) in our books. It is also not in Jerome’s translation [or: commentary]. And their opinion is that those astrologers who 74 The canonical Matthew reads “Bethlehem of Judea” (Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας) here (Matt 2:5), without mentioning “Ephratah.” For a discussion of Matthew’s intention in using this passage see Instone-Brewer, “Balaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotations in Matthew 2.” 75 Cf. Jerome, Comm. Matt. 1.2.5 and 11 (CCSL 77:13, FC 117:64–65). 76 Or: author, messenger, announcer, preacher (a friar?). That ‫ המגיד‬should be the translator of the gospel text is not definite, but notice the addition of ‫( להם‬MS BL: ‫)לכם‬. Cf. also comment §17 (f. 140r), where the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew are called ‫מיסדי זה‬ ‫הספר‬, see 6.3. 77 It would seem then that the original translator/author (‫ )?המגיד‬of Shem Ṭov’s Matthew text changed his Vorlage here to the wording of the Masoretic text (Micah 5:2), unless of course this was arleady present in the Vorlage. Shem Ṭov has Matt 2:6 as: “And you, Bethlehem-Ephratah, land of Judah, you are not (too) young among the clans of Judah” (‫ואתה בית‬ ‫)לחם אפרתה ארץ יהודה אין אתה צעיר באלפי יהודה‬. Already Jerome suspected that the passage contained a transmission error, and it is not difficult to imagine that the translator followed Jerome and altered his text to clarify that Bethlehem-Ephratah was meant, and not Bethlehem in Galilee. See esp. Jerome, Comm. Matt. 1.2.11 (CCSL 77:13, FC 117:65).

226

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

were asking (Herod about the child) were three (in number), and they base this on the fact that they gave three things; and (they also think) that they were kings because the gift was important.78

‫ וגם‬.‫ בספרים שלנו‬80‫ ואתה בית לחם אפרתה טעה כי איננו כן‬79 ֗‫אמר המעתיק המגיד להם כתו‬ ‫ והראיה שנתנו‬.‫ אומרי֗ שאלו החוזים בכוכבים היו שלשה‬82‫ ודע שהם‬81.‫לא בהעתקת ֗גרונימוש‬ 83.‫שלשה דברים והיו מלכים לפי שהדורון היה חשוב‬

This strongly supports the assumption that Shem Ṭov is not the translator of the Hebrew Gospel, and that he is aware that the translation in sua manu differs from the Vulgate (or whatever text is considered authoritative). Depending on how one interprets the term ‫ המגיד‬and weighs the influence of Jerome, Shem Ṭov is perhaps even aware that this translation came from a Christian (perhaps a convert and/or friar). Moreover, in Profiat Duran’s Kelimmat ha-Goyim, there in a discussion of textual corruptions and errors in the Gospel of Matthew, we find the additional “Ephratah” (which is not in Matthew) as well, which is then likewise followed by a critique of the three magi which is very similar to Shem Ṭov’s remarks.84 This perhaps establishes a relationship of dependence of Profiat Duran on Even Boḥan, or his gospel version, although Duran knows also the other three gospels and other New Testament writings.85 And if this were

78

Shem Ṭov informs his readers here of what he himself has learnt or heard about the Christian interpretation of the nativity account. The first to discuss the royal identity of the magi is Tertullian in Marc. 3.13.2 (CCSL 1:524), Adv. Jud. 9.2 (CCSL 2:1365), cf. Idol. 9.1 (CCSL 2:1107). Origen is the first to number the magi as three in Hom. Gen. 14.3 (PG 12:238); see Hugo Kehrer, Die Heiligen drei Könige in Literatur und Kunst: Erster Teil (Leizpig: E. A. Seeman, 1908), 10–22, 32–46. 79 MS BL: ‫כתב לכם‬. 80 MS BL: ‫וכן‬. 81 MS BL: ‫בהעתקת יד גיירונ״ימוס‬. 82 MS BL: ‫ודע שם‬. 83 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 135r. 84 In chapter 10 of Kelimmat ha-Goyim, see Frank Talmage, ed., The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran: The Reproach of the Gentiles and ‘Be not like unto thy Fathers’ [‫כתבי‬ ‫“( ]פולמוס לפרופיט דוראן כלימת הגוים ואיגרת אל תהי באבותיך‬Kuntresim:” Texts and Studies 55; Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center and The Dinur Center, 1981), 49–50. But cf. Posnanski’s version of Kelimmat ha-Goyim where the “Ephratah” is not mentioned, see Adolf Posnanski, “The Reproach of the Gentiles: The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran of Perpignan in the year 1397” [‫ חיבורו מאישטרו פרופייט דוראן‬:‫ספר כלימת הגוים‬ ‫]מפירפינייאנו בשנת הקנ״ז‬, Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 4 (1915), 48 [Hebr.]. However, in Qeshet u-Magen, which is relying on Kelimmat ha-Goyim, Simeon ben Zemah Duran’s writes that the Christians “say that He was born in Bethlehem Ephratah,” see Murciano, Simon ben Zemah Duran: Keshet u-Magen, 16. 85 It is of course also possible that the “Ephratah” may have simply slipped in (from Micah 5:2), though the comment about the three magi makes the dependence of Kelimmat haGoyim on Even Boḥan (or another source common to both) more likely.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

227

indeed the case, then Profiat Duran and Shem Ṭov both would have at least at one point incorporated each others writings in their respective polemic works: Shem Ṭov added Profiat Duran’s “Principles of the [Christian] Faith” as a sixteenth chapter to Even Boḥan,86 and Profiat Duran would have used the Hebrew text and Shem Ṭov’s critique of Matthew as source material for his own arguments. 6. 4. 3 Jesus’ Flight to Egypt: Matt 2:13–15 (§4) The next comment is only a short sentence, which follows Matt 2:15. Its brevity might indicate that the argument was either well known, or that Shem Ṭov did not consider it too pertinent. The transcriber said: Look at this, (how could) God, may he be praised, (ever) tell his son to flee? He did not do this to Moses, who was raised by Pharaoh’s daughter. 87.‫פרעה‬

‫ית היה מבריח בנו לא עשה כן למשה שגדלו בת‬ ֗ ‫אמר המעתיק ראה זה שהאל‬

Shem Ṭov questions how Jesus should have to flee from Herod, if Moses in a comparable situation was protected from any harm and even raised in the house of the hostile monarch. The argument bears similarities to Yosef haMeqanne §22 (see 4.5.3), Nizzahon Vetus §39 (see 5.4.2), and also Contra Celsum 1.66. The argument, however, does not occur in Milḥamot ha-Shem.88 6. 4. 4 Jesus’ Baptism: Matt 3:13–17 (§6) With equal brevity Jesus’ baptism is questioned, which again is similar to earlier polemic sources: The transcriber said: Now, did the first part (of Matthew’s gospel) not say that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit? And if so, why did this one come, and from where did this other Spirit come? Second, if this is so, they are (in fact) four deities: Father, Son, and two Spirits. .‫אכ למה בא זה ומאין בא הרוח האחר‬ ֗ ֗ ‫אמ שהורתו מרוח הקודש‬ ֗ ‫פר ֗א‬ ֗ ‫אמר המעתיק והלא‬ 89.‫שנית אם כן ארבעה אלוהות הם אב ובן ושתי רוחות‬

The argument is reminiscent of what was seen in Milḥamot ha-Shem,90 although with marked differences: Shem Ṭov is mostly questioning the Trinity here, while Jacob ben Reuben focuses on the incarnation and Jesus’ 86 See Garshowitz, review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ: “La Piedra de Toque,” 458. 87 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 135v. MS BL: ‫ראש איך אפשר שהשי״ת מבריח בנו לא עשה כן‬ ‫למשה שגדלה בת פרעה בביתו‬. 88 Levy does not mention this comment at all, cf. Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 139. 89 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 136r. 90 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.3), and Nizzahon Vetus §160 (see 5.4.3), cf. also Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 139, 145–46.

228

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

moral integrity. However, both essentially agree that the descent of the Spirit undermines how Christians understand Jesus ontologically. Influenced by Milḥamot ha-Shem this exhibits a rather uncommon understanding of the arrival of the Holy Spirit, in fact, Shem Ṭov interprets the decent of the Holy Spirit at Jesus’ baptism as a kind of second, additional in-dwelling (or incarnation) of Jesus. Moreover, the argument is based on the premise that the Holy Spirit became incarnate, and that birth and baptism therefore would mean that there are two Holy Spirits, that is, two divine persons, who became incarnate in Jesus. 6. 4. 5 Jesus’ Temptation: Matt 4:1–11 (§7) One of the more extensive comments in Shem Ṭov’s gospel critique is based on Jesus’ temptation, which is arranged into eight questions: The transcriber said: I have eight questions about this (section). The first: If Jesus were (indeed) God, what need does he have to be tempted? And how (could) he (ever) be subject to temptation (anyway). Second, how could Satan ever rule over him, if he (indeed) were God? Third, how could Satan (ever) have thought that he might cause him to sin, inasmuch as Satan should have been already aware that he is the Son of God? Fourth, if he were (indeed) God, how could he be hungry after fasting fourty days? Did not Moses, peace be upon him, who was a (in fact) a man, not fast fourty days and fourty nights? How is it that it was not necessary to say about him that he was experiencing any hunger, instead (it is even written that) a brilliance was added to his face (cf. Exod 34:29– 35)? Fifth, how is it that Jesus answered, “one does not live by bread alone etc.”? He should have (been able) to live on what comes out of his (own) mouth if he were God. Sixth, how is it that he replies “is it written you shall not try (your God) etc.” (Deut 8:3)? If he were God, he should have been able to show his power and the might of his hand (cf. Deut 8:17), just as we are told (in Isaiah 7:11), “ask a sign for yourself,” and likewise, “bring the tithe to the treasury… and test me in this etc.” (Mal 3:10). And also, all of the prophets performed miracles in order to demonstrate His power and the might (that was in) their hand. Just as also Elisha said: “Let him come to me, and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kings 5:8). And (also) Isaiah was angry about what was said to him, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord” (Isa 7:12), and he said to him, “Is it not enough for you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless” (Isa 7:13), as was also mentioned in chapter 1, section 2 (of Even Boḥan). In regard to when he said, “you shall not tempt (your God),” that (passage relates to) the testing (of faith) when one fails to believe in what was experienced, (namely to believe) in the power of God, may he be blessed, (which is) similar to “they have tempted me ten times” (Num 14:22). Seventh, since he answered, “it is written you shall not test the Lord your God” (Deut 8:3) it would appear that there was a God over him, whom he (himself) is careful (not) to test. Also, it would appear that he is not (that) God. Eighth, when Satan told him that he should worship him, and that he would give to him all the lands, how is it that he did not reply that everything is his (already), and that he [Satan] has (in fact) nothing? Also, the benefit of this gift, of (belonging) to God, what is that (compared to) the benefit (that comes) from the kingdom of flesh and blood, which is a defective

‫‪229‬‬

‫‪6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan‬‬

‫‪(lesser) kingdom, which (by the way) is in its entirety his (already)? And based on his words‬‬ ‫‪it appears that, had it not been for him having to worship Satan, it would have been beneficial‬‬ ‫‪for him (to accept) Satan’s gift.91 And also, how is it that Satan said to him that he should‬‬ ‫‪serve him in order to (receive) as gift the kingdom, knowing that he was God,92 or that he (at‬‬ ‫‪least) held himself to be such. Moreover, (he says) it is written, “you shall pray to the Lord‬‬ ‫‪and him you shall worship,” (but) this is nowhere in the Scriptures.93‬‬

‫אמר המעתיק יש לי בזה שמנה שאלות‪ .‬האחת אם ישו הוא אלוה מה צורך בו הנסיון ואיך‬ ‫נופל בחוקו נסיון‪ .‬שנית איך משל בו השטן אם הוא אלוה‪ .‬שלישית איך חשב השטן להטעותו‬ ‫שהשטן‪ 94‬כבר היה יודע שהוא בן אלהים‪ .‬רביעית אם הוא אלוה איך ירעב בעד שצם‪95‬‬ ‫לומ שלא‬ ‫עה עם היותו אדם צם ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה ואיך צריך ֗‬ ‫ארבעים יום והלא משה ֗ ֗‬ ‫נרעב אבל נוסף אליו‪ 96‬בזיו פניו‪ .‬חמישית איך השיב ישו כי לא על הלחם כו֗ ‪ 97‬היה לו לחיות‬ ‫במוצא‪ 98‬פיו אם היה אלוה‪ .‬ששית איך השיב כתו֗ ‪ 99‬לא תנסו כו אם הוא היה אלוה היה לו‬ ‫להראות כחו ועוצם ידו כמו שמצי֗ שאל לך אות כי שעוה‪ 100.‬וכן הביאו את המעשר אל בית‬ ‫האוצר כו֗ ובחנוני נא כו֗ וכן כל הנביאים עשו נסים כלם כדי להראות כחו ועוצם ידם‪ 101‬כמו‬ ‫שאמ אתו‪ 102‬לא‬ ‫֗‬ ‫שאמר אלישע יבא נא אלי וידע כי יש נביא בישראל‪ .‬וישעיה חרה לו על‬ ‫אשאל ולא אנסה את ֗ ֗‬ ‫ואמ לו המעט מכם הלאות אנשים כי תלאו גם את אלוהי כנז֗ שער ֗א‬ ‫אל‪֗ .‬‬ ‫֗‬ ‫ית כמו‬ ‫שאמ לא תנסו הוא כשהנסיון מצד חסרון אמונת המנסה בכח השם ֗‬ ‫֗‬ ‫פר ֗ב‪ 103.‬כי מה‬ ‫אל אלהיכם יראה שיש‪105‬‬ ‫וינסו אותי זה עשר פעמים‪ .‬שביעית כיון שהשיב כתי֗ ‪ 104‬לא תנסו את ֗ ֗‬ ‫כשאמ לו השטן‬ ‫֗‬ ‫ואכ יראה שהוא איננו אלוה‪ 106.‬שמינית‬ ‫אלוה ממעל לו אשר הוא נזהר לנסותו ֗ ֗‬ ‫גכ תועלת במתנתו‬ ‫שישתחוה לו ויתן לו כל הארצות איך לא השיב‪ 107‬שהכל שלו ושאין לו ֗ ֗‬ ‫שלאלוה מה תועלת‪ 108‬במלכות בשר ודם והוא מלכות פגומה והכל שלו‪ .‬ונראה מדבריו‬ ‫גכ איך אמר לו שיעבדהו‪110‬‬ ‫שלולא לא יעבדהו לשטן‪ 109‬היה טוב לו במתנת השטן‪ .‬ועוד השטן ֗ ֗‬

‫‪91‬‬

‫‪In other words, the temptation account makes it look as if Satan had actually something‬‬ ‫‪to give.‬‬ ‫‪92‬‬ ‫‪). Shem‬אם בן אלהים אתה( ”‪Shem Ṭov reads Matt 4:3, 6 as: “If you are the son of God‬‬ ‫‪Ṭov appears to assume here, at least for the sake of argument, that “Son of God” is a claim to‬‬ ‫‪divinity.‬‬ ‫‪93‬‬ ‫אל התפלל ואותו לבדו ‪Shem Ṭov’s Matthew text (MS Plutei 2.7) reads‬‬ ‫שכן כתי֗ את ֗ ֗‬ ‫‪ which is based on Deut 6:13. But, and that is the force of the argument, this is not pre‬תעבוד‬‫‪cisely what the Masoretic text says.‬‬ ‫‪94‬‬ ‫‪.‬להטעות אותו והשטן ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪95‬‬ ‫‪MS BL omit.‬‬ ‫‪96‬‬ ‫‪.‬ברעב אבל נוסף ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪97‬‬ ‫‪.‬מיד שהשיב יש״ו כי לא על הלחם לבדו וכו׳ ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪98‬‬ ‫‪.‬במוצאי ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪99‬‬ ‫‪.‬איך כתוב ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪.‬שמצינו בישעיה שאל לך אות ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪101‬‬ ‫‪.‬ידו ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪102‬‬ ‫‪.‬שאמר אתי ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪.‬כנזכר שער ראשון פרק שני ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪104‬‬ ‫‪MS BL omit.‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫‪.‬לו ‪MS BL adds‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬ ‫‪.‬וא״כ יראה שיש אלוה והוא איננו אלוה ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪107‬‬ ‫‪.‬לו ‪MS BL adds‬‬ ‫‪108‬‬ ‫‪.‬של אלוה מתועלת ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪109‬‬ ‫‪.‬ונראה מדבריו שלולי יעבדוהו ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬ ‫‪.‬יעבדוהו ‪MS BL:‬‬

230

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

֗‫ ועוד כי כתו‬.‫ יודע שהוא אליה או שהיה מחזיק עצמו בכך‬111‫בשביל מתנת הממלכות בהיותו‬ 112.‫אל אליך תתפלל ואותו תעבוד איננו בכל המקרא‬ ֗ ֗ ‫את‬

The temptation account has already been used in a similar fashion in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.4) and Nizzahon Vetus §162 (see 5.4.4). The arguments based on this pericope apparently developed into a kind of standard polemic to which more elements could be added, as can bee seen with Shem Ṭov who presents a systematic, eight point response to the account of Jesus’ temptation. He must have considered this pericope to provide strong support for his argument against Jesus’ divinity. Most of these points are in some form or another already mentioned in Nizzahon Vetus §162, and although Milḥamot ha-Shem seems to have provided the blueprint for both,113 what is unique to Even Boḥan is the first, second, seventh, and eight point, which adopt, at least for the sake of argument, the notion that Jesus was divine. Assuming the Christian position, Shem Ṭov asks how Satan could actually tempt God, more so, even dare to think that he could be successful. And in any case, what benefit could Jesus have gained from Satan, where would have been the temptation? The implication is that the context demands that Jesus was human only, specifically considering point seven: “It would appear that there was a God over him, whom he (himself) is careful (not) to test. Also, it would appear that he is not (that) God.” Jesus consequently acknowledges that he is not divine, that is, assuming that humanity and divinity are exclusive to each other. 6. 4. 6 Jesus’ Healings: Matt 8:1–4 (§18) The next three comments (§18, §22, and §23) are all related to accounts of Jesus’ miracles. The former two are relatively brief, while the latter, §23, is much more elaborate and interesting. We begin with §18, which follows Matt 8:1–4: The transcriber said: Look, what Elisha did to Naaman was greater than this, for he did not (even) want to raise his hand, rather he only said to him: “Go, bathe, and be clean” (2 Kings 5:10).

‫אמר המעתיק והנה עשה אלישע לנעמן יותר מזה שלא רצה להניף ידו אליו רק אמר לו לך‬ 114.‫ורחץ וטהר‬ 111

MS BL: ‫בשביל המלכות בהיותו‬. MS Plutei 2.17, f. 136v. 113 Specifically points 4–6 bear the marks of Jacob ben Reuben’s work; cf. here Levy, “Chaper 11,” 33–34, 62–63. As already mentioned, Milḥamot ha-Shem is likely the source for Nizzahon Vetus, which then probably is also the reason why the temptation pericope only comprises Matt 4:1–11a (omitting the angles) in both treatises. Matt 4:11b is however included in Even Boḥan. 114 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 140v. 112

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

231

This is in line with what was already observed in, e.g., Qiṣṣa/Nestor, namely that characters of the Hebrew Bible are at least equally deserving of divine status, if one follows the Christian rationale.115 The same argumentation appears in comments §§22–23, and it is noteworthy that Shem Ṭov and his predecessors clearly felt the need to engage the notion that miracles point to divine identity. However, that Jesus’ touching of the leper, which in his eyes is lesser than Elisha’s healing of Naaman’s leprosy, might point in another direction is not entertained.116 6. 4. 7 Jesus’ Raising of the Dead: Matt 9:18–26 (§22) In comment §22 Shem Ṭov compares Jesus with the raising of Lazarus to 1 Kings 17:17–24 and 2 Kings 4:8–37: The transcriber said: Look, Elijah resurrected the son of the goldsmith’s (wife) (cf. 1 Kings 17:17–24), and Elisha, his student, (raised) the Shunammite’s son (cf. 2 Kings 4:8–37), and Ezekiel (raised) many dead (cf. Ezekiel 37:1–14), and they (unlike Jesus) have not made their voice heard.

‫אמר המעתיק הנה אליהו החיה בן הצרפית ואלישע תלמידו בן השונמית ויחזקאל מתים רבים‬ 117.‫ולא השמיעו קולם‬

Shem Ṭov again argues that the three aforementioned prophets did not present themselves as divine on account of their miracle activities. Not only is the demonstration of divine power not indicative of the divinity of the miracle worker, the implication is that Jesus (and/or Christians) are making too much of his miracle activities. This then leads to the much more extensive argument in §23, which is following Matt 9:32–38. 6. 4. 8 Jesus’ Miracles: Matt 9:32–38 (§ 23) This comment represents Shem Ṭov’s key critique of the Gospel of Matthew and Jesus’ divinity. It expresses a rather passionate appeal for his readers to remain true to the Jewish faith. This argument is uniquely Shem Ṭov’s and does not occur in the same form in other previous polemic works. In fact, Matt 9:32–38 is not used in any of the other surveyed texts in this manner. It 115

Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§9–24 (see 2.3.2). Jesus’ touch here can also be interpreted as a concious negation of uncleaness by means of an “offensive” holiness or purity inherent to Jesus, see e.g. N.T. Wright’s “Foreword to the New Edition,” in Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (2nd ed.; London: Continuum, 1989), xv–xvi, (see also 88–212); but esp. Tom Holmén, “Jesus’ Inverse Strategy of Ritual (Im)purity and the Ritual Purity of Early Christians,” in Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscsaba/Budapest (ed. Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu; Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 54; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 15–32. 117 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 141v. 116

232

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

is also the by far most interesting comment and summarizes various reasons Shem Ṭov rejects the Christian claims. He counters the Christian arguments point by point by relying both on the Hebrew Bible and reason: The transcriber said: Even if we were to admit and believe that Jesus did all these miracles, what makes us, the Jewish community, unable to believe118 (is that) in all this there is not (really any) praise or exaltation for Jesus, as if this should lead us to regard him as more divine.119 (After all) the prophets did much more than this: Moses in Egypt, and in (the midst of) the sea, and in the desert. (Or take) Joshua, who caused the orb of the sun to stand still (cf. Josh 10:12–15),120 (or consider) Isaiah who caused the sun to turn back (cf. Isa 38:7–8), (or) Elijah, who stopped the heavens (from giving rain, cf. 1 Kings 17:1–7), and revived a dead person (cf. 1 Kings 17:22), and caused fire to come down from heaven (cf. 1 Kings 18:24, 36–38), (or take) Elisha, who healed the leprosy of Naaman merely by speaking alone (cf. 2 Kings 5:10,14), and even after his own death (he revived the dead, cf. 2 Kings 13:21), and (consider) how many other miracles he himself recounts. And if you say, that Jesus (ought to be considered) higher than the prophets since he was the son of a virgin who had not been joined to a man, nobody can (seriously) hold to this (belief). Also, (if his birth indeed had come about) by God, why is it then that Adam was born without the joining of male and female? In addition, (Adam ought to be reckoned) above Jesus, since he was (born even) without a female, solely from the Spirit of God alone, just as the Scriptures say: “And he blew into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen 2:7). And if you should say that he was created from the ground, and Jesus (was created) from a woman, and that he was (therefore) more important, I will answer you (this): Was not Eve created from the side of Adam (as) the one who is more eminent than the woman? For it did not require any menstruation-blood,121 neither did she have to reside inside him for nine months, unlike Jesus, your God. But if so, we (then) ought to make Eve into a God. And moreover, the angels and the devils, who were solely created out of the light of God, (then also) ought to be more worthy than him. And, if you should say that he is more excellent than the prophets because he went up to heaven; was he not preceded by Enoch, and Moses, and Elijah, and much more so, by the angels and devils? But if so, we ought to make them into divinities. (And it is surely) not because he called himself “Son of God,” for has not (also) Israel been called by God “my son, my firstborn” (Exod 4:22)?

118

Lit.: “what is it (then) that we, the Jewish community, are not able to believe?” Following MS BL here (‫)עד שבזה נחזיקהו לאלוה יותר‬. 120 The phrase ‫ גלגל חמה ולבנה‬has been translated here as “orb of the sun,” cf. Bereshit Rabbah 6.5, 31.9. 121 Cf. Wis 7:1. The second century Roman physician Galen, who was reintroduced to the Latin West in the 11th century, taught in his medical tractate On Semen I, chs. 10 and 11, that the body of a fetus developed from female blood (red-stuff) and semen (white stuff; bones), see Phillip De Lacy, Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), 99–107. Shem Ṭov most probably shared this view, cf. b. Nidda 31a and Vayyiqra Rabbah 14.6, and he clearly expresses that Adam was superior to Jesus because no human mother was involved in his creation. For the rabbinic view on conception see Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychological Perspective (New York: Ktav, 1986), 207–212; and Gwynn Kessler, Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009). 119

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

233

And if you should say that he is more excellent since he went up to heaven and (also) came down,122 which is something that Enoch or Elijah did not do,123 has not Moses gone up and come down, as it is written, “Moses went up to God” (Exod 19:3), and it is (likewise) written, “from the heavens He let you hear His voice” (Deut 4:36). That (this) ascension of Moses was (an ascension) to God, (that is, all the way) to the heavens, is quite clear. And second to him is Elijah, (since) he always appeared to the Talmudic sages, as many have testified about him. But if you should say that you do not believe in their testimony (i.e. the Talmud), I will say this: Why do you rather believe in the testimonies about Jesus (i.e. the gospels), (in particular) that he came down (from heaven)? Are they not both Jewish? So why do you rather believe in these, than in those? Much more so, our sages were (certainly) greater and more capable and wiser, but the testimonies of Jesus have the status of simple people, fishermen and the like.124 And if you should say that he is more excellent because he (was) resurrected after (his) death, is that not (also the case with) the son of the goldsmith’s (wife), and the Shunammite’s son, and (all) the dead Ezekiel resurrected after (their) death (cf. Eze 37:1–14)? But if so, we (also) ought to make them into divinities. And if you should say that (he is more excellent) because he was the son of a virgin/ maiden, do virgins/maidens not give birth every day?125 And if you should say that she remained a virgin after birth, would it not be possible for her to have been made (a virgin again) by their hands, or (perhaps she became a virgin again) by means of a (medical) injury in the mouth of the womb, just as two fingers would (also) soon (heal and) fuse together in this regard (that is if injured in a certain way)?126 Moreover, who witnessed to you about those things (beyond) what the gospel already witnessed? For when Mary was gripped by birth pangs, her husband Joseph left to bring a midwife to her, but when he found no other than Salome he brought her,127 and Mary gave birth, and she took Jesus and wrapped him in rags and put him to sleep in a feeding troth for oxen in an inn. But if so, you do not have (any other) witness for this [miraculous birth], except for Salome or Joseph. And you say (further) that she did not have any more sexual relations afterwards, then this matter would have come (to you only) through the testimony of one woman. Who (then) will give (assurance) and

122

Or: “will come down” (‫)וירד‬. Or: “will not do” (‫)לא ירדו‬. 124 The point that Peter and Paul were mere fishermen is mentioned already in Acts 4:13, and, e.g., also in Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 5.2: “He [either the so-called “Barbatus,” or Hierocles, both anti-Christian polemicists] chiefly, however, assailed Paul and Peter, and the other disciples, as disseminators of deceit, whom at the same time he testified to have been unskilled and unlearned. For he says that some of them made gain by the craft of fishermen, as though he took it ill that some Aristophanes or Aristarchus did not devise that subject” (ANF 7:138). Also Celsus mentions that Jesus’ company included sailors [fishermen?] and tax-collectors, see Origen, Cels. 1.62, 2.46. 125 This argument is somewhat ambiguous, it either could refer to the fact that young women (‫ )בתולות‬give birth to children all the time, and hence Jesus’ birth is nothing special, or that virgins (‫ )בתולות‬do not ever give birth, depending on how one understands the word ‫ בתולה‬and the negative question (‫ )הלא‬in context. 126 Shem Ṭov’s medical background becomes apparent here. 127 Shem Ṭov refers here to an apocryphal nativity account, cf. the Protoevangelium of James 14:14–21, or the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13. See also Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 229–33. 123

‫‪Chapter 6: Even Boḥan‬‬

‫‪234‬‬

‫‪make known to me the things on which you have relied to convert, (that is) to ‘the pattern [i.e.‬‬ ‫‪witness] of (only one) person?’128‬‬

‫אמר המעתיק אפי֗ נודה ונאמין שכל אלו הפלאות עשה ישו מה שלא נוכל נאמין‪ 129‬אנחנו קהל‬ ‫היהודים עם כל זה אין שבח ומעלה לישו בזה‪ 130.‬עד שבזה נחזיקהו באלה יותר‪ 131‬ויותר מזה‬ ‫עשו הנביאים משה‪ 132‬במצרים ובים ובמדבר‪ .‬יהושע שהעמיד גלגל חמה ולבנה‪ .‬ישעיה‬ ‫שהשיב סבוב‪ 133‬השמש לאחור‪ .‬אליהו שעצר את השמים‪ 134‬והחיה המת והוריד אש מן‬ ‫השמים‪ .‬אלישע שרפא צרעת נעמן במאמרו לבד והחיה המתים ואפי֗ אחרי מותו‪ .‬וכמה נסים‬ ‫ואת שהשבח לישו על הנביאים הוא שהיה בן בתולה‪ 135‬בלא חבור איש‬ ‫אהרים עצמו מספר‪֗ ֗ :‬‬ ‫אין להחזיקו בזה ֗ ֗‬ ‫גכ באלוה שהרי אדם נולד בלי חבור‪ 136‬זכר ונקבה ונוסף על ישו שהיה‬ ‫ואת שהוא נוצר‬ ‫שאמ הכתו֗ ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים‪֗ ֗ .‬‬ ‫֗‬ ‫מבלי‪ 137‬נקבה רק מרוח השם לבד כמו‬ ‫מאדמה וישו מאשה שהיה חשובה יותר‪ 138.‬אשיבך והלא חוה נבראת מצלע אדם שהוא יותר‬ ‫ואכ‬ ‫נכבד מהאשה כי לא נצטרכה דם הנידות ולא נשתקעה בתוכו ֗ט חדשים כישו אלהיך ֗ ֗‬ ‫ואת‬ ‫נעשה מחוה אלוה‪ .‬ועוד המלאכים והשטנים שנבראו מאור השם לבד יהיו נכבדים ממנו‪֗ ֗ .‬‬ ‫וכש המלאכים‬ ‫שמעלתו על הנביאים לפי שעלה לשמים והלא קדמו לו חנוך ומשה ואליה‪֗ ֗ 139‬‬ ‫והשטני֗ ֗ ֗‬ ‫ואכ נעשה מהם אלוהות‪ .‬ואי משום שקרא עצמו בן אלוה והלא ישראל קראה האל בני‬ ‫ואת שמעלתו לפי שעלה לשמים וירד מה שלא ירדו חנוך ואליה‪ .‬והלא משה עלה וירד‬ ‫בכורי‪֗ ֗ .‬‬ ‫דכתי֗ ומשה עלה אל האלהים‪ .‬וכתי֗ מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך הרי שעלית משה אל‬ ‫האלהים היה לשמים ומשנהו אליה שהיה נראה תמיד לחכמי התלמוד כאשר העידו עליו רבים‪.‬‬ ‫ואת שאינך מאמין בעדותם‪ .‬אשיבך‪ .‬ולמה תאמין יותר במעידים על ישו שירד והלא כולם‬ ‫֗֗‬ ‫יהודים ולמה תאמין באלו יותר מאלו וכל שכן‪ 140‬שחכמינו היו יותר גדולים וכשרים וחכמים‪.‬‬ ‫ואת שמעלתו לפי שחיה אחר המות והלא בן‬ ‫ועדי ישו היו בחזקת אנשים קלים דייגים ודומיהם‪֗ ֗ .‬‬ ‫ואת לפי שהיה בן‬ ‫אכ נעשה מהם אלוהות ֗ ֗‬ ‫הצרפית ובן השונמית ומתי יחזקאל חיו אחר המות ֗ ֗‬ ‫ואת לפי שנשארה בתולה אחר הלידה‪ .‬והלא זה‬ ‫בתולה והלא בכל‪ 141‬יום יולדות בתולות‪֗ ֗ .‬‬ ‫איפשר להעשות על ידיהם או על ידי נגע‪ 142‬יקרה בפי הרחם כמו שכבר יתחברו שני אצבעות‬ ‫באונגיליו‪ 143‬כי כאשר אחזו למרים חבלי‬ ‫֗‬ ‫בענין זה‪ .‬ועוד מי העיד לכם על ככה כי כבר העיד‬ ‫הלידה הלך יוסף בעלה להביא לה מילדת ולא מצא כי אם שלומית ויביאה ותלד מרים ותקח‬ ‫את ישו ויחתלהו בסמרטוטים ותישנהו באבוס השורים בפונדק ֗ ֗‬ ‫ואכ‪ 144‬אין לך עד על זה כי אם‬ ‫שלומית או יוסף ואתם אומרים שלא ידעה עוד ֗ ֗אכ יהיה הדבר בא על פי עדות אשה אחת‪ .‬מי‬ ‫יתן ותודיעני על מה נסמכת להמיר אל בתבנית אדם‪145.‬‬

‫‪This is reminiscent of Isa 44:13, perhaps implying that worshipping Jesus is idolatry.‬‬ ‫‪.‬להאמין ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬מזה ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬לאלוה שיותר ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬אשר ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬סבות ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬אליה ז״ל שעצר השמים ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬ליש״ו על הנבאים על שהיה בן בתולה ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬ג״כ באלוה אדם הראשון נולד בלא חבור ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬בלי ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬השהיא יותר חשובה ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬משה ואליהו ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬ולמה תאמין באלו יותר מבאלו וכ״ש ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬כל ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬או ע״י נגע ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬באוונג״ייליון ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪.‬וא״ת ‪MS BL:‬‬ ‫‪MS Plutei 2.17, ff. 142r–142v.‬‬

‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪129‬‬ ‫‪130‬‬ ‫‪131‬‬ ‫‪132‬‬ ‫‪133‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬ ‫‪136‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬ ‫‪139‬‬ ‫‪140‬‬ ‫‪141‬‬ ‫‪142‬‬ ‫‪143‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬ ‫‪145‬‬

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

235

The arguments that Shem Ṭov advances against Jesus’ divinity are quite clear and rational: 1) the miracles the prophets performed were better than Jesus’ miracles, yet that did not make the prophets divine. 2) Virginal birth is implausible, therefore cannot prove Jesus’ divinity. Besides, “Adam’s birth” is more excellent than Jesus’ birth, nevertheless Adam is therefore not divine. 3) Likewise, ascension does not make one divine;146 4) resurrection does not make one divine,147 5) and neither does (special) birth; furthermore, 6) Mary’s post-natal virginity can be explained medically, whereas the nativity account is dubious and unverifiable. Most effort is spent on disproving that virgin birth demonstrates Jesus’ divinity (paragraphs 2 and 6), which is done by applying arguments from reason without resorting to the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14,148 or by appealing to the impropriety of believing that God was enclosed in the womb. Shem Ṭov goes so far as to even entertain the notion that Mary was a post-natal virgin, and suggests two medical explanations to account for this possibility.149 Shem Ṭov’s general strategy is to recite the Christian arguments in support of Jesus’ divinity (“If you should say that he is more excellent because…”), which he doubtlessly had encountered in his own disputes with Christians, and then to refute them. Jesus is thereby portrayed as less impressive than other miracle working figures of the Hebrew Bible who have no claim to divinity on account of their miracle performance. Most interesting is Shem Ṭov’s argument against the trustworthiness of the gospel compared to the reliability of the rabbinic tradition. Libby Garshowitz has stated that the inclusion of the Gospel of Matthew “was intended to help refute Christianity’s claim that it was rooted and foreshadowed in Hebrew scriptures and rabbinic literature.”150 However, the argument that Jewish tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (and their respective authors) are all Jewish (‫ )הלא כולם יהודים‬would suggest that Shem Ṭov’s strategy was the oppo146 Shem Ṭov appeals here to the common belief that not only Enoch and Elijah ascended to heaven, but also Moses, see e.g. Philo Mos. 1.158, Josephus Ant. 4.325–26, and b. Yoma 4a. See Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 95–98; and Renée Bloch, “Quelques aspects de la figure de Moïse dans la tradition rabbinique,” in Moïse, l’homme de l’alliance (ed. H. Cazelles, Tournai: Desclée de Brouwer, 1955), 93–167. The New Testament in contrast emphazises Jesus’ ascension (and the sending of the Holy Spirit) as indicative of Jesus exalted, divine position, cf. Matt 26:64, Mark 14:62, 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, 5:31, Eph 1:20–22, Heb 1:3, 8:1, 1 Pet 3:22. 147 This is really the only time that Jesus’ resurrection is discussed with regard to the divinity of Jesus. 148 However, Shem Ṭov compares Matt 1:18b–25 to Isa 7:14 in §2 (f. 134v–135r). 149 Though in comment §32 (f. 147v) he also argues that Matt 13:53–58 indicates that Jesus had further brothers and sisters by Mary. 150 “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 298; emphasis mine.

236

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

site.151 Also, when commenting on Jesus’ teachings, he consistently argues that Jesus stands within the Jewish tradition, albeit perhaps marginally so.152 Therefore, for his contemporaries to convert from the higher order of Judaism to the lower is rather unsound: Rabbinic tradition is based on the trustworthy testimony and erudition of the sages, the gospels are based on the witness of simple folk and twisted by the deceptive ambitions of the evangelists.153 Overall, comment §23 represents one of the most concise, rational, and comprehensive attacks on Jesus’ divinity, though Shem Ṭov only engages here with a popular understanding of Jesus’ divinity without attempting to further engage the theological or philosophical aspects of Christian doctrine. 6. 4. 9 Jesus and John the Baptist: Matt 11:11–15 (§24) The immediatley following comment which is based on Matt 11:11–15 likewise contains novel arguments, although the last of the four points Shem Ṭov makes is similar to Yosef ha-Meqanne §1 (see 4.5.11): The transcriber said: I have four questions about this (section). The first is that he already previously wrote, that when Jesus came to be baptized by John, that he did not want to (baptize him), because he (felt he) was “not worthy to carry his shoes” (Matt 3:11), and that at the time of baptism a voice from heaven was heard saying: “This is

151

In doing so Shem Ṭov might be the first person to clearly emphazise that Jesus was Jewish! 152 Shem Ṭov repeatedly argues that Jesus’ teaching are in line with the sages (‫ )חזל‬and that Jesus was not innovating anything (‫)חדש‬, see esp. comment §17 (f. 140r; see 6.3). For this purpose, almost like a precursor to Paul Billerbeck, Shem Ṭov connects various passages from the Talmud to Jesus’ teaching: Comment §8 (f. 137v) relates Matt 5:20–24 to m. ’Abot 3:11 and b. Qidd. 28a; comment §9 (f. 137v) links Matt 5:27–30 to Deut 5:21; comment §10 (f. 138r) links Matt 5:33–42 to b. Šabb. 88b. But then in comment §11 (f. 138v) Shem Ṭov deviates from this strategy and critiques Jesus’ teaching in Matt 5:43–48 as misinterpretation, yet he returns to the previous pattern already in comment §12 (f. 138v), where he links Matt 6:1–4 to b. B. Meṣi’a 85a and b. Sanh. 37a. Then, comment §13 (f. 139r) relates Matt 6:5–15 to b. Ber. 24b; comment §14 (f. 139r) links Matt 6:19–23 to b. Baba Batra 11a and b. Yoma 37a–b; comment §15 links Matt 6:24–34 to Psalms 55:22, 37:3 and Jer 17:5; comment §16 (f. 139v) links Matt 7:6–12 to Prov 26:8, b. Ḥul. 133a, Lev 19:18 and b. Šhabb. 31a. Comment §17 then summarizes Shem Ṭov’s reading of the Sermon on the Mount. Another more extensive critique of Jesus’ understanding and use of the Law follows in comment §26 (f. 144v), but see also comments §34 (f. 148v), §40 (f. 152r), §48 (f. 155v), §49 (f. 156v), §55 (f. 160v), and §56 (f. 161v). 153 In various comments Shem Ṭov points out inconsistencies between Matthew and the Hebrew Bible, but also to other gospels (mostly Mark and John), see §1 (see 6.4.1), §3 (see 6.4.3), §27 (f. 145r), §41 (f. 153r), §51 (f. 158r), §52 (f. 158v), §54 (f. 160r), §57 (161v). In comments §2 (f. 134v–135r) and §5 (f. 135v) Shem Ṭov maintains that Matthew’s understanding of the fulfilment of prophecy is misconceived. In comment §36 (f. 149v) he interpets Matt 15:39–16:12 in a way that implies that the disciples are “coarse of sense” and “thick in  the head” (‫עבי המוח לא יבינו לא יבינו שום מושכל‬ ‫)נראה מכאן שהם היו גסי השכל‬.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

237

my son, my pleasure is in him” (Matt 3:17). But if so, how is it that John sent (a messenger) to him now in order to ascertain if he is the Messiah, or whether he ought to hope for another? Second, since John is (supposedly) a prophet, and according to his words (even) one “greater than a prophet,” how is it that he is satisfied with this (answer Jesus gives)? (Yet) here it is written that “the Lord God will not do anything, unless he reveals his secret to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). All the more, he [Jesus] did not come (and tell John himself), instead (he just told a messenger) to inform him about Jesus according to these words. Third: If his power is so much greater than John’s, why does he not (just) show his signs and miracles to (all) the people, for (apparently) he [John] did not remember that he [Jesus] performed a (single) sign or wonder with his own hands. Fourth, look, Jesus testified here about him [John] that nobody like him “has risen up among all (those) born of women” (Matt 11:11). If that is the case, he ought to be greater than Jesus, since he was also born by a woman. But that a man could be greater than God (or: Elijah) is a lie.154

‫ ישו להטביל‬155‫ הראשונה שכבר כתב לעיל שכשבא‬.‫אמר המעתיק יש לי בזה ארבע שאלות‬ ‫מיוחנן שלא היה רוצה לפי שלא היה ראוי לשאת מנעליו ובשעת הטבילה נשמע קול מן‬ ‫ איך שלח לו יוחנן עתה כמסתפק אם הוא‬157‫ואכ הוא‬ ֗ ֗ .‫ זה בני וחפצי בו‬156‫השמים אומרת‬ ‫ והא‬158.‫ שנית אחר שיוחנן נביא וגדול מנביא לדבריו איך יספק בזה‬.‫המשיח או אם יקוה לאחר‬ ‫וכש שהוא לא בא‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ דבר כי אם גלה סודו אל עבדיו הנביאים‬160‫אל אלהים‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ לא יעשה‬159‫כתי֗ כי‬ ‫ שלישית אם כל כך כחו גדול מיוחנן מדוע לא מראה מאותותיו‬.‫אלא לבשר על ישו כדבריהם‬ ‫ רביעית הנה ישו העיד כאן עליו‬.‫ שום אות ופלא על ידיו‬161‫ונפלאותיו לעם כי לא נזכר יעשה‬ ֗ ֗ ‫שלא קם בכל ילדי הנשים כמוהו‬ ‫גכ ילוד אשה והאיש גדול‬ ֗ ֗ 163‫ גדול היה מישו שהוא‬162‫אכ‬ 164.‫מהאלוה שקר‬

Shem Ṭov argues here that John the Baptist should not have doubted Jesus if he himself had heard a heavenly voice or seen miracles performed by Jesus (a similar argument is made in regard to the scribes and Pharisees in comment §30, see 6.4.13).165 The fact that John, who is heralded to be Israel’s greatest 154 If one allows the emmendation Elijah (‫ אליה‬instead of ‫)אלוה‬, the argument would express incredibility that Jesus could ever be “higher” than John, who is meant to be understood as Elijah (cf. Matt 11:11, 14–15), which would make sense in the context. Otherwise the argument simply expresses the theological impossibility that a created being could be “more” than God (‫ ;)מהאלוה‬but even Christians do not hold to Jesus’ superiority over God. 155 MS BL: ‫כשבא‬. 156 MS BL omit. 157 MS BL omit. 158 MS BL: ‫איך יסתפק מזה‬ 159 MS BL omit. 160 MS BL omit. 161 MS BL: ‫שעשה‬. 162 MS BL: ‫וא״כ‬. 163 MS BL adds ‫היה‬. 164 MS Plutei 2.17, ff. 143v–144r. MS BL here: ‫שקר וכזב‬. 165 Also similar is Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq: “Further, at first he (John) prophesied concerning him (Jesus) that he was the son of God and after wards he did not believe in him. For he said, ‘Are you he who is destined to come or are we to wait for another?’ For he did not believe in him,” Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 344 [f. 16v].

238

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

prophet (Matt 11:11), is unsure about Jesus does not exactly make Christianity’s claims stronger — an argument that still has some force.166 Nevertheless, Shem Ṭov also argues (slightly counterproductively) against the notion that John was a prophet by referring to Amos 3:7. Since Jesus did not personally inform John, either Jesus’ estimate that John is a prophet cannot be true, or Jesus is not divine, for otherwise he should himself have made efforts to notify John ahead of time since John was the most important of prophets. 6. 4. 10 Jesus’ Prayer to the Father: Matt 11:25–30 (§25) Like Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.5) and Nizzahon Vetus §170 (see 5.4.6), Shem Ṭov uses Matt 11:25–30 as a means to argue against Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity: The transcriber said: I have five misgivings about this passage. The first: If he was God, how is it that he gave instruction to God when he (himself) was someone who had to learn?167 Second, how is it that he needed to be taught (at all)? Third, how is it that it was necessary (for him) to receive something (that was) given by someone else when he said that “everything has been given to me” (Matt 11:27)? Fourth, how is it that he said that therefore “none knows (him) except the Father (alone),” and the “Father (is known) by the Son (alone)” and his disciples. If this is so, then it is apparent that they are two entities, and that there is a difference between them, and this is the opposite of their confession. Fifth, if (the above is) the case, we can draw the conclusion that the Father’s knowledge was more than the Son’s knowledge.

‫ האחת אם הוא אלוה איך נתן הוראה לאל‬.‫אמר המעתיק יש לי בזה המאמר חמש ספקות‬ ‫שאמ הכל‬ ֗ ‫ שלישת איך נצטרך לקבל מתנה מאחר‬.‫ שנית איך היה צריך למלמד‬168.‫בשלמדו‬ ‫אכ נראה ששני‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ רבירית איך אמר שלכן אין מכיר אלא האב ולאב הבן ותלמידיו‬.‫ לי‬169‫נתון‬ ‫אכ נדלה מעלת ידיעת האב מידיעת‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ חמישית‬.‫ וזה הפך אמונתם‬.‫דברים הם ויש הפרש ביניהם‬ 170.‫הבן‬

166

On the relationship between Jesus and John see, e.g., Daniel S. Dapaah, The Relationship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth: A Critical Study (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2005); and Robert L. Webb, “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. Bruce Chilton, and Craig A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 179–230. 167 Matt 11:27 in Even Boḥan reads: ‫ואין מכיר את הבן אלא האב בלבד ולאב אין מכיר‬ ‫אלא הבן‬. Shem Ṭov inteprets ‫“( מכיר‬being familiar with,” or “‘non-intimate’” knowing”) as being given instructions (‫ )נתן הוראה‬by God. This is probably due to the influenced of Milḥamot ha-Shem, which reads here: “If everything was delivered (‫ )נמסר‬to him by his Father, it follows that he lacks knowledge by himself, for there is nothing in his speech or his language except for what his Father teaches him (‫)שלמדו אביו‬,” see 3.4.5. 168 MS BL: ‫שלמדו‬. 169 MS BL: ‫נתן‬. 170 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 144r.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

239

In comparison to the other two texts, Shem Ṭov is more systematic, although the argument is essentially the same as it arises directly from the text focusing on Jesus’ limited knowledge. If Jesus had to learn, then “there is a difference between” the Father and the Son, and “the Father’s knowledge was more than the Son’s knowledge.” Jesus is consequently not God. 6. 4. 11 Jesus’ Exorcisms: Matt 12:22–29 (§28) The following section in which Jesus reacts to the Pharisees’ verdict that he uses demonic powers to exorcise demons also would appear to be Shem Ṭov’s own response to Matthew. No other polemical texts so far have critiqued Matt 12:22–29.171 Shem Ṭov, in turn, attempts to refute Jesus’ reply: The transcriber said: Jesus’ argument against the Pharisees is not (applicable for a case) where a few wicked people were to rise up from one kingdom in order to harm (someone) in another kingdom, and the king (in turn) would punish them for this; (this) would not mean (that there) is a division in his kingdom. So likewise, if Beelzebub were to harm one of his servants, it (would) not follow from this that there was a division in his (own) kingdom. Second, if I were to assume this (exorcism) was true, who told them that this did not happen due to a division in the kingdom of Beelzebub?172 Third, when he said, “how shall a man be able (to enter the strong man’s house)” — this is not a (conclusive) argument, for it is (quite) possible through the power of an oath on the name of God, may he be blessed, or on his angels to subdue Beelzebub so that he might do one’s bidding, or (perhaps) through some ritual that was performed on him. And so he may (indeed) have first bound his servants, for thus it is with those who perform oaths.173

‫אמר המעתיק טענת ישו על הפרושוים אינה שכאשר יקומו קצת אנשים רעים ממלכות אחת‬ ‫ וכן אם בעל זבוב ייסר‬.‫להזיק במלכות אחרת והמלך ייסרם לא יהיה בזה מחלוקת במלכותו‬ ‫ שנית אם היתה הנחתי זאת אמיתית מי הגיד‬174.‫אחד מעבדיו לא יגיע מזה מחלוקת במלכותו‬ ‫ אינה‬176. ֗‫שאמ ואיך יוכל איש כו‬ ֗ ‫ שלישית מה‬175.‫להם שלא קרה לבעל זבוב מחלוקת במלכותו‬ ֗ ‫טענה שאיפשר שבכח השבועה בשם‬ ‫ יכריע לבעל זבוב לעשו֗ מאמרו או בסבת‬177‫ית ומלאכיו‬ 179.‫ לעבדיו וכן דרכי בעלי ההשבעות‬178‫אי זה עבודה נעשית לו ואז יהיה הוא נקשר תחלה‬

171

Shem Ṭov’s version of Matthew differs here from the Greek text, see Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 223: “The meaning is different in the Hebrew text because of two major variations. (1) Verse 27 reads: ‘If I cast out demons by Baalzebub, why do your sons not cast them out?’ instead in the Greek: ‘by whom do your sons cast them out?’ (2) Verse 28 reads: ‘the end of [his] kingdom has come,’ instead of the Greek: ‘the kingdom of God has come’.” 172 In other words, it would have been equally possible that Jesus was the (demonic) subversive element within Satan’s domain. 173 Or perhaps: “magical spells.” 174 MS BL: ‫בביתו‬. 175 MS BL: ‫בביתו‬. 176 MS BL: ‫וכו׳‬. 177 MS BL: ‫בשי״ת ובמלאכיו‬. 178 MS BL: ‫תחילה נקשר‬. 179 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 145v.

240

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

The Pharisees’ assessment of Jesus’ miracle activities as demonic is a pivot point in Matthew’s gospel as the resulting rejection of Jesus by the crowds puts him on the path to the cross and effects a turn to the Gentiles (in addition it is related to the “Unforgivable Sin”).180 As such, Jesus’ tertium non datur argument is a challenge that as long as it remained unanswered would not only dispute the Pharisees’ and the rabbis’ assessment of Jesus, but more so, would even put them in the realm of the “Unforgivable Sin,” most certainly in the eyes of Christians. Thus, the claim that Jesus was nothing else than an evil magician is a decisive attack against Christianity,181 a view with which rabbinic Judaism concurred.182 Therefore, Shem Ṭov is keen to point out fallacies in Jesus’ tertium non datur argument by offering not just a third, but also a fourth, and fifth option: First, he argues that Beelzebub’s harming of his own servants does not necessarily mean his kingdom is divided. It could be a form of punishment

180 

The assessment that Jesus is demonically empowered occurs four times in Matthew, in 9:34, 10:25, 12:24, and 12:27. Immediately after the latter occurence, the Pharisees demand a sign from Jesus (12:38–45), which he denies by deriding them as “evil and adulterous generation,” only to be finally opposed by his own family, which Jesus in turn also appears to reject (12:46–50). The following chapter, which comprises the third speech in Matthew, distinguishes then between the crowds that now only hear Jesus preach in parables and riddles, and the disciples that are allowed a clear explanation (13:10–15). This process of successively turning away from the Jewish crowds and the Jewish core-lands is presented in conjunction with 1) the death of John the Baptist as end of the prophetic era (14:1–12), 2) Jesus’ apparent rejection of Pharisaic halachah (15:1–20), and 3) comes to a first apex in Jesus’ encounter with the Cannanite woman in Syrio-Phoenicia, whom he reluctantly accepts (15:21–29). On the one side, Jesus is rejected by the spiritual leaders of Israel, the Pharisees, resulting in his turning to those few who do follow him. And, on the other side, he is accepted by a few disciples and a Gentile woman, esp. seen in the turning point of the narrative, Peter’s acclamation “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). All this then puts Jesus on the path to the cross (16:21), which eventually leads to a full acceptance of the Gentiles (28:19), and lines up with Matthew’s initial focus on the Gentiles (“the son of Abraham,” cf. Mat 1:1). 181 The use of magic is a major issue in Contra Celsum, esp. in the first two books; see Cels. 1.6 and 1.28. 182 Jesus’ miracle activities were explained as being performed by means of (demonic) Egyptian magic, cf. Justin, Dial. 69.7, b. Sanhedrin 43a–b, 104b, 107b; b. Soṭah 47a; also Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 102–106. In contrast, Toledot Yeshu relates that Jesus was able to perform miracles because he stole the Shem ha-Meforash, the Name of God, which was the reason he (and also Judas) could achieve various miraculous feats, see e.g., Krauss, Leben Jesus, 28 (typus Wagenseil), 40, 53 (Strassburg), 68, 93 (Vindobona), 118, 123 (Adler); and Ora Limor an Israel Jacob Yuval, “Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth,” in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”), 197–220, esp. 201–202. See also Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq: “He performed no miracles until he went down to Egypt with his father and mother, where he learned many arts. After he returned to the Holy Land, he performed the miracles described in your books. All this was done through the arts which he learned in Egypt,” Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 342 [f. 15r], see also 333–39 (see 3.4.8).

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

241

against some defectors, or a punishment for transgressing into “another kingdom.”183 Second, it is actually difficult to verify that there was in fact no division in Beelzebub’s kingdom; Jesus himself could perhaps be the instigator of such a subversive activity within Beelzebub’s domain. And third, according to Shem Ṭov, the power of exorcism can also be wielded without having to immediately infer that the exorcist has rendered Satan or his minions ultimately powerless. That Satan can be temporally bound by magic would not mean that the one binding Satan is ontological superior to Satan. In this sense, Jesus’ power over Satan is comparable to a magician or spell-caster. Thus, for Shem Ṭov, Jesus’ exorcisms are not conclusive evidence for a divinely endorsed messianic mission or Jesus’ superiority.184 He diametrically opposes the evangelist’s narrative that exorcism, and with that other miracles, give validity to Jesus’ mission or claims. Common to the Christian argument is the understanding that miracles endorse a divine messenger, and it is therefore paramount to discern the source of these super-natural powers. In this, Jewish polemic usually does not dispute that Jesus performed miracles, but maintains that these were illict. Overall, Shem Ṭov takes the Christian position rather seriously here. 6. 4. 12 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:30–37 (§29) Shem Ṭov stays in Matthew 12 and, not surprisingly, repeats the by now familiar Jewish standard critique of Jesus’ statement on the blashphemy against the Spirit: The transcriber said: I have two questions about this passage. The first: Look, they are saying that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are reflecting185 one (being), and their power and their knowledge are one, and that there is no difference between them, and (that) they are one in every aspect and in respect to substance.186 And if this were the case, how is it that there is a difference between cursing the Spirit and cursing the Son? Second, if a man curses the three of them while thinking of them as one in his mind, (perhaps by saying) that the Trinity is a lie, and afterwards repents — now, the Father and the Son forgive him, but the Spirit will not forgive him. If so, what use is there (then) in the Father and the Son forgiving him? And where will his soul be, in the Garden of Eden or in Hell? Or in a place between, for the Father and the Son on their part would agree that he should be in the Garden of Eden, while the Spirit on his part (would have him) in Hell?

183

Shem Ṭov’s own experience of war and the warring of kingdoms in Iberia may have provided visual examples in support of this argument. 184 In this Shem Ṭov stands in the tradition of Deut 13:1–5. 185 Lit: “go back/return to one (‫)הם חוזרים לאחד‬.” 186 Lit: “they are one from every side (‫ )צד‬and one from every corner (‫)פינה‬.”

242

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

‫ והבן והרוח‬188‫ האחת הנה הם אומרים שהאב‬187.‫אמר המעתיק יש לי במאמר זה שתי שאלות‬ ‫הם חוזרים לאחד וכחם ודעתם אחד ואין הפרש ביניהם והם אחד מכל צד ומכל פנה ואם כן‬ ‫ שנית אם יגדף אדם שלשתם כאחד בחשבו‬189.‫הוא איך שם הפרש בין המגדף לרוח למגדף לבן‬ ‫אכ מה‬ ֗ ֗ .‫ לא ימהול לו‬191‫ הנה האב והבן ימחלו לו והרוח‬190‫שהשלוש שקר ואחר שב ביתשובה‬ ‫ או במקום אמצעי כי‬193‫ לו במחילת האב והבן ואנה תהיה נפשו בגן עדן או גיהנם‬192‫תועלת‬ 194.‫חלקי האב והבן יחייבו שתהיה בגן עדן וחלק הרוח בגיהנם‬

Shem Ṭov is very systematic and precise in presenting the challenges, but the argument itself is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.9), Yosef ha-Meqanne §9 and §41 (see 4.5.13–14), and Nizzahon Vetus §223 (see 5.4.7). Though the first of Shem Ṭov’s points is more theological, and the second almost more anecdotal, there is no radical new contribution or different reading than what was already observed. It is therefore difficult to tell if this particular argument against the Trinity had special importance to Shem Ṭov (cf. 6.4.4). 6. 4. 13 Jesus’ Signs: Matt 12:38–45 (§30) Shem Ṭov returns to the topic of miracles (see 6.4.6–9), and echoing the request of the Pharisees, he asks: If all the signs he mentioned were true which Jesus (supposedly) performed, that he revived the dead and healed the lepers, and drove out the demons, what need would there have been for other (signs)?

‫אמר המעתיק אם כל האותות הנז֗ היו אמת שישו עשה והוא שהחיה מתים ורפא מצרעים‬ 195.‫והוציא שדים מה צורך לאחרים‬

Shem Ṭov essentially questions the truthfulness and nature of the miracle accounts in the New Testament. If they truly occurred and were observed, why was there a need for other signs? In other words, there may have been something intrinsically questionable about Jesus’ miracle activity, and with this Shem Ṭov follows the lead of the Pharisees.196 In contrast, in Matthew’s 187

MS BL: ‫תשובות‬. MS BL: ‫אומרים שהנה האב‬. 189 MS BL: ‫הבן‬. 190 MS BL: ‫בתשובה‬. 191 MS BL: ‫לו אבל הרוח‬. 192 MS BL: ‫תופלת‬. 193 MS BL: ‫בגהינם‬. 194 MS Plutei 2.17, ff. 145–146r. MS BL here: ‫בגהינם ע״כ‬. 195 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 146r. 196 A similar question is raised in comment §35 (f. 149r) on Matt 15:29–38: “If he was (such) a great prophet and the ‘Son of God’ — the ‘Hand of God’ for short — (why did) they [the disciples] not see that Moses (likewise) fed and supplied (food for) six hundred thousand (men) apart from the women and children, (and that for) forty years in the wilderness?” (‫שנית‬ ‫ ולא ראו שמשה זן וספק לששים רבוא לבד‬.‫אל תקצר‬ ֗ ֗ ‫אם הוא היה לנביא גדול ולבן אלוה היד‬ ‫)הנשים והטף ארבעים שנה במדבר‬. The reference to Jesus as the “hand of God” relates an 188

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

243

portrayal Jesus’ reaction makes clear that the miracles performed by Jesus ought to have been sufficient, and it is precisely in this context that Jesus calls the Pharisees an “evil and adulterous generation” (Matt 12:38). Shem Ṭov acknowledges here, in some sense, that if Jesus had produced the proper signs, that he would have given sufficient validity to his divine mission and claims and hence would have been credible to the Pharisees.197 Interestingly, Shem Ṭov’s argument rests to a large extend on the Pharisee’s assessment of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of Matthew. The evangelist did not just report that people believed in Jesus, he also recalls that the Pharisees rejected Jesus, and this constitutes a trustworthy witness about Jesus that holds weight for Shem Ṭov! 6. 4. 14 Peter’s Confession: Matt 16:13–20 (§37) Athough this comment only marginally relates to Jesus divinity, it has been included because Shem Ṭov presents a unique challenge. First of all, no other text surveyed so far has included Peter’s high-christological confession (“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” Matt 16:16).198 But more interestingly, Shem Ṭov questions the entire pericope by comparing it to other verses in the Matthew, thereby creating doubt about the plausibility of the gospel. The transcriber said: I have three questions about this (section): The first: Look, in the parable of the weeds in §62 he said to them: “Thus it will be in the last days, the “Son of Man” will send his angels etc.” (Matt 13:41). Who is the one who rules over angels, and the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and the wicked in Hell, is it the “Son of God”? And how is it that he [Jesus] was amazed by Peter(’s answer) when he said that he is the “Son of God”? (This is all the) more (odd since) he frequently said (things such as) “my father who is in heaven,” and in §51 he said that “everything has been given to me from my

old, traditionally Christian interpretation, though in medieval Judaism this term was also part of the anthropomorphic dispute, see Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Hand of God: A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism,” in Rashi 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach. Congrès Européen des études juives (ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna; Paris: Cerf, 1993), 321–35. Cf. also Philo, Plant. 50, b. Sanh. 38a, or Exod 15:6, 12; Isa 62:8; Psalm 17:7; 44:4. Ireneaus first compared the Son to “the Hand of God” by which all things are created in Haer. 5.28.3, see also Cyprian, Test. 2.4 (ANF 5:516f), Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.71 (NPNF2 4:387), Isidore of Seville (d. 636), Etymologiae 7.2.23. Cf. the discussion in Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 104–47. 197 However, according to the long argument in 6.4.8, this would not have necessarily meant for Shem Ṭov that Jesus was divine, he would have been perhaps acceptable as a prophet, but not as God incarnate. 198 In this context Jesus is designated as messiah (Christ) for the first time in Shem Ṭov’s Hebrew gospel, all other references to Jesus as messiah have been omitted in the Hebrew translation up to here: “You are the Messiah, in the foreign language ‘Christos,’ son of the living God” (‫)אתה משיח לעז קרישטו בן אלהים חיים שבאת בזה העולם‬.

244

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

Father, and nobody knows the Father etc.” (Matt 11:27). And also in §56 “every sin and blasphemy (against the Son and the Father) will be forgiven etc.” (Matt 12:31–32). Second, in [Matthew] chapter 14, when he spoke to his disciples on the lake (after which) they worshipped him, they said “Alas, he is the ‘Son of God’” (cf. Matt 14:33).199 So, why was he now amazed by Peter(’s answer), and not by (what) all of them (said) then? Third, I wonder how (some) would say that he was John. Was Jesus not well-known on account of his signs and miracles, (performed even) during John’s lifetime, as is mentioned in many places above?

‫אמ להם כן יהיה‬ ֗ ‫סב‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ האחת הנה במשל הזונן פרק‬..‫אמר המעתיק יש לי בזה שלש שאלות‬ ‫ שמושל על מלאכים וכן צדיקים בגן‬201‫ ומי‬.‫וכ‬ ֗ ‫ את מלאכיו‬200‫באחרית הימים ישלח בן האדם‬ 202‫ ואיך תמה מפיטרוש‬.‫עדן ורשעים לגיהנם בן אלהים הוא‬ ‫שאמ שבן אלהים ועוד כל שעה‬ ֗ ‫וכ ובפרק נו֗ ֗ כל חטא‬ ֗ ‫אמ הכל נתון לי מאת אבי ואין מכיר לאב‬ ֗ ‫נא‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ ובפרק‬.‫אומר אבי שבשמים‬ ‫אמ לתלמידיו בים השתחוו לו ואמרו אכיה הוא בן‬ ֗ ‫יד כאשר‬ ֗ 203‫וגדוף ימחל‬ ֗ ֗ ‫וכ שנית בפרק‬ ‫ שלישית תמהני איך היו אומרים‬..‫ ולא מכולם אז‬205‫ ולמה תמה עתה מפיטרוש‬204.‫האלהים‬ ‫ ונפלאותיו כנז֗ לעי֗ בהרבה‬206‫שהוא יוחנן והלא בימי יוחנן היה ישו מפורסם באותותיו‬ 207.‫מקומות‬

While the first argument is merely a terse rethorical question, it raises doubts concerning Christian convictions arising from the text: Who do Christians believe rules over Heaven and Hell? Is it the “Son of Man” as the one who 199

The passage referred to is actually in Matthew chapter fourteen (‫)פרק י״ד‬, and both MS BL and MS Plutei 2.17 (a late 15th century copy?) interestingly refer here to the “modern” chapter division of the Gospel of Matthew, which was probably introduced in 1205 as part of a revision of the Old Latin text by Cardinal Stephen Langton, who at the time was professor in Paris. In 1238 the Dominican Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (Hugo of St. Cher) adopted this system in his concordance Sacrorum bibliorum concordantiae; see Walter F. Specht, “Chapter and Verse Divisions,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 106; and Raphael Loewe, “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 2 — The West, From the Fathers to the Reformation (ed. G.W.H. Lampe; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 147–8, see esp. 147, n. 6. In comment §39 (f. 150r) both MS BL and MS Plutei 2.17 refer to the modern chapter division again, while at the same time quoting verbatim from the Hebrew Matthew pericope no. 48 (in Shem Ṭov’s text). This might suggest that these modern chapter references were perhaps added by a later copyist, although this would have occurred fairly early since it is already in MS Plutei 2.17. It could also indicate that Shem Ṭov (or alternatively one of the earlier copyists) must have been able to access the Gospel of Matthew with “modern” chapter divisions by the time of reaching the middle of comment §37. In comments §2, §11, §26, §31, §35 and the first half of §37 references still correspond to the pericope divisions as given in Even Boḥan. 200 MS BL: ‫בן אדם‬. 201 MS BL: ‫מי‬. 202 MS BL: ‫מפייט״רוס‬. 203 MS BL omit. 204 MS BL: ‫השתחוו לו וגם אמרו כי הוא בן אלקים‬. 205 MS BL: ‫מפייט״רוס‬. 206 MS BL: ‫והלא יוחנן היה בימי יש״ו מפורסם וכן יש״ו היה מפורסם באותותיו‬. 207 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 149v.

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

245

sends angels (Matt 13:41), his Father (Matt 13:43, 16:17), the “Son of God” (Matt 16:16), or even Peter (Matt 6:18–19)? The impression of the confused nature of Christian beliefs is then reinforced with the second question based on Matt 16:17, which Shem Ṭov interprets as a reaction of surprise.208 The comparison with the disciples’ confession after Jesus walked on water (Matt 14:33) thus either questions Jesus’ mental capacity, or the veracity of Matthew’s composition, for it should have been easy for Peter to deduce that Jesus is the “Son of God” based on Jesus’ frequently calling God his “Father.” It should have been no surprise to Jesus that Peter came to this understanding of Jesus. Shem Ṭov implicitly assumes here that Matthew gave a historical account, and the tension seen between Matt 14:33 and Matt 16:17 thus questions the probability that these matters had occured as reported. Likewise the third argument points out potential problems on the narrative level of Matthew’s gospel. Shem Ṭov asks here how it could be possible that people confused Jesus with John (who did not perform any miracles) if he was so well known on account of his miracles, which is indeed a good question. All three arguments appear novel, but at least the first must have come from a different source, unless Shem Ṭov had access to another Gospel of Matthew version.209 The latter two have a distinct historical-critical flavor, because Shem Ṭov actually shows interest in the historical reality and probabilities behind Matthew’s account. This then is an new quality of engagement with the Christian text. 6. 4. 15 The Transfiguration: Matt 17:1–8 (§38) Also unique to Shem Ṭov is his reaction to the reading of the transfiguration account in Matt 17:1–8. The transcriber said: If he was God, what need is there for Moses and Elijah to inform him about what would happen? 210.‫יקרהו‬

‫אמר המעתיק אם הוא אלוה מה צורך למשה ולאליה להודיעו אשר‬

For the sake of argument Shem Ṭov simply accepts that Jesus was transfigured and met with Moses and Elijah, although without commenting further on

208 Cf. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.3), where the same strategy is employed in regard to the fig tree. There it is questioned why the disciples are surprised that the tree actually withered if they really believed that Jesus was God. 209 Shem Ṭov’s Matthew text actually does not make any mention of Jesus as “Son of Man” (‫ )בן אדם‬in Matt 16:13, which reads, “What do men say about me?” (‫מה אמרים בני‬ ‫)אדם בשבילי‬. This would suggest that the argument comes from another source. 210 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 150r. MS BL here: ‫אם הוא אלוה מה צורך היה ממשה ואליהו‬ ‫להודיעו אשר יקרוהו‬.

246

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

the Bat Qol in Matt 17:5 which announces that the disciples should obey Jesus (‫)אליו תשמעון‬.211 He clearly interacts here with the text he has before him, which states that Moses and Elijah “told Jesus all which would happen to him in Jerusalem” (‫)הגידו ליש״ו כל מה שיקראהו בירושלים‬.212 This argument is in line with that seen in 6.4.10 on Matt 11:25–30, where Shem Ṭov remarked that Jesus apparently had things to learn and was in need of further instruction. The expectable response to this, of course, is to wonder about Jesus’ ignorance, an objection that is usually attached to Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree, which is included in Shem Ṭov’s critique as well: 6. 4. 16 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Matt 21:10–22 (§42) The transcriber said: Look at this, for there are three questions to ask. The first question is: Can God hunger? The second is about his lack of knowledge, recognition, and vision since he did not know, recognize or see that there were no figs on the fig tree. The third is that he cursed the fig tree, although the tree had done nothing to him,213 nor did it called him (a bad name), he simply did not receive anything.

‫ השני שהיה‬215.‫ האחת שהאלוה ירעב‬.‫ שאלות‬214‫אמר המעתיק ראה זה והביטה ויש כאן שלש‬ .‫ שלא יהיו תאנים בתאנה‬216‫לו חסרון ידיעה וחסרון הכרה וראיה שלא ידע ולא הכיר וראה‬ 217.‫השלישית שקלל התאנה על לא חמס בכפיה האם קראה לו ולא נתן לו‬

The argument is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.7), although less aggressively presented here.218 Jesus is understood as somebody with limited knowledge and appears even as cruel; both are taken as arguments against his divinity. Again, one notes the rather simplistic formuation of the question: “Can God hunger?” The assumed Christian understanding behind this is that Jesus is simply understood as God, which on the popular level may very well have been the case for many Christian. Like in previous polemical works, the doctrine of the two-natures is not commented on, though Shem Ṭov, having disputed with a cardinal, likely would have been aware of this teaching. 6. 4. 17 Paying Taxes to Caesar: Matt 22:15–22 (§44) As already observed earlier, Shem Ṭov follows the Pharisees’ lead (see 6.4.11 and 6.4.13) when evaluating Jesus and his claims. In a discussion of Matt 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Already in 6.4.4, at Jesus’ baptism, Shem Ṭov did not comment on the Bat Qol. Cf. Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 82–83. Lit.: “About violence in her [the fig tree’s] hands,” cf. Job 16:17. MS BL: ‫כי יש כאן שלשה‬. MS BL: ‫רעב‬. MS BL: ‫ממה‬. MS Plutei 2.17, f. 153v. MS BL here: ‫האם קראה ולא נתנה לו‬. See also Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 83–84, 92–93, cf. Nizzahon Vetus §181 (see 5.4.10).

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

247

22:15–22, where Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar, Shem Ṭov observes: Here the Pharisees asked him if it was true that he was the Messiah, who was able to take off the yoke of Caesar from their necks, and to put their yoke on his shoulders [Caesar’s], as it is written in the passage “Arise, shine” (Isa 60:1) and “foreigners shall rebuild your walls, their kings shall serve you. For in my anger I struck you, but in my favor I shall have compassion on you. And your gates shall be open day and night. They will not be closed so that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, and their kings led (in procession). For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly ruined” (Isa 60:10–12). And so, the Pharisees, seeing that they were (still) under Caesar, accordingly judged that they would not believe in him. Second, if he was the “Son of God” or the Messiah, how is it that he was afraid of Caesar? And why did he not tell them clearly that they should not give to him anything? Has Moses, although he was (merely) a man, not told Pharaoh in his own country, (even) his own house and to his face: “You must also let us have sacrifices and burnt offerings” (Exodus 10:25). 220‫שיזר‬

‫ היה לו לפרוק עול‬219‫אמר המעתיק הנה הפרושים שאלו ממנו נכונה שאם משיח הוא‬ ‫ ובנו בני נכר חומותיך ומלכיהם‬.‫מעל צוארם ולתת עולם על צוארו דכתי֗ בפרשת קומי אורי‬ ‫ ופתחו שעריך תמיד יומם ולילה לא יסגרו‬.‫ וברצוני רחמתיך‬221‫ישרתונך כי בקצפי הכיתיך‬ ‫ כי הגוי והממלכה אשר לא יעבדוך יאבדו והגוים חרוב‬.‫להביא אליך חיל גוים ומלכיהם נהוגים‬ ‫ שנית אם בן אלהים‬.‫ כדין היה שלא להאמין בו‬222‫ והפירושים בראותם שהם תחת שיזר‬.‫יחרבו‬ ‫אמ להם בפירוש שלא יתנו לו דבר והלא‬ ֗ ‫ ולמה לא‬224‫ אם נתירא משיזר‬223‫או משיח הוא איך‬ 226 ‫ בן אדם אמר לפרעה בארצו ובביתו בפניו גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים‬225‫משה עם הותו‬ 227.‫ועולות‬

The question about paying taxes to Caesar was according to Shem Ṭov a valid way of assessing if Jesus was the Messiah, who was expected to remove the Roman governance of the Promised Land.228 Since Jesus was not concerned with the Roman rule the Pharisees judged him to not be a credible messianic contender. In Shem Ṭov’s day, a period of intense messianic speculation among the Jewish communites of Iberia, this was an important argument as many Jews had abandoned their Jewish faith in favor for Christianity precisely over the question of the Messiah.229 219

MS BL: ‫שאם הוא המשיח‬. MS BL: ‫א״רי‬ ֶ ָ‫ ֶציז‬. 221 MS BL: ‫הכיתך‬. 222 MS BL: ‫א״רי‬ ֶ ָ‫ ֶסיז‬. 223 MS BL omit. 224 MS BL: ‫א״רי‬ ֶ ָ‫מציז‬ ֵ . 225 MS BL: ‫דבר ומשה רבינו ע״ה עם היותו‬. 226 MS BL omit. 227 MS Plutei 2.17, f. 154v. 228 For the related historical question see Martin Hengel, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. (Leiden: Brill, 1961; 2nd rev. ed. 1976; various translations), recently revised and republished 3rd ed. by Roland Deines and Claus-Jürgen Thornton (WUNT I/283; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 229 See Roth, Conversos, 11, 141, 194–95, 383 n. 18 et al (see index). 220

248

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

The second objection is similar to comment §4 (see 6.4.3), where Jesus’ escape to Egypt is likewise interpreted as an act motivated by fear of a human ruler. That Jesus experiences fear, which is a point that also appears in comment §53 (see 6.4.19), is however not the issue here, but that Moses is superior in this regard. Where Jesus seems to be a coward, Moses shows himself to be a brave national leader. Consequently, Jesus is not a proper savior and Moses is to be preferred. While this argument is only marginally related to Jesus’ divinity, nevertheless it portrays Jesus as someone unlikely to be divine as he does not compare to Moses’ stature vis-á-vis a foreigner ruler. 6. 4. 18 Jesus’ Ignorance: Matt 24:27–36 (§50) As in other polemic texts, and already earlier in comment §42 (see 6.4.16), Jesus’ ignorance is shown to be being incompatible with divinity: The transcriber said: I have two questions here. The first is that that whole generation has already passed away, and (also) many other generations (after them), and all this is (quite) evident. Second, he said that nobody knows that time, but the father alone, (and) if so (it means) the Son does not know. If so, (then) there is a difference between the knowledge of the Father and the Son, but that is the opposite of their belief.

‫ האחת שכבר עבר כל הדור ההוא ודורות אחרות רבות‬.‫אמר המעתיק יש לי כאן שתי שאלות‬ ‫ אם כן‬.‫אכ הבן בלתי יודע‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ שנית הוא אמר שאין יודע אותי העת אלא האב בלבד‬.‫וכל זה נראה‬ 230.‫יש הפרש בין ידיעת האב לבן והוא הפך אמונתם‬

The argument of Jesus’ ignorance about the future is similar to Nizzahon Vetus §177 and §194 (see 5.4.11), and Qiṣṣa §39 (see 2.5.1.1). Shem Ṭov adds another question, concerning Jesus’ near expectation of the parousia in Matt 24:34, which is also a hotly debated topic in New Testament studies.231 If Jesus was wrong, as Shem Ṭov implies, Jesus clearly lacked divine knowledge and may have even have been a false prophet. 6. 4. 19 Jesus in Gethsemane: Matt 26:31–44 (§53) The last of the three more extensive comments in Shem Ṭov’s critique of the Gospel of Matthew are based on the Gethsemane pericope, which are also quite similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6). Judged by the length of the respective comments the Gethsemane pericope played an important role in Shem Ṭov’s polemic.

230

MS Plutei 2.17, ff. 156v–157r. See, e.g., Luz, Matthew 21–28, 208–10; Davies and Allison, Matthew 19–28, 366–68; Randall Otto, “Dealing with Delay: A Critique of Christian Coping,” BTB 34 (2004): 150–60; also Reinaldo Siqueira, “The Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretation,” Kerygma 3 (2011): 23–42. 231

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

249

The transcriber said: I have six questions about this (section). The first: how is it that he was praying that the cup of death should depart from him, although he had come down just for this? And he said moreover, “Let it not be as I will, but according to your will.” This shows that their wills are not equal. But this is the opposite of what they say in their creed,232 that their will and their power are one.233 Second, if he were God, how is it that he said that “the Spirit is ready to go to his creator.”234 If so (this) should show them that the [his] spirit has a creator, and that he is in fact created. If so, he would have a God who is above him. The third: how is it that he shivered (of fear) of death?235 Is God not “exalted in power” (Job 37:23)? And if you should say that it was (only) the flesh that was shivering, has he not said (earlier) “my soul is grieved?” And moreover, does the body (really) shiver by itself without the participation of the spirit that is giving (the body its) senses? Fourth, how is it that he is praying for the cup of death to depart, if he was able to do so [himself]? It appears that he lacked the awareness (that he had) this ability.236 And if so, (then) there is a shortcoming in his knowledge, and if he were (indeed) God this would be an impossibility with respect to his essence (‫)ואם הוא אלוה יהיה זה נמנע בחוקו‬.237 Fifth, he shows (here) that the death he received was out of compulsion, in order to establish God’s decree, and that is the opposite of what is said about him, that he received it willingly.238

232

Lit.: “their knowledge” (‫)דעתם‬. Shem Ṭov’s argument seems not directly relate to the debates over Monotheletism and Dyothelitism in the 7th century, despite the fact that he phrases the problem similarly. The question for him (as for other polemicists) is if Jesus’ will and God’s will are “in-sync, ” and his aim with this argument is to dispute Jesus’ divinity. For a in-depth study of the debate over Monotheletism see Cyril Hovorun, Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century (The Medieval Mediterranean 77; Leiden: Brill, 2008). 234 This argument is based on Shem Ṭov’s differing version of Matt 26:41: “Watch and pray, lest you will come into temptation, for (it is) the truth that the spirit is ready to go to him, see (that) the flesh is weak and sick” (‫שמרו והתפללו פן תבאו בנסיון שהאמת שהרוח‬ ‫)נכון לילך לו ראו את הבשר חלוש וחולה‬. The Greek reads here: “γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν· τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής” (NA27), the Latin: “vigilate et orate ut non intretis in temptationem spiritus quidem promptus est caro autem infirma” (Vg.). Shem Ṭov’s comment interprets this as “the spirit is ready to go to its Creator” (‫)הרוח נכון לילך לבוראו‬. It is thus possible that the gospel text has been corrupted here. Based on Howard’s apparatus MS Heb. 28 Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit Leiden reads ‫…“( לילך לבוראו אך הבשר‬to go to its Creator…”) here. 235 This detail is not found in Shem Ṭov’s Matthew text, nor do any of the other canonical gospels explicitly report that Jesus was shaking (but cf. Luke 22:44). Shem Ṭov must have taken this from Milḥamot ha-Shem (cf.: ‫)ועתה היה מריעד ומתפחד‬, see 3.4.6. 236 Or: “option.” 237 The argument probably relates to Ḥasdai Crescas’ philosophical treatise ’Or Adonay (“Light of God”), book 2, chapter 5: ‫הנה החיוב וההכרח מבואר נגלה ומורגש אצלו שהוא‬ ‫נמנע בחוקו להאמין סותר האמונה ההיא‬. This then is one of the few times in the discussion of New Testament texts that a more serious problem with the Christian understanding is pointed out, though it still does not fully engage the Christian understanding of the twonatures of Christ. Lasker has already pointed out the influence of ’Or Adonay on Kelimmat ha-Goyim, see idem, The Refutation of the Christian Principles, 8, 88, n. 27; cf. also 12–15. 238 Cf. Mark 8:31–33, John 10:17–18, 19:10–11; also Origen, Cels. 1.31; 2.11, 34; 4.73. 233

250

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

Sixth, if you should (however) say that the truth (of the matter) is that he received this death willingly — if so, why were the Jews then (according) to your opinion239 punished for this? Or is the doer of God’s will not deserving of good reward, much less deserving of punishment? And if you should say that their punishment is based on the fact that they did not intend to do his will, instead (even) angered him — are simple intentions then (punishable) like deeds?240 And therefore, since this was (presumably) a good deed and willingly done, there is then no reason to punish (anyone) over this. But much more so, they [the disciples] are (even) compelled by him to fulfill the will of the Lord and his decree, as is mentioned in the next pericope, “to fulfill what is written in Scripture” (cf. Matt 26:54). And also, it is clear241 that the killers did not (really) hold him to be the “Son of God,” unless they would have been completely foolish, (either way) they are not liable. Instead, according to their (own) words they were thinking he was an impostor and a blasphemer of God. And if that is the case, they killed him in accordance with the law. So, why were they punished?

‫ האחת איך היה מתפלל שיסור כוס המות ממנו והוא לא‬.‫אמר המעתיק יש לי בזה שש שאלות‬ ‫ וזה‬.‫ יראה שרצונם בלתי שוה‬.‫ ועוד אומרו לא כמו שאני רוצה יהיה אלא כרצונך‬.‫ירד אלא לזה‬ ‫ שנית אם הוא אלוה איך אמר שהרוח נכון לילך‬.‫הפך מה שאמר שדעתם ורצנם וכוחם אחד‬ ֗ ֗ ‫לבוראו‬ ‫ השלישית איך היה נרעד‬.‫אכ יש אלוה ממעל לו‬ ֗ ֗ .‫אכ יראם שיש לרוח בורא והוא ברוי‬ ‫ואת שהבשר היה נרעד והלא אמר נפשי מתעצבת ועוד והלא‬ ֗ ֗ .‫מהמות והלא האל שגיא כח‬ ‫ רביעית איך היה מתפלל להסיר כוס המות‬.‫הגוף בלתי נרעד כי אם בשתוף הרוח הנותן החוש‬ ‫ואכ יהיה חסרון בדעתו ואם‬ ֗ ֗ .‫ נראה שהוא היה חסר הידיעה בזה האפשרות‬.‫אם יוכל להיות‬ ‫ חמישית יראה שהמיתה קבלה על כרחו לקיים גזירת האל‬.‫הוא אלוה יהיה זה נמנע בחוקו‬ ‫אכ למה‬ ֗ ֗ .‫את שהאמת שהמות קבלה ברצונו‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ ששית‬.‫והוא הפך הנאמר עליו שקבלה ברצונו‬ ‫וכש שאין ראוי‬ ֗ ֗ ‫ והלא העושה רצון השם ראוי לתגמול טוב‬.‫נענשו היהודים לדעתכם על זה‬ ‫ והלא דברים שבלב‬.‫ואת שעונשם לפי שלא נתכונו הם לעשות רצונו אלא להכעיסו‬ ֗ ֗ .‫שיענש‬ ‫וכש שהם מוכרחים עליו‬ ֗ ֗ .‫ ולכן אחרי שהפועל טוב ורצוי אין ראוי ליענש עליו‬.‫אינם דברים‬ ֗ ֗‫למלאת רצון השם וגזירתו כנז‬ ‫ ועוד שאין ספק שההורגים לא‬.‫בפ הבא למלאת כתבי הכתבים‬ ‫ אבל הם היו‬.‫היו חושבים היותו בן אלוה שאם לא כן יהיו שוטים גמורים ואינם בני עונשים‬ 242.‫ ולמה נענשו‬.‫ ואם כן כדין הרגוהו‬.‫חושבים היותו משקר ומחלל השם לדבריו‬

As already noted, the Gethsemane prayer features prominently in most Jewish polemic texts that discuss New Testament texts.243 Shem Ṭov is clearly indebted to Jacob ben Reuben since there are several clear paralles in wording and argumentation (cf. 3.4.6),244 though he is more succinct in presenting his arguments. In addition to what is found in Milḥamot ha-Shem, he adds two more points (questions two and six), which appear to be Shem Ṭov’s own contributions. The former is based on the Hebrew gospel translation available

239

Lit.: “to your knowledge” (‫)לדעתכם‬. This rabbinic principle is phrased here as a double negative: “Then, are not the matters of the heart not (real) matters?” (‫ ;)והלא דברים שבלב אינם דברים‬meaning, there is no religious significance or consequence to unexpressed (and unverifiable) human intention, cf. b. Qidd. 49b. 241 Lit.: “there is no doubt” (‫)אין ספק‬. 242 MS Plutei 2.17, ff. 159r–159v. 243 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53 and §§139–141 (see 2.5.1.5), Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 and §10 (see 4.5.19–20), and Nizzahon Vetus §176 (see 5.4.12). 244 See also Levy, “Chapter Eleven,” 142. 240

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

251

to him, and the latter relates to the accusation of deicide and is perhaps gleaned from Sefer ha-Berit.245 In particular this last point is noteworthy: according to Christian thinking Jesus went to the cross willingly and in doing so fulfilled a divine plan. Jews should therefore be doubly blameless from the accusation of being “Christ-killers.”246 This is, of course, not only a very good argument, it is also a central theological issue. Jews should not be held culpable for Jesus’ death that Matthew and Christian theology maintain to be Godordained.247 In fact, this notion has fueled anti-semitic atrocities throughout history, and for Shem Ṭov and his contemporaries this matter may have been much more serious. 6. 4. 20 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Matt 27:27–66 (§56) The last comment that relates (although very remotely) to Jesus’ divinity follows the crucifixion account in Matt 27:27–66: The transcriber said: John wrote that Jesus carried the cross himself, but here it says that Simeon (carried) the cross. Second, if he is God, how is it that he did not know what was in the bitter wine until he started to drink it. Moreover, how is it that Jesus was three hours on a cross, and there were (also) thieves with him? Did the (act of) hanging not strangle him within the hour? But more-

245 “The gentiles say that the time had not yet come when he was to suffer. This proves that according to them he was afflicted when he wished it so. Accordingly, he descended to earth to die and save the world from the torment of hell. Why then did he punish the nation that dealt rightly with him, since by his own free will he accepted death? Had the Jews not wanted to kill him, he would have put it into their hearts to do so, since he was God and it was so decreed from above by his father in heaven. He underwent death to safe the world for in no other way could he have saved the world from the torment of hell. Only by his blood and his death, according to their notion, did he redeem the world from Satan’s power. If so, he committed a grave injustice in punishing the nation that killed and afflicted him according to his own wishes. We can say too that the intention of the Jews was positive, since they heard from his own mouth that the salvation of the world depended on his death. [They wished then] that the world be be saved through them that they might have some merit in the world to come in this matter. Therefore they killed him to save the world,” Talmage, The Book of the Covenant, 76–77 [Hebr. ed. pp. 63–64]. A similar argument also occurs in Qiṣṣa/ Nestor §24a, see Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:56 n. 7, 143; cf. also Rosenthal, Joseph Hamekane, §43, 137. Moreover, it appears already in Justin, Dial. 95.2–4. 246 The accusation that Jews were “Christ-killers” (deicide) is according to Roth comparatively rare in medieval Spain as relations between Christians and Jews were usually more cordial, see Roth, Conversos, 347. But cf. MS Plutei 2.17 f. 107r: “They think we killed Jesus” (‫)הם חושבים שאנו הרגנו לישו‬. For the history of this idea see esp. Jeremy Cohen, Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); also Cohen, “The Jews as the Killers of Christ.” 247 In spite of this, some Christian theologians, nevertheless, tried to maintain this accusation, see the discussion under 4.5.3.

252

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

over, in the legal traditions of Israel there is no (mandate that stipulates that a) thief ought to be killed. So why did they hang these as thieves?

‫ שנית אם הוא‬.‫אמ ששמעון הוליכה‬ ֗ ‫כת שישו עצמו הוליך הצליבה וכאן‬ ֗ ‫אמר המעתיק יוחנן‬ ‫ועוד איך היה ישו שלש שעות בצליכה‬.‫אלוה איך לא ידע שהיה ביין מרה עד שהתחיל לשתות‬ ‫וכן הגנבים עמו והלא הנתלה נחנק לשעתו ועוד שבדיני ישראל אין הגנב נהרג ולמה תלו‬ 248.‫לאותם גנבים‬

Shem Ṭov limits himself here to the discussion of the discrepancies between the passion narratives, and the inconsistencies between the gospel accounts and rabbinic criminal law. He wonders about the oddities of the story itself: how is it that mere robbers received capital punishment, and how could Jesus have been unaware that he was given vinegar? The first questions the veracity of the Gospel account, the latter the veracity of the claim that Jesus is divine, since he seems ignorant. Shem Ṭov’s polemic also operates on the premise that Jesus death occurred due to being strangulated (by hanging on gallows). His argument is curious inasmuch it would stand to reason that he had seen depictions of Jesus crucified.249 Therefore, it would seem most probable that the Hebrew translation he received already described Jesus as being “hanged” (on gallows),250 and that his comment criticizes the text itself. In other words, he disputes what is depicted in the translation at hand over against what he knows from Christian art and gospel narratives. Based on this passage Garshowitz has suggested that the translator may have been a zealous apostate who capitalized on the prevailing Jewish tradition and wanted “to maximize the Jews’s blame for Jesus’ death,” inasmuch as hanging was a Jewish form of punishment.251 In this context Shem Ṭov, unlike other polemicists, does not discuss the notion of suffering or death. However, in comment §58 he writes: You already saw my comment about (his) death, and on the outcry (on the cross). So to whom and about whom can one say and arrange such a thing as this? (Surely) one can much better

248

MS Plutei 2.17, f. 161v. E.g., crosses are depicted on medieval Aragonian coinage of the 13th and 14th century, also altar crucifixes or Christian jewelry of the 14th century ought to have been familiar to Shem Ṭov. 250 But more likely on the cabbage stalk mentioned in Toledot Yeshu, see Hillel I. Newman, “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature,” JTS 50 (1999): 59–79; and Michael Meerson, “Meaningful Nonsense: A Study if Details in Toledot Yesu,” in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”), 181–96. 251 Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew,” 303. However, David W. Chapman has shown that ‫ תלה‬can indeed refer to crucifixion, though in the Mishna it is not a death penalty on its own, but following crucifixion, see idem, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (WUNT 2.244; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 30–32, 228–34 et passim. 249

6.4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

253

(say) this about the King of “the King of Kings,” may he be blessed, (who is) beyond any change or any “offspring of the mighty.”252

‫כש על מלך‬ ֗ ֗ .‫כבר אתה רואה דברי זאת המיתה וצעקתה ולמי ועל מי יאמר ויסדר כדבר הזה‬ 253.‫ית מכל שנוי ועלוי רב‬ ֗ ֗ ֗‫מלכי המלכי‬

Shem Ṭov presumably refers here to his discussion of Psalm 22, which appears much earlier in Even Boḥan in a debate between a Christian (‫)המשלש‬ and a Jew (‫)המיחד‬, which is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem:254 The Jew replied: “You are saying that he received the judgment of the crucifixion willingly and that he came down for this [very purpose]. If so, why did he call out to God to save him? Furthermore, how could he have placed himself under another by saying ‘my God, my God’ (Psalm 22:1) and similarily ‘My God, I cry by day but you do not answer?’ (Psalm 22:2). It seems he was screaming without being answered. And if you should say that the flesh said all this, tell me how to interpret the passage, ‘Deliver my soul from the sword, my only [life] from the power of the dog?’ (Psalm 22:20). Moreover, you [essentially] explained ‘But I am a worm and not a man’ (Psalm 22:6), [to mean] that he is in the likeness of a worm. If so, you should interpret in like manner ‘Do not fear, you worm of Jacob’ (Isa 41:14), [and] ‘How much less man, a worm, the son of man, a maggot’ (Job 25:6). Moreover, your translators erred when they wrote ‘they pierced my hands and feet’ (Psalm 22:16). Surely, ‘like a lion’ is written [there].”255

‫ אם כן למה צעק אל יי׳‬,‫ אתה שאמרת שקבל דין הצליבה ברצונו ושלכך ירד‬:‫השיב המיחד‬ ‫ וכן "אלהי אקרא יומם ולא‬,"‫שיצילהו? ועוד איך שם עצמו תחת אחר באומרו "אלי אלי‬ ‫ הודיעני מה‬,‫ ואם תאמר שהבשר היה אומר כל זה‬.‫תענה?" נראה שהיה צווח בלתי נענה‬ "‫תאמר בפסוק "הצילה מחרב נפשי מיד כלב יחידתי"? עוד פירשת "ואנכי תולעת ולא איש‬ ‫ ואף כי אנוש רמה ובן אדם‬,‫ אם כן תפרש כן "אל תיראי תולעת יעקב‬.‫שהוא בדמיון התולעת‬ "‫ לא העתיקו האמת ש"כארי‬,"‫ עוד תדע שמעתיקיך בשכתבו "כרו ידי ורגלי וכו׳‬."‫תולעת‬ 256.‫כתיב‬

252

The phrase ‫ עלוי רב‬also occurs in Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Moreh Nevukim 1.9: ‫לא‬ ‫ שיש גשם שינשא הבורא עליו ית׳ עלוי רב‬expressing there that God is too exalted to become corporeal, which is perhaps also what Shem Ṭov had in mind by using this phrase. 253 MS Plut. 2.17, f. 162r. 254 See Rosenthal’s edition, 66–67; and Garshowitz, “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan,” 2:177–181 (Plutei 2.17, ff. 88v–89r). Cf. the discussion of Psalm 22 in Nizzahon Vetus §145 (see 5.4.13). 255 The phrase ‫ ָכּ ֲא ִרי‬in Psalm 22:16[17] most naturally would be rendered as “like a lion,” though this creates an awkward reading and may not be original, the JPS Bible, e.g., translates: “like lions [they] maul my hands and feet,” adding the verb “maul.” Alternatively, by means of an emmendation it can be related to the root ‫( ָכּ ָרה‬to dig), thus the LXX translated here ὤρυξαν (“they dug out / made a hole by digging”), which corresponds to the traditional Christian reading “they pierced my hand and feet.” Christians consequently have used Psalm 22:16[17] as a prediction of Jesus’ death on the cross, the first being Justin Martyr in 1 Apol. 35.38 and Dial. 97, 104. On this see esp. Gregory Vall, “Psalm 22:17B: ‘The Old Guess’,” JBL 116 (1997): 45–56; and Kristin M. Swenson, “Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again,” JBL 123 (2004): 637–48. 256 Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 2:179–80.

254

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

After this Shem Ṭov inserts his own comment:257 The abridger said: If Jesus were God, and the Trinity were stuck together eternally in accordance with your belief, how could the flesh have said, “Why have you forsaken me” (Psalm 22:1), since he/it258 was always with him? Also, “deliver my soul from the sword” (Psalm 22:20). He could have said, “my body” or “my flesh,” because the soul which is the divinity is not subject to salvation.259

‫ איך יוכל‬,‫ אם היה ישו אלוה והשלשה נדבקים יחד לעולם כאמונתך‬:‫אמר שם טוב המקצר‬ ‫ כי‬,‫ היה לומר גופי או בשרי‬,‫הבשר לומר למה עזבתני והוא תמיד עמו? ועוד הצילה מחרב נפשי‬ 260.‫הנפש שהיא האלהות לא יפול בה הצלה‬

After essentially reproducing a passage from Milḥamot ha-Shem, Shem Ṭov forwards a challenge based on Psalm 22:1 (Matt 27:46, par. Mark 15:34): if Jesus Christ had pre-existed with God, and always was joined to God, how could he in his incarnation/humanity (“the flesh”) despair over being left by God? And on the other side, how could Jesus pray for his “soul” to be rescued? If the soul is understood as the divine aspect of Jesus, which seems to be the understanding Shem Ṭov shares with other Jewish scholars,261 he should have prayed for his flesh, i.e. his human nature, to be delivered, not his divine nature. But by praying for his soul, so the implication, he demonstrates that he is at the core a man, which is also why he can despair over being seperated from God. Shem Ṭov clearly points here something of the inherent paradox of confessing Jesus as the God-man. Even after distinguishing human and divine nature,262 the language of the passage at hand challenges the notion that the divine nature was unaffected. It is as such evident that Shem Ṭov is familiar, at least rudimentarily, with the notion of the two-natures of Christ, and he finds that the imagery of separation, abandonment, and despair does not sit easy with high christological claims, nor the doctrine of the Trinity.

6. 5 Summary In Even Boḥan we have a fine presentation and sample of a Jewish critique of the Gospel of Matthew, which — as most likely intended by the author —

257 Shem Ṭov refers to himself here as the “abridger” (‫)אמר שם טוב המקצר‬, and as was seen throughout, as someone who essentially extracts from Milḥamot ha-Shem elements he deemed important. 258 Grammatically both is possible; either the flesh was co-joined with God, or the Son. 259 The translation is based on Garshowitz, “Even Bohan (Touchstone),” 1:xxiii–ix. 260 The critical Hebrew text is given ibid., 180. 261 See the summaries in 5.5 and 9.1.3. 262 Or even pre-incarnate and incarnate existence, though not as Christians understand it.

6.5 Summary

255

allows for a relatively comprehensive view of Jewish objections to the claims of Christianity based on the New Testament itself. Shem Ṭov’s arguments against the divinity of Jesus stand within the trajectory of the previous polemic tradition, and in particular Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem, which he clearly knew and defended in the later revision of Even Boḥan against Alfonso de Valladolid’s refutation.263 He liberally draws from Jacob ben Reuben’s treatise, though he presents a more succinct and systematic treatment of the Gospel of Matthew than many of his predecessors. His reasoning is based on a plain exegesis, and he abstains from lengthy exegetical excursions or sharp polemical attacks. Especially in places where his Hebrew gospel text deviates (from the canonical text) it is possible to see some of Shem Ṭov’s own thoughts on Matthew. Although his comments are usually quite brief, he is more verbose when commenting on Matt 4:1–11 (see 6.4.5); Matt 9:32–38 (see 6.4.8); Matt 11:11–15 (6.4.9); Matt 11:25–30 (see 6.4.10); Matt 12:22–29 (see 6.4.11); and Matt 26:31–44 (see 6.4.19). Of these, Jesus’ temptation (Matt 4:1–11); Jesus’ miracles (Matt 9:32–28); and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (26:31–44) are discussed in great length. Matt 9:32–38 in particular presents him with the opportunity to give a systematic and rational critique of the incarnation, the virginal conception, claims of Jesus’ divinity, and the trustworthiness of the Gospel of Matthew itself, which in this form appears to be original to Shem Ṭov. Likewise his remarks about Jesus’ exchange with the Pharisees over his exorcisms (Matt 12:22–29) are not commonly found in other sources. This is also true for his observations on Matt 11:11–15 (see 6.5.9) and Matt 16:13–20 (see 6.4.14), which question the probabilities of Matthew’s account within the gospel’s narrative horizon. Interestingly, Shem Ṭov follows the Pharisees’ evaluation of Jesus, for which he relies on the Gospel of Matthew.264 Unlike most of the polemical tradition, he does not explicitly argue that Joseph is Jesus’ biological father, instead he questions the purpose relating Jesus to Joseph if the latter is indeed conceived without Joseph’s involvement (see 6.4.1). Shem Ṭov’s incorporation, and in fact propagation of the entire Gospel of Matthew, must be understood in line with his view and use of the gospel. On the one side, Shem Ṭov clearly seeks to explain how Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life and teaching could be attractive, and in doing so arrives at a difficult, but also more nuanced, Jewish, view of Jesus. On the other side, he maintains that the arguments for Jesus’ divinity are irrational and cannot be established from the gospel text itself. His view of the gospel is, thus, somewhat ambivalent, and while he clearly identifies it as flawed, he still finds it in

263 264

See Garshowitz, review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ, 458. See 6.4.11, 6.4.13, and 6.4.17.

256

Chapter 6: Even Boḥan

its entirety useful enough to argue against Christianity. This then allows him to reject ontological claims about Jesus, but at the same time to still affirm Jesus’ teaching as far as it is in line with the rabbinic tradition. He goes to great lengths to show that “Jesus’ halachah” is a copy of Jewish tradition: Jesus was not innovating (‫ )מחדש‬on anything. Thus he can show that Jesus’s teaching was mostly in line with Jewish thinking, and that it was Matthew’s (or Jesus’) intention to attract his Jewish audience with this.265 Shem Ṭov is, as such, one of the first Jewish scholars to explicitly acknowledge that the Gospel of Matthew shows an affinity between Jesus and Judaism.

265

See the discussion under 6.3 and 6.4.8.

Chapter 7

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Profiat Duran’s Kelimmat ha-Goyim 7. 1 Introduction Isaac ben Moses ha-Levy,1 usually referred to as Profiat Duran or Efodi,2 is one of the most exceptional polemical writers of the Late Middle Ages. It is likely he was forcibly baptized in the wake of the anti-Jewish persecutions that began in Seville in 1391, and he may have taken on the Christian name Honoratus de Bonafide.3 Nevertheless, he appears to have secretly continued in his Jewish faith, or returned to Judaism at a later point, and therefore would have written the polemical treatise Kelimmat ha-Goyim (“The Reproach of the Gentiles”) at considerable risk to himself.4 Kelimmat ha-Goyim stands out as 1

Norman Roth (erroneously?) calls him Israel instead of Isaac, see Conversos, 192. His nome de plume Efod (‫)אפ״ד‬, according to Talmage, was based on the acronym of his Catalan name, En Profiat Duran, although it could also be the abbreviation for ‫אני‬/‫אמר‬ ‫פרופייט דוראן‬. Efod could also be a veiled reference to the shame of his forced baptism, see Frank Talmage, “The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran,” Immanuel 13 (1981): 69–85, see 69, 72–73; also Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 155; Jonathan Friedländer and Jakob Kohn, Maase Efod: Einleitung in das Studium der Hebräischen Sprache von Profiat Duran [‫( ]מעשה אפ״ד‬Vienna: Holzwarth, 1865), 2 (German part). Also Norman Roth has suggested that the name is referring to the efod (the priestly breastplate) mentioned in the Talmud (and Torah), which signifies that Profiat Duran “sought atonement for his own conversion and for others in his generation,” see his Conversos, 192–3, see also 36–37, 142–43. 3 Richard W. Emery, “New Light on Profayt Duran ‘The Efodi’,” JQR 58 (1968): 328– 37, see especially 331–32. Emery’s reconstruction has been questioned; however, to date his investigation of Duran’s life circumstances appears to be based on the best evidence available. Cf. Baer, History, 2:152; Talmage, “The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran,” 72; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 155–156; and Netanyahu, Marranos, 221–23. 4 Sometimes also translated as the “Shame” or “Confusion of the Gentiles.” To date there are two Hebrew editions of Kelimmat ha-Goyim available: The earlier edition was published by Adolf Posnanski, “The Reproach of the Gentiles: The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran of Perpignan in the year 1397” [‫ חיבורו מאישטרו פרופייט דוראן‬:‫ספר כלימת הגוים‬ ‫]מפירפינייאנו בשנת הקנ״ז‬, Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914): 99–113, 143–80; 4 (1915): 37–48, 81–96, 115–23 [Hebr.], which was translated into English by Anne D. Berlin, but unfortunately never published; idem, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran: A FourteenthCentury Jewish Polemic Against Christianity” (B.A. thesis, Cambridge, Mass.: Radcliffe College; Harvard University, 1987). The more recent edition was published by Frank Talmage, ed., The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran: The Reproach of the Gentiles and 2

258

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

one of the best informed and ingenious anti-Christian treatises of its genre, in particular when it comes to the treatment and use of the New Testament.5 It was most likely written between 1396 and 1397, though the composition date has also been discussed in relation to the timing of Duran’s forced conversion around the year 1391.6 Duran was an erudite writer and had extensive knowledge of Semitic and Romance languages, even Greek,7 which he ably demonstrates in his treatise on Hebrew grammar, Ma‘aseh ’Efod.8 He also wrote on astronomy, and perhaps may have been the court astrologer of Juan I of Aragon.9 Duran is

‘Be not like unto thy Fathers’ [‫ כלימת הגוים ואיגרת אל תהי‬:‫פכתבי פולמוס לפרופיט דוראן‬ ‫“( ]באבותיך‬Kuntresim:” Texts and Studies 55; Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center and The Dinur Center, 1981). Neither publication can be considered a full critical edition of Kelimmat ha-Goyim. Talmage’s version is based on what he has deemed to be the most reliable manuscript (MS Bodl. Caps. Or. F. 4 / 19,969 = Neubauer 2155), see ibid., 27 (‫)מבוא‬. He chose this 16th century copy and two further manuscripts from more than 30 extant copies of Kelimmat ha-Goyim by analyzing how faithfully the (Italian) scribes had rendered Catalan words. Posnanski’s edition, although his footnotes provides a wealth of information, appears somewhat “over-edited,” e.g., the New Testament is referenced with verse numbers as if they were part of the original text. For these reasons Talmage’s edition has been chosen as the principal text underlying this chapter. An English translation of the slightly abridged introduction (‫ )מבוא‬of this edition appeared in the same year, see idem, “The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran,” which was republished in Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver: Studies in Medieval Jewish Exegesis and Polemics (ed. Barry Dov Walfish; Papers in Medieval Studies 14; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1999), 281–97. 5 On Duran’s polemic see Jeremy Cohen’s valuable article “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Christian Polemic,” in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume: Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period (ed. Daniel Carpi et al; Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University; Rav Chen, 1993), 71–84; see also Lasker, “Jewish Philosophical Polemics,” 74–76; and Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort,” 229–34 [1:349–54]. 6 See Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 286; Emery, “New Light”, 335; most relevant is Netanyahu, Marranos, 221–23. 7 See Jacob S. Levinger and Irene Garbell, “Duran, Profiat,” EncJud (2007), 6:56–57. 8 See Friedländer and Kohn, Maase Efod; also, Irene E. Zwiep, “Jewish scholarship and Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia: Profiat Duran and the art of memory,” in Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World (ed. Nicholas De Lange; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 224–39. 9 A Honorato de Bonafé served at the Aragonese court in May 1392 (which therefore would be the terminus ante quem for his forced conversion), see Emery, “New Light,” 331– 32. If this was indeed Duran, it would fit well with his impressive knowledge of Christian texts to which he would have had access more easily at the royal court of Aragon. Juan I was born in 1350 in Perpignan, which is also Profiat Duran’s hometown, and it is at such at least possible that they were familiar with each other (Emery suggests Duran was born around 1340–45). On Duran’s life and works see also Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 210–12; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 155–59; Berlin, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran,” 1–36; Talmage, “The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran;” Netanyahu, Marranos,

7.2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

259

well-known as the composer of the satirical epistle ’Al Tehi ke-Avoteka (“Be not like thy Fathers”), which is an open letter written to Davi (David) Bonet Bonjorn. Duran’s friend had been forcibly baptised, but afterwards genuinely converted to Christianity under the tutelage of the prominent convert Pablo de Santa María (Solomon ha-Levy). ’Al Tehi ke-Avoteka is Duran’s attempt to persuade him to return.10 For some time it was perhaps misunderstood by its Christian readers as a polemic against Judaism, when in fact it was a most clever satire against Christianity.11 More recently, a third polemical work, entitled Teshuvot be’Anshei ’Awen (“Responses to Impious Men,” cf. Job 34:36), has been related to Duran.12

7. 2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim Profiat Duran was an associate of Ḥasdai Crescas, the chief Rabbi of Zaragoza and official leader of the Jews of Aragon. Crescas commissioned Duran to produce a major polemical treatise primarily aimed at the conversos, “and more particularly, for those among them who were partly Christianized.”13 In response, it would seem, Duran composed Kelimmat ha-Goyim. He writes in the introduction: Oh Glory of the Rabbis, and Crown of the Believers! Your Highness has asked me to set out for you in a (more) general manner about what has become clear to me concerning the inten-

84–94, 221–23; Baer, History, 2:150–58; Friedländer and Kohn, Maase Efod, 2–11 (German part); Max Saenger, “Ueber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes: ‫ ס׳ הכלימה‬oder ‫כלימת‬ ‫הגוים‬,” MGWJ 4 (1854): 320–27; 5 (1855): 197–202. 10 See 6.3 and Roth, Conversos, 136–50, 193–94. 11 See Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 211; Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword, 155–62; Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort,” 227–29 [1:347–49]; esp. Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 73–76; also Lasker, “Jewish Philosophical Polemics,” 90–91. The English translation of the letter has been made available by Franz Kobler, ed., Letters of Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed.; 4 vols.; London: Ararat, 1953), 1:276–82; and also by Frank Talmage, ed., Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter (New York: Ktav, 1975), 119–23. See also Eleazar (Eliezer) Gutwirth, “Religion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon: An Aspect of Profayt Duran’s Activities,” Michael 12 (1991): 142–45. 12 José-Vicente Niclós and Carlos del Valle have attributed this tract to Duran, and published it in a critical edition: Profiat Durán: Cinco Cuestiones Debatidas De Polémica, Edícion crítica bilingue con anotaciones de C. del Valle (Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1999). The treatise is composed of five short chapters: 1) A discussion of the nature of the promises given in the Torah, 2) the interpretation of Psalm 72:17, 3) the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, and 9:5, 4) the interpretation of Psalm 110:1, and 5) a discussion of the value of Jesus’ miracles as proofs for his divinity (giving the familiar argument that other biblical figures also performed miracles, nevertheless are not divine; the same occurs in Kelimmat ha-Goyim). 13 Netanyahu, Marranos, 86.

260

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

tion of the alleged messiah and of his disciples, or apostles, and if they intended the destruction of the divine Torah in its entirety or in part, according to what was proclaimed and perpetuated by those who believe in him, and (also) those who were drawn after him, and (furthermore) what their intention was with this faith. And (further) upon what basis the theologians (or: preachers) of this nation who came after them build their faith and their opinion(s), (and) how they argue (for their opinions) from their (own) words, and the words of the prophets of the truth, peace be upon them, and the divine Torah.14

‫ שאלתני רוממותך להעמידך על מה שנתברר לי מכוונת‬,‫תפארת הרבנים ונזר המאמינים‬ ‫ ואם כיוונו חריסת התורה האלוהית בכל או‬,‫המשיח המדומה ותלמידיו או שלוחיו על דרך כלל‬ ,‫ כוונתם באמונה ההיא‬,‫בחלק כפי מה שנתפרסם ונמשך אצל המאמינים בו והנמשכים אחריו‬ ‫ועל איזה יסוד בנו אמונתם ודעתם המדברים באומה ההיא אשר באו אחריהם במה שיטענו‬ 15.‫מדבריהם ומדברי נביאי האמת ז״ל והתורה האכוהית‬

Netanyahu has suggested that Crescas was perhaps not entirely satisfied with Duran’s work because it may have been too scholarly, and hence proceeded to compose his own polemical work, Biṭṭul ‘iqqare ha-Noṣrim (“Refutation of the Christians’ Principles”), originally written in either Catalan or Aragonese.16 The writing of a polemical treatise in the vernacular is highly uncommon, but it shows Crescas’ determination to reach the larger converso community.17 In fact, large numbers of Jews in Spain and Aragon had converted to Christianity,18 and it is exactly this group which Crescas, Duran (and also Shem Ṭov) ultimately seek to address.19 Duran, however, held to the more traditional method of first addressing his treatise to Crescas and other rabbinic leaders, just as he had been asked. It is therefore not quite fair to think that Crescas felt that Kelimmat ha-Goyim was insufficient.20 After all, it 14 The English translations of Kelimmat ha-Goyim in this chapter are all my own, though I have consulted Anne Berlin’s translation and at times followed her lead. 15 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 3. 16 See Daniel J. Lasker, The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas, 2– 3; for the Hebrew text see R. Ḥasdai Crescas, Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim (ed. Daniel J. Lasker; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1990) [Hebr.]. See also Krauss and Horbury, Controversy, 209–10; Baer, History, 2:163–4; and Netanyahu, Marranos, 86–87. 17 According to Netanyahy, Marranos, 86–87. This would also corroborate his (and Norman Roth’s) thesis that most conversions were voluntary, for forced converts hardly would need a tract composed in the local vernacular to convince them to not longer remain in the Christian faith. See also Lasker’s discussion of this issue, The Refutation of the Christian Principles, 8–10. 18 See the summary under 6.2, but also Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 3; and Netanyahu, Marranos, 77–134, 235–45. 19 Since Duran was born around 1345 and probably died after 1414, he would have been a contemporary of Shem Ṭov ibn Shaprut and consequently alive at the time of the disputation at Tortosa. See Emery, “New Light,” 333–34; and Baer, History, 2:217. See also the discussion in 6.4.2. 20 In particular when one considers the last lines of the introduction of Kelimmat haGoyim: “Therefore, so as to fulfill your wish, I have (effectively) declared to void my wish, and I will write a little as is pleasing to you, since I knew (that) with the breadth and hight of

7.2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

261

is Duran’s explicit strategy to reach the larger Jewish and converso community through Crescas: Your intention, oh Glory of the Rabbis, is to open the gate (and) if possible to answer (the opponents) from the speakers’ (own) words. For this is the true(st) and (most) decisive answer when dealing with issues like these. And although none of the predecessors (and) inheritors of truth cared to pass on the truth in these (matters) and to reveal it,21 nor wanted to waste time with such matters; however, you, Oh Glory of the Rabbis, you saw the days of evil and wrath pour out over the exiles of Jerusalem which are in Spain, and (how) the ones who burst out (from us) (i.e. apostates)22 have multiplied, those “who are deeply hiding their counsel” (Isa 29:15), to heap up a rampart against the wall of the Torah (cf. Eze 21:27), to make it “like a watchman’s hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged” and breached city (cf. Isa 1:8). But you, Oh Glory of the Rabbis, are desiring to establish its fallen and destroyed hut (cf. Amos 9:11), and also since the leprosy of heresy is blossoming on the foreheads of the people (cf. Lev 13:12), “and all the people were arguing” (2 Sam 19:10) (over) the wood of the staff of wickedness, and “arrogance has blossomed” (Eze 7:10, cf. Num 17).

‫ כי היא‬,‫ לפתוח השער אם אפשר להשיב כפי מאמר האומר‬,‫ תפארת הרבנים‬,‫הכוונה ממך‬ ‫ ועם היות שאחד מהקודמים נוחלי האמת‬.‫התשובה האמיתית והניצחת בכיוצא באלו הנושאים‬ ‫ הנה אתה‬,‫ וגם כי לא רצו לבלות הזמן בדומה לזה‬,‫לא השגיחו בזה לפרסם האמת ולגלותו‬ ‫ ראית ימי הרעה והחימה השפוכה על גלות ירושלים אשר בספרד ורבו‬,‫תפארת הרבנים‬, ‫ לתת אותה‬,‫ לשפוך סוללה על חומת התורה האלוהית‬,‫המתפרצים ׳והמעמיקים לסתיר עצה׳‬ ‫ להקים סוכתה הנופלת‬,‫תפארת הרבנים‬, ‫ ורוצה אתה‬.‫׳כמלונה במיקשה כעיר נצורה׳ ופרוצה‬ ‫ ׳ויהי כל העם נדון׳ עץ מטה הרשע‬,‫והנהרסת וגם כי צרעת מינות במצחות האנשים פורחת‬ 23.‫׳ופרח הזדון׳‬

It is evident from this introduction that Duran’s times were indeed dire, not only had many Jews chosen or been forced to convert, some even had joined the ranks of the Christians in besieging Judaism.24 Kelimmat ha-Goyim fulfills as such a defensive but also offensive role in the polemical discourse, as it effectively attempts to break the metaphorical siege by turning the opponents’ weaponry against them. Duran’s overall strategy was to answer the opponents from their own scriptures (‫)כפי מאמר האומר‬, for he felt the Christian texts themselves were best proof against the doctrines of Christianity (‫כי היא התשובה האמיתית והניצחת‬

your intelligence you will add to it (further) sophisticated remarks” (,‫על כן לעשות רצונך‬

‫הפצתי לבטל רצוני ואכתוב מעט כנרצה אצלך יען ידעתי ברוחב לבבך וגובה שכלך תוסיף בו‬ ‫)דברים מפולפלים‬. See also Lasker, The Refutation of the Christian Principles, 6–8.

21 This shows that Crescas and Duran felt that the anti-Christian apologetic-polemical writings they were familiar with where insufficient to deal with the situation in the latter 14th century. 22 On this passage and on ‫ המתפרצים‬see Netanyahu, Marranos, 90–91, also nn. 18–20. 23 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 3. 24 This most likely referred to the group around the very prominent convert Alfonso de Valladolid and Pablo de Santa María, see Netanyahu, Marranos, 90, nn. 17 and 17a; see also the discussion in 6.2.

262

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

‫)בכיוצא באלו הנושאים‬.25 This, of course, implies that he had to read, interpret, and promulgate these texts in order to demonstrate that they contradicted Christian doctrine. And with the increasing number of conversos and their growing familiarity of Christian thought and scriptures, cursory or merely polemically expedient arguments were not sufficient anymore. In-depth knowledge of Christianity became a necessity for the Jewish leaders of Iberia. Consequently, Duran had to systematically present and reproduce both the Christian Scriptures and the respective doctrines as accurately as possible. Already the chapter headings of Kelimmat ha-Goyim reveal that it was Duran’s intention to relate the actual content of Christian doctrine, and to disprove and criticize these doctrines mostly from the New Testament. He devotes three chapters to major Christian doctrines (Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, the incarnation), two lengthy chapters to the topic of Jesus’ and the Christians’ understanding of the Law, two chapters on sacraments (the Eucharist and Baptism), two chapters on minor doctrines (Mary and the Pope), and the last three chapters on Christian errors and textual corruptions in the New Testament: Chapter 1

To bring proof, based on the words of the speaker(s themselves), that it was not the intention of the alleged messiah, nor the intention of his disciples (to say) that he was God, which is what those who came after them thought.

‫להביא ראיה כפי מאמר האומר שלא הייתה כוונת המשיח המדומה ולא‬ ‫כוונת תלמידיו שיהיה הוא אלוה כפי מה שחשבו הבאים אחריהם‬ Chapter 2

To explain the matter of the Trinity in which they believe, and the passages on which they base this belief. .‫לבאר עניין השילוש אשר יאמינוהו והמקומות אשר יישענו עליהם באמונה זו‬

Chapter 3

To explain the matter of the incarnation in which they believe, and the ultimate reason for it in regard to original sin, which they call (peccatum) originale, and the passages on which they base this belief.

‫לבאר עניין ההגשמה אשר יאמינוה והסיבה התכליתית שלה בעניין העוון‬ .‫השורשי אשר קראו אוריגינאל והמקומות אשר יישענו עליהם‬ Chapter 4

That Jesus never considered in this at all to disagree with the divine Torah, instead, he very much wanted its establishment and its perpetuity. Also his students considered it eternal(ly binding) for the people, which he (also) enjoined on them.

‫כי מעולם לא חשב ישו בזה לחלוק על התורה האלוהית אבל רצה בקיומה‬ .‫ וגם תלמידיו חשבוה נצחית לעם אשר צוותה עליהם‬,‫ונצחותה מאוד‬ 25

See Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 288.

7.2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Chapter 5

263

How the ones who followed them, who believed in Jesus, thought up (a method) to assist the (process) of dismantling the Torah, and its destruction, according to their understanding.

‫במה שחשבו להיעזר בו הבאים אחריהם המאמינים בישו בחולקם על‬ .‫ ובהריסתה לפי דעתם‬,‫התורה‬ Chapter 6

Concerning the matter of the bread (and wine) of their god of which they think that they shed their forms and assume the body of Jesus in the same quantity and quality and as when he was hung (on the cross), and the passages on which they base this belief.

‫על עניין לחם אלוהיהם אשר יחשבו שיפשיטו צורותיהם ויקבלו גוף ישו על‬ .‫אותה הכמות והאיכות שנתלה בו והמקומות שיישענו עליהם באמונה זו‬ Chapter 7

Concerning the matter of baptism which they set down as one of the foundations of their religion and the passages on which they base this belief.

‫על עניין הטבילה אשר יניחוה אחד משורשי דתם והמקומות שיישענו עליהם‬ .‫באמונה זו‬ Chapter 8

Concerning the matter of the Pope which they likewise set down as one of the foundations of their religion and the passages on which they base this belief.

‫על עניין האפיפיור אשר הניחוהו גם כן אחד משורשי דתם והמקומות‬ .‫שיישענו עליהם באמונה זו‬ Chapter 9

Concerning the matter of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and other (related) foundational issues and articles of their religion. .‫על דבר מרים אם ישו ועניינים אחרים משורשים וסעיפים יניחו בדתם‬

Chapter 10

On errors and mistakes which Jesus and his disciples set down. .‫בתעויות והשיבושין אשר הניחום ישו ותלמידיו‬

Chapter 11

How they got confused about the issue of dating. .‫במה שהשתבשו בעניין התאריך‬

Chapter 12

On the mistakes of Jerome “the Confuser,” (and) on the bringing of proof that what we have from the holy books is the exact truth.

‫בשיבושי גרונים המשבש בהבאת ראיה על כי הנמצא אצלנו מספרי הקודש‬ .‫הוא האמת המדוקדקת‬

264

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Duran is well-informed, both in terms of the New Testament and Christian doctrine. In fact, no other Jewish author before him shows so much familiarity with the New Testament. Much of his insight is derived from Christian sources, in particular Vincent of Beauvais’ Speculum historiale,26 Peter Lombard’s fourth volume of Sententiae,27 but most frequently he refers to Nicholas de Lyre’s Postillae perpetuae, mentioning him thirteen times.28 He also criticizes Jerome’s translation,29 perhaps knew of Petrus Alfonsis’ (Pedro Alfonso) polemic Dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo, Peter Abelard’s Sic et non,30 and seems to be aware of arguments from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae.31 He was also familiar with the Western Schism, the inner Christian criticism of the primacy of the pope, and the apostolic succession, essentially agreeing with Jan Hus.32 Also, in his criticism of the Eucharist (chapter 6), Duran “rejects the idea that the bread of the Eucharist could maintain its accidents (outward characteristics) while changing its substance — an argument put forth not long before by John Wycliffe.”33 Whether Duran knew of Jan Hus 26

See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 32, 60–61. Duran also alludes to Augustine’s theory of the three ages of the Torah, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 30, also n. 2; though Posnanski suggests that Duran came to know this through Speculum historiale 8.91, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski), 3 (1914), 165, n. 2. 27 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 36, 38, 39, 41, 48. 28 Ibid., 8, 14 (2x), 16, 28, 32, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58 (2x). It is quite evident that at least some of Duran’s in-depth knowledge of interpretive and textual difficulties with the Christian text were gleaned from the de Lyre’s discussions. On de Lyre see 3.1, but also Klaus Reinhardt, “Das Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanien,” Traditio 43 (1987): 321–58; and Philip D. W. Krey and Lesley Smith, eds., Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 90; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–12. His Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam (or Postilla litteralis) appeared in 1331 and became the primary and extremely influential Bible commentary of the Late Middle ages. De Lyre was well versed in Hebrew and relied heavily on Rashi, Martini’s Pugio Fidei, Thomas Aquinas et al. 29 He devotes chapter 12 to critique Jerome’s translation, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 64–66, but Jerome is also referred to elsewhere, see ibid., 8, 29, 31, 50, 52. 30 See Berlin, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran,” 9–10, 17; also Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 79. 31 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 33, 34, but esp. 7.3.12. It is quite possible that Duran’s knowledge of Aquinas came through de Lyre’s Postillae. 32 Duran argues in ch. 8 that Jesus, acc. to Matt 18:18, bestows on all of his disciples the same authority he gave Peter in Matt 16:13–20, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 45; also Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 79–80; and Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 27–29, 263–64. 33 Berlin, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran,” 17–18; see also Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 78. Kelimmat ha-Goyim shows some similarities here to a section of Wycliffe’s De eucharistia: “For some argue that a hog, a dog or a mouse can eat our God, because it is the body of Christ who is God” (Arguunt enim quod sus, canis vel mus potest comedere Deum

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

265

and John Wycliffe is not clear, but it is evident that Duran operated at the intellectual heights of his times, and that the polemical literature of the period did not evolve in a vacuum.34

7. 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim Already the first chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim is directed against Jesus’ divinity, which Duran therefore may have seen as the most problematic of the various Christian views he argues against. He makes a sophisticated and sustained argument against the divinity of Jesus, which weaves together various elements from the polemical stock he has inherited, though he also adds his own observations. He is not merely listing various points as some of his polemical predecessors, but he has an overall theory about the development of Christology. The following is a summary and discussion of the first chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim. nostrum qui corpus Christi quod est Deus), see Iohannis Wyclif, De eucharistia tractus major (ed. John Loserth; London: Trübner, 1892), x, and 11. In Kelimmat ha-Goyim we find: “(…) if the pig or the mouse eat this body or this wine, then they [accordingly would] eat Jesus’ body and blood (…)” (‫אם יאכלו הלחם הזה וישתו היין הזה החזר והעצבר הנם האוכלים גוף‬ ‫)ישו ודמו‬, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 38. The similarity between Wycliffe and Duran probably derives from the fact that they both appear to extrapolate their respective anti-eucharist polemic from Lombardus’ Sententiae 4.13.1 (72), which Duran explicitly mentions in the same context (though only a mouse eating the host is discussed there). See Kenneth B. McFarlane, John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London: English Universities Press, 1952), 93–95, 131; and Gordon Leff, Heresy in the Late Middle Ages (2 vols; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 2:553–57; also Matthew Spinka, John Hus: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 38, 65, 71–72, 233, 261–62. 34 See Berlin, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran,” 34–36; Cohen, “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles,” 76–78; but especially Baer, History, 2:474–75, n. 41. Baer remarks that the “Jews of Spain kept in touch with the contemporary Christian theology,” suggesting as an example of how this may have occurred Magister Adam (Easton), who wrote his Defensorium ecclesiae against Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham whilst being assisted by a Jewish scholar for two years. Likewise Alonso Fernández de Madrigal (“El Tostado,” c. 1400–55) may have been a source for Jewish scholars, see Solomon Gaon, The Influence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the Pentateuch Commentary of Isaac Abravanel (New York: Ktav, 1993), 22–44. El Tostado also prepared a Matthew commentary in Latin, which may or may not have been accessible to Jews, though only the introduction was finished, see José Manuel Sánchez Caro, Rosa María Herrera García, and Inmaculada Delgado Jara. Alfonso de Madrigal, el Tostado. Introducción al evangelio según San Mateo (Fuentes Documentales 3; Salamanca-Avila: Universidad de Salamanca, 2008) (I thank David E. C. Ford for bringing this to my attention). Thus, the close contact of conversos, Jews, and Christians in Spain would have provided ample opportunities for further exchange, esp. when conversos tried to convert Jews, and Jews tried to reconvert conversos.

266

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

The short almost abstract like heading informs the reader of the purpose of the chapter, and in some sense even the overarching intention of his polemic: To bring proof, based on the words of the speaker(s themselves), that it was not the intention of the alleged Messiah, nor the intention of his disciples (to say) that he was God, which is what those who came after them thought.

‫להביא ראיה כפי מאמר האומר שלא הייתה כוונת המשיח המדומה ולא כוונת תלמידיו שיהיה‬ 35.‫הוא אלוה כפי מה שחשבו הבאים אחריהם‬

Duran starts by summarizing for Crescas his theory about Jesus and the first Christians: Jesus, the disciples, and apostles were people who were mistaken (‫)טועים‬, although they themselves were not quite capable of deceiving others (‫)לפי שטעו הם לבד ולא הגיעה מדרגתם אל שיטעו את זולתם‬. However, those who came after them, i.e., the church fathers and theologians (‫מדברי האומה‬ ‫)הזאת והפיקחים‬, they were the true deceivers (‫)מטעים‬,36 capable of leading many astray by their teachings which they intermingled with that of their opponents, namely ideas gleaned from science, logic, and Judaism. Thus, they preserved their faith by making a combination of “honey and poison” (‫ועשו‬ ‫)הרכבה מהדבש והלענה‬.37 Profiat Duran is thus essentially arguing that Jesus and his first followers were still “marginal Jews” who still had a high view of the Torah, though ultimately they were misguided. Only those who came after them misunderstood their teachings and Jesus and intentionally made him into a divinity. Profiat Duran, therefore, may be one of the first medieval interpreters of the New Testament who explicitly conceptualizes the “historical Jesus” different from the “Jesus of faith” proclaimed by the church — and that hundreds of years before the “historical Jesus quests.”38 This analysis and interpretation of the New Testament evidence is already very different, and more perceptive, than in the other texts surveyed so far. It is also surprisingly enlightened, and is still a common argument found in the present day.

35

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 4. This view is similar to Porphyry’s who likewise had argued that the followers of Jesus had corrupted his teaching and made him into a God, see Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (2nd ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 126–63, esp. 144–47. Also the Karaite Jacob Qirqisani had maintained that Paul had made Jesus into a divinity: “The Christian religion as practised now was invented and proclaimed by Pūluṣ: it was he who ascribed divinity to Jesus and claimed to be himself the prophet of Jesus his Lord,” Chiesa and Lockwood, Ya‘qūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects, 135. 37 This is a similar assessment to that of Shem Ṭov who found Jesus’ teachings to be attractive because they had been taken from Jewish tradition. See also Cohen, “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles,” 72–73. 38 Shem Ṭov also has argued that Jesus’ teaching is more or less in line with the Torah. 36

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

267

7. 3. 1 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament Duran begins to lead the reader through the New Testament to demonstrate the veracity of his assessment: And so, I am saying that when their statements are examined with absolute scrutiny, free from any habit and custom [i.e. prejudice], without any preconceived notions, it will be apparent that the alleged messiah never intended to make himself a god. Likewise, the “mistaken ones” [i.e. the first followers of Jesus] did not intend this. And in all what they wrote, in the gospels, and the epistles, and the rest, there is not found (an instance) where they call him god, rather they always were saying “Lord Jesus,” or “our Lord Jesus,” or “Teacher.” They never said “our God Jesus,” rather they considered him as being chosen (from the) human race, higher than our teacher Moses, peace be upon him. And this is why he called himself and (why) his disciples called him “Son of God,” (so as) to indicate the superiority of his level, and that our teacher Moses, peace be upon him, according to their bogus reasonings, is on the level of “servant,” since he is called “my servant Moses” (Num 12:7) “Moses, the servant of the Lord” (Josh 1:1), but Jesus is on the level of “the beloved son.”

‫ואחר זה אנוכי אומר כי כשיושקפו מאמריהם בעיון מוחלט בזולת הרגל ומנהג משולל‬ ‫ ייראה כי מעולם לא כיוון המשיח המדומה לעשות עצמו אלוה וגם הטועים לא‬,‫מהתואנה‬ ,‫ ולא נמצא בכל מה שכתבו באונגיליש והפישטוליס וזולת זה שקראו אותו אלוה‬.‫כיוונו בזה‬ ‫ ומעולם לא אמרו ׳אלוהינו ישו׳‬.‫אבל תמיד יהיה אומרם ׳האדון ישו׳ או ׳אדוננו ישו׳ או ׳מלמד׳‬ ‫ ולזה יקרא עצמו‬.‫אבל חשבו היותו מבחר המין האנושי למעלה ממשה רבינו עליו השלום‬ ‫ויקראוהו תלמידיו ׳בן אלוהים׳ להורות עליונות מדרגתו והיות משה רבינו עליו השלום לפי‬ ‫ ׳משה עבד יי׳ – וישו במדרגת הבן‬,‫סברתם המדומה במדרגת העבד כמו שאמר ׳עבדי משה׳‬ 39.‫החביב‬

While Duran is certainly right in that there is evidently a reluctancy in the New Testament to designate Jesus as God (especially without any further qualification), he fails to acknowledge the existence of various passages that indeed relate the word “God” (θεός/deus) to Jesus, in particular John 1:1 and John 20:28, with which he is familiar.40 Leon Modena, another Jewish scholar

39

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. Duran discusses John 1:1–2, 14, in the next chapter on the Trinity, see Kelimmat haGoyim (Talmage), 12, 14. There, he first entertains the notion that Jesus was a misguided (‫ )משובש‬qabbalist, which was suggested to him by an Ashkenazi Talmudic scholar (11), but he then discards this view since that would attribute too much insight and understanding to Jesus (13). He opts for a more traditional view of Jesus as magician who learnt his evil craft in Egypt (13). Duran then explains that John called Jesus only “the Word of God,” which could at most prove that John held to a duality (‫ )השינות‬in God (and not the Trinity), esp. since John does not mention the Spirit in John 1 (15). Duran’s views expressed in this chapter therefore lessens the integrity of his argument in chapter 1 somewhat, for if Jesus was a simpleton and an Egpytian trickster, how could he be considered merely deceived (‫ ?)טועים‬Cf. also pp. 39 and 45 where Jesus is described as crazy and stupid. Also, Duran never really engages John 1:1 (or 1:4), for if John can be understood to express a duality in God, then at least this evangelist should have proclaimed Jesus’ divinity. Duran, therefore, ought to have argued for a “parting of ways” not after Paul and the evangelists, but earlier. Yet, since he relied so heavily on John 10 in his argumentation (see 7.3.8) he could not do so. 40

268

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

and polemicists essentially made the same argument some 250 years later in his Magen wa-Ḥerev.41 Duran then recalls Matt 16:13–17 and Heb 3:5–6 to corroborate his viewpoint: Peter esteems Jesus as superior to anyone else in Israel’s history, and also Paul (as the supposed author of Hebrews) affirms that Moses is a mere servant, whereas Jesus is a son over God’s house. In other words, the first followers of Jesus had an exalted view of Jesus, and the use of the term “Son of God” has to be understood accordingly, but they did not estimate him to be God.42 7. 3. 2 Jesus’ Temptation I: Matt 4:1–11 Next, Duran begins to present a sequence of passages to further demonstrate that Jesus was not divine. He uses several well known pericopes and begins with the temptation scene in Matthew 4: And there in Matthew chapter 4, it is said that Satan brought Jesus to the wilderness to tempt and seduce him. In another instance he brought him to Jerusalem, and in another he led him on a high and steep mountain, as it is mentioned there. But all this is too far-fetched and improper that it could be said about God. And likewise, when Satan asked: “If you are the ‘Son of God,’ throw down yourself from the high place where you are standing, ‘for he will command his angels concerning you to watch over you in all your ways’” (cf. Psalm 91:12). He answered: “Thus it is written in the Law, ‘Do not test the Lord your God’” (cf. Mt 4:6–7).

‫ ופעם אחרת‬.‫והנה בפרק הרביעי למטיב אמר שהשטן הביא ישו למדבר להסיתו ולהדיחו‬ ‫ וכל זה רחוק ומגונה הוא‬.‫הביאו לרושלים ופעם אחרת הוליכו על הר גבוה ותלול כנזכר שם‬ ‫ השלך עצמך מהמקום הגבוה‬,‫ וגם כששאל השטן ׳אם בן אלוהים אתה‬.‫שייאמר על האלוה‬ ‫ ״לא‬:‫ ׳אז כתוב בתורה‬:‫ השיב‬.‫שאתה עומד בו למטה ״כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך״׳‬ 43.‫תנסו את יי אלהיכם״‬

Duran seeks to demonstrate that Jesus did not consider himself to be God since he countered Satan’s temptation by recalling that one (i.e. humans) ought not to try their God in this manner. The fact that Satan attempts to cause Jesus to sin itself is enough to show the improbability that Jesus is divine (‫וכל‬ ‫)זה רחוק ומגונה הוא שייאמר על האלוה‬, but also the use of the title “Son of God” in this context verifies that neither Jesus, nor his contemporaries regard-

41 See Podet, A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb, 99–100. Abraham Farissol (1451– 1528) went even further in Magen Avraham (ch. 26) with his suggestion that Jesus may have been the Messiah for the Gentiles, see David B. Ruderman, The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 6; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1981), 77–78, 206, n. 47. 42 This is perhaps comparable to James Dunn’s view according to which high Christology is a later (Johannine) development. 43 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5.

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

269

ed the title as a claim to divinity. Duran reproduces the polemical standard view of the passage, though it is only one element in his larger argument.44 7. 3. 3 The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Matt 21:18–21 From the temptation scene he moves straight to the cursing of the fig tree in Matt 21: And in chapter 21 Matthew said that Jesus was hungry and went (over) to a fig tree to see if figs could be found on it, but he did not find any, so he cursed the fig tree, and it withered; and his disciples were amazed about this miracle (cf. Matt 21:20). But if they held him to be god, there would not have been any place for surprise for them.

‫ובפרק עשרים ואחד אמר מטיב שישו היה רעב והלך לראות אילן תאנה אם ימצא בו תאנים‬ ‫ ואם היו הם מחזיקים‬.‫ולא מצא דבר וקילל עץ התאנה וייבש; ותמהו תלמידיו על הפלא הזה‬ 45.‫ לא היה מקום לתמהונם‬,‫אותו באלוה‬

It is quite evident that this argument is different from how the fig tree is used in previous polemical texts.46 Not Jesus’ ignorance about the availability of fruit, or his harshness in cursing the tree is made an issue, although it would have served Duran’s point here,47 but the thrust of the argument rests on the disciples’ surprise about Jesus’ miracle power: if they considered him to be divine they should not have been surprised.48 Duran quite ingeniously uses the disciples’ amazement as proof that they really held him to be human, and not as evidence that he was more than a human. And Duran might very well be right in his reading of Matthew here. The point that Jesus was just human is further sustained by mentioning that Mark (6:3) recalls Jesus to be a mere carpenter (‫)חורש עצים‬, and likewise that he did not have the ability to perform any miracles in Nazareth. All this is too improper to be said about God (‫)וזה מגונה שייאמר על אלוה‬. 7. 3. 4 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Matt 19:16–21 Then, Matthew 19 and the parallel passage in Mark 10 are mentioned to show that Jesus did not consider himself to be God:

44 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§142–145, Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.4), Nizzahon Vetus §162 (see 5.4.4), and Even Boḥan §7 (see 6.4.5). 45 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. 46 Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.7), Nizzahon Vetus §181 (see 5.4.10 and also 5.4.10) and Even Boḥan §42 (6.4.16). 47 The “classic” argument that Jesus was ignorant about the presence of figs occurs already soon after, see 7.3.6. However, in Posnanski’s edition (and manuscripts) of Kelimmat ha-Goyim it also appears right here, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski), 3 (1914), 106. 48 Cf. here esp. Even Boḥan §37 (see 6.4.14), which follows the same argumentative strategy.

270

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

And there, in Matthew chapter 19 and (Mark) chapter 10, is is mentioned, that a man came to Jesus and said to him: “Good teacher, what can I do that I might obtain eternal life?” He replied: “Why do you call me good, there is none good but God!” If so, he is not God. ,‫ובפרק התשעה עשר למטיב ובפרק עשירי לנזכר אמר שם שאדם אחד בא אל ישו ואמר לו‬ ‫ ׳למה תקראני טוב ואין טוב אלא‬:‫ מה אעשה שאשיג החיים הנצחיים?׳ השיבו‬,‫׳מלמד טוב‬ 49.‫ אם כן הוא אינו האל‬.‫האל׳‬

Again, this is the standard reading of this passage, and follows previous apologetic-polemical usage, though Duran notes that it is both in Mark and Matthew.50 7. 3. 5 Jesus’ Temptation II: Matt 4:3–4 Then, Duran returns to the temptation pericope to further corroborate the same argument (as per Matt 19:17), but also that he lacked divine power: And in chapter four of Matthew and Luke (it is written) that Satan said to Jesus: “Now, if you are the ‘Son of God,’ tell these stones that they should turn to bread.” He replied: “A man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lord” (Matt 4:3–4, Luke 4:3–4). And in chapter 10(:35–40) of Mark (it is written) that his slowwitted disciples ask him who would sit to his right in the kingdom of heaven,51 and he replied that this was not in his power [lit.: “hands”] to give to them. If so, he does not have the (same) ability as God.

‫ אמור לאבנים האלה‬,‫ ׳ואם בן אלוהים אתה‬,‫ובפרק רביעי למטיב ולוק כי השטן אמר לישו‬ ‫ כי על כל מוצא פי יי׳ ובפרק עשירי‬,‫ ׳לא על הלחם לבדו יחיה האדם‬:‫׳ השיבו‬.‫שישובו לחם‬ ‫למרק שאלוהו תלמידיו הפתאים שיושיבם לימינו במלכות שמיים והשיבו שאין בידו זה לתת‬ 52.‫ אם כן אין לו יכולת כמו האל‬.‫להם‬

Although Duran earlier accepted, at least for the sake of argument, that Jesus as a human has the ability to curse a tree,53 and thus can cause amazement, he now emphasizes that Jesus is, nevertheless, clearly limited in his capabilities, which Jesus himself readily admits: he is not able to nourish himself miraculously or to bestow heavenly favors on his disciples. This, again, is simply the standard polemical argument against the divinity of Jesus based on these two respective passages.

49

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §51 (see 2.5.1.4). See also Yosef ha-Meqanne §33 (see 4.5.16), and Nizzahon Vetus (see 5.4.9). Interestingly, Shem Ṭov did not comment on this passage. 51 This is interpretation is based on a paraphrase of Mark 10:37 (par. Matt 20:21). 52 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. 53 In the next chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim Duran explains the common rabbinic view (see b. Sanh. 107b) that the origins of Jesus’ miracle power was his familiarity with Egyptian magic, which he corroborates by referring to Matt 2:14–15 and 12:24, thereby affirming the accusation that Jesus worked by the demonic power of Beelzebub, cf. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 13. 50

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

271

7. 3. 6 The Term “Son of Man:” Mark 10:45, 11:13–14 Duran already appealed to the tempation account twice, he now also re-uses the fig tree pericope (see 7.3.3) in combination with a “Son of Man” saying: And there [in Mk 10:45, par. Mt 20:28] he said, “For the ‘Son of Man’ did not come to be served/worshipped but to serve/worship (someone) other than himself.” And in chapter 11(:13–14) he cursed the fig tree because he did not find any figs on it. But if he were God, would he not have known before he walked there? And there are many (instances) like these.

‫ושם אמר ״כי בן אדם לא בא להיעבד כי אם לעבוד כי אם לעבוד לזולתו״ ובפרק האחד עשר‬ ‫ ורבים כמו‬,‫ הלא ידעו טרם לכתו שם‬,‫ ואם היה אלוה‬.‫קילל התאנה על שלא מצא בה תאנים‬ 54.‫אלה‬

Not only is Jesus not able to nourish himself, he cannot even see if any nourishment (fruit) is available to him. Morover, Jesus himself declares that he has come to serve (or: worship) others. The implication, again, that this is not something that is proper to say of God, and can only indicate that Jesus is human. As seen, both arguments are not novel.55 7. 3. 7 The Term “Son of Man:” John 5:30 Duran, then, quotes John 5:30 to illustrate that Jesus himself depended on God and adds: And always in all what he said he called himself “Son of Man” in the manner of Ezekiel. But the deceivers said that “man” [Adam] is a name shared by both man and woman so as to pull them after their creed / belief (and justify) that Jesus was born by a virgin (and) without a father, although Jesus (himself) did not mention this. And by this then [the use of “Son of Man”] it can be seen that he did consider Joseph his physical father.

‫ אבל המטעים יאמרו כי אדם‬.‫ותמיד בכל מאמריו היה קורא עצמו ״בן אדם״ על דרך יחזקאל‬ ‫ עם שלא הזכיר זה‬,‫שם משותף לאדם ולאשה להימשכם אחר דעתם כי נולד מבתולה בלא אב‬ 56.‫ ולזה ייראה כי הוא חשב יוסף לאב גשמי‬.‫ישו‬

Duran argues that by using the phrase “Son of Man” Jesus acknowledges that he is biologically related to humanity, but moreover, that he implicitly recognizes Joseph as his physical father. He thus offers two ways of understanding the term “Son of Man.” The first is that Jesus used the term like Ezekiel, presumably indicating that Jesus saw himself as a human prophet,57 which is perhaps the only time a Jewish polemicist entertains a different interpretation for the term “Son of Man.” The second way is that the term “Adam” (‫)אדם‬ 54

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. Cf. 7.3.3, Qiṣṣa §105 and §150 (see 2.5.2), Yosef ha-Meqanne §37 (see 4.5.2), and Nizzahon Vetus §188 (see 5.4.5). 56 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5. 57 The phrase “Son of Man” (‫ )בן אדם‬is used 93 times in Ezekiel, always referring to the prophet Ezekiel. 55

272

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

actually refers to a male, i.e. Joseph. In Duran’s understanding the church fathers and early theologians argued that “Adam” is inclusive and signifies “humanity” (and not just a male),58 in order to mitigate the fact that Jesus was born without the involvement of a male. 7. 3. 8 Joseph is Jesus’ Father: Matt 1:22–23 Having argued that Jesus recognized Joseph as his father,59 it is only natural to recall next: Likewise also Mary, his mother, called Joseph “your father.” In the second chapter of Luke (2:41–48) (it is written): “One time they took him up to Jerusalem by foot but while they were walking they lost him. And the went on for a day’s journey since they thought to themselves, ‘Perhaps he went with a group from their town.’ But when they saw that he was not there they returned to Jerusalem, and they found him in the temple with the elders. And his mother said to him: ‘My son, your father and I were sad and very worried about you, because we did not know where you were.’” However, the evangelist [in Matt 1:22–23] clearly mentions that she was a virgin when she gave birth to him.

‫ ״פעם אחת העלוהו לירושלים לרגל‬:‫ בפרק השני ללוק‬.‫וגם מרים אמו אמרה ״אביך״ על יוסף‬ .‫ ״אולי הלך עם חבורת בני עירם״‬,‫ והלכו להם מהלך יום אחד כי אמרו בלבם‬.‫ובלכתם אבידוהו‬ ‫ ואמרו‬.‫ובראותם כי איננו שם חזרו לירושלים ומצאו אותו בירושלים בבית המקדש עם הזקנים‬ .‫ אביך ואני היינו מתעצבים ודואגים מאוד עליך כי לא היינו יודעים מקומך איו״‬,‫ ״בני‬,‫לו אמו‬ 60.‫אמנם האונגילי זכר בביאור כי בתולה היתה בלדתה אותו‬

Thus, having corroborated that Jesus had human parents, and at the same time casting doubt on the trustworthiness of the evangelist (or Mary’s virginity), Duran returns to his main point and brings further passages that challenge the claim that Jesus is divine.61 He recalls 1 John 4:12, where it is said that no man has ever seen God, and then paraphrases 1 Cor 8:6 demonstrating the uniqueness and superiority of God, the Father, and his distinction to Jesus. He then summarizes: 58 E.g. in Justin, Dial. 100.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.33.2, 5.21.1; Gregory of Nyssa, Libri contra Eunomium 1.22; 3.4 (NPFN2 5:63, 145); and Ambrose, Enarrat. Ps. 39 (CSEL 64:222), the latter occurring in a refutation of Apollinarianism. See also Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man,’ 9–31, 53–80, 81–92. 59 Also briefly mentioned in chapter 9, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim, 46–47. 60 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 5–6. 61 Duran thereby shows he does not really trust Matthew’s account. Beside the various errors he sees (see 7.4), he also discusses Matthew’s genealogy and the difference to Luke’s in chapter 10, concluding that “their purpose in telling these genealogies is (to show) that the designated (i.e, the true) messiah must be from the seed of David. And they (also) thought that since the groom (of Mary) is of the seed of David, that his bride was likewise from that seed. But this is (only) their conjecture, without any proof, even from their own stories” (‫ וחשבו כי אחר‬,‫וכוונתם בסיפור התולדות ההם שהמשיח המיועד מחוייב שיהיה מזרע דוד‬ ‫ וזה סברא מהם בלא ראיה אף מסיפורים‬.‫שהארוס מזרע דוד ארוסתו גם כן מהזרע ההוא‬ ‫)שלהם‬, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 54.

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

273

And so, from all these proofs and the others (contained) in those stories it becomes apparent that neither he or his disciples ever erred in this at all, that they should think of him as God.

‫והנה כל אלו הראיות וזולתן בסיפורים ההם ייראה כי מעולם לא טעו הוא ותלמידיו בזה כלל‬ 62.‫שיחשבוהו אלוה ובורא הכל‬

Having argued that the first generation, that is, Jesus and his disciples (and even Paul) did not consider Jesus to be divine, and therefore cannot be understood as real deceivers, Duran moves on to show from where the errors crept in: And what caused the deceivers to err, (that is) to think that he is God, are a few sayings he said, and (in addition those) which the erring ones said about him. 63.‫עליו‬

‫ואשר הטעה המטעים לחשבו אלוה הוה קצת המאמרים שאמר הוא ושאמרו הטועים‬

In other words, the first generation was not misguided themselves, at least not about Jesus’ divinity, but they prepared the way for those after them. Duran then presents the New Testament passages that have been used to support the claim that Jesus is divine: John 10:30, John 14:9, and John 14:10. But in the same way as with 1 Corinthians he explains: But the truth is that, by these sayings (which) he said (which made) them think he is God, he merely expressed closeness to him [God]. 64.‫מצורף‬

‫והאמת כי כיוצא באלו המאמרים שאמר הוא יחשבו לו האלוהות אך הקירבה אליו‬

In fact, contrasting these passages with John 14:20 one would have to consider all of Jesus’ disciples as gods: He said to his disciples that he is in them and they are in him. Yet (in) the (same) way he talked about his father, and if so, then all his disciples would (likewise) be gods.

‫ ואם כן יהיו כל תלמידיו‬,‫ על הדרך שאמר על אביו‬.‫אמר הוא לתלמידיו כי הוא בהם והם בו‬ 65.‫אלוהות‬

Profiat Duran very perceptively relates Jesus’ sayings in John 10:30 and 14:20 about his relationship with his father to similar sayings in the same context that attribute this relationship to the disciples. Jesus’ sayings, consequently, cannot speak about his divinity, but only his humanity.66 If one were to use 62

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 6. Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 John 10:30 and 14:9–10 also feature in Muslim polemics. In fact, the John 10:30 argument Duran employs here appears also in Al-Ghazālī’s polemic, on this see Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology: Part 2 Volume 1, 267–69; also 249. Further see Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’ān and the Classical Muslim Commentaries (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 47–48; see also I. Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian 63

274

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Jesus’ “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me” saying to argue for Jesus’ divinity, the immediate context would demand that the disciples are in the same manner divine, that is, ontologically (i. e. as members of the Trinity). In presenting this more contextual exegesis, Duran offers a sensitive assessment of the Johannine text. 7. 3. 9 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Matt 27:34 This is followed by recalling Jesus’ cry on the cross: And here, at the time of his hanging (on the cross) he cried (to God), but He did not answer him. He said: “My God, my God why have you left me?” (Matt 27:34). (So) he already acknowledged with this exclamation that he did not make himself (out to be) God. But Jesus already settled all this in the chapter when he said: “Why do you call me good? For there is no one good, except God” (Mark 10:18, par. Luke 18:19).

‫״ כבר הודה בדיבור זה כי לא‬.‫ ״אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬,‫ אמר‬.‫והנה בעת תליית קראו ולא ענהו‬ ‫ וכבר התיר ישו הפסק בכל זה באמרו ״למה תקראתי טוב ואין טוב זולת‬.‫עשה עצמו אלוה‬ 67.‫האל״‬

Duran argues that Jesus more or less explicitly expressed that he did not consider himself God. His prayer on the cross, which was seemingly unanswered, together with his reply in Mark 10, should clearly demonstrate that Jesus cannot be seen as God. Again, this simply repeats earlier arguments.68 7. 3. 10 Jesus’ Self-Understanding: John 10:19–36 He then supplies a long paraphrase of John 10:19–36 to definitively show that Jesus did not think of himself as God. He subsequently argues: And although the premise (Jesus) used is false, for it is not written in the Torah,69 nevertheless, one can take from what he says a complete answer for all those who see in his saying (here), and (also) in the sayings of the mistaken ones, that he is God himself. For the intention of all of what he is saying with this is (to give) a parable [or: metaphor], (just) like in the passage, “I said, you are gods” (Psalm 82:6), or this was said (perhaps as a means) to share in (and apply) the name (of god);70 not that he intended by this (to show that he should) be the First Cause, the Creator of the universe.

Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries (Regnum Studies In Mission; Carlisle: Paternoster: 2005), 60–61. 67 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 6. 68 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §45 (see 2.5.1.2), Yosef ha-Meqanne §37 (see 4.5.2), Nizzahon Vetus §145 and §178 (see 5.4.13), and Even Boḥan §56 (see 6.4.20). 69 This refers to Jesus’ use of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34, which is evidently not in the Torah but from the Psalms. 70 Talmage relates this to a passage by David Qimḥi where a similar symbolic identification with God is used, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7, n. 15.

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

275

‫ עם כל זה יילקח ממאמרו תשובה כוללת‬,‫ועם היות שהקדים הקדמה כוזבת שאין כתוב בתורה‬ ‫ כי המכוון בכל זה‬.‫לכל מי שיראה ממאמריו וממאמרי הטועים היותו עושה עצמו אלוה‬ ‫המאמר הוא המשל כמו שהוא בפסוק ״אני אמרתי אלהים אתם״ או שהוא נאמר בשיתוף‬ 71.‫השם; לא כיוון בזה היות עליה ראשונה בורא העולם‬

Earlier, Duran remarked that Jesus’ teaching style is frequently figurative (cf. John 10:6), not to be understood as literal (‫כי זה האיש לימודו היה לימוד שיריי‬ ‫)ותמיד היה ממשל משלים‬.72 In like manner the rest of John 10 is to be appreciated: Jesus is not literally saying that he is “The Son of God” (John 10:36) since he uses Psalm 82:6 to deflect the accusation that he is making himself equal to God. The term “Son of God” is thus to be understood as a figure of speech, and Jesus only applies it to himself figuratively, by no means is he identical with the Creator.73 Earlier, Duran made a similar, but also somewhat opposite, argument about the use of the title “Son of Man” which he interprets more literally. Accordingly, Jesus used the title in the manner of Ezekiel (see 7.3.7). Here, he suggests, Jesus’ self-understanding in using the concept of sonship to God does not express his absolute identification with the Father, the Creator, but perhaps is more of a metaphor to express his relationship to God (‫)או שהוא נאמר בשיתוף השם‬. Inasmuch as those to whom the word of God came are called “gods” (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34), so Jesus who sees himself as sent from God surely can be called a “Son of God” (John 10:35– 36) without understanding this as a claim to divinity.74 It is, therefore, a mistake to think that the phrase means Jesus considered himself divine. Also, already in the beginning of the chapter he stated that the title “Son of God”

71

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7. Ibid., 6. The same point, that Jesus speaks only figuratively, is maintained in chapter six on the Eucharist in the discussion of John 6:47–66, cf. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 39. 73 John 10:35 (Psalm 82:6) is used in this manner already by Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova, a Muslim theologian (994–1064 C.E.), and one of the most famous authors of Al-Andalus, see Theodore Pulcini, Exegesis of Polemical Discourse: Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and Christian Scriptures (AAR; The Religions 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 107; and Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, “Ibn Ḥazm,” Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online, 2012). Likewise AlGhazālī (1058–1111 C.E.) used this argument, see Chidiac, Une Réfutation excellente de la divinité de Jésus-Christ, 9*, 25* (ff. 7r–7v, 20v–21r); J. Windrow Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology 2/1, 267–69; Wilms, Al–Ghazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu, 63, 79; also Kenneth Cragg, The Arab Christian: A History im the Middle East (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 87–88, also 93–94, n. 37. 74 Compare this assessment to James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology (SNTSMS 111; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 117–30, esp. 122–29, who summarizes that in John 10:34–36 “Jesus defends the legitimacy of the agent of God being called ‘Son of God’ or ‘God’ on the basis of Scripture. If this applies to earthly agents (Adam and Israel) who ultimately failed to obey God, how much more does it apply to God’s heavenly agent, now become flesh, who always obeys God” (129). 72

276

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

shows superiority of Jesus over Moses, and that these sayings express merely closeness to God (‫)אך הקירבה אליו מצורף‬. Duran then continues to survey the passages that he thinks lead Christians to believe in Jesus’ divinity. He refers to Acts 20:16–17, where Paul spoke to the church in Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem: And he said to them amidst his words that God had appointed them as leaders [or: bishops] to lead his congregation which he had bought with his blood, that is, by the shedding of his blood (cf. Acts 20:28). Here then he said that the blood of God was shed. ,‫ רוצה לומר‬,‫ואמר להם בתוך דבריו כי האל מינה אותם הגמונים להנהיג עדתו אשר קנה בדמו‬ 75.‫ הנה שאמר שדם האל נקפך‬.‫בשפיכת דמו‬

Duran’s comment implies that Christians in his time used Acts 20:28 to argue that Jesus is divine. Accordingly, the one who appointed leaders, namely God, did so by the shedding of His blood.76 In like fashion he refers to (and quotes) Romans 9:5, 1 John 3:16,77 Col 2:8–9, Rev 1:17–18, 5:12,78 and Jude 1:4b– 5.79 Duran does not comment on any of these passage other than by giving a summary: These are the verses which deceived the deceivers (misleading them) to attribute to him divinity, I mean, the divinity attributed to the First Cause. But by permitting the doubt80 which 75

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7. The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Acts 20:28 is found in ‫ א‬B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy boms according to Nestle-Aland’s apparatus. Other manuscripts have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου) here, so P74 A C* D E Ψ 33 36 453 945 1739 1891 al gig p syhmg co, while many of the minuscule fuse these two into “of the Lord and God” (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ). The first reading could consequently be used as a passage in support of Jesus’ divinity. See Charles F. DeVine, “The Blood of God in Acts 20:28,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381–408; and Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 131–41. 77 He quotes the verse with an addition: “For by this we know what the love of God is, for he put his soul/life down for us” (‫)כי בזה נכיר אהאבת האל כי הוא שם נפשו בעדנו‬, idem, Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7; emphasis mine. 78 Duran quotes the verse: “Worthy is the lamb that was killed to receive strength and divinity and wisdom…” (‫)ראוי הוא השה הנהרג לקחת גבוה ואלוהות וחוכמה‬, cf. the Vulgate for Rev 5:12: dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere virtutem et divinitatem et sapientiam; emphases mine. 79 Duran understands the verse to say that “Jesus saved Israel from Egypt” (‫ישו הושיע‬ ‫)את ישראל ממצרים‬, Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7. 80 That is, by producing an alternative interpretation for the meaning of “Son of God,” Jesus effectively did not claim the exclusive status of Creator. Already the author of Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq had observed that Jesus did not explicitly refer to himself has God: “Further, you shall be punished for believing in him as a deity, for he never called himself divine. You will not find this written in any of your books either. He called himself the son of God, which he was entitled to do, for everyone who cleaves to the Lord and his Torah is fittingly called the son of God,” Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 345 [f. 17r]. Likewise, “Know that that man (Jesus) never said any place that he was truly divine, nor did he mention it in any of their 76

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

277

Jesus brought from “I told you, you are gods” all this is resolved. But if someone should want to insist that the intention of these verses is to attribute to him divinity, there is no doubt that they are missing Jesus’ intention clearly stated in his answer to those who disagreed with him in Jerusalem.

‫ האלוהות המיוחס לעילה‬,‫ רצוני‬,‫אלו הם המאמרים שהטעו המטעים לייחס אליו אלוהות‬ ‫ ואם‬.‫ ובהיתר הספק אשר עשה ישו מפסוק ״אני אמרתי אלהים אתם״ הותר כל זה‬.‫ראשונה‬ ‫ הנה אין ספק שהם‬,‫ירצה אחד להתעקש כי כוונתם באלה המאמרים ליחס לו אלוהות‬ 81.‫מחטיאים כוונת ישו המבוארת בתשובתו לאשר חלקו עליו בירושלים‬

In other words, Duran’s interpretation of Jesus’ saying in John 10:34 overrides essentially all other passags which may be used to argue for the divinity of Jesus. Thus, John 10:34 functions as an overruling hermeneutical principle and Christians who seek to argue otherwise are ignorant of Jesus’ real intention. Duran then begins a new subsection in which he lists various passages from the Hebrew Bible that Christians have uses to argue for Jesus’ divinity.82 7. 3. 11 Matthew’s Intention with Isaiah 7:14: Matt 1:22–23 He begins with the Christian interpretation of Jer 23:6, which he cancels out by comparing it to Exod 17:5 and Gen 33:20. Then he moves into a long discussion of Isa 7:14: And Scripture further mislead them with the verse: “Behold, the young woman shall shall conceive and she shall give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel” (Isa 7:14). Now why is it that they thought that his was said about the Messiah? But, they obtained from this two roots for the roots of their faith: 1) his being born without a father from a virgin, and 2) being god on account of being called by the name “Immanuel.” And Matthew brought forth this teaching83 at the beginning of his gospel, so as to bring from it proof about the virgin (cf. Matt 1:22–23). But it is not hidden that (this comes) from an inferior (level of) proof and from a shortcoming (of understanding on the part of him) who brought (this) as proof, for this matter preceded Jesus by more than 500 years. And thus, what is said there: “Before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (Isa 7:16), and likewise what is said (here) “she will conceive and will give birth to a son” (Isa 7:14), (this) relates to that time, but their translator [Jerome] corrupted this Scripture and made it future. And thus they said (that) “and she shall call” (refers to) his mother

books. He only said that he was the son of God and that God sent him. […] If he said he is the son of God, perhaps he said it figuratively as in the other cases. [He did not mean] that he is of the essence of God, Heaven forbid, for God is neither body nor a force in the body” (348) [f. 18v]. 81 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 7–8. 82 Posnanski suggests here that Duran’s argument shows links to de Lyre’s commentary on Isaiah and Petrus Alfonsi’s Duodecim dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo (PL 157:619), see Kelmiat ha-Goyim (Posnanski), 3 (1914), 110, nn. 2–3. 83 Lit.: “authority,” thereby implying that Matthew deliberately appealed to Isa 7:14 in order to establish a basis for incarnational theology.

278

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

[Mary] (who would be) calling him Immanuel. But according to their opinion as written in the gospel [of Luke] it is the angel who called him Immanuel (cf. Luke 1:28).

‫ ולמה‬.‫ועוד הטעה אותם הכתוב באמרו ״הנה העלמה הרה יולדת בן וקראת שמו עמנעל״‬ ‫ והוציאו ממנו שני שורשים משורשי אמונתם – והוא היותו‬.‫שחשבו בו שזה נאמר על המשיה‬ ‫ והפיקוד הזה הביאו מטיב בראש‬.‫נולד בלי אב מבתולה והיותו אלוה לקריאת השם עמנואל‬ ‫ ולא ייעלם מה שבזה מפחיתות‬.‫האונגילי שלו פרק ראשון להביא ממנו ראיה על הבתולה‬ ‫ וכן מה‬.‫ כי עניין זה קדם לישו יותר מחמש מאות שנה‬:‫הראיה ומחסרון מי שהביאה לראיה‬ ‫ ״בטתם ידע הנער מאס ברע ובחור בטוב תעזב האדמה אשר אתה קץ מפני שני‬,‫שאמר שם‬ ‫ אבל המעתיק שלהם שיבש הכתוב‬,‫ שיורה על הזמן ההוא‬.‫ וגם אמרו ״הרה וילדת בן״‬.‫מלכיה״‬ ‫ וכן אמרו ״וקראת״ שאמו קראתו עמנואל; ולפי סברתם ככתוב‬.‫הזה ועשה אותו עתיד‬ 84.‫באונגילי המלאך קראו עמנואל‬

Duran mostly repeats earlier arguments here, but he also suspects that Matthew added Isa 7:14 in order to argue that Mary was a virgin.85 But others, those who subsequently read Matthew, mistakenly argued that this meant Jesus was divine, thereby maintaining the distinction between Jesus’ misguided early followers and the later deceivers. Duran does not consider Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14 sufficient proof, however, since in his view (and that of many other Jewish exegetes) Isa 7:14 only can refer to the historical context of the prophet. Jerome, however, presumably deliberately, altered the text to redirect the historical fulfilment to the future, and to Mary. According to Duran’s analysis, by using Isaiah with its reference to Immanuel, Matthew inadvertenly opened the path for other to understand Jesus to be divine. The discussion of Isaiah 7 then continues by referring to Nicholas de Lyre, in particular that he admitted that the passages from the Hebrew Bible do not apply literally, but are only parables/allegories (‫ )משל‬for the coming of the Messiah.86 Duran, however, emphasizes that God commonly gives signs to his people shortly before the actual event to confirm the veracity of his promise.87 Therefore, if Matthew was right, the Christians would have to concede that also a virgin in Ahaz’ day gave birth to a son whose name was Immanuel, and (consequently) the proof (here) would turn into faith entirely, by which they (then) helped no-one at all.

‫ואם כן יודו שגם בזמן אחז ילדה בתולאה בן שנקרא שמו עמנואל ותשוב הריאה אמונה‬ 88.‫מוחלטת ולא הועילו בה כלום‬

In other words, if the passage as Matthew understood it were to be applied to the contemporaries in the time of Ahaz, one would have to surmise that at that 84

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 8. This understanding requires that Matthew understood Isa 7:14 to refer to a virgin, and not a young woman; see below. 86 The same argument was made by Martin Luther and Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, see below 8.3. 87 Cf. the similar argument in Even Boḥan §24 (see 6.4.9). 88 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 8–9. 85

7.3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

279

time likewise a virgin gave birth to a son named Immanuel, and if so, this would not be a sign that the child is divine. In effect, one could not allow for Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah 7 since it would either leave God’s promise of a sign to Ahaz unfulfilled, or would lead to the admission that a (divine) virgin-born child named Immanuel lived in the time of Ahaz. In other words, Duran requires one interpretation (and fulfillment) of the passage consistent with the historical context of the contemporary recipients. He effectively rejects, at least here, the use of two kinds of interpretative senses. The implication is that there is only one literal interpretation of Isaiah 7 and that Matthew’s interpretation is simply wrong, or at least ineffectual in terms of its ability to proof that Jesus is born of a virgin and divine on account of being named Immanuel. Matthew’s proof turns out to be simply a matter of unverifiable faith (‫)ותשוב הריאה אמונה מוחלטת‬, a rather enlightened conclusion! 7. 3. 12 The Hypostatic Union and Jesus’ Death: Matt 27:46 Duran then turns to the interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, explaining how it refers to Hezekiah and that the use of the names in the passage does not indicate the divinity of the one who is called by them. He finalizes his discussion of passages from the Hebrew Bible which Christians have used to validate their belief with an interesting assessment of Christology: And it is possible that there are a few more passages found of this kind on which they base their belief. For when their clever ones saw passages which they considered proof for the divinity (of Jesus) and (also) passages which pointed without a doubt to his humanity, and (that) these sayings contradicted each other, they divided this messiah into two, and made him into two aspects (‫ — )בחינות‬one aspect by which he is God, and one aspect by which he is a human (‫ ;)אדם‬and what is written which points to his being a human, they say is (part of) the aspect of his humanity (‫)האנושות‬, and that which they consider an indicator to his divinity (‫)האלוהות‬, they say (relates to the aspect) by which it speaks of (his) divinity.89 And they thought this was a solid method to verify their opinion. But it is not hidden what in this (reasoning) comes from defect and weakness, inasmuch as this messiah was not himself composed (‫ )מורכב‬of these aspects, rather they were united (‫ )התאחדו‬in him, (in) unity and purpose, (that is) according to their opinion: divinity and humanity. And this one was (then) the messiah, and this union (‫( )התאחדות‬in him) was (supposedly) stronger, according to their opinion, than the union of body and soul that makes a human being. And just as the plant is composed (‫ )נשלם‬out of the form (‫ )צורה‬of the plant and the inanimate, which is its internal matter (‫)חומר‬, and the animate (organism) is composed out of the form of the plant and the animate, and the man (‫ )אדם‬is composed out the form of humanity and life (‫)החיות‬, thus (also) the essence (‫)מהות‬90 of the messiah is composed out of the divinity and the humanity.

89

Which is precisely what, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus writes in Orat. 29.18. This word can be understood as being (Wesen), quidditas, essentia or οὐσία, see Jacob Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris (4 vols.; Berlin: Eschkol, 1928; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 2004), 2:156. 90

280

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

And this (is supposedly so) because they say that they are two opposites and natures in one subject (‫( )נושא‬which) they call supposit(um),91 and they call these two natures the divine nature and the human nature, and they united into a perfect union (‫תכלית‬ ‫)ההתאחדות‬, and that this (happened) when the Divinity (‫ )האלוהות‬assumed humanity. And now, this messiah, just as he is in these two natures, was hung (onto a cross) and killed! And with this, it is (therefore) right (to say) that the Divinity was hung (on a cross) and was killed, although he was not killed on the side of the divine (nature). Just as it is with a murdering trader who will be punished by death. For (they say) it is quite right that the trader should be punished by death, although he will not be punished on the side (i.e., on account) of being a trader. And thus it is (with Jesus), (that) after he was hung (on the cross), he called out to God, “My God, my God why have you left me?” (Matt 27:46), although he would not have said this on the side of the divine (nature). For (they think) it is quite right that God is calling to God — but this is improper (to say about God)! And therefore it would appear that neither he [Jesus] nor his disciples in any way erred about this at all.

‫ וכי ראו פיקחיהם‬.‫ואפשר עוד שיימצא קצת מקומות מן המין הזה שיקיימו בם דעתם‬ ‫המקומות אשר חשובום ראיה על האלוהות והמקומות שיורו על אנושותו בלא ספק‬ – ‫ חילקו המשיח הזה לשניים ועשו ממנו בחינות בחינות‬,‫והמאמרים סותרים אלו את אלו‬ ,‫ ומה שכתוב שיורה על היותו אדם‬.‫בחינה מצד מה שהוא אלוה ובחינה מצד מה שהוא אדם‬ ‫יאמרו בבחינת האנושות; ומה שיחשבו היותו מורה על אלוהות יאמרו שמצד האלוהות ייאמר‬ ‫ ולא ייעלם מה שבזה מן המום והחולשה לפי שהמשיח‬.‫ וחשבו זה דרך חזק לאמת סברתם‬.‫זה‬ ,‫ לפי סברתם‬,‫הזה לא היה עצמו מורכב מאלה הבחינות אבל התאחדו בו תכלית האחדות‬ ‫ והיה האחד הזה הוא המשיח וההתאחדות הזה יותר חזק לפי סברתם‬.‫האלוהות והאנושות‬ ‫ וכמו שמצורת הצומח והדומם אשר הוא חומר‬.‫מהתאחדות הגוף והנפש להיות מהם האדם‬ ‫ כן‬,‫ ומצורת האנושות והחיות נשלם האדם‬,‫ ומצורת הצומח והחי נשלם החי‬,‫לה נשלם הצומח‬ ‫ וזה כי אמרו שהם שני הפכים וטבעים בנושא אחד‬.‫מהאלוהות והאנושות נשלם מהות המשיח‬ ‫ והתאחדו תכלית‬,‫קראו לו שופושיט; וקורין לשני אלה הטבעים טבע אלוהי וטבע האנושי‬ ‫ והנה המשיח הזה כמו שהוא בשני אלה‬.‫ההתאחדות וזה כשקיבל האלוהות את האנשושות‬ ‫ ועם היות שלא נהרג מצד‬,‫ ועם זה יצדק בו שהאלוהות נתלה ונהרג‬.‫הטבעים נתלה ונהרג‬ ‫ הנה כבר יצדק שהסוחר ייענש מיתה עם שלא‬,‫האלוהות; כמו אם ייענש מיתה הסוחר הרוצח‬ ‫ וזה גם כן אחר שבשעת תלייתו היה קורא לאלוה ״אלי אלי למא‬.‫ייענש מצד היותו סוהר‬ ‫ הנה כבר יצדק שהאלוה קורא לאלוה וזה‬.‫ עם היות שלא ייאמר זה מצד האלוהות‬,‫עזבתני״‬ 92.‫ על כן נראה כי מעולם לא טעה הוא ולא תלמידיו בזה כלל‬,‫מגונה‬

Duran displays more insight here into christological thought than many other Jewish polemical writers.93 His argument does not come from ignorance, and after having explained the hypostatic union at some length and by identifying how he thinks christological thought came about, which in his view was to 91 This refers to the hypostatic union. In Thomas Aquinas’ understanding suppositum is closely related to the term hypostasis. In this, the suppositum underlies the general nature of a single thing or being, and as such it denotes the ontological reality of the two, though also distinct, natures in Christ as one complete entity, cf. his Summa contra gentiles, IV, Q. 34, Art. 29; IV, Q. 39, Art. 1. But see especially also his Summa theologiae, III, Q. 16, Art. 4 and 5; Q. 19, Art. 1; and Q. 46, Art. 12. Furthermore see also Summa theologiae, I, Q. 3, Art. 3; and III, Q. 2. 92 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 9–10. 93 Cf. the understanding displayed in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6), Yosef ha-Meqanne §9 (see 4.5.13), and Nizzahon Vetus §181 et al (see 5.4.10–13).

7.4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

281

make sense of contradictory passages as referring to either the human and divine nature of Christ,94 he simply turns back to Matt 27:46. In fact, he essentially argues that the divine-human Christ as suppositum, that is, as one ontological entity, could not have called out to God in this manner. In this Duran essentially disputes Aquinas, who ascribed Jesus’ suffering only to the assumed, human nature, and not the the divine, impassable nature.95 That is, Duran uses the hypostatic union to argue that the “entity” Jesus Christ, who is composed of the divine nature in union with his human nature, could not have called out to God with such a desperate request, much less died.96 In his estimation this is simply improper (‫ )מגונה‬to say of God, and if Jesus and his disciples were not mistaken about his human identity, then it was the “clever ones” who clearly mislead all those after them. Finally, based on Acts 3 and 4, he reiterates his view that the apostles and disciples did not think of Jesus as divine, even after his death (‫וכן מה שטענו‬ ‫)בעדו אחר מותו‬. In particular the quotation of Deut 18:15 in Acts 3:22 (cf. also 7:34) shows that the disciples thought of Jesus as a prophet on a level higher than Moses (‫)מדרגה יותר עליונה ממשה‬.97 He also reminds his readers that when Jesus calls himself “Son of God” it is not to be understood as an indication that he is divine, which he achieves by pointing to Deut 14:1, Rom 8:14, and John 1:12. All passages refer to humans as “sons of God,” consequently, one cannot understand the title “Son of God” as claim of divinity.

7. 4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament In chapter 10 of Kelimmat ha-Goyim various contradictions and corruptions in the New Testament are discussed. Duran starts with the Gospel of Matthew, 94

With this he might be one of the first Jewish polemicists to implicitly recognize that there were passages in the New Testament that pointed to Jesus’ divine identity, after all it required Christians to assign two aspects to Jesus, though his argument also assumes that Christian were wrong about this, and ultimately read this into the text. 95 On this see also Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel’s Theological Thought as prolegomena to a future Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 531– 32. 96 Eberhard Jüngel and Jürgen Moltmann essentially appeal to the same christological mechanism (communicatio idiomatum/ἀλλοίωσις) when they argued that the death of Christ, that is, at least in some sense, means the death of God, or to be more precise, “death in God.” See Eberhard Jüngel, “Vom Tode des Lebendigen Gottes,” in Unterwegs zur Sache: Theologische Bemerkungen (ed. E. Jüngel, BEvT 61; Munich: Kaiser, 1988), 105–25; and Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (trans. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden, London: SCM: 1974; repr. 2001), esp. 206–88. 97 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 10.

282

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

sequentially going through the whole gospel pointing out various difficulties with the text, and then proceeds to do the same for Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Corinthians, Hebrews, Acts, and James. The discussion of the Gospel of Matthew takes by far the most space. He begins by restating his central understanding of Jesus and the New Testament: There is no doubt that Jesus, and his disciples and his apostles were people of the land (i.e. unlearned peasants), and this is seen clearly from what proof they bring from the Scriptures to establish the matter, and also in (how) they err in (using) the stories of the Torah and the Prophets.

‫ וייראה זה בבירור ממה שיביאו ראיה מהכתוב‬,‫אין פסק כי ישו ותלמידיו ושלוחיו עם הארץ היו‬ ‫ לא‬,‫ וחושב אני כי מה שיאמרו מזה‬.‫בקיום עניינו; וגם בסיפורי התורה והנבאים היו טועים‬ 98.‫יאמרוהו מתוך הכתוב‬

The textual difficulties he cites in this chapter, therefore, show that Jesus’ disciples and apostles were uneducated when it came to the Torah and the Prophets, and consequently also not trustworthy. This general ad hominem argument is repeated in much of the chapter, though, it actually was the failure of the “foolish devout” (‫ )החסידים השוטים‬who came after them and who listened to them, who fell into error.99 Duran then goes on to list these errors, in particular as they appear in the New Testament: Now see, I am presenting in this chapter a few of their errors and mistakes, (although) with this (comes also) a loss of time and (having to deal with) words of foolishness, for I know (that) the heirs of the religion of truth will delight in this, in the gift of their portion, of which you, Oh Glory of the Rabbis, are their head to this day. And the superiority (or: virtue) of the divine Torah and its veracity will be proclaimed over (against) its opposite, so as to separate between the holy and between the ordinary, between the light and between the darkness.

‫ כי‬.‫והנה אביא בפרק הזה קצת מטעיותיהם ושיבושיהם עם שבזה מאיבוד זמן בדברי חבל‬ ‫ ראשם כהיום‬,‫ תפארת הרבנים‬,‫ידעתי ישמחו בזה נוחלי דת האמת במתנת חלקם אשר אתה‬ ‫ ותתפרסם בו מעלת התורה האלוהית ואמיתתה ויתרונה על זולתה להבדיל בין הקודש‬,‫הזה‬ 100.‫ובין החול בין האור ובין החושך‬

While Duran considers it a waste of time to scrutinize the New Testament in this manner, the recipient, Ḥasdai Crescas and the rabbinic leaders with him, are to use this chapter as a means to appreciate their own Scriptures in that they come to see some of the mistakes of the evangelists, disciples, and Jesus — and conversely that of the conversos and the Christian campaign to proselytize Jews.

98

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 49. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) reads here: ‫והיו החסידים השוטים האלה מתמידים‬ ‫לשמוע הדרשות ובחסרונם היו משתבשים במה שהיו שומעים‬. These “pious ones” could equally also refer here to the conversos. 100 Ibid. 99

7.4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

283

Duran begins with the Gospel of Matthew, mostly by pointing out that Matthew and/or Jesus “erred” in their understanding of the Hebrew Bible (‫)טעה בכתוב‬. Often this may simply mean that the passage from the Hebrew Bible is not quoted precisely as it appears in the Hebrew text, other times this may point to other perceived contradictions and inconcistencies, some of which are well known. The following table lists and summarizes all the passages discussed in this manner in Matthew: Passage

Critique

Matt 1:22–23, 9:9

Matthew erred about (= did not understand) Isaiah 7:14, which is not surprising since he is just an uneducated tax collector.

Matt 2:5–6, 2:1–2, 2:11

Matthew erred about Micah 5:1: his nativity account also does not mention any angels (as in Luke), it is also not explicitly mentioned that there were three magi.

Matt 2:16–18

Matthew erred about Jer 31:14: the passage is not about Rachel’s sons, for Bethlehem is in Judah, and it is anyway only speaking about the Babylonian exile.

Matt 2:19–23

The prophecy about being called a Nazarene was explained by de Lyre with Isa 11:1, but in like manner Isa 14:19 could be applied.

Matt 4:7, 10

Jesus erred about Deut 6:16 and Deut 6:13 [misquotation].

Matt 4:13–15

Jesus erred about Isa 8:23 [misquotation].

Matt 5:43

Jesus’ quote of hating ones enemy is not found in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Lev 19:18).

Matt 11:10 (& Mk 1:2)

Jesus erred about Mal 3:1 by relating it to John the Baptist.

Matt 12:15–21

Jesus did not quote Isa 42:1–4 correctly.

Matt 13:13–15

Jesus erred about Isa 6:9–10 [misquotation].

Matt 15:7–9 (& Mk 7:6–7) Jesus erred about Isa 29:13 [misquotation]. Matt 19:3–5 (& Mk 10:7)

Jesus erred about Gen 2:24 [misquotation].

Matt 21:1–5

Jesus erred about Zech 9:9 [the quote was a composite of Zech 9:9 and Isa 62:11].

Matt 21:15–16

Jesus erred about Psalm 8:3 [misquotation].

Matt 22:41–45

Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 and heretically applies it to himself.101

101 This argument somewhat undermines Duran’s theory that Jesus did not make himself divine, for if it is heretical (‫ )נתפקר‬for Jesus to apply Psalm 110:1 to himself than one ought

284

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Passage

Critique

Matt 26:17–20

Jesus could not have been killed on Passover. Also, a capital punishment trial did not just take one day.

Matt 23:35

Jesus was wrong about Zechariah “the son of Berachiah” (cf. 2 Chron 24:20–21).

Matt 26:47–50, 27:3–10

Matthew erred about his Jeremiah quote, it is only found in Zech 11:12–13 and Jerome and Nicholas de Lyre were aware of this error.

Matt 27:39–43

The people mocking Jesus had actually some good arguments.

Matt 27:51–53

The accounts of the miracles that happened after Jesus’ death are all a fabrication, otherwise the Jews would have believed in Jesus.

Matt 27:38

Robbery was not punished by death in Israel.

It is rather evident that the main intention is to show that the evangelist, or even Jesus, did not properly understand the Hebrew Bible. Their apparent lack of knowledge and their ignorance consequently casts doubt on the trustworthiness of Christian claims. In his discussion of Matt 27:51–53 Duran explicitly emphasizes that the gospel accounts are to be considered partly fabricated: And this story (already) by itself (shows) that all this is an utter lie, and all nonsense, for there is no doubt that if these signs and wonders had (indeed) been seen then, the Jews (surely) would have been attracted to the faith in Jesus, and repented for what they did.

‫כי אין ספק שאילו היו נראים אז‬,‫הסיפור הזה עד לעצמו שכל זה שקר גמור והכל הבלים‬ ‫ היו היהודים נמשכים אז אחר אמונת ישו ומתחרטים על מה‬,‫האותות והמופתים האלה‬ 102.‫שעשו‬

In like manner, Duran also did not leave the contradictions among the various gospels uncommented. In the context of discussing the differing genealogies he remarks: And in many words the evangelists contradict this and that, for they are all (like blind men) groping for a wall. What is surprising in these stories is that each one of them tells of the deed(s) of Jesus in a different manner from his compatriots, for in the absence of eyes they (only) can grope.

‫ והתימה מהסיפורים שכל‬,‫ובדברים הרבה האונגילישׁ סותרים זה את זה כי כולם ימששו קיר‬ 103.‫אחד ואחד מספר מעשה ישו באופן משונה מחבירו ובאין עיניים יגששו‬

to question what Jesus’ self-understanding was, see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 52. 102 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 53. 103 Ibid., 54.

7.5 Summary

285

Duran’s intention with this chapter is to show that the New Testament texts and their authors are not trustworthy, and while he uses the same texts to show that Jesus did not consider himself divine, he also argues that the New Testament writers were misguided and misguiding. He therefore concludes that: (…) their (own) mouths condemn them (cf. Job 9:20), they neither know or understand (cf. Psalm 82:5), and they err in what even primary school children would not fail in, so that they appear this day (as those who are) “all futile and the things they treasure can do no good” (cf. Isa 44:9).

‫הנה פיהם הרשעים שלא ידעו גם לא הבינו וטעה במה שאפילו תינוקות של בית רבן לא‬ 104.‫ייכשלו בו למען הראות ביום הזה כי כולם תוהו וחמודיהם בל יועילו‬

7. 5 Summary Profiat Duran’s overall argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is impressive, in particular when compared to other polemical writings. His arguments predates the modern period, nevertheless, he is quite at home in much later discussions. Of course, Duran’s uniqueness has not been overlooked, and various scholars have already analyzed and acknowledged his work. Eleazar Gutwirth, e.g., has seen Duran’s approach as originating in early humanist currents. He evaluates Duran’s work as an attempt to establish a «Jesus strand» through philological method when for example, he argues that the divinity of Jesus is a later addition to Christianity. He looks at the New Testament usage of addressing Jesus and finds that he is not addressed as God.105

Gutwirth highlights further aspects of this pre-modern critical methodology, in particular the usage of terminology, considerations of the historical and stylistic context, issues of dating and chronology, identification of discrepancies, source criticism, and listing of variances between Jerome’s translation and the Masoretic text. Likewise Netanyahu has appraised Duran as the first of a novel type of polemical writers with a “new polemical approach:”106 Duran here followed the policy pursued by the Christians in their attacks against Judaism but with other means and opposite objectives. Just as the Christians tried to prove that ancient Jewish literature contains acknowledgments by some of the Sages of the rightness of Christianity, so Duran tried to show that the early Christian writings, and primarily Jesus’ sayings, contained an admission of the rightness of Judaism. And just as the argument employed by the Christians attempted to play upon Jesus’ faith in the wisdom and knowledge of their 104

Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 59. Eleazar (Eliezer) Gutwirth, “History and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish thought,” Helmantica 35 (1984): 231–42, here 235. 106 Netanyahu, Marranos, 84; see also 93. 105

286

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Sages, so must the argument followed by Duran have been aimed at those who recognized, at least to some extend, the authority of Jesus.107

This, he suggests, shows that Duran primarily wrote for marranos (or conversos),108 and he considers Kelimmat ha-Goyim to be “an outright assault on Christianity,” which “was penetrative and far-reaching to an extend never before displayed.”109 Netanyahu’s focus on the marranos perhaps read too much into Duran’s intention for Kelimmat ha-Goyim, in particular since he initially wrote the treatise for Crescas, but Duran (and also Shem Ṭov) certainly represent a new quality in polemical literature. This “new polemical approach” is perhaps not as novel and uniquely offensive in character as some have seen it, especially when considering that for the most part Duran only recycles older polemical arguments. Nevertheless, Duran clearly stands out because he is much better informed and confident in using Christian writings and doctrine. In fact, no other polemical writer before him has used such a wide spread of New Testament texts, or shown such understanding of actual Christian doctrine. Yet, Kelimmat ha-Goyim still follows the trajectory of earlier polemic, in particular when it comes to reading and interpreting New Testament passages from a non-christological vantage point. Talmage, in fact, informs us that this approach was not new and that Duran potentially took it from the polemical tract “Livyat Ḥen by Levi b. Abraham b. Hayyim (c. 1245–1315), a work which he knew and which is mentioned in his book.”110 Cohen has also elaborated on this and seeks to show that Duran’s “historicist” approach has in fact both Jewish and Christian predecessors. He sug-gests that Duran is echoing the strategy of Raymund Martini’s Pugio Fidei.111 Talmage has summarized Duran’s “historicist method” as an attempt “to demonstrate that contemporary Christianity is the outcome of a long development and that (…) the heads of the Church (…) elaborated, confused and falsified the intentions of the founders.”112 And, although Duran sees later Christianity as “a deviation from the intention of the founder,” he essentially did not esteem the former any better; for Duran “primitive Christianity was a confused and distorted version of Judaism.”113

107

Netanyahu, Marranos, 85–86. Ibid., 86. 109 Ibid., 85. Though Duran’s reference to the Jews of his day as being “under siege” points more to a defensive motivation for Kelimmat ha-Goyim. 110 Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 79. 111 Cohen, “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles,” 76–84. As was mentioned earlier, there is also possible evidence that Duran relied on Even Boḥan in his reading of Matthew, see 6.4.2. 112 Talmage, “Polemical Writings,” 79. 113 Ibid., 81. 108

7.5 Summary

287

Also, Anne Berlin has provided an insightful analysis of Duran’s approach: He tried to show that the doctrines set forth by later Christian theologians had no foundation in the words of Christ, the Apostles, or the Gospel writers, and that numerous New Testament verses were actually inconsistent with later doctrine. Further, these doctrines were corroborated by faulty translation of Hebrew Scripture and erroneous exegesis of Old Testament passages by Christian theologians (…). Perhaps Duran’s approach could best described as historical reconstruction (…). Essentially, Duran tried to present the sense of the New Testament verses as they would have been perceived in first century Israel. He sought to show that the circumstances of time, place, and nationality mandated that Jesus could only have meant certain ideas by his statements, and that these ideas were not equivalent to later beliefs which were invented by theologians in a different context: i.e. the Trinity, Incarnation, Transubstantiation, baptism, the sacraments, original sin, clerical celibacy, or the abrogation of the Old Testament (…). Appeal to contemporary testimony also formed the basis of Duran’s challenge to the authority of Christ and the Apostles. He uses the statements of the Gospel writers regarding Jews’ adverse reaction to Jesus to show that Jesus did not command respect in his time. Moreover, Duran tries to show that Jesus did not deserve respect in his time — or at any later time — because the New Testament documents his ignorance: Duran cited numerous errors which Jesus committed in citing the Old Testament. For Duran, this was proof enough that Jesus was a simpleton who did not even know the Law and customs of his own people; therefore, he was hardly deserving the authority with which the Christians credited him.114

She makes much of Duran’s use of the sensus literalis of a given text, e.g., seen in the interpretation of the title “Son of Man” or the discussion whether Mary had ever intercourse with Joseph (Matt 1:25).115 But as already mentioned earlier, the application of this literal interpretation is not slavish, and Duran makes concessions for a more figurative interpretation of passages according to the context, as seen e.g. in the treatment of John 10 and 14. Duran’s thesis that neither Jesus nor his disciples considered him divine is carefully sustained with evidence from the New Testament and the Gospel of Matthew, though he had to be selective to maintain this hypothesis. Like his predecessors, he can only argue this by neglecting various passages in the gospels. Yet, in the discussion of John 1 (see 7.3.1) Duran comes close to argue that John may have been a dualist, which undermines his general thesis somewhat. And, although Duran has a low view of Jesus, he still appeals to Jesus’ own statements,116 to those of his disciples, of the apostles,117 and 114 Berlin, “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran,” 11–12 (Introduction). Reproduced here by courtesy of the Harvard University Archives. 115 Ibid., 10–11, 13–15. 116 Matt 4:6–7 (God ought not be tempted); Matt 19:17 (par. Mark 10:18, God alone is good); Mark 10:40 (Jesus has no authority to grant the disciples’ request); Mark 10:45 (Jesus came to serve); John 5:30 (Jesus does not do his own will); John 10:30, 14:9, 14:10, 14:20 (Jesus has a close relationship to the Father); Matt 27:34 (Jesus is calling on God); John 10:19–36 (Jesus only uses the title “Son of God” as a figure of speech, cf. also Rom 8:14 and John 1:12). 117 Matt 16:13–17 (Peter thinks Jesus is higher than those before him); Heb 3:5–6 (Paul

288

Chapter 7: Kelimmat ha-Goyim

finally also to contextual or “rational” evidence as proof for his assessment that the early followers of Jesus did not consider him to be God.118 Through careful examination of of specific texts, Duran concluded that when Jesus said he and his Father were one or called himself Son of God, he meant to affirm nothing more than a special relationship with God, not to describe himself as “the First Cause and Creator of the world.”119

Slightly counterproductive is the assertion Jesus was crazy, which undermines the argumentation to some extend. However, Duran must have thought that the evidence he found in the New Testament mandated this conclusion, he obviously felt that Jesus was not in particular impressive, as Cohen points out: The Reproach of the Gentiles confronts Jesus more as an object of pity than as a villain. Described as a pious fool (ḥasid shoteh), as uncultured, and as ignorant of religious tradition (‘am Ha’areṣ), his biblical homilies were repeatedly flawed. Ending a long list of faulty quotations from Scripture with Jesus’ incorrect rendition (Mark 12:29–30) of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 (‘Hear, O Israel’), Duran concluded, ‘Behold this poor man did not even know Shema’ Yisra’el.120

Duran also identifies the passages which he understood to be the basis of later Christian confusion about Jesus’ divinity,121 and while he leaves these passages largely uncommented, in the light of his interpretation of Jesus’ own statements he asserts them to be misinterpretations of the original intention of Jesus. The next step was to juxtapose these statements with the doctrines themselves, which allowed Duran to question Christian doctrine, its development, the representatives of this doctrine, and also its sources. Thus, Duran could essentially maintain that Christianity in his day had departed from the primitive Christianity of Jesus and the apostles, constituting no less than a heretical distortion of thereof. Not only from a Jewish stand-

thinks Jesus is above Moses); Matt 21:20 (the disciples are surprised); Luke 2:48 (Mary states that Jesus has a human father, but cf. Matt 1:22–23); 1 John 4:12 (no one has seen God); 1 Cor 8:6 (the Father is superior); Acts 3:22 (Jesus is a superior prophet). 118 Matt 4:1, 5, 8 (Jesus is lead by Satan); Mark 6:3 (Jesus is a simple carpenter and could not do miracles in Nazareth); Matt 4:3–4 (par. Luke 4:3–4, Jesus lacks [divine] ability); Mark 11:13–14 (Jesus lacked knowledge); Matt 27:46 (the supposit[um] of Jesus calls on God). 119 David Berger, “On the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (ed. Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron, and David N. Myers; Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 25–39; the quote is from p. 31. 120 Cohen, “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles,” 73; see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage), 53. 121 Acts 20:16–17, Rom 9:5, 1 John 3:16, Col 2:8–9, Rev 1:17–18, 5:12, and Jude 1:4b–5.

7.5 Summary

289

point had Christianity erred, but also from a truly Christian perspective medieval Catholics had betrayed the legacy of the founders of their faith.122

The Gospel of Matthew played in this discussion a significant role, insofar many of the passages come from Matthew, and also from the Gospel of John, the two being the more dominant within church history. Also, in the other chapters of Kelimmat ha-Goyim the Gospel of Matthew is frequently referenced. In chapter 10 most of the passages in which Duran found errors are from Matthew. The gospel text becomes thus a prime witness against the claims of Christianity: the statements of the protagonists, their actions, and also their (or the evangelists’) use of scripture is seen as evidence of the mistaken nature of Christianity, both in its inception, and also later development. What is perhaps most impressive in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is how Duran did not shrink back from facing the relevant New Testament passages that Christians have used to support their doctrine and faith. He finds proof for the misapprehension of Jesus’ divinity in the very passages that Christians have used to support Jesus’ divinity, most clearly seen in his discussion of John 10:19– 36, which is a key text for Duran. His exegesis of John, but also Matt 4:6–7 and Matt 19:17, and the interpretation of Jesus’ intention is insightful and quite modern. Also, his explanations of Peter’s understanding of Jesus in Matt 16:13–17 and that of Paul in Heb 3:5–6 are noteworthy. In particular the juxtaposition of Matt 27:46 with the hypostatic union is impressive; Jesus calling on God precisely when he is hanging on the cross touches the soft spot of Christology. And, in this Duran is not operating from a point of ignorance; he is familiar with the contemporary christologial concepts and the inherent paradox of the incarnation. But, and this is important, he is not simply pointing to the rational paradox: he uses Matthew’s Gospel and Jesus’ own words to methodically question the possibility of Jesus’ divinity. Clearly, Profiat Duran deserves to be better recognized, especially by New Testament scholars, not the least since his view of Jesus and the development of Christian doctrine predates the later equivalent critical positions by several hundred years.

122

Cohen, “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles,” 76.

Chapter 8

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Isaac ben Abraham of Troki’s Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah 8. 1 Introduction Although written fairly late in 1593/94,1 the last primary text to be considered in this study is Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah.2 In fact, Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham’s “Strengthening of the Faith” historically has been one of the best known Jewish polemical works which has influenced so illustrious thinkers as Voltaire, Baron d’Holbach, and Hermann Samuel Reimarus.3 Of all the

1

Marek Waysblum has argued for a different dating from what is commonly accepted, he suggests 1585 as composition date, see idem, “Isaac of Troki and Christian Controversy in the XVI Century,” JJS 3 (1952): 62–77, esp. 72. 2 For an introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah and the work’s Rezeptionsgeschichte see Abraham Geiger, “Isaak Troki: Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts,” in Abraham Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften (ed. Ludwig Geiger; 5 vols.; Berlin: Louis Gerschel, 1876) 3:178–223; Graetz, Geschichte, 9:437–38; Leon Nemoy, “Troki, Isaac Ben Abraham,” EncJud (2007) 20:155–56; Ernst Ludwig Dietrich, “Das jüdisch-christliche Religionsgespräch am Ausgang des 16. Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuch des R. Isaak Troki,” Judaica 14 (1958): 1–38; Ananiasz Zajączkowski, Karaims in Poland: History, Language, Folklore, Science (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961), 77–79; Frank Talmage, review of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki’s Faith Strengthened, JAAR 41 (1973): 430–32; Rosemarie Sievert, Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-jüdischen Gespräch der Reformationszeit (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum: Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 17; Münster: Lit, 2005); and also Richard H. Popkin, Disputing Christianity: The 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki’s Classic Arguments (New York: Humanity Books, 2007), 7–40. 3 Ḥizzuq Emunah may have played a role in Reimarus’ quest for a new approach to the critical study of the New Testament, cf. Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes (ed. Gerhard Alexander; 2 vols.; Frankfurt: Insel, 1971), 2:268: “Der R. Isaac in seinem Chissuk Emunah, wirfft ihnen nicht allein überhaupt vor, daß sie die Sprüche der Propheten, wieder den wahren Verstand, im N.T. mißhandelten, indem man aus dem Vorhergehenden und Nachfolgenden leicht sehen könnte, daß jene gar nicht an das gedacht hätten, was die Evangelisten und Apostel daraus beweisen wollten; sondern er wiederlegt auch im zweyten Theil seines Werks alle Deutungen der besonderen Stellen A.T. die man im Neuen angeführt findet, als falsch und verkehrt; und soferne ist dieser Jude der gründlichste und stärkste Wiedersacher des Christenthums.” Translation: “R. Isaac accuses them in his Ḥizzuq Emunah not only of abusing the sayings of the prophets in the NT, against true reason, in that it is easily seen from what comes before and

292

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

Jewish polemical works, Ḥizzuq Emunah may, therefore, have made the biggest impact on modern Christianity, which is why it needs to be included here. Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki was probably born born in 1533 and died in 1593.4 He lived in the small Lithuanian town of Troki, which is why he is often just referred to as “Rabbi Troki.” By the 16th century, the town of Troki (modern day Trakai close to Vilnius) had become a center of Karaism after several hundred Crimean Karaites were settled in Lithuania under the protection of Grand Duke Vytautas (Vitold) around the year 1397.5 Rabbi Troki, likewise, was a follower of Karaism, this peripheral denomination of Judaism that rejects the dual Torah and various other rabbinic traditions and considers the Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah, as primary authoritative basis for Jewish faith and practice.6 Lithuania and Poland, which in 1569 had merged into effectively one country, became a noteworthy counterpoint to the absolute monarchies of Europe: on the one side its political system of democratic election of the monarch, albeit limited to nobility, and on the other side the religious freedom and relative tolerance granted to its inhabitants was almost unprecedented in the history of Europe.7 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth subsequently became an asylum and free-haven for the persecuted, free-thinkers, and fringe religions of Europe.8

after that they did not think about the things the evangelists an apostles sought to prove with them; more so, he also refutes in the second part of his work all interpretations of particular OT passages which are used in the NT as false and wrong; and, as such, this Jew is the most thorough and strongest opponent of Christendom.” 4 His work was published post-mortem by his student Joseph b. Mordechai Malinovski. 5 Zajączkowski, Karaims in Poland, 64. 6 Karaites have been considered heretical by mainstream Judaism and have been ostracized since the eight and ninth centuries. Abraham Geiger made a strong case that Rabbi Troki was indeed a Karaite based on the content of Ḥizzuq Emunah and other evidence, see Geiger, “Isaak Troki,” 187, 213, esp. 216–21. On the history of Karaism in Poland see Zajączkowski, Karaims in Poland; and Simon Szyszman, “Die Karäer in Ost-Mitteleuropa,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 6 (1957): 24–54. 7 See Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadzki, A Concise History of Poland (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 83–94. 8 Robert Burton, in his Anatomy of Melancholy first published in 1621, wrote that, “Poland is a receptacle of all religions, where Samosetans, Socinians, Photinians [...], Arians, Anabaptists are to be found,” he further remarked “in Europe, Poland and Amsterdam are the common sanctuaries [for Jews],” idem, The Anatomy of Melancholy (ed. Democritus Junior; 3 vols.; New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1880), 3:369 (Section IV, Member I), 3:435 (Section IV, Member I, Subsection V). Already before the time of the Commonwealth and the Union of Lublin, the Jews of Poland had been granted special privileges under King Bolesław, which were mostly continued and even expanded by his successors. In 1441 King Casimir IV (Jagellonid) “granted the Jews of Troki the Magdeburg law, which long before had been granted

8.1 Introduction

293

In this historical milieu Rabbi Troki was able to come in contact with many liberal thinkers and varied forms of Christianity, especially since the religious scene in Poland and Lithuania was in great upheaval during the 16th century.9 He explains in the introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah that his knowledge of Christianity came from friendly and respectful dialogues with Christians. In his youth he apparently even had access to the courts of nobility where he was able to read and study Christian writings,10 and he reports that he recorded the arguments levelled against him, and likewise his responses, of which some were his own, and others were taken from Jewish scholars and their writings.11 Rabbi Troki very frequently cites Szymon Budny,12 who was a close associate of Faustus Socinus (Fausto Paolo Sozzin), a prominent leader of the antitrinitarian movement of which many of its adherents were forced to flee to eastern Europe.13 Thus, at least some of the arguments in Ḥizzuq Emunah are

to the Christian inhabitants of that city as well as to the Jews of Wilna and Kovno. According to this law, the Jews of Troki were subject to the jurisdiction of a Jewish bailiff, elected by his coreligionists and confirmed for life by the king,” Herman Rosenthal, “Casimir IV., Jagellon,” JE (1901–1906) 3:598–99; see also Zajączkowski, Karaims in Poland, 66–69, and Graetz, Geschichte, 9:410–38. 9 See James Miller, “The Roots of Polish Arianism,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 229–56. 10 See David Deutsch, Sefer Khizzuk Emuna, Befestigung im Glauben: Von Rabbi Jizchak Sohn Abrahams (2nd ed.; Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1873), 9. 11 See Deutsch, Befestigung, 10. Rabbi Troki does not disclose all the sources he used, but he refers e.g. to David Qimḥi’s interpretation of Isaiah 7 and 8 (which he rejects, ibid., 136–37), or also mentions Joseph ben Gorion’s book (Josippon), ibid., 249, 255, cf. also 53, 318. Dietrich lists other sources in “Das Jüdisch-christliche Religionsgespräch,” 9. For a full list of sources see Golda Akhiezer, “The Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and his ‘Polemics against the Rabbanites’,” in Tradition, Heterodoxy and Religious Culture: Judaism and Christianity in the Early Modern Period (ed. Chanita Goodblatt and Howard Kreisel; The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6; Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006), 437–68, see 466–68; also Stefan Schreiner, “Isaac of Troki’s Studies of Rabbinic Literature,” Polin 15 (2002): 65–76. Graetz likens Troki’s arguments to Profiat Duran’s, see Geschichte, 9:438. Waysblum, in contrast, only sees literary connections to Karaites in Constantinople, “Isaac of Troki,” 65. 12 Deutsch, Befestigung, 50, 91, 106, 131, 241, 253, 259, 265, 267, 271, 283, 300, 301, 330, 331, 335, 337, 348. Budny (or Budneaus, d. after 1584) was a leading calvinist unitarian pastor who had translated the Old and New Testament into Polish with a commentary in 1572; Graetz, Geschichte, 9:435, Geiger, “Isaak Troki,” 191–94. Cf. also David A. Frick, Polish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989); and idem, “Szymon Budny and Sacred Philology: Between East and West,” in Biblia Slavica (Series II: Polnische Bibeln, Vol. 3; Budny: Part 2 [commentary]; ed. R. Olesch and H. Rothe; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1994), 2.3.2: 309–49 (this is a commentary of Budny’s translation). 13 See Popkin, Disputing Christianity, 14.

294

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

influenced by the same school of thought to which Faustus Socinus and also Michael Servetus belonged, the latter having been burned for his teachings in Geneva in 1553.14 This anti-trinitarian influence is in particular evident in §10 of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, where Rabbi Troki specifically cites Niccolò Paruta’s tract De uno vero deo.15 He also refers to two of Marcin Czechowic’s publications (in one case even with page numbers) as sources of where one can find a discussion of many New Testament passages with “strong proofs” (‫ )בראייות עצומות‬that show that the Trinity is a false concept.16 He is also quite aware of the different currents and positions on the Christian side: (…) in our generation many of their wise men, who in their language are called the sect of the Ebionites (‫)אביוניטי‬, and the sect of the Servetians (‫)סרוציאנו‬, and the sect of the Arians (‫ )ארייני‬split off from the two (larger) sects of the Catholics (‫ )הקרטאליש‬and Lutherans (‫)לוטריש‬, teach (now) the oneness of God, and refute the belief in the Trinity.17

It is thus clear that Rabbi Troki draws to no small degree on non-Jewish sources and arguments, although it must be said that these movements themselves had been influenced by Jewish polemics.18 In the same section Rabbi Troki outlines also his metaphysical convictions, doubtlessly influenced by his own tradition, and confirmed by the anti-trinitarian debate among the various Christian factions in Poland:19 14

See Sievert, Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki, 116–29. See Massimo Firpo, Antitrinitari nell’Europa orientale del ’500: Nuovi testi di Szymon Budny, Niccolò Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo (Florence: La nuova Italia, 1977); also Geiger, “Isaak Troki,” 188; Sievert, Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki, 1–61. 16 See Geiger, “Isaak Troki,” 188–91. Rabbi Troki refers to Marcin Czechowic’s Trzech dni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie (“A conversation of three days about an article of faith”) and Rozmowy Christyanskie (“Christian Dialogues”) published in 1575, of which part is devoted to the refutation of Jewish objections against the Messiahsip of Jesus, cf. Befestigung, 86, 131, 135, 287, 321. See Judah Rosenthal, “Marcin Czechowic and Jacob of Bełżyce: Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th Century Poland,” PAAJR 34 (1966): 77–97; and Stefan Fleischmann, Szymon Budny: Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weißrussischen Humanisten und Unitariers (ca. 1530–1593) (Cologne: Böhlau, 2006). It is noteworthy that Rabbi Troki utilizes both Budny’s and Czechowic’s works seizing on the inner-Christian dispute over trinitarianism. 17 Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 86. This and the following is my own translation. 18 See Robert Dán, “Das Problem des jüdischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewegung des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Der Einfluß der Unitarier auf die europäisch-amerikanische Geistesgeschichte (ed. W. Deppert, W. Erdt, and Aart de Groor; Unitarismusforschung 1; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1990), 19–32; and idem, “Isaac Troky and his ‘Antitrinitarian’ Sources,” in Occident and Orient: A tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber (ed. R. Dán; Leiden: Brill; Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1988), 69–82. 19 See Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 86; also Erwin Rosenthal’s treatment of “Trokis Auseinandersetzung mit Christologie und Trinitätslehre” in his article “Jüdische Antwort,” 234–37 [1:354–57]. 15

8.1 Introduction

295

And also human reason compels (one to believe in) the true unity of Him, may he be blessed, without any plurality, or division, or change; for after He, may he be blesses, created by Himself all things found (in the world) and (considering) that everything other than Him was created, therefore there is nothing like Him, and nothing is similar to Him. For how could the created be like Him who created it? (…) And in like manner it is also with their belief that the Creator is composed of the divine and corporeal, this also is something that is not possible to believe in regard to the Creator, may he be blessed. (…) God can also not be described (as someone) who would be able to (re)compose (himself) and to ‘incarnate himself;’ in like manner He cannot be described as someone who is able to create afterwards (a being) like or similar to Him in every aspect — and this has nothing to do with a limitation to God, far be it from Him, may he be blessed — as this is a matter clear to the rational. So thus even the philosophers that do not have a religion confess the unity of God, may he be blessed, and disassociate plurality and corporeality from Him in their reasonings, for which there is no space to account for here.

‫וגם השכל האנושי מחייב האחדות האמיתית לו ית' בלתי שום רבוי וחלוק ושנוי כי אחר שהוא‬ ‫לבדו ית' ברא כל הנמצאים וכל מה שזולתו הם נבראים א''כ אין כמוהו ואין דומה לו כי א''א‬ ‫ )…( וכמו כן מה שהם מאמינים שהבורא מורכב מאלהות וגשמות זה‬.‫שידמה הנברא לבוראו‬ ‫ג''כ ממה שא''א שיאמין בחיק הבורא )…( וגם לא יתואר האל שיהיה יכול להרכיב ולהגשים‬ ‫את עצמו כמו שלא יתואר בשהוא יכול לברוא אחר כמוהו או דומה לו מכל צד ואין בזה ליאות‬ ‫בחוקו ית' חלילה לו כאשר זה הענין מבואר למשכילים וכן אפילו הפילוסופים שאין להם דת‬ 20.‫מודים באחדות האל ית' ומרחיקין ממנו הרבוי והגשמות בראיות אין כאן מקום לזכרם‬

It is thus evident that the encounter between Protestants, free-thinkers, and Jews in the periphery created a unique exchange of ideas which allowed suppressed undercurrents to re-emerge and flourish into its various religious expressions. The fault lines between Christianity and Judaism became less distinct, and it is particularly the literature of these more peripheral groups that appear to cross-pollinate each other: from Protestant anti-trinitarian sources that themselves were influenced by contacts with Jewish and Muslim thought to Ḥizzuq Emunah,21 and from there back to both the Jewish and Christian “mainstream.” Rabbi Troki’s motive for writing is given in the introduction of Ḥizzuq Emunah: Thus, I told myself it is time to make to the honor of God a book small in size, and great in quality with succinct and not lengthy words, for weak people, who have little and bad understanding like me, as a support, called The Strenghtening of Faith, in order to strengthen the hands of the feeble.

20

Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 83–85. Michael Servetus, who with the blessing of John Calvin was tried and burned at the stake for heretical charges (anti-trinitarianism and objecting to infant baptism) in Geneva in 1553, refers to the Qur’ān in his Christianismi Restitutio several times, cf. Peter Hughes “Servetus and the Quran,” Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005): 55–70; idem, “In the footsteps of Servetus: Biandrata, David, and the Quran,” Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 31 (2006): 57–63. The arguments that the anti-trinitarians used were certainly not novel, as many of them appear in much earlier sources. 21

296

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

‫ בי יהיה דברי בו בקוצר‬.‫ ורב האיכות‬,‫ע''כ אמרתי אני בלבי עת לעשות ליי' ספר מעט הבמות‬ ‫ ולהיות לאנאשים חלושי הרעת וקצרי הבינה כמוני למשען ומשענה קראתיו‬.‫ולא באריכות‬ 22.‫ספר חוזק אמונה להזק ידים רפות‬

The author’s intend was thus not to attack Christianity directly, after all he wrote in Hebrew, but like many of his polemical forbears, to encourage and equip his fellow Jews to stand firm in an environment of religious upheaval, and to hold on to their own faith.23 His methodology is two-fold and similar to other polemical writers. On the one side, he seeks to use the Hebrew Bible to establish the truth of a matter (‫ )הוכחתי…להודיע אמתת הדרושים‬by which he means the refutation of the more significant Christian interpretations of passages from the Hebrew Bible.24 On the other side, he comments on the texts of the Christian canon, mostly seeking to refute that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Trinity, both with statements found in the gospels and epistles. Both these strategies were employed already in Qiṣṣa and Milḥamot ha-Shem, in fact, many of the same arguments encountered in earlier sources are also found in Ḥizzuq Emunah. The structure and arrangement of the book likewise suggest that Rabbi Troki envisioned Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah as a “handbook” for Jewish-Christian encounters. For Christians, who eventually would discover this internal apologetic and polemic, it posed a most potent attack on their convictions, specifically the New Testament section, which prompted them to publish a good number of apologetical refutations of their own.25 22

Deutsch, Befestigung, 8. In the wake of anti-Jewish legislation and reactions there were at least two waves of conversions of Jews to Christianity in Lithuania in the late 15th and 16th century, cf. Waysblum, “Isaac of Troki,” 72. 24 Deutsch, Befestigung, 10. 25 E.g., Johannes Müller, Judaismus oder Jüdenthum: das ist: Ausführlicher Bericht, von des jüdischen Volcks Unglauben, Blindheit und Verstockung (1st ed. 1644, 2nd ed. Hamburg: Z. Härtels, 1707); Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanae; Jaques Gousset, Controversiam adversus Judaeos ternio (Dordrecht: Ex Officina Viduae Caspari & Theodori Goris, 1688); ibid., Jesu Christi Evangeliique veritas salutifera, demonstrata in confutatione libi Chizzuk Emunah a R. Isaaco scripti (ed. Arnold Borst; Amsterdam: J. Borstius, 1712); Brandanus Henricus Gebhardi, Centum Loca Novi Testamenti, quae R. Isaac ben Abraham, in suo ‫ חזוק אמונה‬i.e. Munimine Fidei depravaverat, vindicata (Greifswald: Litteris Danielis Benjaminis Starckii, 1699); Richard Kidder, A Demonstration of the Messias. In which the Truth of the Christian Religion is defended, especially against The Jews (3 vols.; London: J. H. for W. Rogers at the Sun & M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet, 1699); Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein-Herschensohn, ‫חזוק אמונת אמת‬: Befestigung im wahren Glauben an Jesum Christum, den Sohn Gottes (Leipzig: C. W. Vollrath, 1879?) [Hebr.]; and the rather thorough discussion of A. Lukyn Williams, Christian Evidences for Jewish People (2 vols.; Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1911; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998). Also Hermann Strack proposed to write a refutation, but this was never carried out, cf. his preface in Williams, Christian Evidences, vol. 1, xii. 23

8.3 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah

297

8. 2 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah came to a wider (non-Jewish) audience by way of a Latin translation by Johann Christoph Wagenseil in 1681 who had discovered the text on an expedition in North Africa. By then, the text had already been widely circulated in Jewish communities, which makes the history of the text complicated as it was also altered by its copyists.26 A few non-Jews were able to procure and read the work before Wagenseil’s publication, but it was specifically Tela Ignea Satanea (“Satan’s Fiery Darts”) that brought Ḥizzuq Emunah, together with a refutation, to a wider Christian audience. Because Wagenseil’s textual Vorlage was found to be deficient, some sought to republish the work with a more accurate manuscript as textual basis. “In 1715, a Christian pastor, Christian Gottlieb Unger collated the printed text with a reliable manuscript copy and correctly established the identity of its author, which had remained uncertain up to that time.”27 David Deutsch, a notable orthodox rabbi in Germany, republished a new translation of Ḥizzuq Emunah into German together with a much revised Hebrew text based on the study of several manuscripts.28 Deutsch’s edition was first published privately in 1865, then, in 1873, a second edition was printed that was made available to a much larger readership. It remains to this day the best available text and translation into a modern language. Already in 1851 Moses Mocatta had translated Ḥizzuq Emunah into English, albeit in a modified and toned-down form under the title Faith Strengthened.29 However, “Deutsch’s translation is nearly twice as long as the abridged Mocatta text that remains the standard English version.”30 Consequently, Deutsch’s edition and his manuscript reconstruction will be the basis for this chapter.

8. 3 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah Rabbi Troki’s main argument addresses the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible seeking to show that Jesus was the expected Messiah. He 26 Geiger, “Isaak Troki,” 208–211; Deutsch, Befestigung, ix. How much of the present text has been altered in its transmission is not certain. Rabbi Troki’s correspondence shows that he himself was familiar with rabbinic traditions, references to Talmudic material should thus not necessarily be attributed to later interpolations, see Waysblum, “Isaac of Troki,” 67. 27 Popkin, Disputing Christianity, 28, see esp. Deutsch, Befestigung, vii–ix. 28 See Joseph Norden, David Deutsch (1810–73), Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O.S.: Ein Lebensbild (Myslowitz: Verein für jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur, 1902). 29 Moses Mocatta, ‫ חזוק אמונה‬or: Faith Strengthened (London: Wertheimer, 1851; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970). 30 Popkin, Disputing Christianity, 33.

298

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

wishes to demonstrate that the Christian interpreters and New Testament authors contradict themselves, the prophets, and reason. Accordingly, Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and Christians simply do not understand the texts of the Hebrew Bible properly. A second large focus is the critique of the doctrine of the Trinity, predominantly with passages from the New Testament, and in particular Jesus’ own statements. A further topic is the Christian understanding of the Mosaic Law. Ḥizzuq Emunah is presented as a two-partite work. The first part is composed of 50 chapters and is more apologetical in nature. Christian arguments are addressed by first presenting a Christian interpretation of a Hebrew Bible passage to which then a Jewish response is supplied.31 The first 43 chapters of this first part deal mostly with Christian arguments based on the Hebrew Bible, although at times passages from the New Testament are treated as well.32 The last seven chapters of the first part present Jewish objections against Christianity by discussing contradictions in the New Testament. Here Christians are directly addressed in the second person, which may anticipate that the arguments would be used in debates with Christians. These seven objections in fact give a kind of summary of many of the points raised in the second part of the book. Christians are to be challenged with a rational evaluation of the proofs that they cite to support their convictions, especially the interpretations and use of the “proof passages” from the Hebrew Bible found in the New Testament, and here in particular the Gospel of Matthew. These are deemed arbitrary, manipulated, and simply not applicable. In §45 Rabbi Troki specifically emphasizes that the use and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament is misleading and often plainly wrong, which is the premise for the entire first part of the work. He then goes through some of the passages of the Gospel of Matthew and points out inconsistencies, starting with the genealogy. He also rejects the use of Isaiah 7:14 and other passages from the Hebrew Bible as prophetic “proof-texts” by referring back to the discussion of the respective passages in the preceding chapters. Rabbi Troki finishes this section by quoting both Martin Luther and Szymon Budny who both remarked that the New Testament’s manner of citing the Hebrew Bible is only for remembrance and not controversy. Thus,

31

In this first part Rabbi Troki devotes most pages to the refutation of the Christian interpretation of Isa 52–53, closely followed by Isa 7–9. In total seventeen pages on Isa 52–53 (Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §22, 145–62) and fourteen pages on Isa 7:14 and context (I, §21, 132–45). On Troki’s exegesis of Isaiah 53 see the important essay by Stefan Schreiner, “Isaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (‘Faith Strenghtened’) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 418–61. 32 Rabbi Troki also discusses the Hebrew Bible in the second “New Testament” part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, e.g. Paul’s use of Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 in II, §68, and II, §95.

299

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

they agree with his view that in a debate with Jews these “proof-texts” would fail to convince, because a person properly familiarized with the Hebrew Bible is able to discern that these passages do not apply, which is exactly the methodology Ḥizzuq Emunah follows.33 These seven intermediate chapters serve as a summary and preview of the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, which is more polemical and attempts to refute the New Testament in 100 chapters: And the second part (contains) the interpretive (self-)negation and refutation of the gospel, either by the words of the prophets, peace be on them, or by judging from reason and the respective interpretations, or by (comparing) some of the words of (their own) writers with each other, or (by comparing) the words of the Christians with their faith.

‫והחלק השני בהוראות ביטול וסתירת הא״ג הן מדברי הנביאים ע״ה הן משפיטת השכל‬ 34.‫והוראותיו והן מדברי קצת הכותבים ההם לקצתן והן מדברי הנוצרים ואמונתם‬

This part is arranged according to the order of the New Testament canon and consists of exegetical discussions and appeals to the reader’s common sense.

8. 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah Many of the Hebrew Bible passages discussed in Ḥizzuq Emunah are based on Matthew’s fulfillment paradigm. For the topic at hand following sections are relevant:35 Part I

Matthew

Issue

D. Deutsch

§§9–10

12:32

On Genesis 1:1 and 26, and the Trinity

pp. 78–86

§21

1:22–23

On Isa 7 and 9, and the Incarnation

pp. 132–45

§28

2:17–18

On Jeremiah 31:15

pp. 186–90

§33

2:6

On Mica 5:1

pp. 202–208

§35

21:4–5, 10:34, 20:28

On Zechariah 9:9

pp. 213–21

§39

11:7–15, 17:12–13

On Malachi 4:5–6

pp. 230–32

§40

22:44

On Psalm 110

pp. 232–37

§41

24:30, 26:64

On Daniel 7:13

pp. 237–42

36

33 34 35 36

study.

See Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §45, 271. Deutsch, Befestigung, 19 (content summary). Only the first two of these directly relate to Jesus’ divinity and the Gospel of Matthew. The arguments here and in the following marked in bold are those discussed in this

300

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

Then, in §§44–50 of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, Rabbi Troki brings a whole variety of common polemical arguments and Jewish objections, though only §47 is relevant for this inquiry (see 8.4.3). In the second part, where the books of the New Testament are discussed sequentially, the Gospel of Matthew is dealt with in §§1–27, which is listed below and of which ten will be briefly considered in the subsequent discussion (as usual in bold). The arguments are by now are familiar, in fact, it will become apparent that Rabbi Troki does not innovate on any of the medieval (and earlier) objections, though that does not retract from the effect these arguments had on Troki’s Christian readers: Part II

Matthew

Issue

D. Deutsch

§1

ch. 1

Jesus’ genealogy.

pp. 285–87

§2

1:22

Isa 7:14 and the Incarnation, cf. I, §21.

pp. 287

§3

1:24–25

Mary was not a virgin (cf. Matt 13:55), and Jesus was not named Immanuel.

p. 288

§4

2:14–15

Hosea 11:1 is misunderstood.

p. 289

§5

2:16–18

Jeremiah 31:15 is misunderstood, cf. I, §28.

p. 289

§6

2:23

Matthew had a “lying dream.”

pp. 289–90

§7

4:1–10

The temptation shows that Jesus is not God.

p. 290

§8

4:13–15

Isaiah 9:1 is misunderstood: Matthew’s proofs were assembled to create the appearance of prophecy.

pp. 290–93

§9

4:18–19

The gospels try to deceive and “catch” people.

p. 293

§10

5:17–19

Jesus upheld the Law, cf. I, §19.

pp. 293–94

§11

5:43

Jesus is wrong about hating one’s enemy.

p. 294

§12

8:19–20

Jesus calls himself “Son of Man,” and claims to possess nothing.

pp. 294–95

§13

10:34–35 Jesus did not come to bring peace, he thus cannot be the Messiah.

p. 295

§14

10:40

pp. 295–96

§15

11:13–14 That the Law is valid up to the coming of John is contradicted by Matt 5:17–19, cf. I, §19; also §7, §39.

p. 296

§16

12:32

p. 297

§17

13:55–56 Mary is not a virgin, Joseph is Jesus’ father

§18

15:1–21

Jesus’ claim that he is one with the one who sent him, cf. John 10:38 (§52).

Jesus is only a “Son of Man.”

p. 297

Dietary laws are relevant even for the early Christians, pp. 297–98 cf. e.g. Acts 15 and I, §15.

301

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

Part II

Matthew

Issue

D. Deutsch

§19

19:16–21 Jesus himself indicated that he is not God, and he upheld the Law.

§20

20:23

The Son and the Father are not one since the Son lacks p. 299 authority.

§21

20:28

Jesus as the “Son of Man” came to serve, thus he cannot be God.

p. 300

§22

23:35

Matthew is wrong about Zechariah, the son of Berechiah.

pp. 300–301

§23

26:6

All four evangelists differ in their account of the woman anointing Jesus.

p. 301

§24

26:39

Jesus does not appear to accept his passion willingly, cf. Matt 27:46 (§26). Also the will of the Son and the Father are different, cf. I, §47

pp. 301–302

§25

27:9

Zechariah 11:12–13 is misunderstood. If the betrayal of Jesus happened according to God’s will, Jews

pp. 302–306

pp. 298–99

should expect a reward.37 §26

27:46

Jesus shows himself to be merely human when he called on God in his time of need.

p. 306

§27

28:18

Jesus had to be given power.

pp. 306–307

Then, after §27, other books of the New Testament are discussed in which a few parallel passages in Matthew are mentioned. Most noteworthy is §30 (Mark 11:12–14, par. Matt 21:18f) and §31 (Mark 13:32, par. Matt 24:36 [but not cited]). Also, in §53 in the discussion of John 13:3 and 16:15, Rabbi Troki cites Matt 28:18, Matt 20:23, and Matt 8:19.38 The following discussion will present all the passages in the first and second part that deal with the divinity of Jesus in relation to Matthew. In the first section these are, §10, §21, and §47 (8.4.1–3), and in the second part, §7, §12, §14, §16, §19, §20, §21, §24, §26, §27 (8.4.4–13), in addition to two passages from Mark: §30, §31 (8.4.14–15). In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah earlier arguments are revisited, but also expanded on. Frequently the reader is deferred to a refutation in the first part, in particular when dealing with the various passages from the Hebrew 37

This is similar to Even Boḥan §53 (see 6.4.19). Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §168 and §188 (see 5.4.5), also Qiṣṣa §105 and §150 (see 2.5.2), Yosef ha-Meqanne §37 (see 4.5.2). 38

302

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

Bible. Consistent with Rabbi Troki’s strategy many passages from the gospels used to corroborate that Jesus was a man, thus refuting belief in the divinity of Jesus and also in the Trinity. In regard to the Gospel of Matthew, Rabbi Troki presents the full range of common Jewish polemic, but is often more economical than comparable polemics. Since most of the arguments have already been encountered in the previous sources, the discussion will be kept to a minimum. First, however, the relevant sections from part one of the treatise. 8. 4. 1 The “Son of Man” & Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:32 (I, §10) In the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, in §§9–10, Rabbi Troki is dealing with the Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:26–27 as proofs for the Trinity. He presents the Christian interpretation and subsequently refutes it by discussing and comparing it with passages in the Hebrew Bible.39 Then, he briefly outlines his metaphysical convictions, arguing that trinitarian thought is against reason. In the latter part of §10 he cites passages from the New Testament to show that Jesus himself did not hold to any trinitarian understanding. The arguments in this section appear to be especially influenced by his reading of anti-trinitarian works. He begins his discussion of New Testament passages that contradict the Trinity with Matt 12:32: Matthew wrote in chapter 12, verse 32: “Whoever speaks a word against the ‘Son of Man’, it will be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, not in this world, nor the coming world.” You can also find the same in Mark 3:28 and Luke 12:19. Now, with this passage these men clearly confirm that the Holy Spirit and the Son are not one, thus it follows that the three (or: Trinity) are not one, and since Jesus is (called) the “Son of Man,” he then is not God, according to their false belief, which is obvious to the understanding.

‫כתב מטיאש בפ׳ י״ב פסוק ל״ב מי שידבר דבר נגד בן אדם יכופר לו אבל מי שידבר נגד רוח‬ ‫ תמצא ג״כ זה המאמר במרקוס פ״ג פסוק‬.‫הקדש לא יכופר לו לא בעה״ז ולא בעה״ב עכ״ל‬ ‫כ״ח ובלוקש פ׳ י״ב פסוק י״ט הנה בזה המאמר האנשים האלה הוכיחו בבירור שאין רוח‬ ‫הקדש והבן אחד א״כ אין הג׳ אחד וכי ישו הוא בן אדם ולא אלק כפי אמונתם הכוזבת כאשר‬ 40.‫זה ידוע למבינים‬

The argument is familiar: the inequality of the “Son of Man” compared to the Holy Spirit, together with Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man,” demonstrate that Jesus did not consider himself equal to God. The use of “Son of Man” as 39

Cf. Rabbi Troki’s explanation of Gen. 1:26 (I, §§9–10) to Saadia Gaon, The Book of Belief & Opinions (ed. Rosenblatt), 107; and Qirqisani, see Daniel Frank, Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215–17. 40 Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 84–85. The use of “Son of Man” is also understood this way in his comments on Matt 8:19–20, 12:32, Luke 9:57, 12:10, see ibid., II, §12 and §16, 294–295, 297.

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

303

an affirmation of Jesus’ humanity already appeared in Qiṣṣa, there however based on Mark 13:32 (par. Matt 24:36), which is discussed next in Ḥizzuq Emunah:41 Mark wrote in chapter 13, verse 32: “Its sign and the day and that hour nobody knows, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father alone.” This passage confirms as well that the Father and the Son are not one, since the son does not know what the Father knows. And herein he (also) confirms that he is not God, since he does not know the future.

‫כתב מרקוש בפ׳ י״ג פסוק ל״ב אותו היום והשעה ההיא אין מי שיודע לא המלאכים שבשמים‬ ‫ הנה גם בזה המאמר הוכיח שהאב והבן אינו אחד שאין הבן‬.‫ולא הבן אלא האב לבדו ע״כל‬ 42.‫ וכן יוכיח שאין אלק אחד שאין יודע עתידות‬.‫יודע מה שהאב יודע‬

After pointing out that the New Testament does not contain any clear proof for the Trinity, Rabbi Troki takes up another argument, also already encountered in Qiṣṣa (see 2.5.1.6), namely that Jesus considered himself as only sent by God: And we also do not find in any place that Jesus calls himself God, but to the contrary he attributes divinity, and strength, and power to the (true) God, may be he blessed. (In fact) he only called himself his messenger, as it is written in a place in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 40: “Whoever receives you, receives me, and whoever receives me, receives him who sent me.”

‫וכן לא מצינו בשום מקום שישו עצמו יקרא אותו אלק אבל הוא מיחס האלקיות והכח והיכולת‬ ‫אל האל ית׳ רק קרא את עצמו שלוחו של מקום כדכתיב במטיאש פרק י׳ פסוק מ׳ ז״ל מי‬ 43.‫שמקבל אתכם מקבל אותי ומי שמקבל אותי מקבל אותו אשר שלחני‬

In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah (in II, §14), Rabbi Troki comments about the same verse that those who argue from this passage that Jesus was one with God consequently should also believe that the disciples whom Jesus sends are one with the Trinity.44 Continuing in I, §10, he returns to discuss the use of the term “Son of Man” as expression of Jesus’ humanity: And thus he says about himself, that he is a man, as it is written in John chapter 8, verse 40, “And now you seek to kill the man who has spoken to you a true word.” And so said Paul about him, in what he wrote to the Romans, chapter 5, verse 15, “Through the grace of one man, Jesus the Messiah, the many were saved.” In a different place, He calls himself “Son of 41

Cf. Qiṣṣa §39, §57, §105 and §150 (see 2.5.1.1). See also Nizzahon Vetus §177 (see 5.4.11), and Even Boḥan §50 (see 6.4.18). 42 The argument is repeated in part II, see Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §31, and in II, §53. 43 Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 85. The point is also repeated in the refutation of the Christian interpretation of Isa 52:13 in I, §22, 146: “Jesus of Nazareth is not God, neither according to the gospel, nor much less according to him, since he did not call himself God in any place, as shall be shown from the words that are written in the gospel; every passage, and (each) passage within its context in the second part of this book.” (‫ישו נוצרי אינו אלוה אפילו‬

‫לדעת הא״ג וכ״ש לדעת עצמו שהוא לא קרא עצמו אלוה בשום מקום וכשאריתבאר עוד‬ ‫)מדברי כותבי הא״ג כל דבר ודבר במקומו בחלק הב׳‬. 44

Cf. the similar argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.8), see also 8.4.6.

304

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

Man” as it is written in Matthew, chapter 20, verse 18: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the ‘Son of Man’ will be delivered to the priests,” also there in verse 28: “as the ‘Son of Man’ did not come that he should be served, but he came to serve,” which is a matter that yet will be clarified in another place.

‫וכן הוא אומר על עצמו שהוא איש כמש״כ ביאן פ״ח פס׳ מ׳ ז״ל ועתה אתם מבקשים להמית‬ ‫ וכן אמר עליו פיולש בכתבו לרומיים פ׳ ה׳ פסוק ט״ו ז״ל‬.‫את האיש המדבר לכם דבר אמיתי‬ ‫ את עצמו בן‬.‫ וכמו כן גם באשר מקומות הוא קורא‬.‫בחסד איש ישו המשיח הושפעו לרבים‬ ‫אדם כמו שכתוב במטיאש פרק ב׳ פסוק י״ח הנה אנחנו עולים לירושלים ובן אדם ימסר‬ ‫לכהנים עוד שם פסוק כ״ח ז״ל כאשר לא בא בן אדם שיעבדו לו אלא בא לעבוד כאשר ענין זה‬ 45.‫יתבאר במקומו‬

According to Paul and the other evangelists, Jesus has to be understood as a man, and Rabbi Troki essentially argues here along the same trajectory already seen in the previous sources: Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” must be understood as reference to Jesus’ exclusive humanity. The final refutation of the Trinity in this section is then given by means of the pater noster: And this matter is quite clear from the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples, called in their language pater (noster), written in Matthew, chapter 6, where he did not decree to pray to the Trinity, only to one God, and He is the God of heaven, as it is written there, called in their language pater: “Our Father in heaven (…).” From this you can see that he did not instruct them to pray to himself, who according to them is the Son, and (also) not the the Holy Spirit, but only to his father in heaven, to whom there is no equal.

‫וכן הענין מובן היטב מהתפלה אשר הורה ישו לתלמידיו הנקרא בלשונם פאטר הכתוב‬ ‫במטיאש פ''ו שלא גזר להתפלל אל השילוש רק לאל אחד והוא אלקי השמים כדכתיב שם זהו‬ ‫הנקרא בלשונם פאטיר אבינו שבשמים )…( הנך ראית שלא הורה להתפלל לעצמו שהוא הבן‬ 46.‫כדבריהם ולא לרוח הקדש רק לאביו שבשמיּם אשר אין מלבדו‬

Consequently, Jesus’ own teaching shows that one ought to pray to the Father alone. By leaving the Holy Spirit and himself unmentioned he shows that trinitarian thinking is foreign to him.47 Thus, in the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah, §10, we have a sequence of New Testament passages arguing that belief in the Trinity is incongruent with Jesus’ own statements.48 Jesus, as “Son of Man,” considered himself to be distinct from God (Matt 12:32), and limited (Mark 13:32). He furthermore 45

Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §10, 85. Ibid., I, §10, 85–86. 47 However, an argumentum e silentio can work both ways. 48 Rabbi Troki briefly summarizes this argument again in I, §49, Deutsch, Befestigung, 278: “He does not refer to himself by the name God in any place, but rather refers to himself by the name ‘Son of Man’ and ‘human’, as is recounted in the gospel in many places, but you ascribe to him divinity and refer to him by the name of God, something which he did not command you (to do).” (‫הוא אינו קורא את עצמו בשם אלקים בשום מקום אלא קורא את‬ ‫ אבל אתם מיחסים לו אלקות‬,‫עצמו בשם בן אדם ובשם איש כמוזכר בא״ג במקומות רבים‬ ‫)וקוראים אותו בשם אלקים מה שלא צוה אתכם‬. 46

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

305

acknowledged that he was only sent (Matt 10:40), and that he is just a human (John 8:40), which also Paul confirms (Rom 5:15). This “Son of Man” came to serve (Matt 20:28), and instructed his followers to pray to the Father alone (Matt 6:9). It follows that Jesus must be understood a man, and that exclusively so. 8. 4. 2 Jesus’ Nativity and Isaiah’s Prophecies: Matt 1:20–25 (I, §21) The discussion of Jesus’ nativity and the beginning of Matthew begins with a brief presentation of Matthew’s use of Isa 7:14 (Matt 1:22–23). After quoting Isaiah Rabbi Troki writes: And they bring proof for their faith from this passage, by saying that the prophet here designated that Jesus Christ was to be born by a young girl, who was a virgin, by one of the daughters of Israel, without the involvement of a man, rather by the Holy Spirit according to what is written in the gospel of Matthew chapter 1.

‫ומה שמביאים ראייה על אמונתם מזה הפסוק באמרם הנה הנביא ייעד שישו נוצרי נולד‬ ‫מנערה בתולה מבנות בני ישראל בלתי זיוג האנושי אלא ברוח הקדש כפי מה שכתוב בא״ג‬ 49.‫במטיאש פ״א‬

Rabbi Troki answeres this with a lengthy in-depth discussion lasting fourteen pages in total.50 He uses the context of Isaiah and many other passages from the Hebrew Bible to refute the idea that Jesus is the child over which Isaiah prophecies, while echoing and answering several well known Christian objections in the course of his exposition. His exegesis is based on survey of the term “virgin/maiden” (‫ )עלמה‬and the demand for a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s historic context. In the course of the discussion he mentions a Christian objection, which posits that the name Immanuel is inappropriate for ordinary humans, and that it therefore can only refer to Jesus, who was both human and divine. Rabbi Troki responds: But that Jesus was called by the name Immanuel we do not find in any place in the gospels, only that the angel in Matthew, chapter 1, said to Joseph in his dream: “‘Do not fear, accept Mary your wife, since she conceived by the Holy Spirit, and she will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this (will happen) so that the prophet’s saying shall come to take place: ‘Behold, the young woman/ virgin will conceive and she will give birth to a son and she will call his name Immanuel’” (Matt 1:20–23). And (further it is) said (that) “Joseph took his wife, and did not know (her) until she gave birth to his firstborn son and he called his name Jesus” (Matt 1:24b–25). And thus it is also in Luke, chapter 2: “And when the eight day had come, when the boy was to be circumcised, he was named ‘Jesus’ according to what the angel had named him prior to the

49 50

Deutsch, Befestigung, I, 132. Ibid., I, 132–45, §21.

306

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

conception” (Luke 2:21) Accordingly one can see from this that Immanuel is someone else, and not Jesus, since Jesus is not called ‘Immanuel’ in any place.

‫אבל שיקרא ישו בשם עמנואל לא מצינו בשום מקום בא''ג רק אומר במטיאש פרק א' שאמר‬ ‫המלאך ליוסף בחלומו אל תירא מלקבל את מרים אשתך לפי שהיא הרה מרוח הקדש ושתלד‬ ‫בן ותקרא את שמו ישוע כי הוא יושיע את עמו מעונותיו וכל זה כדי שיתקיים מאמר הנביא‬ ‫הנה העלמה הרה ויולדת בן וקראת שמו עמנואל ואומר ויקח יוסף את אשתו ולא ידעה עד‬ ‫אשר ילדה את בנו הבכור שיקרא שמו ישוע וכן בלוקש פרק ב' ובמלאות ח' ימים נמול הנער‬ ‫ויקרא שמו ישוע כאשר נקרא מהמלאך קודם ההריון א''כ יראה מזה שעמנואל הוא זולת ישו‬ 51.‫לפי שלא נקרא ישו בשום מקום עמנואל‬

Since Jesus’ name is actually not Immanuel, the prophecy should not be applicable to him. This argument is not new,52 though ignores that Matthew uses the names Immanuel and Jesus in the same context (Matt 1:23 and Matt 1:25). In Matthew’s own understanding, Isaiah 7:14 and the Immanuel-motif was certainly applicable to Jesus.53 Rabbi Troki addresses another Christian objection and argues against the notion that the names and titles of the child in Isaiah 9:6 indicate divine identity. After showing that Hebrew names do not necessarily have to denote identity he writes: In fact, that Jesus is designated God (with these names), as they say, is not of the realm of the possible. For how can he be called “Wonderful Counsellor” (‫ )פלא יועץ‬when Judas and his students fooled him when he delivered him to his enemies? And how can he be called “Mighty God” (‫ )אל גבור‬when he was killed? And also, how can he be called “Prince of Peace” when there was no peace in his days, as he himself remarks: “I did not come to establish peace on the earth, but the sword” (Matt 10:34)?

‫אכן שיקרא ישו באלו השמות כדבריהם אינו מן האפשר כי איך יקרא שמו פלא יועץ ויודע‬ ‫ותלמדיו סכל עצתו כאשר מסרו לאויביו ואיך יקרא אל גבור והוא נהרג וכן איך יקרא שר‬ ‫שלום ולא היה שלום בימיו כאשר הוא עצמו מעיר באמרו לא באתי לשום שלום בארץ כי אמ‬ 54.‫חרב‬

The verse taken from Matt 10:34 together with the fact that Jesus was betrayed and killed is given as evidence that Jesus could not have been the child mentioned in Isaiah 9:6. Ḥizzuq Emunah assumes here the position of the Christian interlocutor and applies Jesus’ portrayal in the New Testament in a rather “common sense” fashion: Jesus cannot be this supernatural, divine person since he was outwitted and lacked the power to prevent his own death.

51 Deutsch, Befestigung, I, 140–41, §21. The text of Matt 1:25 seems to be related to the Vulgate (or a translation thereof): “et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum” (emphasis mine). Cf. Nizzahon Vetus §163 (see 5.4.1). 52 See, e.g., Yosef ha-Meqanne §137 (see 4.5.2) and cf. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.11). 53 See Luz, Matthew 1–7, 96–97, who points out that Matthew’s “God-with-us” theme links Matt 1:23, 17:17, 18:20, 26:29, and 28:20. See also Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel, esp. 157–75. 54 Deutsch, Befestigung, I, 143, §21. Cf. also II, §13, 295.

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

307

Moreover, he himself explained that he did not come to be a peace-bringer. In other words, Jesus’ limitations, both in life and death, preclude him from being divine — which is the basic argument that was already encountered in Qiṣṣa and in polemics from late antiquity, and is repeated throughout the polemical tradition. With this, Rabbi Troki disqualifies Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 as Christian proof texts, and casts doubt on the author of the nativity narrative, both in terms of supporting Jesus’ divinity and his messiahship. The use of Isaiah 7:14 by Matthew is therefore inadmissible proof for Jesus’ divinity as Isaiah only speaks to his own historical context. Jesus’ life, as portrayed by Matthew, furthermore shows that he cannot be considered divine, in particular when considering Jesus in Gethsemane: 8. 4. 3 Jesus in Gethsemane: Matt 26:36, 27:46 (I, §47) Within the seven intermediate chapters, before the second part, Rabbi Troki adds a well known argument, based on Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane and his death on the cross: since God did not heed Jesus’ request, and because Jesus exclaimed on the cross that God had left him, it is evident that the Father and the Son are not one: And this passage likewise proves that the Father is not one with Son since the will of the Father is not (equal to) the will of the Son. And if the Christian should reply and say that it was not according to his will, but what they did to him was done by force, then we say to him “If this is the case how can you call him God since he suffered torments against his will, that he should not be able to safe himself from the hands of his enemies? And how will he be able to safe those who trust in him?”

‫ ואם ישיב‬.‫וזה המאמר ג״כ מוכיח שהאב והבן אינו אחד אחר שאין רצון האב כרצון הבן‬ ‫הנוצרי ויאמר שלא מרצונו אלא בעל כרחו עשו לו מה שעשו אזי נאמר לו א״כ איך אתה קורא‬ ‫אותו בשם אלוקים אחר שהוא סובל יסורים בהכרח שלא יכול להציל עצמו מיד אויביו ואיך‬ 55.‫יציל הבוטחים בו‬

This, of course, is the same argument already seen in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, and need not be discussed again.56 Rabbi Troki ends this chapter by wondering how someone could ever ascribe divinity to Jesus as nobody seemed to have shown him reverence, was afraid of him, or was in any way hesitant about mistreating and killing him. In other words, his contemporaries did not consider him divine. In §50 Rabbi Troki concludes the first part of the book by stating that it was the Christians

55

Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §47, 276, the argument is repeated in II, §24, 301–302. Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §45 (see 2.5.1.2) and §§140–141. See also Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6); Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 and §10 (see 4.5.19–20); Nizzahon Vetus §145, §176, and §178 (see 5.4.12–13); and Even Boḥan §53 (see 6.4.18). 56

308

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

who invented the idea of the Trinity (and Jesus’ divinity) and who added it later to the Bible.57 8. 4. 4 Jesus’ Temptation: Matt 4:1–10 (II, §7) In §7 of the second part, Rabbi Troki raises a familiar argument, namely, that the temptation of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus is not God. After citing Matthew 4:1–10, he asks: Look, from all these verses it is evident that Jesus was not God, as their words say, for how could Satan tempt God? And how is it that he [Satan] would not be afraid of his Creator, since he was created (by him like any other) of his creations? How could it be (ever) possible that the created should (be able to) coerce its Creator and lead him to a place against His will? Such matters reason cannot tolerate, nor anyone with knowledge; they are nothing but the fabrications of worthless and reckless men, who have no wisdom whatsoever.

‫הנה מכל אלו המאמרים יראה שישו לא היה אלוק בדבריהם כי איך השטן ינסה לאלקים ואיך‬ ‫לא יירא מבוראו בהיותו נברא מנבראיו איך יהיה מן האפשר נ״כ שהנברא יכריח ג״כ את‬ ‫ זה הדבר לא יסבלהו השכל ולא דעת שום משכיל‬.‫בוראו ויוליכהו למקו׳ אשר ירצה על כרחו‬ 58.‫ואין זה כי אמ דברי׳ בדויים מלבם של אנשים רקים ופוחזים אשר אין להם חכמה כלל‬

The argument that people did not fear Jesus, which Rabbi Troki deems to be a proper reaction to the presence of the Creator, was already used in the first part towards the end of §47.59 Here it is expanded with the argument that the created, viz. Satan, cannot “man-handle” the Creator. This argument, that if Jesus were God he could not be coerced, is much older and was already implied in Qiṣṣa.60 However, Rabbi Troki, unlike earlier polemicists, leaves in no doubt what to think of this story; they are but “fabrications of worthless and reckless men, who have no wisdom whatsoever.” He does not use the account to re-emphasize Jesus’ humanity, but outright rejects it as irrational and unreasonable, presumbaly because Jesus is understood as the Creator in the plot, or at least within the Christian preception. Correspondingly, the author of the Gospel of Matthew has to be seen in the same light, essentially 57

See Deutsch, Befestigung, I, §50, 280–81. Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §7, 290. 59 Ibid., 276: “And if there was such a great fright on account of Moses (cf. Exodus 34:30), (who was “only”) the servant of the Lord, and his prophet, there should have been even more fright on account of the one whom you call God, and attribute with the name of God. And even more so, if he really was God, as you say and believe; how is it that the people did not fear him (at all), but even took a hold of him, beat him, and injured him until he was dead?” (‫ואם היה המורא הגדול כזה למשה שהיה עבד יי׳ ונביאו למי שאתם קוראים‬ 58

‫אותו בשם אלקים ומייחסים לו שם אלוקים יתחייב להיות לו מורא יותר גדול על אהת כמה‬ ‫וכמה אם היה הוא אלקים כפי דבריכם ואמונתכם איך בני אדם לא יראו ממנו אבל החזיקו בו‬ ‫)והכוהו ופצעוהו עד שהרגוהו במיתה‬. 60 Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §§142–145, Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.4), Nizzahon Vetus §162 (see 5.4.4), Even Boḥan §7 (see 6.4.5), and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.2)

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

309

he is “worthless” and “reckless” for associating the Creator with the notion that the created could exercise control over God. Essentially, it is an utter rejection of the Christian notion of incarnation. 8. 4. 5 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 8:19–20 (II, §12) In §12, Rabbi Troki recalls Matthew 8:19–20 (par. Luke 9:57) and argues that also this passage is a contradiction of their belief that he is God. For if he were God, as they say, why did he call himself a “Son of Man”? But since he testifies about himself that he is a “Son of Man,” it is not right to trust in him, as it is written in Psalm 146, “Do not trust in princes, in the ‘Son of Man’;” and in Jeremiah (17:5), “Cursed is the man who trusts in man etc.” And likewise, if he were God, as they say, why did he say he does not have a place to lay his head? Is the whole world not his, as is written in Psalm 24: “The earth is the Lord’s and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it?”

‫ ואם היה הוא אלקים כדבריהם למה‬.‫גם זה המאמר סותר אמונתם שמאמינים שהוא אלקים‬ ‫היה קורא עצמו בן אדם ואחר שהוא מעיד על עצמו שהוא בן אדם אין ראוי לבטוח בו כדכתיב‬ ‫ ובירמיה י״ז כה אמר יי׳ ׳ארור הגבר אשר יבטח‬.‫תהילים קמ״ו ׳אל תבטחו בנדיבים בבן אדם׳‬ ‫באדם וגומר׳ וכן אם הוא אלקים כדבריהם למה אמר שאין לו מקום שאין לו מקום והלא כל‬ 61.‫העולם שלו הוא כדכתיב תהילים כ״ד ׳ליי׳ הארץ ומלואה תבל ויושבי בה׳‬

Ḥizzuq Emmunah echoes the argument seen in Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizzahon Vetus.62 In fact, the discussion of Matt 8:19–20 in conunction with Psalm 24 may indicate that there are direct links to the arguments of the medieval French context. 8. 4. 6 Jesus is Sent: Matt 10:40 (II, §14) In §14, Matt 10:40 is used to once more demonstrate that Jesus saw himself as a messenger:63 Based on this passage the Christians believe that Jesus is one substance (lit.: “likeness”) with the one who has sent him. And when they based on these (words) believe that the Trinity is one, it should follow that they likewise (ought to) believe that Jesus and whom he sends out [the apostles] are one. You will find a similar passage in John 10:38.

‫ ואחר שהם כבר מאמינים‬.‫הנה הנוצרים מזה המאמר מאמינים שישו עם שלוחיו דמיון אחד‬ ‫אל השילוש שהוא אחד יתחייב שיאמינו כמו כן על הישו שהוא אחד וכיוצא בזה העניין תמצא‬ 64.‫ביאן פרק י׳ פסוק ל״ח ע״ש‬

61

Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §12, 295. Cf. Yosef ha-Meqanne §§26–27 and §7 (see 4.5.6–7); Nizzahon Vetus §168 (see 5.4.5). 63 See Hizzuq Emunah I, §10 (see 8.4.1). 64 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §14, 296. Another manuscript adds here that Christians should consequently believe that God is fifteen, that is, the Trinity plus 12 apostles, see the footnote on p. 296; the same occurs also in II, §52. 62

310

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

Rabbi Troki assumes that Matt 10:40 (cf. Mark 9:37, Luke 10:16, John 13:20) is used by Christians to corroborate the Trinity, and though that may have been the case in his experience, Matt 10:40 is not a classic text to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity.65 He makes the same argument based on John 10:38,66 and contends that if these verses speak of Jesus’ divine-ontological union with God, then this must also be extended to the disciples. If Jesus is “one with the Father” in an ontological sense, then also the disciples must be reckoned as “one with the Father,” that is, they must be assumed to be integral members of the Trinity. Since that is evidently not the case, not even from a Christian point of view, these passages cannot speak of the Trinity.67 8. 4. 7 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit: Matt 12:32 (II, §16) Then, in §16, after quoting Matthew 12:32 (par. Lk 12:10) the comment is made: See, in this passage Matthew and Luke, the two of them, confirm that Jesus is a “Son of Man” (i.e. human), and not God. They further confirm clearly that the son and the Holy Spirit are not one. And if so, the three are not one, as in their fabricated faith, which is clear to the understanding.

‫ וכן הוכיחו‬.‫הנה בזה המאמר מתיאש ולוקש שניהם הוכיחו כי ישו הוא בן אדם ולא אלקים‬ ‫ א״כ אין הג׳ אחד כפי אמונתם הבדוייה מלבם כאשר זה‬.‫בבירור שאין הבן ורוח הקדוש אחד‬ 68.‫ידוע למבינים‬

Two witnesses, Matthew and Luke, testify that Jesus calls himself a human (‫)בן אדם‬, and if that was not enough, Jesus himself indicates that he is not equal to the Holy Spirit, thereby undermining the whole of trinitarian thinking and exposing it as a fabrication. 8. 4. 8 Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler:” Matt 19:16–21 (II, §19) In §19, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:16–21 (parr. Mark 10:17–21, Luke 18:18–22) is employed as proof that Jesus did not think that he was God: And from this you can see when he says, “Why do you call me good, nobody is (good) but for the one God?”, by this saying then, he shows that he is not God, which is what they believe.

65 Matt 10:40 usually is used to corroborate the apostolic authority of the messengers or the message, see Luz, Matthew 8–20, 120; and Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 226. 66 See Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §52, 324, where Rabbi Troki (again) comments that Christians should therefore hold to a union of fifteen, the Trinity plus twelve apostles. 67 This argument is similar to Ibn Ḥazm, see Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology 2/1, 249, 267–69; and Pulcini, Exegesis of Polemical Discourse, 107. Cf. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.10). 68 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §16, 297.

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

311

‫הנך רואה כי מה שאמר למה אתה קורא אותי טוב אין טוב אלא אל אחד בזה המאמר הוכיח‬ 69.‫שהוא אינו אלקים כאשר הם מאמינים‬

As already encountered several times, this is the standard reading of this passage, and follows previous apologetic-polemical usage.70 8. 4. 9 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee: Matt 20:23 (II, §20) In §20, Rabbi Troki discusses Matthew 20:23 (par. Mk 10:40), where Jesus tells the sons of Zebedee that it is God who decides who sits to his right and left: Based on this (it is evident) there is no power or authority in the hands of the Son to do as he wishes, but they are in the hands of the Father. And if so, he declares that the Father and the Son are not one, as they say, and (as such) those who trust in this one will be put to shame.

‫הנה אחר שאין כח ורשות בידי הבן לעשות רצונו אלא ביד האב לבדו א״כ מודיע שאין האב‬ 71.‫והבן אחד כדבריהם ולזה יבושו הבוטחים בו‬

Since Jesus does not render a decision concerning the petition, even explicitly defers to the Father, Jesus demonstrates that he had not supreme authority, and therefore he cannot be God. The argument is not common, but occurs in Qiṣṣa/Nestor and Yosef ha-Meqanne.72 8. 4. 10 The Term “Son of Man:” Matt 20:28 (II, §21) Then, in §21, Rabbi Troki again refers to Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” in Matthew 20:28 (par. Mark 10:45): Here Jesus announces about himself that he is not God, on account of two reason: first, he is a “Son of Man,” and second, he is serving, and not being served.

‫הנה ישו הודיע על עצמו שהוא אינו אלוק לב׳ סבות הא׳ שהוא בן אדם והב׳ שהוא עובד ואינו‬ 73.‫נעבד‬

When Jesus said that the “Son of Man” came to serve, Rabbi Troki argues that he must be understood here to affirm that he is not God. This, again, is the standard polemic attached to Matt 20:28.74

69

Deutsch, Befestigung, §19, 298. Cf. Qiṣṣa/Nestor §51 (see 2.5.1.4; also Yosef ha-Meqanne §33 (see 4.5.16), Nizzahon Vetus (see 5.4.9), and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.4). 71 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §20, 299. The argument is repeated in II, §53. 72 See 2.5.2 and 4.5.17. 73 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §21, 300. 74 Cf. Qiṣṣa §105 and §150 (see 2.5.2), Yosef ha-Meqanne §37 (see 4.5.2), Nizzahon Vetus §188 (see 5.4.5), and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.3 and 7.3.6). 70

312

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

8. 4. 11 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross: Matt 26:39 (II, §24) In §24, he recalls Matthew 26:39 (par. Mark 12:35, Luke 22:41) and finds that also this matter is the opposite of their belief, that is that they believe that Jesus Christ gave (himself) willingly (over) to suffering and crucifixion for their sakes, in order to atone for their souls. And if it was (done) willingly, as they say, then why is he sad before he was apprehended? (And why) is he imploring God for the cup to pass and to be removed from him? And likewise, after he was apprehended, he cried out with a loud voice and said, “My God, my God, why have you left me?,” as it is written there in Matthew 27:46. And this passage also proves that the Father and the Son are not one, since the will of the Son is not like the will of the Father. We already have explained this issue in §47 in the first part of this book.

‫גם זה הדבר הפך אמונתם שהם מאמינים שישו הנוצרי ברצונו נתן לענוי ולצליבה בעדם כדי‬ ‫ ואם היה רצונו בכך כדבריהם א״כ למה היה מתעצב קודם שנתפס ומתחנן‬.‫לכפר על נפשותם‬ ‫לאל שיעביר ויסיר הכוס ממנו וכן אחר שנתפס צעק בקול גדול ואמר אלי אלי למה עזבתני‬ ‫ וזה המאמר הוכיהח ג״כ שהאב והבן אינו אחד אהר‬.‫כדכתיב שם במטיאש פרק כ״ז פסוק מ״ו‬ 75.‫שאין רצון הבן כרצון האב וכבר בארנו הענין בפרק מ״ו מהחלק הא׳ מזה הספר‬

8. 4. 12 Jesus’ Words on the Cross: Matt 27:46 (II, §26) Not much further on Jesus’ cry on the cross in Matthew 27:46 (par. Mark 15:34) is once again referred to as admission of Jesus’ humanity: And here also it is evident that he was not God, rather he was a human, (as those) who cry out to God in their time of distress. 76.‫צרתם‬

‫והנה גם פה הודיע שהוא לא היה אליק אלא היה כאשר בני אדם הקוראים לאל בעת‬

Both arguments are familiar by now and so far have been encountered in every other polemical source examined. They represent, as such, one of the most common Jewish objections to Jesus’ divinity.77 8. 4. 13 Jesus Commissions the Disciples: Matt 28:18 (II, §27) Immediatley following, in §27, after quoting the first part of Matthew 28:18, Rabbi Troki returns again to the question of Jesus’ authority: And also here he made known that he was not God, for he to whom authority has been given by another is not God, but rather the Creator alone has the kingdom, and the authority. He is the giver, without having received authority from another. And if the Christian should say that, “His Father has given to him the authority, and not another,” in this case they are two,

75

Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §24, 301–302, cf. also 8.4.3. Ibid., II, §26, 306. 77 See Qiṣṣa/Nestor §53 and §§139–141 (see 2.5.1.5); Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6); Yosef ha-Meqanne §6 and §10 (see 4.5.19–20); and Nizzahon Vetus §176, §178, and §145 (see 5.4.12–13); and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7.3.9). Cf. also Even Boḥan §53, §56 and §58 (see 6.4.19–20). 76

8.4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

313

that is, one that gives, and one that receives. Yet they maintain that the Father and the Son are one.

‫והנה גם פה הודיע שהוא לא היה אלוק כי מי שממשלתו נתונה לו מאחר אינו אלוק אבל‬ ‫ ואם יאמר‬.‫הבורא לו לבדו הממלכה והממשלה והוא הנותן ובלתי מקבל הממשלה מאחר‬ ‫הנוצרי שאביו נותן לו הממשלה ולא אחר נשיב לו אם כן יהיו שנים ר''ל האחד נותן והאחד‬ 78.‫מקבל אבל הם אומרים שהאב והבן אחד‬

It becomes quite evident here that Rabbi Troki argues by means of a very simple and strict dichotomy: giver and taker, sender and sent, God and man, in which Jesus can only belong to “one camp.” This is similar to what other polemic authors have argued.79 Having thus moved through the Gospel of Matthew and drawn out all the passages which he felt contradicted trinitarian thought, Rabbi Troki proceeds to Mark and the rest of the New Testament. Two more passages need to be briefly mentioned, though their arguments are well-known. 8. 4. 14 The Cursing the Fig Tree: Mark 11:12–40 (II, §30) In §30, the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11:12–40 (par. Matt 21:18–22) is presented as one more proof that Jesus is not God, and not surprisingly the argument is the same as in earlier texts:80 Also this verse clearly proves that he is not God, and even that there was never a divine Spirit in him, for if he was God, as they say, or if there ever was a divine spirit in him, how did he not know that there were no figs on the fig tree before he came to it? In particular because it was not the season for figs then, (and) even the ordinary person would not walk up to a fig tree and shame it for no reason for not having any use. He should have decreed that the tree bear figs for his (own) benefit, and to satisfy his hunger, (that is), if he had the power to change nature according to his will, which is what those who follow him believe.

‫הנה גם זה המאמר מוכיח בבירור שלא אלקים הוא ושאפילו רוח אלקים אין בו ולא היה בו‬ ‫כ״א היה הוא אלקים כפי דבריהם או אם אפילו היה בו רוח אלקים איך לא היה יודע שאין‬ ‫תאנים בתאנה קודם בואו אצלה ובפרט שלא היה אז זמן תאנים אפילו הדיוט שבאנשים לא‬ ‫היה הולך אל התאנה להובישה בחנם וללא תועלת והיה לו לגזור על האילן שיתהפך לתאנים‬ ‫לתועלתו ולהשביע רעבונו אם היה כח בידו לשנות הטבעי׳ כרצונו כפי מה שמאמינים‬ 81.‫הנמשכים אהריו‬

Rabbi Troki finishes his discussion of this pericope by refuting the Christian objection that the passages has to be understood allegorically, namely that the fig tree represents Israel, by appealing to Joel 2:27 and 3:1.82 78

Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §27, 306–307. Cf. the similar discussions in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.8), Yosef ha-Meqanne §30 (see 4.5.22), and Nizzahon Vetus §168 and §182 (see 5.4.5 and 5.4.14). 80 See Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.7), Nizzahon Vetus §181 (see 5.4.10 and also 5.4.10), Even Boḥan §42 (6.4.16), and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (7.3.6), but cf. 7.3.3. 81 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §30, 308–309. 82 Arguing that is not anticipated that Jews would reject the Messiah in the Messianic era. 79

314

Chapter 8: Ḥizzuq Emunah

8. 4. 15 Jesus’ Ignorance: Mark 13:32 (II, §31) Then, in §31, Mark 13:32 (par. Matt 24:36) is cited as proof that Jesus did not know the future: You will see, oh understanding (reader), how this here clearly proves that the Son is not God, because he does not know the future. 83.‫עתידות‬

‫אתה המעיין תראה איך הוכיח בכאן בבירור שהבן אינו אלוק כיון שאינו יודע‬

This is, again, the standard polemic.84 Finally, in §53 it is argued again that Jesus contradicts himself: one the one side he asserts that God has given him all authority (John 13:3, 16:15, Matt 28:18), yet Jesus did not know the future (Mark 13:32), nor did he have the authority to give the sons of Zebedee prominent positions in the kingdom (Matt 20:23);85 neither has God given him a place on earth to call his own (Matt 8:20). In fact, Jesus states that the Father is greater than him (John 14:28), which shows that he is not of the same greatness as God (Heb 2:7–8).

8. 5 Summary As was seen, Rabbi Troki’s arguments are by no means novel. Most, if not all, are known from much earlier polemical sources, and his “Strenghtening of the Faith” can therefore only be deemed a more accessible collation of anti-Christian arguments that had been used for centuries by Jews. That Ḥizzuq Emunah became the channel by which these arguments came to the attention of the Christian mainstream was perhaps more of an accident of history, nevertheless, the “Strenghtening of the Faith” became one of the most influential Jewish polemics, which was partially determined by the historical context in which it was written. In fact, in the beginning of the 17th century we find a situation in eastern Europe where the differences between “peripheral” Judaism and “peripheral” Christianity were melting away and Christian beliefs converged with long held Jewish non-trinitarianism. This created a situation similar to that of the early centuries of Christianity, when there was a spectrum of Jewish and Christian beliefs, and where differences were not as delineated doctrinally. Rabbi Troki clearly identifies this situation as a danger to his fellow Jews as he himself states in the introduction.86 Especially the

83 Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §31, 310. Rabbi Troki uses Mark 13:22 also to contradict John 10:30, see II, §50, 321. 84 See Qiṣṣa §39 (see 2.5.1.1), Nizzahon Vetus §177 and §194 (see 5.4.11), and Even Boḥan §50 (see 6.4.18). 85 Cf. Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §20, 299. 86 Ibid., 8.

8.5 Summary

315

availability of Polish Bible translations with anti-trinitarian commentary made Christian religious convictions accessible, and perhaps even attractive.87 Since he and the anti-trinitarians converge in their view of the nature of God, it became more important to highlight the differences. And although Rabbi Troki reaffirms anti-trinitarianism,88 he makes a point of dispelling the notion that Jesus could have been the Jewish Messiah. Thus, he emphazises that Jesus could not have been the Messiah due to his ancestry, his deeds, and because the messianic prophecies were not fulfilled during Jesus’ lifetime.89 Also, by further questioning the veracity of the New Testament, he attempts to critique the basis of Christianity as a whole. In his assessment the gospel authors are ignorant at best, and wilfully deceptive at worst.90 His view of Jesus (if he even had one) could be summarized as follows: Jesus is a man who erroneously thought he was the Messiah. He understood himself sent by God, as a servant, authorized by God, but he was clearly limited in authority, knowledge, and ability. He was also distinct from God, which he himself asserts, since he identifies himself as a human (“Son of Man”). To believe that Jesus is God, or that Jesus considered himself to be God, is therefore simply wrong and perilous. Jesus cannot be divine because he has no authority or sufficient power, e.g., to save himself. He is also clearly not omnipotent, and he is passable in that he was tempted and coerced by Satan. Based on his own statements, Jesus’ will is distinct from God’s will. Accordingly, Rabbi Troki argues that later Christians clearly contradict reason, Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament. The incarnation, therefore, must be understood as irrational and is a vestige of earlier pagan mythological belief.91 Likewise, the belief in the Trinity is to be rejected, which the reasonable among Christians have also concluded. Ḥizzuq Emunah could perhaps be characterized as Rabbi Troki’s attempt to reclaim anti-trinitarianism for Judaism, and judging by the response it generated from Christians he indeed may have succeed.

87

Rabbi Troki uses at least three New Testament translations, cf. Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §63, 330, cf. also 337. 88 Rabbi Troki adopts, e.g., Marcin Czechowic’s interpretation of Jesus’ “oneness statements,” see Deutsch, Befestigung, II, §50, 321. 89 Ibid., II, 30–31. 90 See ibid., I, §6, 66. 91 See Deutsch, Befestigung, 29.

Chapter 9

Conclusion: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics In the seven major sources we surveyed, which roughly span a thousand year period and which are written in the Middle East, Southern, Western, and Eastern Europe, the Gospel of Matthew along with other New Testament texts was used by Jewish authors to argue against Jesus’ divinity (and other Christian doctrines). Though this was a given from the outset of the study, it is not immediately self-evident that a Christian primary text could be used against the Christian interest or Christian doctrines in this manner.1 To dispute with one’s opponent on their home turf is a bold move, and it prepared the way for

1

Incidentally, this also puts the hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew is anti-semitic (or anti-Judaic/Jewish) into perspective, as e.g. argued by Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Minneapolis: Seabury, 1974), 64–95; or Séan Freyne, “Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and John’s Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus,” in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us:” Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs; Chico, Cal.: Scholar, 1985), 117– 43. To my knowledge not one of the Jewish apologists and polemicists surveyed here has argued that Matthew is anti-Jewish, or that this was the case for Jesus, to the contrary. This is even more noteworthy since many of their Christian contemporaries were not particularly positive minded towards Jews, and the argument would have been easy to make, especially in a genre of writings that for the most part was inaccessible to non-Jews. Instead, the Jewish reading often stressed that Jesus was (relatively) Jewish, a monotheist (someone who prayed to God), upheld the Law (Matt 5:17–19) etc., and that later Christians and church interpreters moved away from these Jewish moorings; which is also how Jules Isaac, one of the seminal authors on anti-Judaism in the New Testament, has generally argued in Jesus and Israel (trans. Sally Gran; ed. Claire Huchet Bishop; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971), though Isaac has also put some of the blame on the New Testament, in particular the Gospel of John, and some passages in Matthew (esp. 27:25, see ibid., 343–64). The literature on the question of anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew is extensive, for a recent introduction into the topic see Terrence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision points and divergent interpretations (London: SPCK, 2010), 1–54; and for Matthew esp. Scot McKnight, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 55–79; and Hubert Frankenmölle, “Antijudaismus im Matthäusevangelium? Reflexionen zu einer angemessenen Auslegung,” in Studien zum jüdischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Theologie (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Neues Testament 37; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 168–98.

318

Chapter 9: Conclusion

the modern discussion that the Jesus of the gospels is different from the Jesus of Christian doctrine. This can be further enlarged with the additional observation that where the New Testament was used in Jewish arguments passages from Matthew play a central role. While the other three evangelists are often known by name (occasionally also Paul), and various verses from these authors come into play, the Gospel of Matthew receives most attention as is amply demonstrated in the previous chapters. That Matthew has such a foremost position in Jewish polemics is not a coincidence and not just predicated by the importance of Matthew for Christians.2 Historically, the Gospel of Matthew functioned as bridge over which the Jewish-Christian discourse was mediated, whether as avenue for respectful dialogue, for playful parody, or sharp polemical attack. Already in the early church the various Hebrew gospel versions can be related to Matthew. The so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Ebionites, apparently exclusively used by various Jewish-Christian groups, are perhaps three labels for only one underlying proto-text written in Hebrew (“the Hebrew Gospel”) that was ascribed to Matthew.3 But also the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew has been situated at the intersection of Judaism and (Gentile) Christianity in more recent research, especially by the assertion that the Matthean community was pre-

2

See the introduction (1.3–1.4). Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 118–24, argues for this point, seemingly independent of Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period until its Dissapearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 83–94; and also Simon Claude Mimouni, Le judéo-christianisme ancien: Essais historiques (Patrimoines) (Paris: Cerf, 1998), 215–25 (“‘L’Évangile des Hébreux’ ou ‘Évangile des Nazaréens’”), who hold a similar view (though Edwards did not recognize them in his study). However, this complicated issue is not settled, and leaves open how the canonical Gospel of Matthew was related to the “Hebrew Gospel,” cf. e.g. Baltes, Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung, 144–45, 590–99. For these texts see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition (VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992), and James K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3–16. But, even if one has to assume that there was more than one gospel written in Hebrew, the proximity of the majority of the preserved fragments point to a Matthew-like gospel (the issue is that some of the remaining fragments are quite close to Matthew, others, esp. those related to the Gospel of the Ebionites, are not). For a list of scholars that see these gospels as two (or three) distinct compositions, see Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 120, n. 76; but esp. Jörg Frey, “Die Scholien nach dem jüdischen Evangelium und das sogenannte Nazoräerevangelium,” ZNW 94 (2003): 122–37; and idem, “Zur Vielgestaltigkeit judenchristlicher Evangelienüberlieferungen,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen (ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter; WUNT I/254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 93–137. 3

8.5 Summary

319

dominantly Jewish.4 It could even be argued that Matthew’s fulfillment paradigm5 and use of typology which linked Jesus to Abraham, Israel, Moses, and David establish this gospel, probably intentionally, as a bridge between Jewish and (Gentile) Christian identities.6 Even its canonical position as the first New Testament book visibly manifests this link between the Hebrew Bible, God’s covenant story with his people Israel, and the arrival of the kingdom of God with the proclamation and ministry of Jesus. This is certainly true for modern printed bibles, where Matthew follows Malachi, but already in the great codices of the 4th and 5th centuries Matthew always appears as the first New Testament book.7 Even nowadays the Jewish-Christian dialogue continues to be mediated to a large extend by the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, which in particular is focused on the Jewish context of the book and its author.8 And, like in 4 As argued by J. Andrew Overman, Anthony J. Saldarini, and David C. Sim et al, see Roland Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew — An Ongoing Debate,” in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and J. Nolland; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 53–84, esp. 53–54. 5 Which Matthew clearly uses to identify Jesus as Messiah, the one in whom all promises and prophecies were to be fulfilled, see the disucssion in 1.3. 6 Even if the gospel was written for a predominantly Jewish-Christian community and advocated fidelity to the Mosaic Law, which is still a fairly recent and contested hypothesis, it was certainly not received in this manner. If the gospel indeed promoted adherence to the Mosaic Law, it would have been thoroughly misunderstood by its immediate recipients and by a vast majority of its audience ever since. See Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias, 24–27. 7 In Codex Sinaticus the Gospel of Matthew (ff. 200r–217r) follows Job (ff. 185v–199v). Also in Codex Alexandrinus Matthew is the first New Testament book (following The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach), likewise in Codex Vaticanus (following Daniel), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae, and Codex Washingtonianus/Freerianus, cf. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.; trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 109–10, 113. Also in the Muratorian fragment (either 2nd or 4th century) Matthew most probably appeared as the first New Testament book, see Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 195. On the dating of the fragment see esp. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), who has argued for a late 4th c. origin. On the position of Matthew in other canon lists see ibid., 133–34. 8 If Matthew is interpreted as a law-abiding Jew addressing equally law-abiding Jewish Christians, then Matthew represents an inner-Jewish dialogue. The difference between “Christianity” and “Judaism” can thus be minimized and the embarrassment of Matthew’s sharp anti-Pharasaic polemic avoided, which is perhaps one of the motivations for this particular position, see Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah,” 55–56. However, this essentially would mean that the development of historical Christianity is largely at odds with the intention of the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, if Matthew is understood to establish “Christianity” as a new antinomian entity in opposition to Judaism, then the disparity between the two is obviously much greater, and potentially more adverse, see ibid., 55–57; and also

320

Chapter 9: Conclusion

the past, not only Christian voices are heard in this discussion,9 especially after the third Jesus quest which has so strongly affirmed Jesus’ Jewish identity. It is, thus likely that the Gospel of Matthew continue to play a dominant role in negotiating the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

9. 1 Synopsis of Finds This study has shown that the Gospel of Matthew is used selectively and repeatedly in Jewish polemics, and that a large and diverse number of passages from the New Testament came to be employed in such texts (9.1.1). However, the Jewish arguments against Jesus’ divinity and the texts used in their support do not change much, often are only repeated, and effectively stand in a trajectory with polemical arguments seen in much earlier Christian sources (9.1.2), though they often did not engage the Christian understanding of Jesus’ divinity and the finer points of Christian doctrine (9.1.3). Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament, 53–54. Roland Deines seeks to avoid both extremes and advocates neither a straightforward supersessionist (potentially antiJewish) nor a law-adhering “Jewish-Christian” understanding of the Gospel of Matthew. Instead, Matthew seeks to demonstrate that in the arrival of the messianic kingdom adherence to the Mosaic code is not appropriate anymore, which is not because the Law was bad, abrogated, or ceased to be valid, but because Jesus has fulfilled all righteousness (Matt 3:15) and the “law and the prophets” (Matt 5:17), which has to be understood as an exclusively christological task which ultimately only God could accomplish (which is why Matthew identified Jesus as “God with us”). This righteousness, which was the expectation of the Law, is now “Jesus-righteoussness,” a righteoussness that without Jesus would be impossible. Matthew is therefore not advocating in 5:17–20 that Jewish or Gentile Christians had to adhere to Torah, but that an eschatological paradigm shift had occured; in Jesus the Law was finally fulfilled. The Law is still a valid expression of God’s will, but the disciples as those “blessed ones” now have a share in the new reality of eschatological Jesus-righteousness through their relationship with the God-sent Messiah, who came to “save his people from their sin” (Matt 1:21), see his Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias, 643–51; also his “Not the Law but the Messiah,” 71–84. 9 See, e.g., Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 204; David Flusser, Jesus (3d ed., Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001); Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (3d ed.; Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2008), 136–68; Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); 1–54 (the Gospel of Matthew was annotated by Aaron M. Gale). Especially the latter is noteworthy. The annotations summarize the more recent scholarly views on Matthew in a very accessible, informative, and fairly neutral manner, yet they also point out that Luke and Matthew have “inconsistent” genealogies (3), give a highlighted excursus discussing the virgin birth and Isa 7:14 (4), mention that Matt 1:25 does not preclude subsequent sexual relations between Joseph and Mary (5), and that “Matthew upholds Torah” (10). With this The Jewish Annotated New Testament effectively stands, consciously or unconsciously, in the same trajectory as Even Boḥan and its predecessors.

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

321

9. 1. 1 Selectivity of Readings One of the most clearly observable features of the use of the Gospel of Matthew by Jewish polemicists and apologists is that passages from Matthew are used selectively. In texts of the apologetical or polemical genre this is, of course, what one would expect. A set of core pericopes is frequently employed to show Jesus’ exclusive and limited humanity: Jesus’ genealogy (Matt 1:1–16, 18–25), the flight to Egypt (Matt 2:1–22), his baptism (Matt 3:13–17), the temptation (Matt 4:1– 11a), the cursing of the fig tree (Matt 21:18–19), his prayer in Gethsemane (Matt 26:38–46), and his words on the cross (Matt 27:46).10 Amongst Jesus’ sayings his exchange with the so-called “Rich Young Ruler” is typically mentioned (Matt 19:16–21), but also a selection of his “Son of Man” sayings (Matt 8:19–20, 9:6, 20:28), his prayer to the Father (Matt 11:25–27), that he received authority from God (Matt 28:16–20a), and especially Jesus’ discourse on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:30–32). In particular the latter and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane play prominent roles in most of the surveyed texts.11 Thus, Jewish polemicists used the depictions of Jesus’ deeds as strong indications that he is exclusively human, whereas Jesus’ sayings demonstrate that he understood himself to be a mere human who is distinct from God.12 10 Interestingly, Jewish polemic focuses more on Jesus’ desperation in Gethsemane and his prayer on the cross, rather than on the fact that he died; the greater emphasis being on suffering (passability). Also noteworthy is that Jesus’ resurrection is hardly discussed. Perhaps the topic of resurrection was too contested within the Jewish community (in the Maimonidean controversy) and it would have been unwise to weave it into a text that ultimately was meant to strenghten Jewish identity (rather than to further aggravate it). 11 I wonder if it is a coincidence that the Gospel of Matthew differs from Mark in some of those pericopes that also feature in Jewish and pagan objections; cf. Mark 1:9 and Matt 3:14– 15 (Jesus’ baptism), cf. Mark 10:35 and Matt 20:20 (sons of Zebedee); Mark 10:18 and Matt 19:17 (“Rich Young Ruler”); also Matt 26:52–54 (twelve legions of angels at Jesus’ disposal); Matt 27:62–66 (soldiers guarding the tomb); and esp. Matt 28:11–15 (Jewish rumors). On the differences between Mark and Matthew see Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson, eds., Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings (WUNT I/271; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Klostermann, Matthäusevangelium, 19–21; and Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (ICC; 2nd ed., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), xiii–xl. If these pericopes were already felt to be problematic in the canonical Matthew, is it then not possible that the same arguments we encounter in the second century sources were already voiced in the first century; and is it then not also possible that they may have been part of the reason why the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first place? In this regard, David C. Sim recently has speculated that Matthew may have purposely written his gospel in order to supplement Mark, see “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?,” NTS 57 (2011): 176–92. 12 This strategy is also used by modern Jewish tractates, see e.g. Berger and Wyschogrod,

322

Chapter 9: Conclusion

It is further evident that this selection was to some extend predetermined through what was handed down as polemical tradition as most arguments are usually only repeated. This does not preclude that at some point this chain of references was started, e.g., Milḥamot ha-Shem clearly exerted a lot of influence on subsequent compositions, nor does it mean that the respective arguments were not further refined and modified. But it is very likely that not all commentators had access to the Gospel of Matthew and therefore had to work on the basis of the received tradition, which effectively resulted in a collection of passages that were used according to their polemical expediency.13 Thus, the various arguments that utilize the Gospel of Matthew are frequently repetitions, which for the most part recycle traditional debate points. Individual arguments hardly change, instead they are abridged or expanded on, and at times were even misunderstood, which is, e.g., noticeable in the frequent reoccurence of arguments from Milḥamot ha-Shem in later sources. This repetition of individual arguments does not necessarily mean that there are direct links between, e.g., Nestor and later texts, this must be established case by case, as between Milḥamot ha-Shem and Even Boḥan. But it is, nevertheless, noteworthy that Qiṣṣa, via Nestor, is an important conveyor of much earlier arguments,14 whereas Ḥizzuq Emunah, via Wagenseil’s Tela Ignea Satanae, likewise acts as a bridge which made this long tradition of arguments available to the modern religious consciousness. Not only the presentation of various New Testament passages is selective, equally the interpretation of such passages is often determined by polemical expediency. Thus, the overall polemical or apologetical purpose determined, consciously or unconsciously, the interpretation of a given passage in Matthew. This is most clearly seen in the use and interpretation of the term “Son of Man,” which almost axiomatically is understood as an expression that

Jews and ‘Jewish Christians,’ 30, which likewise appeals to Luke 18:18–19 (“Rich Young Ruler”), Matt 12:32 (Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit), and Mark 13:32 (Jesus’ Ignorance) to argue that Jesus did not think of himself as divine. 13 Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ may have realized that this strategy was insufficient and therefore published the whole of the Gospel of Matthew. This brings up the question of how the various arguments that used the New Testament actually functioned in practice. Although it is unlikely that the intended (Jewish) audience could detect if the text given in an argument actually concurred with the New Testament, we nevertheless have quite a lot of arguments that show the desire to carefully quote New Testament passages (even in Latin), sometimes at length, and then to base, more or less, penetrating arguments based on these texts. This would suggest that the polemicists clearly felt that the actual content of the Gospel of Matthew was a challenge for Christian convictions. Already in Qiṣṣa/Nestor, Milḥamot ha-Shem, MS Rome, Milḥemet Miṣvah, and Nizzahon Vetus we find sections that systematically deal with the New Testament, and this may therefore also indicate that Matthew’s gospel may have been employed in actual debates with Christians. 14 See Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” 62.

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

323

denotes Jesus’ exclusive and mere humanity.15 The “Son of Man” sayings that reinforce this view are repeatedly appealed to, whereas those that do not fit this mold are left unmentioned (e.g. Matt 13:41, 16:27, 17:9, 19:28, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64). The result of this selectivity is that an author, as e.g. seen in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, can use Matthew to prove Jesus’ exclusive humanity without having to engage with the passages that clearly stand in tension with this argument (at least within the literary horizon of the Gospel of Matthew).16 This is then, perhaps, comparable to the discussion of proof passages from the Hebrew Bible, which for the most part are wranglings over the need to interpret a given passage “literally” (viz. only applying to its historical context) or “allegorically” (viz. as Messianic prophecy), with the Jewish and Christian positions usually arguing for the diametrically opposed modes of interpretation for a given verse.17

15

Although it must be said that this understanding of the “Son of Man” follows that of many of the church fathers who likewise took the term to denote Jesus’ human nature (but not exclusively so), see Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man,’ 9–80; and Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 7–9, also 13–21. See, e.g., Justin, Dial. 100.3–4; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.2, 16.3, 16.7, 17.1, 18.3–4, 19.1–2; Tertullian, Marc., 4.10; Carn. Chr., 5. 16 In fact, without this selectivity it cannot be shown that Matthew’s use of the term “Son of Man” denotes Jesus’ mere humanity. 17 E.g., Jewish exegesis often painstakingly analyzes Isa 7:14 and its context, usually arguing that is has to be understood as a prophecy that exlusively refers to its historical context, whereas Christians maintained that the historic-contextual interpetation was insufficient, and that there are deeper and greater referents, namely Mary and Jesus. Both the Christian and Jewish sides are, of course, aware that there are several modes of interpretation. Each distinguish at least four types of interpretive methods; medieval Christians recognized the literal/historical and spiritual sense of a given passage of Scripture, the latter being further divided into the allegorical, moral/tropological, and anagogical sense, whereas medieval Jews distinguish the peshat (“plain”), remez (“hidden” allegorical), derash (“homiletic”), and the sod (“mystical”/symbolic). Doctrinal preconceptions prevented either side from admitting that the opposing argument had (at least in some respect) validity. See Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998– 2009), 1:1–14; Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Tradtionsliterature (2 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899, 1905), 1:25–27, 2:41–43, 173, 208–11, 136, 146; also Rimon Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder, and Harry Sysling; Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 547–94; Avraham Grossman, “The Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis in the Twelfth-Century France” [‫הפולמוס היהודי־הנוצרי והפרשנות היהודית למקרא בצרפת‬ (‫]במאה י״ב )לפרשת זיקתו של ר״י קרא אל הפולמוס‬, Zion 51 (1986): 29–60 [Hebr.]; and esp. the essays in Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2: The Middle Ages (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).

324

Chapter 9: Conclusion

The result of this selection is a rather atomistic exegesis and the prevention of any real engagement with Matthew’s intention, his depiciton of Jesus, or his overall purpose, since the immediate or greater context of Matthew is rarely taken into account — nor was that necessarily a concern for the Jewish polemicists. There is, consequently, no real attempt to understand the Gospel of Matthew in its own right, though this may not even have been possible, depending on the availability of the gospel text. Only Profiat Duran, perhaps influenced and enabled by his reading of Even Boḥan, went further and advanced the theory that Matthew was deceived about Jesus and that he, in his ignorance, paved the way for later deception, i.e. the belief that Jesus is divine.18 Yet, although a clear selection of passages is evident, the large number of passages used remains impressive.19 And this remains to be the case even when one sees these exegetical arguments based on New Testament writings in the context of the much larger polemical and apologetical enterprise, which included the refutation of the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and philosophical, metaphysical, social, and rational argumentation. There is still a sizable array and discussion of New Testament passages, even if they often only appear as an addendum to a more extensive discussion of interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.20 That the intended audience, who first and foremost must have been Jewish religious leaders, was presented with passages from the New Testament at all, let alone with such a diverse corpus of varied arguments, warrants further investigation.21 At the very least it shows that the 18 This notion that the New Testament writers were wrong about Jesus was of course not new; already Celsus had argued that Matthew invented the virgin birth, see Origen, Cels. 1:37. Yet, Profiat Duran formulates this argument coherently and sustains it with readings from the New Testament. 19 This study already reduced the number New Testament passages by focusing on the seven more important primary sources, the use of the Gospel of Matthew, and by only surveying the discussion of the divinity of Jesus. Yet, even after this three-fold limitation there remains a good number of arguments and passages from the New Testament. 20 The first of these appended New Testament discussions appears in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milḥamot ha-Shem, the same is true for Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne, Nizzahon Vetus, Lipmann Mühlhausen’s Niṣṣaḥon, Even Boḥan, Kelimmat ha-Goyim, and Ḥizzuq Emunah et al. Also Simeon ben Zemah Duran’s Qeshet u-Magen was originally part of Magen Avot. 21 A few attempts have been made in this direction, most notably the already mentioned, but unpublished study by Joel E. Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish AntiChristian Polemics.” David Berger, though without discussing the use of the New Testament, has argued in “Mission to the Jews” that the Jewish debaters were not merely in the defensive, but also initiated religious debates with Christians, which resulted in the increased production of Adversus Judaos literature. The use of the New Testament, therefore, may not merely have been so extensively collated for defensive or internal purposes, especially since it is often presented in dialogue form and primed with instructions to ask specific questions of Christian opponents.

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

325

close proximity of Jews and Christians in medieval Europe and Christian attempts of converting Jews created a situation in which it was deemed highly necessary to collect and present strong arguments to keep the Jewish congregations steadfast and convinced of the truth of Judaism. By fending off Christian ideas with Christian texts, some of which may have been attractive and persuasive, “Jewishness” could be reinforced and “Jewish doctrine” promoted as rational and consistent. In other words, anti-Christian polemics were a way of providing internal pro-Jewish apologetics, which is, of course, also how anti-Jewish Christian apologetics function. The Christian attempt to proselytize Jews and the newer strategies used to accomplish this, in particular the use of the Talmud championed by Nicholas Donin and the emergence of capable Christian apologists, such as Pablo Christiani, Nicholas de Lyre, Raymond Martini, or Pablo de Santa María, was apparently so effective, or at least deemed so worrisome, that it warranted an extensive response and defense.22 In this, the Jewish polemicists attempted to reassure the Jewish community that the Christian advance, as forceful, oppressive, or attractive it may have seemed, was ultimately based on a flawed understanding of their own tradition, be it in the realms of reason or scriptural exegesis.23 It is, however, also clear from the surveyed texts that the Jewish readers of the New Testament (or portions thereof) felt that the passages themselves constituted strong proofs and support for their rejection of the claim that Jesus is divine (or other Christian doctrines), especially where they were read in isolation from the overall Matthean context. The selection of these arguments is, therefore, comparable to the use of passages from the Talmud, e.g., in Pugio Fidei, which Christians had felt provided formidable support for their assertion that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. 22

After all, many of the dominant figures who actively promoted Christianity where Jewish converts themselves, a fact that must have been extremely unsettling to their Jewish communities, which is perhaps often underestimated. When in 839 C.E. the relatively unimportant royal deacon Bodo converted to Judaism it created significant ripples in medieval Christendom, see Allen Cabaniss, “Bodo-Eleazar: A Famous Jewish Convert,” JQR 43 (1953): 313–28. Correspondingly, when various Jews and Rabbis turned to Christianity, and some subsequently even joined the clerus and missionary orders, so much so that at least one even became a bishop (Pablo de Santa María), then it is perhaps not too far fetched to posit that at least some Jewish communities had been shaken to the core. Reassurance was badly needed. 23 This had also the added effect that those versed in this type of apologetic-polemical tradition could present themselves as capable and erudite leaders of their flock, confidently displayed in their familiarity of Christian doctrine and New Testament passage in Latin (or Greek), their use of reason, and exegetical aptitude. See Lasker and Stroumsa, Nestor the Priest, 1:32: “The various authors must have felt that a gloss of the opponents’ own language lent a degree of verisimilitude to their work as well as helping them avoid charges of forgery.” Or to quote Shem Ṭov, “through this (endeavor), praise will come to the Jew who debates with them and catches them in their own trap.”

326

Chapter 9: Conclusion

9. 1. 2 Continuity with Earlier Polemics As already noted, the general strategy of collecting and repeating a number of set arguments effectively created a polemical tradition based on the New Testament.24 This, however, should not be taken as an innovative strategy, but rather as a continuation of an existing trajectory. The study has shown that the arguments of this polemical tradition show significant paralles with those of much earlier periods, which is clearly evident when one compares passages, e.g., with Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian “the Apostate.”25 Since the Jewish arguments used in the medieval period stand in a trajectory with early objections to orthodox Christian thought,26 there is a higher probability that the arguments ascribed to Jews in Christian commentaries and apologetical literature are genuinely Jewish (rather than being merely “straw-men” on which a counter-argument is propped up).27 Besides the references provided, a few further examples will suffice to corroborate this observation: 24

This has also been noticed by Rembaum, see “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” xi. 25 This was already noted by Bernhard Blumenkranz, “Die jüdischen Beweisgründe im Religionsgespräch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5. bis 11 Jahrhunderts,” TZ 4 (1948): 119–47; repr. in Juifs et Chrétiens Patristique et Moyen Age, chapter XIX (no pagination): “Der Großteil der jüdischerseits im Mittelalter verwendeten Argumente ist uns schon aus dem Altertum bekannt” (146). Rembaum, “The New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics,” xvii, 17–61, suggested that the similarity between the pagan and Jewish arguments “could be the result of two processes, operating independently or together: 1) Jews in the Middle Ages had access to the ancient polemical traditions. 2) Jews in the Middle Ages employed a critical methodology which was similar to that used in antiquity. As we shall see, both factors were probably operative” (17). I would add to this a third process, which I consider more probable (though without denying that medieval Jews may have learnt some anti-Christian arguments from Christian sources and proselytes), which is that from very early on various anti-Christian arguments had formed a kind of (Jewish?) polemical tradition (which also informed pagan polemics), and that this tradition was retained either orally or in written form by Jews and Christians (Rembaum hints at this, 60–61). As long as Jews and Christians were in some kind of personal contact, as was the case throughout late antiquity in many regions of the Roman Empire, there would have been at least a faint need for religious polemics and apologetics, if not for debate then at least for personal assurance. It is implausible that the more potent polemical arguments would have been so easily forgotten only to be rediscovered by the reading of pagan and Christian sources (esp. when one considers how Qiṣṣa functions as a literary bridge into the early medieval period). 26 However, to fully evaluate this further study is necessary. 27 On this see esp. Blumenkranz, “Die jüdischen Beweisgründe;” Carlton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, 274–79; and Amos Funkenstein, “Polemics, Responses and Self-Reflection,” in Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 170–219, esp. 173–75. Still instructive is Amos B. Hulen, “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity,” JBL 51 (1932): 58–70.

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

327

In the second century, in Justin Martyr’s well known Dialogue with Trypho the Jewish party articulates, among many other questions which bear similarities to medieval debate literature, the underlying issue which is the basis for the entire medieval discussion: You are attempting to prove what is incredible and practically impossible, namely, that God deigned to be born and to become man.28

It is hardly coincidental that also Celsus put some of the various objections to Christianity into the mouth of a Jew who is in an imaginary dialogue with Jesus, especially when one considers the various arguments more closely: Let us imagine what a Jew — let alone a philosopher — might put to Jesus: “Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumours about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in royal David’s city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was discovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera she was driven away by her husband — the carpenter — and convicted of adultery? Indeed, is it not so that in her disgrace, wandering far from home, she gave birth to a male child in silence and humiliation? What more? Is it not so that you hired yourself out as a workman in Egypt, learned magical crafts, and gained something of a name for yourself which now you flaunt among your kinsmen?” What absurdity! Clearly the Christians have used the myth of Danae and Melanippe, or of Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. A beautiful woman must his mother have been, that this Most High God should want to have intercourse with her! An interesting point in itself, since if, as their philosophers (copying ours) say, God by nature does not love corruptible bodies, he cannot love a woman. Are we to think that this high God would have fallen in love with a woman of no breeding — one unknown and unregarded even by her neighbors?29

28

Dial. 68.1, cited from St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (trans. T. B. Falls), 105. As reconstructed by R. Joseph Hoffmann, Celsus: On the True Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 57–58 (cf. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 28–38). Cf. Origen, Cels. 1.28. It has often been discussed if the Jew in Contra Celsum is real or only fictitious, see Ernst Bammel, “Der Jude des Celsus,” in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I, 265–83; also Horacio E. Lona, Die »Wahre Lehre des Kelsos«: Übersetzt und erklärt von Horacio E. Lona (KfA; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 172–75. It also has long been recognized that some of the points raised by Celsus are similar to elements found in Toledot Yeshu and the Talmud; e.g., that Jesus’s mother was a spinner, that his true father was called Panthera [Pandira], that he learned Egyptian magic, see e.g. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, esp. 18–24, 150–53. But see also Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, esp. 27– 28; and Marc Lods, “Etude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chretiens,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941): 1–33. Already a cursory glance at Cook’s outline of New Testament passages discussed by Celsus shows significant thematic parallels to those in later medieval Jewish sources (e.g., Jesus’ genealogy, the flight to Egypt, his baptism, Gethsemane, Jesus’ miracles), and this also rings true for Porphyry and Julian, see ibid., ix, xi, xiv, passim. 29

328

Chapter 9: Conclusion

It is further noteworthy that the New Testament passages utilized in these much earlier texts are often the same that appear in later medieval Jewish polemics, e.g., Jesus’ genealogy or his prayer in Gethsemane. In Emperor Julian’s polemic we read for instance: But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy.30

Also in Porphyry’s critique of Christianity we find the following argument based on the Gethsemane pericope: And yet, he being in torment and anticipating the expectation of horrible things, asked in prayer that his passion pass from him. And he said to his closest friends: ‘Watch and pray that the temptation pass away’ (Matt 26:41, Mk 14:38, Lk 22:46). Now these sayings are not worthy of God’s Son, not even of a wise man who despises death.31

Likewise, the ontological argument that underlies the later medieval debate is encountered in much earlier sources, e.g., in the sixth century Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, which in terms of time and space cannot be too far off from the sources of Qiṣṣa. Timothy, representing the Jewish side, asks in chapter 5.12–18: For concerning this Jesus, as his memoirs contain in those books you call the gospels, we find from where he comes and his parents with him, so how is this one God? Does God suck milk and grow and become strong? And I will tell what Luke says about him. For the present discussion is about this one is that he also fled when John was beheaded by Herod, and then was betrayed by his own disciples and bound and mocked and flogged and spit on and crucified and buried. But prior to that he hungered and thirsted and was tempted by Satan. Then does God submit to these things done by men? And who is able to see God? Not to mention that he was seized and suffered so many things which is indeed impossible for God to suffer. But he was also given sour wine to drink and was fed gall. And he was struck with a reed on his head and crowned with thorns. And finally he was condemned and crucified with bandits. I am

30 In Against the Galileans, see The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3:395–97. See also 3:188–89 (God in a womb), 378–79 (Mary registered in the census), 398–99 (Isa 7:14 and Mary as mother of God). In fact, so many similarities and in depth knowledge of scriptural debates appear in Julian’s writings that possible links should be further investigated. It has been recognized that Julian’s anti-Christian zeal lead him to favor Jewish interests, and the mutual influence of arguments from anti-Christian Jews to Julian and vice versa might therefore be a distinct possibility, see Michael Adler, “The Emperor Julian and the Jews,” JQR 5 (1893): 591–651, esp. 609–10, who remarks about Julian that “in his war against Christianity, he is at one with Jewish theologians, and arms himself with the same weapons, importing, however, into the contest a virulence and bitterness towards the creed of the ‘Galilean’ that are a blot upon his manly and upright character” (610, emphasis mine). 31 See Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, §175, 198 (Macarius Magnes’ Apokritikos 3.2).

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

329

shocked! How is it that you are not ashamed to say that God himself entered into a woman’s womb and was born? For if he was born, then he was not eternal, and also now where is he? What will you say to these things? Answer me.32

The similarity between much later Jewish arguments is thus evident.33 Whether this implies a direct continuity with early arguments cannot be conclusively established with this study, but further comparison with patristic (and pagan) texts should be much more convenient now. What stands out is that the New Testament passages that are used in Jewish polemics are also those that have attracted a lot of discussion in much earlier doctrinal debates within Christianity.34 At times the argument in the Jewish sources has therefore a distinct “heterodox flavor,” and it stands to reason that various heterodox ideas were originally Jewish, or became part of the Jewish polemical tradition through personal exchanges or conversions to Judaism from individuals familiar with such arguments.35 As was already seen, various

32 Varner, Dialogues, 150–51 (5.12–18). Lawrence Lahey argued that the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila reflects a real Jewish-Christian debate. The similarity to the arguments in Qiṣṣa/Nestor might support this; cf. Lawrence L. Lahey, “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-critical Study” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2000), idem, “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish–Christian Debate in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila,” JJS 51 (2000): 281–96. In a sense, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila is almost an “anti-Nestor:” Timothy, at the end of the debate, becomes converted and ordained, both as deacon and presbyter, whereas the narrative framework of Qiṣṣa/Nestor presents the author as a former Christian priest who has convert to Judaism. 33 Of course, the earliest traces of objections against Jesus’ divinity can already be found in the New Testament itself, see e.g. Mark 6:3 (par. Matt 13:55–56), John 10:33 (cf. Mark 14:64), and 1 John 4:2–3. 34 See esp. Kevin Madigan’s study, The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought: An Essay on Christological Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), who shows how early and late church interpreters struggled against Arian (and their own) interpretations of Jesus’ ignorance, the Gethsemane pericope (pp. 62–72), or Jesus’ prayer on the cross (73– 90) et al. See also Paul Gondreau, The Passions of Christ’s Soul in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Münster: Aschendorff, 2002; repr., Scranton: Scranton Press, 2008). 35 In fact, the Jewish arguments (and the respective NT passages used) are so similar to what is known from the Arian controversy that one is tempted to assume a literary link, cf. esp. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 106–22. Arians used the the exchange with the “Rich Young Ruler” (Matt 10:18), the ignorance logion (Mark 14:32, par. Matt 24:36), that he was afraid (Matt 26:39), and pointed to Jesus’ words on the cross (Matt 27:46). They likewise stresses that Jesus prayed to the Father, was hungry, subject to bodily needs, and that he suffered. Even more remarkable is that they argued for the Jesus’ inferiority to the Father based on the notion that Jesus was indwelled by the logos instead by a human soul, see ibid., 110; cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 69. In this Arians had a distinct logos-sarx understanding that they advanced to argue for the “createdness” of the (nevertheless divine) logos.

330

Chapter 9: Conclusion

discussions in Ephrem’s Diatessaron commentary engage precisely the arguments used in much later Jewish objections.36 But, perhaps surprisingly, the Jewish arguments do not just recall heterodox arguments, they can also use very orthodox ideas. For example, in the fourth century, and with that still before the Council of Chalcedon, the Christian poet Prudentius37 argues in his Apotheosis against the notion that the Father can suffer (Patripassianism). His arguments, which reflect an innerChristian debate over the Trinity and Christology, echo many of the main lines of later medieval Jewish argumentation: Very many teachings there are, but of few shall I tell, lest misguided utterance of unspeakable doctrines stain an orthodox tongue. Yonder is one who, banishing the Father from his throne, thrusts Him into the narrow vesture of a man’s body and fears not to subject the Father to death and fasten him to a cruel cross. Can God suffer? His shape and form no man has ever seen (...). He is the Father, whom no eye ever had force to reach by looking from without with keen, flashing vision, and who does not put on the form of man nor qualify the infinity of his Godhead by assuming countenance or mode. Either, thou blasphemer, must thou reject the faithfulness of the gospel-book, or else the intangible being of the blessed Father, which cannot mingle with mortality, has never been seen. (...) [The spirit of the Father] therefore no scourges cut nor spitting defiles, nor hand hurts with buffeting nor nail-pierced wounds fastened upon a cross. It was the flesh of man that felt these things, flesh of a woman with child brought forth according to the law of birth, without the law of wedlock. He it is that suffers hunger, that drinks the gall and drains the vinegar. He it is that fears the shape of death and trembles at the pain. Tell me, ye blasphemous teachers, who maintained that the supreme Father abandoned his throne at the time when God entered into a mortal body, was it the Father then who suffered? What would not evil error dare? Was the Father himself conceived and did He grow from a maid’s blood? Did He himself swell a modest virgin’s womb? And does the page of the holy book lie, then, when it says that the Word passed into the form of the flesh?38

36 See 2.5.1.4, 3.4.3–7, and 5.4.10. Recently Elena Narinskaya has explored similarities between Ephrem and Jewish exegetical traditions which might suggest that he was aquainted with Jewish thought (and anti-Christian arguments?), see Ephrem, a ‘Jewish’ Sage: A Comparison of the Exegetical Writings of St. Ephrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions (Studia Traditionis Theologiae 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). 37 Born 348 C.E., he lived perhaps in north-eastern Iberia, in Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), where he became twice the provincial governor, see Karla Pollmann, “Prudentius,” Brill’s New Pauly (Brill Online, 2012); and Prudentius (trans. H. J. Thomson; Loeb Classical Library; 2 vols.; London: W. Heinemann, 1949), 1:vii–viii. 38 Prudentius (trans. H. J. Thomson), 1:121–29. Of course this is an inner Christian debate over the Trinity, arguing against Patripassianism, but it is still significant how many of the arguments are, e.g., found in Qiṣṣa. It is thus somewhat ironic how similar Prudentius’ antimonarchic arguments are compared to those found in later anti-Christian medieval Jewish sources, esp. since they even come to be used in the same geographic region, only roughly a millennium later. Whereas Prudentius, under the premise that Jesus was divine, used the impassibility of God to argue for a trinity of persons, the very same arguments he employs were used to dispute the notion that Jesus was divine.

9.1 Synopsis of Finds

331

The medieval Jewish arguments that use the New Testament stand thus not only in a trajectory with earlier arguments, but likewise can be shown to have a long pre-history in traditional debate literature. In some sense they may not even be anti-Christian (depending on how and what one judges to be orthodox and heterodox in Christianity). This suggests that the actual use of these polemical arguments by various Jews, but also others, may have been what continually prompted the production of Adversus Judaeos literature. Part of the incentive for composing such literature may have been the awareness that a set of polemical arguments is remembered, collated, and not infrequently utilized by those who are antagonistic towards central Christian claims, and that these arguments have a certain inherent force. The importance of the Christian beliefs, e.g, the divinity of Christ, and the persistent continuation of arguments that would dispute them made it simply necessary to repeatedly confront and dispel them, not least to affirm and explicate the paradoxical claim of Jesus’ identity to Christians.39 9. 1. 3 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement In the surveyed texts the polemicists largely argue against the simplistic notion that “Jesus is God” rather than against the doctrine of the two natures of Christ as understood by the church. This may be a reflection of the popular Christian understanding, which reckoned Jesus to be God without any further qualification, or may have been part of the argumentative strategy which deliberately sidelines the more complicated doctrinal deliberations.40 The Jewish polemicists are aware that Christians differentiate between the two natures of Christ, at least various arguments that address this differentiation are part of the polemical repertoire. However, the christological understanding reflected in these arguments is not necessarily reciprocating the doctrinal understanding of (Western) medieval Christendom. The Jewish understanding seen in most texts, if one were to classify them in Christian terms, would have

39

With this I do not seek to dispute or corroborate Miriam S. Taylor’s study, AntiJudaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Studia PostBiblica 46; Leiden: Brill, 1995), nor do I wish to enter that discussion, though the considerable similarity to medieval Jewish polemical arguments suggest that the Jewish arguments in Adversus Judaos literature are not only “symbolic” and concerned with theological selfdefinition (cf. ibid., 127–87). They could very well represent a recollection of the arguments Jews actually have made (e.g. in debates), at least where it pertains to the divinity of Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew. For a comprehensive critique of Taylor’s study see Carlton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, 43–76. 40 The respective Jewish scholars may very well have known the more intricate aspects of Christian doctrine, but may have deemed them too cumbersome or unhelpful for their purposes (that is, in exegetical arguments that use the New Testament).

332

Chapter 9: Conclusion

to be called the “Apollinarian” or the logos-sarx view of Jesus.41 The notion that Jesus’ soul is the locus of his divinity which is “dressed” in human nature is repeatedly encountered, in particular in discussions of the Gethsemane pericope.42 One should assume that at least some of the Jewish commentators were familiar with the more differentiated “orthodox” view of Christology,43 but it appears that the polemical tradition that used Jesus’ anguish in Gethsemane (“my soul is deeply distressed,” Matt 26:38) may have prompted and given preference to this particular understanding. The fact that Jesus said his soul, the “spiritual source” and center of his being, was distressed could conveniently be used to attack the argument that only Jesus’ human, that is the “physical,” side was perturbed. This then lead back to the underlying argument that God is impassable. Profiat Duran appears to have noticed that this view was not in line with the contemporary Christian understanding of Jesus, and therefore abandoned this argument replacing it with something far more perceptive and potent.44 This particular logos-sarx understanding expressed in most of the Jewish sources would probably not trouble a medieval church theologian too much, precisely because this christological issue had been dealt with hundreds of years earlier. However, on a popular level, e.g., in dialogue with lower clergy or a with regular member of the Jewish community, these arguments were probably effective.

41

This is not to say that this was actually the understanding of the polemicists. The Jewish argument, in fact, disputes this “Apollinarian view” of Jesus by appealing to the Gethsemane pericope, a passage which also the church fathers used to emphasizes the full humanity of Jesus against Docetistic tendencies. However, the similarity of argumentation ends here, since the Jewish position unerstands herein the clear negation of the full divinity of Jesus. In this the Jewish position categorically rules out the possibility of incarnation, and paradoxically only allows for a Docetist Christology. All comparisons between Moses and Jesus, e.g., point to this: Effectively, Jesus cannot be superior to Moses, because Jesus is essentially more human than Moses (who fasts longer, who was not in need of nourishment, did not have to defecate etc.). In other words, the underlying assumption is that as closer humans would be to God, as less human they are, and a man indwelled by God, even “God with us,” could therefore effectively only be human in appearance, if at all. Christian orthodoxy, in contrast, has consistently maintained that only in Christ men really see what it means to be truly human (and also what it means to be truly divine), cf. Col 1:15, 2:9; Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:45–49. 42 In Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 3.4.6), Yosef ha-Meqanne §5 and §9 (see 4.5.13–14), and Nizzahon Vetus §176, §178, and §181 (see 5.4.10, 12, 13). 43 Certainly Profiat Duran (see 7.3.12). Of course, this study only examined exegetical arguments to the exclusion of the philosophical and metaphysical discussions, an area where Jewish scholars often exhibited superior understanding, see Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, also Sarah Stroumsa, Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ’s ‘Twenty Chapters’ (‘Ishrūn Maqala) (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 156–60, 218–20. 44 See 7.3.12.

9.2 Evaluation of Finds

333

9. 2 Evaluation of Finds The two main arguments against Jesus’ divinity consistently encountered in the surveyed sources are that 1) Jesus is distinctly and exclusively human, seen in either his limitations or his own statements reported in the Gospels, and 2) that it is unthinkable that God could be or become human. These two essential lines of argumentation stay more or less constant from Qiṣṣa/Nestor through to Ḥizzuq Emunah, though Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut and Profiat Duran add a few new impulses to the debate.45 With this, the Jewish objections to Jesus’ divinity firmly rest on the ontological assumption that there is an unbridgeable divine/human dichotomy: the Creator cannot become created (9.2.1). Thus, all of the surveyed polemicists can use depictions of Jesus’ humanity in the Gospel of Matthew as evidence of his exclusive humanity. That Jesus is a human can thus be relentlessly stressed, because the force of the argument always rests on the foundational assumption of human and divine exclusivity: Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus (9.2.2). 9. 2. 1 The Divine/Human Dichotomy In most, if not all, of the arguments against Jesus’ divinity the underlying ontological presupposition is that God is too other to become human. This underlying premise is rarely discussed in these exegetical arguments (at most merely stated). Yet, the argument of the impropriety of ascribing human limitations to God, often by pointing to the absurdity of seeing God sleeping, or to the taboo of associating God with physical (“mammalian”) birth, this is only possible if the divine and the human are understood to exist in distinct modes of being, which excludes any commonality or analogy between God and man.46 The metaphysical assumption that emerges here is the Aristotelian notion that humanity and divinity exist in a dialectically opposed, unbridgeable dichotomy, so that God cannot be or become man.47 Humanity is passible and limited; God is impassible, unlimited in ability, knowledge, and might.

45 The latter explicitly mentions that the polemical stock he inherited was insufficient to deal with the converso situation he and Ḥasdai Crescas faced. Also, only with these two do we find attempts to understand the origin of Christianity and Jesus’ intention. Thus, their respective arguments (and reading of Matthew) become more original, and esp. Profiat Duran’s argument (though it also can be found in earlier sources, but perhaps not as explicit) is surprisingly modern, and even can be found with contemporary interpreters. 46 On this see also Küng, The Incarnation of God, 519–20. 47 David B. Burrell has shown how interconnected the philosophical assumptions of the principal theologians of the medival period were, see his Knowing the Unknowable God: IbnSina, Maimonides, Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986).

334

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Therefore, the argument over Jesus’ divinity is essentially an argument about the nature and proper worship of God.48 In order to maintain and differentiate the Jewish view from the Christian understanding, the Jewish apologists effectively promoted this strict dichotomy, which was further reinforced by the reading of Christian texts and engagment with the Christian tradition, for to dissolve the divine/human divide automatically would move one closer to Christianity. If it was openly accepted that God was “anthropomorphic,” could become incarnate, or that a man could be divine in some way, then Christianity would be at least theoretically viable. The Jewish apologist was therefore almost forced into a more anti-anthropomorphist and monolithic view of God, which in this stringency was foreign to Biblical (or “formative”) Judaism.49 In response to this more philosophical understanding of God, Michael Wyschogrod has convincingly argued on biblical grounds that a certain sense of incarnation is not foreign to biblical Judaism: In any case, it must be emphasized that the Jewish objection to an incarnational theology cannot be based on a priori grounds, as if something in the nature of the Jewish concept of God made his appearance in the form of humanity a rational impossibility. (…) If we can determine a priori that God could not appear in the form of a man or, to put it in more Docetistic terms, that there could not be a being who is both fully God and fully man, then we are substituting a philosophical scheme for the sovereignty of God.50

With this view becoming more popular, Daniel Boyarin has essentially made a similar argument in that he argues for the “Son of Man” to be understood as

48

See Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 54: “The worship of Jesus as the Incarnation of God was, to the Jews, a clear infringment of the First Commandment.” 49 As, e.g., argued by Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God, ix, 4–6; Michael Wyschogrod, “Incarnation and God’s Indwelling Israel,” in Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Kendall Soulen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 165–78; or Esther J. Hamori, When Gods where Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 150–55. The relationship of these exegetical anti-Christian arguments to the debate over anthropomorphism in the so-called Maimonidean controversy cannot be further investigated here, but one would expect that the anti-Christian polemics which essentially expounded the utter distinction of the human and divine would have had some influence on this issue (esp. in the discussions of Gen 18). Maimonides’ son, Abraham b. Moses b. Maimon, e.g., accuses his Jewish opponents of being like (anthropomorphic) Christians: “These perplexed Jews were not guided. One should not be surprised at the fact that these heretics who serve idols pay no heed to Torah. Behold, the Christians interpreted the words of the prophets literally and made a son for the Creator, in their well-known theology. Whoever denies this belief and claims that Almighty God is corporeal and has form like the form of a human being (…) is as if he denies the Torah (…),” Fred Rosner, ed., Abraham Maimonides’ Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Controversy (Haifa: The Maimonides Research Institute, 2000), 362–63, see also 92. 50 Wyschogrod, “A Jewish Perspective on Incarnation,” 204.

9.2 Evaluation of Finds

335

a form of divine incarnation (following others who have argued thus),51 it would stand to reason that the Jewish-Christian debate over Jesus’ divinity is nowhere close to being over. 9. 2. 2 Jesus is Vere Homo Only In light of the assumed divine/human dichotomy, the Jewish argument against the divinity of Jesus by means of the Gospel of Matthew focuses on depictions of Jesus human limitations, emphasizing his ignorance, need to sleep (Matt 8:21–25), display of fear, hunger, distress, and his prayer activity, all in order to argue for the exclusively human nature of Jesus. With this, the view is advanced that Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus. As already mentioned, this reading of Matthew has as its starting point in a very basic and undifferentiated, albeit Christian, view of Jesus. He is simply understood as God, i.e. “Jesus is God” (see 9.1.3), and this reduction of the more complex Christian view empowers the overall polemical argument. Passages that would interfere with the view that Jesus was merely a human, such as his claim to be able to forgive sins (Matt 9:2–8), walking on water (Matt 14:25–33),52 his transfiguration (Matt 17:1–8),53 or the resurrection are hardly mentioned at all, passages which Christian exegesis has stressed as pointing to Jesus’ divinity.54 On the other hand, the issue of Jesus’ 51 See Daniel Boyarin, “How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus,” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 51–76; and idem, Jewish Gospels, 31–101. Others who see Jesus’ divinity as congruent with Jewish thinking are, e.g., the late John O’Neill, Simon Gathercole, Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, or William Horbury; see also Adele Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). On this see the summary by William Horbury, “Die jüdischen Wurzeln der Christologie,” Early Christianity 1.2 (2011): 5–21, esp. 15–21. 52 But see Even Boḥan §33 (MS Plut. 2.17, f. 148r), where Shem Ṭov emphasizes that Peter believed Jesus was an apparition of Satan (his translation of Matt 14:26 reads ‫שד‬, “a demon,” “evil spirit,” or “devil” in place of φάντασμά, “ a ghost, phantom, apparition”). 53 But see Even Boḥan §38 (see 6.4.15). 54 On Jesus’ forgiving sins as divine prerogative see Grindheim, God’s Equal, 60–76; also Otfried Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b,” in Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT I/132; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 38–56. On the transfiguration see Andrew Louth, “From Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ: St. Maximus he Confessor on the Transfiguration of Christ,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley S.J. (ed. Peter W. Martens; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2008), 260–75; and John A. McGuckin, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Studies in the Bible & Early Christianity 9; Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986). For the interpretation of the transfiguration in the Eastern church and the relationship to hesychasm see Zoltán Dörnyei, “Transfiguration, Beauty and Biblical Interpretation” (M.A. diss., University of Nottingham, 2011), esp. 50–58, and 141–46; and Solrunn Nes, The Uncreated Light: An Iconographical

336

Chapter 9: Conclusion

miracle activity, which many Christian intepreters advance in support for Jesus’ divinity, was not disregarded by Jewish commentators, to the contrary. Most polemicists frequently explained Jesus’ miracles with his familiarity with Egyptian magic, and further minimized the individual miracle accounts by pointing to characters in the Hebrew Bible who equally performed miracles, and greater ones at that, who were nevertheless not considerd divine.55 What emerges is not a “balanced” interpretation which gives equal weight to Matthew’s account of Jesus, nor acknowledges the more sophisticated Christian view. By exclusively focusing on Jesus’ human limitations and by not taking into account Matthew’s more exalted descriptions of Jesus,56 it was comparably easy for the Jewish polemicists to argue that he was merely human and that the “real Jesus” was different from what Christians believed him to be.

9. 3 Epilogue: The Central Paradox Jewish polemicists, although not openly addressing the Christian dogmatic intricacies in their exegetical discussion of Jesus, clearly perceived and identified the central theological paradox of Christology, namely, the assertion that God became man in Christ and suffered. This paradox is not only seen in the metaphysical realm, but also as a contradiction between Christian Scripture and Christian belief: canon and creed are thus seen to be in significant tension.57 The passages in the Gospel of Matthew (and the other Synoptic Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church (trans. Arlyne Moi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). In regard to Jesus walking on water, in the Eastern tradition far greater emphasis was put on Peter’s ability to walk on water, thereby illustrating the possibility of deification (theosis), see Rachel Nicholls, Walking on the Water: Reading Mt. 14:22–33 in the Light of its Wirkungsgeschichte (Biblical Interpretation Series 90; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 127–74. 55 Interestingly, nowhere do the Jewish polemicist surveyed in this study ever argue that Jesus was a charlatan or that his miracles were not “genuine.” This is simply accepted, not the least because the Jewish sages affirm that Jesus did miracles (though through illicit means). 56 Ironically, Matthew is not really depicting the more obvious aspects of Jesus’ humanity at all. In fact, none of the evangelists give a description of Jesus’ stature or facial features, eye color, his complexion, his hair length, or whether he had a beard, nor do they ever mention, e.g., his need to relieve himself. Jesus is also only once potrayed as sleeping (Matt 8:24, Mark 4:38, Luke 8:23). Considering the high christological understanding of Jesus in the early church, which very quickly (over)emphasized his divinity, it should be more surprising that he continuted to be proclaimed as vere homo at all. And, again ironically, even with their sparing potrayal of Jesus’ humanity it was, nevertheless, the Gospels that safeguarded the assertion that Jesus was truly human, which hardly would have been possible with only the Pauline corpus. 57 Due to the selectivity of the polemical tradition this tension must have felt stronger than if the entire Christian canon, or at least all of Matthew, had been considered.

9.3 Epilogue: The Central Paradox

337

Gospels) that clearly depict Jesus as a human (who has to sleep, is hungry, ignorant, limited, etc.) and as someone who understands himself as distinct from God (Father, Son) are thus emphazised and advanced as core pericopes that address the underlying enigma of the Christian dogma. This tension was also clearly felt within the Christian tradition from the earliest times onward.58 Some of those who were committed to a very high Christology made attempts to minimize, disregard, or explain these passages away.59 However, the dispute with Docetism prevented that these pericopes became too quickly eclipsed by the grandeur of proclaiming Jesus’ divinity, although a general tendency towards this is quite noticeable in many patristic interpreters.60 In particular those of the Eastern tradition tended to embrace the paradox of ontological divine-human union in Christ, in fact, it became absolutely integral to soteriology in the notion of deification (theosis).61 This, however, in some sense heightened the paradox. And, although the affirmation that Jesus was fully human and fully divine was mitigated with the teaching of the two natures of Christ in the Council of Chalcedon,62 this only deferred the paradox to the mystery of the hypostatic union with the adverbs inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, and inseparabiliter.63 For most Jews (and Christians) this was too intangible, and Jewish scholars could continue to point to the obvious discrepancies between the gospel texts and the underlying philosophical assumptions which they shared with their Christian opponents. Especially the (frequently unguarded) undifferentiated Christian assertion that “Jesus is God,” which in this form hardly appears in the New Testament,64 58

See, e.g., 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7; cf. also 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:5–11, Col 1:13–20. Seen in the apocryphal nativity accounts that replaced the more shocking implications of human birth, and affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity, see 2.5.3. 60 So Moltmann, The Crucified God, 235. 61 See Vladimir Lossky, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (ed. John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird; Crestwood, N.J.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 97–110. 62 As essentially argued by Profiat Duran, see 7.3.12. 63 Or rather, ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, and ἀχωρίστως, negative qualifiers which are a concession to the inability to coherently describe the “‘how’ of the divine and the human existence coexisted in the same person,” Vladimir Lossky, “Christological Dogma,” in Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (trans. Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson; Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), 95–118, here 99. 64 Even John 1:1 and 20:28 are further qualified, cf. also 1 Cor 8:6. This, however, does not mean that the New Testament has a low view of Jesus, to the contrary, see Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007); also Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Gathercole, The Pre-existent Son; Grindheim, God’s Equal; Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1976); Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ; and Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Dunn’s objections should not be dismissed either; the New 59

338

Chapter 9: Conclusion

would have fueled the Jewish (and Muslim) objections, and reinforced the validity of the use of the New Testament against this view. What is common to both sides of the debate, which also made the Jewish argument potent, is that Jews and Christians essentially shared the same basic concept of a strict divine/human dichotomy. When encountering the passages that depict Jesus’ humanity, this shared philosophical assumption led the Jewish apologists effectively to nurture a more impassable and monolithic view of God than the Hebrew Bible itself advocated (and many contemporary Jews themselves could accept), and Christians, who should have been forced to take on a more dynamic (or anthropomorphic) view of God, retained the notion that the divine aspect of Christ was completely undisturbed by the incarnation.65 That this was the case can only be attributed to Christian fidelity to the same metaphysical axiom that makes the Jewish argument relevant. Thus, both Christians and Jews ultimately operated (and argued) within the Aristotelian matrix (at least in the West), rather than from that of their respective Scriptures. And so, it would perhaps be more beneficial for the Jewish-Christian debate to not merely use Scripture to corroborate or confound (metaphysical) beliefs, but to argue truly from Scripture. For the Christian, this would mean that the paradox of Jesus’ identity ought to be held within the horizon of Scripture, rather than the horizon of metaphysics, as helpful and necessary it may be for further conceptualization. The objection that Christians are inconsistent would then not immediately necessitate more delicate doctrinal expositions and revolve around explicating, arguing, and defending the intricacies of what the Christian tradition ultimately has acknowledged to be an impenetrable mystery, but instead would be based on the Christians’ commitment to Scripture. Jews, conversely, would not have to assume a metaphysical position which ultimately is incompatible with the Hebrew Bible, thereby having to define Judaism against its own sacred Scriptures or the Christian tradition.66 Testament carefully differentiates between Jesus (Christ, Son) on the one hand and God (Creator, Father, God) on the other. 65 Of course, the Trinity is essentially a more “dynamic” redefinition of the concept of God, nevertheless, when it comes to Dyophysitism, where the passible human nature of Christ is affirmed as co-joined to the divine nature, the divine aspect of Jesus is shielded from any association with human limitations by consistently asserting that this union is kept inconfuse and immutabiliter. The divine aspect (and essence) is as such untouched by any of the experiences of the “human side,” and still can be affirmed as “un-dynamic,” i.e. as impassible and omnipotent etc. It is, then, not surprising that Profiat Duran can argue that the union (as suppositum) of the two natures nevertheless means that also the divinity in the one divinehuman person Jesus suffered and experienced change (despite the assertion that this union was achieved inconfusedly), see 7.3.12. 66 Wyschogrod is helpful here: “(…) too often rationalistically minded Jewish theologians have made it appear that Judaism resists incarnation on some a priori grounds as if the Jewish

9.3 Epilogue: The Central Paradox

339

While it perhaps opens the Christian (or Jewish) side to be perceived as naive or unsophisticated, it would liberate the entire interfaith dialogue. A person’s fidelity to divine Scripture, whether that is perceived to be the Christian Bible, the (dual) Torah, or the Qu’rān, surely is less contentious than compliance to Aristotle, kalam, or reason. At least it should be easier to respect, since loyalty to sacred Scripture lies mostly in the realm of personal convictions, and certainly is something every party can understand and appreciate.67 Any religious discussion, therefore, would need to be based on an honest reading and interpretation of that Scripture, rather than what is perceived to be a threat to one’s own beliefs. Of course, while a committed Christian could never read the Qu’rān as a committed Muslim, or a committed Jew appreciate the New Testament as a committed Christian, at least they would have to try to come to a fairer understanding of the other.68 The parties involved in such a debate would perhaps be able to respect the belief of the other more easily as “scriptural,” rather than having to define their own view in response to the other’s definition, which essentially just is an attempt to carve out an area of metaphysics for one’s religious persuasion. However, this scriptural reading cannot and should not exclude creedal and doctrinal considerations — for the simple reason that Scripture is intrinsically defined by tradition, and vice versa.69 More significantly, the deliberations

philosopher can somehow determine ahead of time what God can or cannot do, what is or is not possible for him, what his dignity does not allow. (…) If Judaism cannot accept incarnation it is because it does not hear this story, because the Word of God as it hears it does not tell it and because Jewish faith does not testify to it. And if the Church does accept incarnation, it is not because it somehow discovered that such an event had to occur given the nature of God, or of being, reality, or anything else, but because it hears that this was God’s free and gracious decision, a decision not predictable by humankind,” idem, “Why is the Theology of Karl Barth of Interest to a Jewish Theologian?,” in Abraham’s Promise, 211–24; here 214– 16. 67 This suggestion is similar to Peter Ochs’ (to whom this author is not related), David F. Ford’s, and Daniel W. Hardy’s “scriptural reasoning” approach, see David F. Ford, “An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims,” Modern Theology 22 (2006): 345–66; and Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene, eds., Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 68 For instance, the claim that God’s logos took on flesh in Mary’s womb (Matt 1:20, 23; John 1:14) is primarily felt to be absurd and inappropriate because of the objector’s preconceptions, and not because it is necessarily something inherently un-scriptural. In fact, within the biblical tradition, whether in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, God is not portrayed as so utterly “other” and transcendent that He should completely dissociate himself from humanity, to the contrary, He tabernacled amongst us (Exod 40:34, John 1:14). 69 Marius Reiser has aptly critiqued the notion that a sola scriptura interpretation is independent from tradition, as Scripture and the canon are essentially products of tradition (which is true not just for Christians), see his Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift, 39–62.

340

Chapter 9: Conclusion

that lead to creedal definitions were direct outcomes from what was clearly perceived as paradoxical statements in the sacred texts. Without the paradox of believing that the man Jesus was divine, which to no insignificant part stemmed from the understanding that Scripture itself revealed this to be so, further metaphysical deliberations and doctrinal fights would have been unnecessary. In fact, the Christian creedal positions themselves had been shaped by precisely the kind of questions medieval Jews raised concerning the Christian text. For the most part, their objections regarding the identity of Jesus had already been addressed in the inner-Christian debates of the first centuries after Christ. After all is said and done, and despite the general misunderstanding of each other, the fact remains that the overall discussion of the divinity of Jesus is concerned with a common, shared appreciation for a very high view of Scripture and the nature of God, who committed himself to be involved in human affairs by electing Israel as his people, and who sent his Son to be his people’s promised Messiah. If the study has shown anything, it is that Christians and Jews have debated each other precisely in those areas where they have most in common.

‫‪Appendix I‬‬

‫‪Me’ir ben Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣva:‬‬ ‫‪Reason 11 of the 15 Reasons‬‬ ‫‪Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus1‬‬ ‫האחד עשר‪ ,‬הוא שנמצא בגופו כל הנהגות גשמיות‪ ,‬שהיה קטן כשנולד כשאר קטנים לא‬ ‫נראה בגופו הפרט בינו ובין שאר הילדים‪ .‬והנה נסגד‪ 2‬ט׳ חדשים במסגד‪ 3‬הדם והחלאה ונוצר‬ ‫שם‪ ,‬וכשנולד עבר במעברת השתן והנדות‪ ,‬והוצרך לרחוץ ולהניק ובכה ושחק וישן ונעור ואכל‬ ‫ושתה ונרעב הוא ותלמידיו ויצא רעי מגופו מבאיש ומים הרעים ורוחות רעות ונבאשות‬ ‫מלמטה דרך נקביו‪.‬‬ ‫והנה מצאנו במשה ע״ה שעמד ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה‬ ‫כשהיה בהר בעוד רוח הקדש היתה שורה עליו‪ ,‬כל שכן שיש באמת להאמין שלא הוצרך‬ ‫לנקביו ולדברים אחרים נבאשים‪ ,‬וזה אם היה אמת שעצם האלהות היה בו איך הוצרך לאכול‬ ‫ולשתות ושאר צרכי הגוף‪.‬‬ ‫ועוד שישן‪ ,‬והנה כתוב ’לא ינום ולא ישן שומר ישראל‘‪ .‬ועוד שהוצרך להבריחו למצרים מפני‬ ‫פחד המלך ועמד שם עד שגדל מפני אימת המלך‪ .‬גם היה נטמן פעמים רבות אף אחר שגדל‬ ‫ושב לארץ ישראל והיה מחזיק עצמו בבן אלים על ידי מופתים ותחבולות‪ .‬ורבותינו ז״ל אמרו‬ ‫שהוא הוציא כשפים ממצרים‪ ,‬בפרק הבונה‪ ,‬במכת שבת‪ ,‬והיה עושה על ידי כשפים אותות‬ ‫שהיה מראה להמון העמים‪ .‬ובעון גיליון כתוב כי הפרושים אמרו שהיה עושה בשדי השדים‬ ‫ענינו ופעמים רבות נזדעזע ונפחד מפני יראתו שיהרגונו‪ 4‬על זה‪ .‬גם נתפלל לפני הבורא להסיר‬ ‫ממנו כוס המות ולא נתקבלה תפלתו‪ .‬גם היה מכסה לבו ומכחש מפני היראה‪ ,‬כמו שתמצא‬ ‫בספרו שלו שהוא קרא עצמו מלך‪ ,‬שהביא המקרא שכתוב בו ’הנה מלכך יבא לך‘ וגו׳ על‬ ‫עצמו‪ ,‬ובמקום אחר הודה המלכות לקיסר ואמר שינתן לקיסר מה שראוי לו מפני היראה‪ .‬גם‬ ‫נתן המכס למוכסים‪ .‬ואין זה מעשה מלך‪ ,‬כל שכן מלך המשיח‪ ,‬שהרי כל גוים יעבדוהו‪ ,‬לא‬ ‫שיעבד הוא להם ויברח מפני יראתו מהם‪.‬‬ ‫וגם שקרא ליהודה אסקיריוטה אוהבי‪ ,‬ואמר לו אוהבי למה באת‪ ,‬והנה זה לא היה אמת שהוא‬ ‫היה שונאו ובא למוסרו בעת היא‪ .‬הנה שלא היה יודע למה בא ולא היה יודע שהיה אויבו‬ ‫ומבקש רעתו והקל יתברך יודע ובוחן לבבות‪ .‬ואם תאמר שהוא היה אוהב יהודה‪ ,‬היה לו לומר‬ ‫אהובי‪ ,‬כי אוהבו משמע שיהודה היה אוהב אותו‪ ,‬והוא מסרו למות‪ .‬ועבר‪ 5‬כתוב בתורה ’לא‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪See the discussion under 1.5. The Hebrew text is taken from William K. Herskowitz,‬‬ ‫”‪“Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R. Meir HaMeili‬‬ ‫‪(Ph.D. diss.; Yeshiva University, 1974), 68–69 [Hebrew section], which is a transcription of‬‬ ‫‪Biblioteca Palatina Parma MS 2746 (De Rossi 155), ff. 26v–27v. The translation is my own.‬‬ ‫‪Robert Chazan has partially translated several of the fifteen reasons given in Milḥemet‬‬ ‫‪Miṣvah, see Daggers of Faith, 55–66. This appendix essentially gives most Jewish arguments‬‬ ‫‪against the divinity of Jesus and serves as a kind of summary.‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪.‬נסגד ‪ in place of‬נסגר ‪Read‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬במסגד ‪ in place of‬במסגר ‪Read‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪.‬יהרגונו ‪ in place of‬יהרגוהו ‪Read‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪.‬ועבר ‪ in place of‬ועוד ‪Read‬‬

342

Appendix I: Milḥemet Miẓva

,‘‫איש קל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם‘ ועוד שצעק בכאב לה׳ במותו ואמר ’קלי קלי למה עזבתני‬ ‫ נמצא שאף לא היה צדיק דכתוב ’לא ראיתי צדיק נעזב‘ נמצא שאינו‬,‫הרי שקרא עצמו נעזב‬ .‫צדיק‬

‫ גם לא יתכן לומר אם‬.‫גם נראה שהוכרח בקבלת המיתה ולא היה ברצונו כמו שהם אומרום‬ ,‫ כי הקל יתברך שומר את הכל ואינו צריך שמירה ומציל ואינו צריך הצלה‬,‫האלהות בו שיעזב‬ ‫ כמו שכתבתי‬,‫ הלא תראה‬.‫ואינו צריך לאכול ולשתות וכל שאר מצרכי הגוף כמו שכתבנו‬ ‫ כי אף הנביאים בעוד שהיה רוח הקדש בהם מתנוססת היו דומים לעליונים ולא היו‬,‫למעלה‬ ‫ שהרי משה בעמדו בהר לקחת התורה ומצות עמד מ׳ יום ומ׳ לילה‬,‫צריכים לאחר מצרכי הגוף‬ ‫ ובאליהו כתוב‬.‫לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה כל שכן שלא הוצרך לשאר הצרכים הנבאשים‬ ‫ ואם כך יקרא לאחד מן הנביאים בעת הדבק בו ונוח‬.‘‫’וילך בכח האכילה ההיא ארבעים יום‬ ‫ כל שכן אם היה דבוק בזה האלהות והיה הוא עצמו אל שלא הוצרך לכל מה‬,‫עליו הרוח‬ .‫שכתבנו‬ [Reason] eleven is that all characteristics of corporeality were found in his body: He [Jesus] was little when he was born, like [all] other little ones. There was not seen anything [special] in his body that was different between him and other children. For nine months he was enclosed in the prison of blood and refuse, and there he was made.6 When he was born, he passed through the passageway of urin and menstruation blood, and [consequently] needed to be washed and needed to nurse. He [also] cried, played, slept, awoke, ate, drank, was hungry — he and his disciples. [Also] out of his body came foul smelly things [i.e. he defecated], and foul waters [i.e. he urinated], and foul, odious winds [i.e. he flatulated] from below, by way of his external organs [lit.: “holes”].7 Now look, with Moses, peace be upon him, we find that he stayed forty days and forty nights, he did not eat bread, and he did not drink water while he was on the mountain. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was a row [of protection and comfort?] over him. All the more so [we can] safely believe that he [Moses] was in no need of [using] his external organs, or other objectionable odious matters. As to this one [Jesus], if it were true that the Divinity were within him, how was he in need of eating and drinking and all the other bodily necessities? Moreover, he slept; but look, it is written: “The Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” (Psalm 121:4). Moreover, they needed to smuggle him into Egypt out of fear of the king (Matt 2:14), and he stayed there until he grew up out of the terror of the king (Matt 2:16–20). He was also hidden many times, even after he had grown up and had returned to the land of Israel (cf. Matt 4:12, 12:15, 14:13, 15:21). And he asserted himself to be the Son of God on account of miracles and tricks. Our rabbis of blessed memory said that he brought magic from Egypt, in Pereq Boneh [ch. 12], in Tractate Shabbat [104b], and that he was doing signs by means of magic which he showed to the crowds of people. And in the gospel [a‘won gilion] it is written that the Pharisees said that he was doing his business by means of the chief of demons (Matt 9:34, 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, cf. John 7:20). And many times he was shacken, and afraid for fear they would kill him for this.8 He also prayed before the Creator to remove from him the cup of death (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42), but his prayer was not received. Also his heart was covered [i.e. he was self-deceived], and [then] he denied [it] out of fear, as you will find in his book that he called himself a king, when he cited 6

This is similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq, see Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 342. Cf. here the similar Qiṣṣa/Nestor §28, §59, §74, §82 (see 2.5.3). 8 This is again similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq, see Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 344. Herskowitz (n. 108, p. 85 [Hebrew section]) also sees a connection to Toledot Yeshu, cf. Judah D. Eisenstein, ‫אוצר ויכוחים‬: Polemics and Disputations (New York: J. D. Eisenstein, 1928), 230. 7

Reason 11 Why Jews cannot believe in Jesus

343

about himself the Scripture, “Behold, your king is coming to you” (Zech 9:9, Matt 21:4–5).9 But [then] in another place he acknowledged that the kingdom belonged to Caesar [when] he said that it should be given to Caesar what is proper to him (cf. Matt 22:21, Mark 12:17), (which he did) out of fear. He also gave the tax to the tax collectors (cf. Matt 17:27). But this is not a deed [worthy] of a king, all the more so for the King-Messiah, for it is clear that all the nations will serve him, not that he should serve them, and run away out of his fear of them. And also that he called Judas Iscariot “my lover” [i.e. friend] when he said to him “My lover, why have you come?” (cf. Matt 26:50).10 But look, this is not true, for he hated him, and at that time came to hand him over. Look, he was not someone who knew why he came, and neither was he someone who knew that he was his enemy, seeking his evil — but God, blessed be He, is the knower and tester of hearts. And if you should say that he loved Judas, he should have said “my beloved,” for “my lover” means that Judas was the one loving him, yet he is the one who handed him over to death.11 And furthermore, it is written in the Torah, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change his mind” (Num 23:19). Moreover, he cried out in pain to God during his death, and said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1, Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34). It is thus clear that he called himself forsaken [by God], and we [further] find that he was no even righteous, as it is written, “I have not seen the righteous forsaken” (Psalm 37:25), [thus] we find that he is not a righteous person. It is also appears that he was coerced when he received his death [sentence], and that [this] was not according to his will, as they are saying (cf. Matt 26:29, John 10:17–18). It is also not possible to say that he could be forsaken if the Divinity is in him, for God, blessed be He, is a guardian of all, and he does not need a protector or rescuer, and neither does he need rescuing.12 And he [also] does not need to eat, or drink, or all the other bodily necessities as we have written. Do you not see, as I have written above, that even the prophets while the Holy Spirit blew in them, that they were like heavenly beings, and were not needing [to follow] one of the bodily necessities. For it is clear that Moses, while he stayed on the mountain to receive the Torah and commandments, [that] he stayed forty days and forty nights, he did not eat bread, he did not drink water — all the more so [we can likewise affirm that] the prophets did not need [to follow] the other [bodily] necessities. In Elijah it is written, “and he

9

This is similar to Toledoth Yeshu, see Krauss, Leben Jesu, 78 (104) [MS Vindobona]. Four arguments are exclusivey based on the Gospel of Matthew, which are the flight to Egypt (Matt 2:14–20), the paying of taxes (Matt 17:27), the use of Zech 9:9 in the entry of Jerusalem (Matt 21:4–5), and Jesus’ question addressed to Judas (Matt 26:50). Especially the grammatical argument based on the latter (see below) would suggest that the author of this argument had access to a Hebrew portion of the Gospel of Matthew (the difference between the active and passive participle cannot be based on the Latin, for the Vulgate reads “amice ad quod venisti tunc accesserunt” here). 11 In Even Boḥan Matt 26:50 is ‫אהובי מה עשית‬, thereby giving the passive participle “my beloved” and avoiding the “Why” question, see Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 137 (likewise MS Plutei 2.17 and MS British Library 26,964). It is tempting to posit that this translation was motivated by the critique raised in Milḥemet Miṣvah (which then could potentially be used to further locate the translation in Even Boḥan). Du Tillet (1555) and MS Paris Heb. 132 read ‫אהובי למה באת‬, and Münster’ text (1537 and 1551) reads ‫רעה על מה באת‬ here. 12 A similar argument is in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq, see Talmage, “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” 338. 10

344

Appendix I: Milḥemet Miẓva

went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights” (1 Kings 19:8). And if it is thus said about one of the prophets at the time of being joined [with the Spirit], and the Spirit resting on him, all the more so if the Divinity was joined with this one [Jesus], and he were himself God — then he [surely] had no need for all the things we have written here?13

13

This kind of a minore ad maius argument is noteworthy, for based on Jesus’ alleged divinity and in comparison with Moses and Elijah, it is argued that Jesus ought to be less subject to bodily functions (if at all). This effectively only allows for a Docetist Christology.

Appendix II

Index & Overview of Common Polemical Arguments Page numbers in italics indicate primary source quotations.

1. Incarnation (birth and nativity) is… Unbecoming (God in the womb) 5, 6, 21, 30–31, 39, 40, 48, 53, 56, 77, 78, 80, 81, 81–82, 83–84, 85–86, 90, 99, 104–105, 118, 184, 204, 232–34, 296, 328–29, 330, 341–45 Impossible for God 5, 21, 44, 50, 56, 84, 190, 204, 330, 333–35

2. Jesus is distinctly and exclusively human since… Jesus had a human father (genealogy) 48, 49, 51, 71–89, 72–73, 74–75, 77, 90, 103, 125, 143, 177, 176, 181, 182–83, 184, 220, cf. 223–24, 255, 271, 272, 300, cf. 328 Jesus experienced bodily functions 79, 83, 85, 341–45 Jesus was afraid 40, 47, 50, 85, 114–15, 124, 145–46, 162, 163, 178, 179, 184, 191, 199–200, 201, 202, 220, 222, 227, 248, 249–50, 328, 341–45 Jesus was baptized 50, 51, 77, 103, 108, 185, 186, 220, 227 Jesus was tempted 51, 103, 110, 178, 188, 190, 220, 228–29, 268, 300, 308, 328 Jesus had to sleep/grew weary 6, 40, 47, 49, 79, 85, 148, 152, 163, 179, 191, 341–45

Jesus was hungry and ate food 6, 47, 49, 79, 83–85, 110, 119, 124, 155, 163, 178, 179, 188, 190, 191, 197, 201, 220, 221, 228–29, 246, 328, 341–45 Jesus was ignorant 111, 112, 118, 119, 124, 165, 179, 197, 198, 199, 221, 222, 238–39, 245, 246, 248, 251–52, 271, 303, 313, 314, 341–45 Jesus was inconsistent/contradicted himself/ changed his mind 79, 103, 104, 119–20, 121, 123, 142, 144, 151, 158–59, 179, 180, 192, 197, 200, 202, 203, 221, 222, 248, 274, 283–84, 300, 314, 341–45 Jesus lacked of divine ability/attributes 117, 140, 143, 160, 161, 162, 177, 179, 190, 200, 202, 220, 222, 228–29, 249–50, 270, 301, 307, 314 Jesus suffered and/or died (God cannot die) 6, 40, 79, 80, 144, 155, 192, 252–53, 280, 301, 328, 330 Other gospel figures did not think him to be God 48, 49, 69, 72, 76, 221, 236–37, 239, 242, 244, 247, 269, 307 Jesus prayed to God (generally) 46, 51, 103, 111, 112, 124–25, 145, 160, 178, 180, 194 Jesus prayed to God on the Cross 56, 62, 163, 177, 179, 191, 202, 203, 205, 222, 252–53, 254, 274, 280, 301, 312, 341–45

346

Appendix II

Jesus prayed to God in Gethsemane 46, 56, 67, 67, 85, 103, 113f, 114, 116, 117–18, 125, 144, 156, 162, 179, 199–200, 201, 249–50, 307, 312, 328, 341–45

Jesus was an evil magician 137, 238–39, 227, 236, 267, 327, 336

Jesus did not intend to be understood as divine 266, 267, 274–75, 276–77, 279–80, 281, 304

Jesus was cruel (in cursing the fig tree) 119–20, 179, 197, 201, 207, 221, 246

3. Jesus’ self understanding is exclusively human seen in…

Jesus was cursed/forsaken through crucifixion 49, 203, 203–204

Jesus’ use of the term ‘Son of Man’ 56, 57ff, 58–59, 60–61, 149, 150–51, 178, 180, 191, 192, 193, 271, 287, 300, 302, 303–304, 309, 311, 323

Jesus was drunk/a glutton 49, 53, 55, 79, 155

Jesus’ affirmation that God’s will, and his are different (Jesus submits/defers to God) 68, 117–18, 144, 147, 192, 200, 201, 202, 222, 249–50, 252–53, 301, 307, 312, 314

Jesus admits he was a sinner 177, 203

Jesus considering himself as sent/servant (prophet) 45, 46, 56, 60–61, 68ff, 69, 77, 103, 104, 180, 192, 195–96, 277, 303, 309, 311 Jesus’ affirmation that God gave to him/he received from God 120, 164, 179, 194, 206, 221, 238–39, 301, 312–13 Jesus’ affirmation that the Spirit is “more holy” (Blasphemy against the Spirit) 103, 121, 157–58, 180, 194, 221, 241–42, 302, 310 Jesus’ saying to the Rich Young Ruler 56, 65, 65–66, 159, 179, cf. 196, 270, 274, 310–11 Jesus’ saying to the sons of Zebedee 49, 77, 78, 160, 311

4. Jesus was morally questionable because… Jesus was a liar 49, 50, 142, 144, 151, 152, 192, 193

Jesus was in need of purification (baptism) 50, 79, 108f, 110, 178, 185, 186, 220

Matthew implies Jesus is flawed (women in the genealogy) 104–105, 220, 223–24

Jesus did not adhere to Jewish custom 49, 148, 178, 179

Jesus was a thief 50, 79 Jesus was nursed by a harlot 79, 83 Jesus was kissed by a harlot 79 Jesus was unclean/defiled 152 Jesus was rebellious 180

5. Miscellaneous Arguments On the abrogation of and adherence to Torah 21, 22, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 99, 100, 103, 104, 124, 159, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 197, 214, 219, 236, 262, 263, 300 There are others who are better candidates for divinity 40–41, 80, 138, 142, 188, 202, 204, 205, 220, 221, 230, 231, 232–34, 247, 341–45 Jesus failed as Messiah 142, 143, 179 On textual contradictions 48, 50, 51, 226, 236–37, 243–44, 251, 263, 281–85, 328 On the Virgin Birth 10–11, 21, 98, 220, 224, 232–34, 272, 277, cf. 328

Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments On the perpetual virginity of Mary 87–89, 128, 140, 143, 154, 178, 182, 214, 220, 224, 233–34, 300 Mary (& Jesus) not being of Davidic lineage 74, 107, 177, 178, 182–83, 184, 223–24, 272 On the Trinity 37, 42, 63–64, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108–109, 112, 117, 120, 121, 123–25, 128, 141, 145, 147, 157–58, 162, 163, 164, 165, 179–80, 184, 191–92, 194, 198, 203–204, 221, 227, 238, 241–42, 254, 262, 267, 274, 294, 296, 299, 302–304, 309, 310, 330

On the Hypostatic Union 44, 103, 279–80, 279–80, 289 On the veneration of Mary 21, 262, 263 On Original Sin 21, 85, 106, 262, 287 On Eucharist (sacrament) 262–64 On Baptism (sacrament) 262–63 On the papacy 262 Jews not culpable for Jesus’ death 249–50, 251

347

Bibliography Primary Sources and Text Editions 1. Jewish Bacher, Wilhlem. “Inedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassi’s ‘Eshkol Hakkofer’.” Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1896): 431–44. Ben Reuben, Jacob. Milḥamot ha-Shem [‫]יעקוב בן ראובן מלחמות השם‬. Edited by Judah M. Rosenthal. Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963 [Hebrew]. Berger, David. The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of Nizzahon Vetus. Northvale, N. J.: J. Aronson, 1996. — “The Nizzahon Vetus: A Critical Edition, with a Translation and Commentary on the First Part.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1970. Berlin, Anne D. “Shame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran: A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Polemic Against Christianity.” B.A. thesis, Cambridge, Mass.: Radcliffe College; Harvard University, 1987. Braude, William G., trans. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. Yale Judaica Series. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Breuer, Mordecai. Sefer Niẓẓaḥon Yashan (Niẓẓahon Vetus) — A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic [‫]ספר נצחון ישן‬. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1978 [Hebrew]. Chiesa, Bruno, and Wilfrid Lockwood. Ya‘qūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity: A translation of ‘Kitāb al-anwār,’ Book I, with two introductory essays. Judentum und Umwelt 10. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1984. Crescas, R. Ḥasdai. Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim. Edited by Daniel J. Lasker. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1990 [Hebrew]. Deutsch, David. Sefer Khizzuk Emuna, Befestigung im Glauben: Von Rabbi Jizchak Sohn Abrahams. 2nd ed. Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1873. Eisenstein, Judah D. ‫אוצר ויכוחים‬: Polemics and Disputations. New York: J. D. Eisenstein, 1928. Friedländer, Jonathan, and Jakob Kohn. Maase Efod: Einleitung in das Studium der Hebräischen Sprache von Profiat Duran [‫]מעשה אפ״ד‬. Vienna: Holzwarth, 1865. Garshowitz, Libby. “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan (Touchstone), chapters 2–10, based on MS Plutei 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from other manuscripts.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1974. Gaon, Saadia. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions: Translated from the Arabic and the Hebrew by Samuel Rosenblatt. Edited by Samuel Rosenblatt. Yale Judaica Series 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. Repr., 1976. Herskowitz, William K. “Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R. Meir HaMeili.” Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 1974. Howard, George. Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995.

350

Bibliography

— The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987. Korobkin, N. Daniel. The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith. Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1998. Krauss, Samuel. Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen. Berlin: Calvary, 1902. Lasker, Daniel. J. The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992. Lasker, Daniel J., and Sarah Stroumsa. The Polemic of Nestor the Priest: Qiṣṣat Mujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomer. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1996. Levy, Joshua. “Sefer Milhamot Hashem, Chapter Eleven: The Earliest Jewish Critique of the New Testament.” Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2004. Limor, Ora, and Israel I. Yuval. Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen: A Critical Edition. Forthcoming. Mocatta, Moses. ‫ חזוק אמונה‬or: Faith Strengthened. London: Wertheimer, 1851. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970. Murciano, Prosper. “Simon ben Zemah Duran, Keshet u-Magen: A Critical Edition.” Ph.D. diss, New York University, 1975. Niclós (Albarracín), José-Vicente and Carlos del Valle Rodríguez. Profiat Durán: Cinco Cuestiones Debatidas de Polémica, Edícion crítica bilingue con anotaciones de C. del Valle. España Judíca – Serie II: Autores Judíos de Cataluña Polémica Judeocristiana. Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1999. Perlmann, Moshe. Ibn Kammūna’s Examination of the Three Faiths: A thirteenth-century Essay in the comparative Study of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. Posnanski, Adolf. “The Reproach of the Gentiles: The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran of Perpignan in the year 1397” [‫ חיבורו מאישטרו פרופייט דוראן‬:‫ספר כלימת הגוים‬ ‫]מפירפינייאנו בשנת הקנ״ז‬. Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914): 99–113, 143–80; 4 (1915): 37–48, 81–96, 115–23 [Hebrew]. Rosenthal, Judah M. “Words of Debate from Sefer HaMeqanne” [‫דברי ויכח מתך ספר‬ ‫]המקנה‬, Qobez al Yad 8 (1975): 295–323 [Hebrew]. — “A Religious Debate between a Sage named Menahem and the Dominican friar Pablo Christiani” [‫ויכח דתי בין חכם בשם מנחם ובין המומר והנזיר הדומיניקאני פּאבלו‬ ‫]כריסטיאני‬. Pages 61–74 in vol. 3 of Hebrew Contemplation in America: Studies on Jewish Themes Vol. 3 [‫]הגות עברית באמריקה‬. Edited by Menahem Zohori. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1974 [Hebrew]. — “Sections of a Debate” [‫]פרקי ויכוח‬. Pages 353–95 in vol. 3 of Shalom Baron/Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume — Hebrew Section [– ‫ספר היובל לכבוד שלום בארון‬ ‫]חלק עברי‬. Edited by S. Lieberman and A. Hyman. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974 [Hebrew]. — “A Jewish Criticism of the New Testament from the Thirteenth Century” [‫בקורת יהודית‬ ‫]של הברית החדשה מן המאה הי״ג‬. Pages 123–39 [Hebrew section] in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in honor of I. Edward Kiev. Edited by C. Berlin. New York: Ktav, 1971 [Hebrew]. — Sepher Joseph Hamekane – Auctore R. Joseph b. R. Nathan Official (saec. XIII) Ex manu scriptis edidit et notis instruxit Judah Rosenthal [‫]ספר יוסף המקנא‬. Jerusalem: Meqiṣe Nirdamim, 1970 [Hebrew]. Simon, Stanislaus. Moses ben Salomon von Salerno und seine philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit den Lehren des Christentums. Ohlau i. Schl.: H. Eschenhagen, 1931. Stroumsa, Sarah. Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ’s ‘Twenty Chapters’ (‘Ishrūn Maqala). Leiden: Brill, 1989.

Bibliography

351

Talmage, Frank E., ed. The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran: The Reproach of the Gentiles and ‘Be not like unto thy Fathers’ [‫כתבי פולמוס לפרופיט דוראן כלימת הגוים ואיגרת‬ ‫]אל תהי באבותיך‬. “Kuntresim:” Texts and Studies 55. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center and The Dinur Center, 1981 [Hebrew]. — The Book of the Covenant and other Writings [‫ וויכוחי רד״ק עם הנצרות‬:‫]ספר הברית‬. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1974 [Hebrew]. — The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimhi. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972. — “An Hebrew Polemical Treatise: Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 323–48.

2. Muslim Al-Jāḥiẓ, ‘Amr b. Baṛ. “Al-Radd ‘alā al-naṣārā.” Pages 10–38 in Thalāth Rasā’il — Three Essays of Abū ‘Uthmān ‘Amr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ. Edited by Joshua Finkel. Cairo: Al-Matbaʻah al-Salafīyah, 1926. Repr. 1962 [Arabic]. Chidiac, Robert. Al Ghazali: Une Réfutation excellente de la divinité de Jésus-Christ d’après les Èvangile. Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études: Sciences religieuses 54. Paris: Leroux, 1939. Fletcher, Charles D. “Anti-Christian polemic in early Islam: A translation and analysis of Abū‘Uthmān ‘Amr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ’s risāla: Radd ‘alā al-Naṣārā (A reply to the Christians).” MA thesis, Montreal: McGill University, 2002. Ibn al-Layth. “Risālat Abī Rabī‘ Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā ilā Qusṭanṭīn malik al-Rūm.” Pages 252–324 in vol. 3 of Jamharat rasā’il al-‘Arab fī ‘uṣūr al-‘arabiyya l-zāhira: Al-‘aṣr al-‘Abbāsī l-awwal. Edited by Aḥmad Zakī Ṣafwat. 4 vols. Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1937 [Arabic]. Sourdel, Dominique. “Un pamplet musulman anonyme d’époque ‘abbāside contre chrétiens.” Revue des études islamiques 34 (1966): 1–33. Wilms, Franz-Elmar. Al–Ghazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

3. Pagan Berchman, Robert M. Porphyry Against the Christians. Ancient Mediterranean And Medieval Texts and Contexts 1. Leiden: Brill, 2005. De Lacy, Phillip. Galen: On Semen. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992. Julian. Against the Galileans. Pages 319–427 in vol. 3 of The Works of the Emperor Julian. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. London: W. Heinemann, 1923. — To Photinus. Pages 187–90 in vol. 3 of The Works of the Emperor Julian. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. London: William Heinemann, 1923. Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Julian’s “Against the Galileans.” Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004. — Celsus: On the True Doctrine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Lona, Horacio E. Die »Wahre Lehre des Kelsos«: Übersetzt und erklärt von Horacio E. Lona. Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten. Ergänzungsband 1. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.

352

Bibliography

4. Christian Alfonsi, Petrus. Dialogue against the Jews. Translated by Irven M. Resnick. Fathers of the Church Medieval Continuation 8. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2006. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros, 1947. — Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels — Vol. I. Part II. 2nd ed. Edited by John Henry (Newman) and James Parker. Oxford: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1864. Beeson, Charles H. Hegemonius: Acta Archelai. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 16. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906. Bezold, Carl. Kebra Nagast: Die Herrlichkeit der Könige. Königliche Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Abhandlungen. Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 23.1. Munich: G. Franz, 1909. Bliemetzrieder, Franz. Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919. Chadwick, Henry. Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Crispin, Gilbert. The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster. Edited by Anna Sapir Abulafia and G. R. Evans. Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8. London: British Academy; Oxford University Press, 1986. De Lagarde, Paul. Aegyptiaca. Göttingen: D. A. Hoyer, 1883. Repr., Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1972. De Lyre, Nicolas. Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam. 1331. First printed in Rome: Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz, 1470. Driver, Godfrey R., and Leonard Hodgson. Nestorius: The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925. Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Sects 1–46). 2nd rev. ed. Translated by Frank Williams. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Evans, Ernest. Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De Carne Christi Liber: Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation. London: SPCK, 1956. Harvey, W. Wigan. Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Luodunensis: Libros quinque adversus Haereses. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857. Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham. Popular Patristics Series 23. Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Edited by Michael Slusser. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Rev. by Thomas P. Halton. Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2003. Lahey, Lawrence L. “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-critical Study.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2000. Loofs, Friedrich. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1905. McCarthy, Carmel. St. Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Prudentius. Prudentius with an English Translation by H. J. Thomson. Loeb Classical Library. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann, 1949. Rabanus Maurus, Expositio in Matthaeum (I–IV). Edited by Bengt Löfstedt. Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio mediaevalis 174. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

Bibliography

353

Resnick, Irvin M. On Original Sin and a Disputation with the Jew, Leo, Concerning the Advent of Christ, the Son of God: Theologiocal Treatises, Odo of Tournai. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Robinson, Forbes. Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Texts and Studies 4.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Steenberg, Irenaeus M. C., and Dominic J. Unger. St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies (Book 3). Ancient Christian Writers 64. Mahwah, N.J.: The Newman Press, 2012. Varner, William. Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athansius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila. Introduction, Texts and Translations. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. Vermes, Mark J. Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelai). Manichaean Studies 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Wagenseil, Johann C. Tela Ignea Satanae. Altdorf: Joh. Henricus Schönnerstædt, 1681. Repr., Jerusalem: Akademon, 1965, 1968; Farnborough: Gregg, 1970; Jerusalem: L. Achim, 2001. Wycliffe, John. De eucharistia tractus major. Edited by John Loserth. London: Trübner, 1892.

Secondary Literature Accad, Martin. “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Century: An exegetical inventory.” Islam and Christian Relations 14 (2003): 67–91, 205–20, 337–52, 459–79. Abramowski, Luise and Alan E. Goodman. A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts Volume II: Introduction, Translation, Indexes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Abulafia, Anna Sapir. Christian–Jewish Relations: 1000–1300. Harlow: Pearsons, 2011. — Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives. New York: Palgrave, 2002. — Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. London: Routledge, 1995. Adler, Michael. “The Emperor Julian and the Jews.” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893): 591– 651. Akhiezer, Golda. “The Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and his ‘Polemics against the Rabbanites.’” Pages 437–68 in Tradition, Heterodoxy and Religious Culture: Judaism and Christianity in the Early Modern Period. Edited by Chanita Goodblatt and Howard Kreisel. The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006. Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Al-Makarim, Abu. The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries attributed to Abû Ṣâliḥ, the Armenian. Edited and translated by B.T.A. Evetts. Anectoda Oxoniensa. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895.

354

Bibliography

Alexander, Philip. “The Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate.” Pages 137– 58 in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo. “Gabriel, Archangel.” Pages 1135a–1137b in vol. 4 of the Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1991. Atiya, Aziz Suryal. “Abu al-Marakim.” Pages 1:23a–23b in vol. 1 of the Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1991. Avneri, Zvi. “Abner of Burgos.” Pages 264–65 in vol. 1 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. — Ed. Germania Judaica Band II: Von 1238 bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Bacher, Wilhelm. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Tradtionsliterature. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899, 1905. Baer, Yitzhak. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971. Baltes, Guido. Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Hintergrund der Evangelien. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/312. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Bammel, Ernst. “Der Jude des Celsus.” Pages 265–83 in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. — “Excerpts from a new Gospel?” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 1–9. Repr., pages 239– 46 in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. — “Jesus und ein anderer.” Pages 157–74 in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. — “Die Versuchung Jesu nach einer jüdischen Quelle.” Pages 253–56 in Judaica: Kleine Schriften I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Banitt, Menahem. Rashi: Interpreter of the Biblical Letter. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1985. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “The Hand of God: A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism.” Pages 321– 35 in Rashi 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach. Congrès Européen des études juives. Edited by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna. Paris: Cerf, 1993. Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littman). The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Rev. and enl. English ed. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Press, 1985. Battenberg, Friedrich. Das Europäische Zeitalter der Juden: Von den Anfängen bis 1650. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000. Batto, Bernard F. “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty.” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–77. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. — Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Bauer, Walter. Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1909. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967. Beaumont, I. Mark. Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries. Regnum Studies In Mission. Carlisle: Paternoster: 2005.

Bibliography

355

Becker, Eve-Marie, and Anders Runesson, eds. Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Becker, Hans-Jürgen. “Matthew, the Rabbis and Billerbeck on the Kingdom of Heaven.” Pages 57–69 in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting. Edited by Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer. Paris: Gabalda, 2005. — Review of Daniel J. Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa, “The Polemic of Nestor the Priest: Qiṣṣat Mujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomer.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 148 (1998): 406–409. Beinart, Haim, and Zvi Avneri. “Ferrer, Vicente.” Page 764 in vol. 6 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Bekkum, W. Jac. van. “Anti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (piyyuṭ) of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries.” Pages 297–308 in Early Christian Poetry: A Collection of Essays. Edited by J. den Boeft and A. Hilthorst. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 22. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ben-Sasson, Haim H. A History of the Jewish People. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976. Ben-Sasson, Haim H., Yehuda Slutsky, and Dina Porat. “Blood Libel.” Pages 774–89 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Ben-Shalom, Ram. “Between Official and Private Dispute: The Case of Christian Spain and Provence in the Late Middle Ages.” Association for Jewish Studies Review (2003): 23–71. Berger, David. Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010. — “Jewish-Christian Polemics.” Pages 7230–36 in vol. 11 of The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. 15 vols. Edited by Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. — “On the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Pages 25–39 in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi. Edited by Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron, and David N. Myers. Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1998. — “Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages.” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 576–91. — “Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): 287–303. — “Gilbert Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben: A Study in Transmission of Medieval Polemic.” Speculum 49 (1974): 34–47. Berger, David, and Michael Wyschogrod, Jews and “Jewish Christianity.” New York: Ktav, 1978. Repr., 2002. Berger, Samuel. “Nouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provençales et catalanes.” Romania 19 (1890): 505–61. Biale, David. “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity: The Sefer Toldot Yeshu and the Sefer Zerubavel.” Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999): 130–45. Bindley, T. Herbert, and F. W. Green. The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. 4th ed. London: Methuen, 1950. Biscioni, Antonio Maria. Bibliotheca Ebraicae, Graecae Florentinae sive Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianae Catalogus. 2 vols. Florence: Ex Caesareo Typographio, 1757. — Bibliotheca Medio-Laurentiana Catalogus Tomus Primus: Codices Orientales. Florence: Ex imperiali typographio, 1752.

356

Bibliography

Blastenbrei, Peter. Johann Christoph Wagenseil und seine Stellung zum Judentum. Erlangen: H. Fischer, 2004. Blau, Joshua. The Emergence and linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Middle-Arabic. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1981. Bloch, Renée. “Quelques aspects de la figure de Moïse dans la tradition rabbinique.” Pages 93–167 in Moïse, l’homme de l’alliancy. Edited by H. Cazelles. Tournai: Desclée de Brouwer, 1955. Blumenkranz, Bernhard. “Dauphiné.” Pages 441–43 in vol. 5 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. — “France.” Pages 146–70 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. — “Nicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reuben.” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 47–51. Repr. in Juifs et Chrétiens Patristique et Moyen Age. London: Variorum, 1977. Chapter XVII (no pagination). — Les Auteurs Chrétiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaïsme. Études Juives 4. Paris: Mouton, 1963. — Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental: 430–1096. Études juives 2. Paris: Mouton, 1960, Repr., Leuven: Peeters, 2006. — “Die jüdischen Beweisgründe im Religionsgespräch mit den Christen in den christlichlateinischen Sonderschriften des 5. bis 11 Jahrhunderts.” Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948): 119–47. Repr. in chapter XIX (no pagination) in Les Auteurs Chrétiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaïsme. Études Juives 4. Paris: Mouton, 1963. Bockmuehl, Markus. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakha and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Bobichon, Philippe. “La Bible dans les œuvres de controverse judéo-chrétienne (IIe-XVIIIe siècles): entre texte révélé et littérature.” Pages 69–97 in De la Bible à la littérature. Edited by Jean-Christophe Attias and Pierre Gisel. Religions en perspective 15. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2003. Bowman, Robert M., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Boyarin, Daniel. Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: The New Press, 2012. — “How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus.” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 51–76. Brayer, Menachem M. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Ktav, 1986. Briggman, Anthony. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Broydé, Isaac. “Nathan ben Joseph Official.” Pages 269–270 in vol. 7 of The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Ktav; London: Funk Wagnalls, 1901–1906. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1994. — The Birth of the Messiah. Updated ed. Yale: Yale University Press, 1993. — Jesus: God and Man. New York: Macmillian, 1967. Budny, Syzmon, and Marcin Czechowic. Trzech dni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie. Łosk, 1578. Burkett, Delbert R. The Son of Man Debate: A History of Evaluation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

357

Burnett, Stephen G. “Later Christian Hebraists.” Pages 785–801 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Burrell, David B. Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986. Burton, Robert. The Anatomy of Melancholy. Edited by Democritus Junior. 3 vols. New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1880. Bynum, Caroline W. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity: 200–1336. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. — “Images of the Resurrection Body in the Theology of Late Antiquity.” Catholic Historical Review 80 (1994): 215–37. Cabaniss, Allen. “Bodo-Eleazar: A Famous Jewish Convert.” Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1953): 313–28. Capua, Angelo di. “Catalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele.” In Cataloghi dei Codici Orientali di alcune Biblioteche d’Italia. Vol. 1. Florence, 1878. Carlton Paget, James C. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. — “The Four among the Jews.” Pages 267–86 in Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. First published in pages 205–21 in The Written Gospel. Edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005. Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the Son of Man Problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2007. Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Chazan, Robert. Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2010. — The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. — Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. — Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. — “Joseph Kimhi’s ‘Sefer Ha-Berit’: Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologetics.” Harvard Theological Review 85 (1992): 417–32. — Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. — “The Christian Position in Jacob ben Reuben’s Milhamot Ha-Shem.” Pages 151–70 in vol. 2 of From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, Nahum M. Sarna. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. — “The Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239–1248).” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 55 (1988): 11–30. — “Polemical Themes in the Milḥemet Miẓvah.” Pages 169–84 in Les Juifs au regard de l’histoire: Mélange en l’honneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz. Edited by Gilbert Dahan. Paris: Picard, 1985. — Alfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizing.” Revue des études juives 143 (1984): 83–94.

358

Bibliography

— “A Medieval Hebrew Polemical Melange.” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 89– 110. — “Confrontation in the Synagogue of Narbonne: A Christian Sermon and a Jewish Reply.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 437–57. — “Anti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the Jewish Response.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 41/42 (1973–1974): 45–67. — Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and Social History. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1973. — “1007–1012: Initial Crisis for Northern European Jewry.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 38/39 (1970): 101–117. — “The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organization.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968): 13–31. Chernus, Ira. Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Chester, Andrew. “High Christology — Whence, When and Why?” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 22–50. Chilton, Bruce D. “The Transfiguration Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 115–24. Chokr, Melhem. Zandaqa et zindīqs en Islām au second siècle de l’hégire. Damascus: Institut Français des Études Arabes de Damas, 1993. Christensen, Michael J., and Jeffery A. Wittung. Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Tradition. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. Cohen, Jeremy. Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. — Sanctifying the Name of God : Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. — Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in medieval Christianity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. — “Medieval Jews on Christianity: Polemical Strategies and Theological Defense.” Pages 77–89 in Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians through the Ages. Edited by Eugene J. Fischer. Studies in Judaism and Christianity. Mahwah, N.J.: Stimulus Foundation; Paulist Press, 1993. — “Profiat Duran’s The Reproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Christian Polemic.” Pages 71–84 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume: Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period. Edited by Daniel Carpi et al. Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University; Rav Chen, 1993. — “Toward a Functional Classification of Jewish Anti-Christian Poelmic in the High Middle Ages.” Pages 93–114 in Religionsgespräche im Mittelalte. Edited by Bernhard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner. Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992. — Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. New York: New York University Press, 1991. — The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism. 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983. — “The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars.” Traditio 39 (1983): 1–27. Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Bibliography

359

Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity? A Comparison of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shor.” Pages 249–72 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. — Review of George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Bible Review 4 (June 1988): 8–9. Collins, Adele Yarbro, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Cook, John G. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Studien und Texte zu Antiken und Christentum 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Cotton, Hannah M. “The Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian κατ’ οἰκίαν ἁπογραφή.” Pages 105–22 in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine Edited by L. H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Courbage, Youssef and Philippe Fargues. Christians and Jews under Islam. London: I. B. Tauris, 1997. Cragg, Kenneth. The Arab Christian: A History im the Middle East. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Cramer, Peter. Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–1150. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life & Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Czechowic, Marcin. Rozmowy Christyanskie. Roku: Alexius Rodeck, 1575. Dán, Robert. “Das Problem des jüdischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewegung des 16. Jahrhunderts.” Pages 19–32 in Der Einfluß der Unitarier auf die europäischamerikanische Geistesgeschichte. Edited by W. Deppert, W. Erdt, and Aart de Groor. Unitarismusforschung 1. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1990. — “Isaac Troky and his ‘Antitrinitarian’ Sources.” Pages 69–82 in Occident and Orient: A tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber. Edited by R. Dán. Leiden: Brill; Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1988. Dapaah, Daniel S. The Relationship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth: A Critical Study. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2005. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume I: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I–VII. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London: T&T Clark, 2004. — The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume II: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII–XVIII. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London: T&T Clark, 2004. — The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume III: Commentary on Matthew The Gospel According to Saint Matthew XIX–XXVIII. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. De Lange, Nicholas. “Origins of Anti-Semitism.” Pages 21–37 in Anti Semitism in Times of Crisis. Edited by Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz. New York: New York University Press, 1991. — “A Fragment of Byzantine Anti–Christian Polemic.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 92–100. De Lubac, Henri. Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–2009.

360

Bibliography

Deines, Roland. “Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus? A Review of the Pope’s Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debate.” Pages 199–232 in The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church. Edited by Adrian Pabst and Angus Paddison. London: SCM, 2009. A longer version of this article is published in Didaskalia 39 (2009): 11–46. — “Das Erkennen von Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte bei Matthäus.” Pages 403–441 in Heil und Geschichte: Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heilsgeschichte in der biblischen Tradition und in der theologischen Deutung. Edited by Jörg Frey, Stefan Krauter, and Hermann Lichtenberger. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. — “Die Verwendung der Bergpredigt im ältesten erhaltenen Text der jüdischen AdversusChristianos-Literatur.” Pages 372–400 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte — Grenzen — Beziehungen. Edited by Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. — “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew — An Ongoing Debate.” Pages 53–84 in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. — Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 2004. Denzinger, Heinrich, and Adolf Schönmetzer. Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. 35th ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. DeVine, Charles F. “The Blood of God in Acts 20:28.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947): 381–408. Dietrich, Ernst Ludwig. “Das jüdisch-christliche Religionsgespräch am Ausgang des 16. Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuch des R. Isaak Troki.” Judaica 14 (1958): 1–38. Donaldson, Terrence L. Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations. London: SPCK, 2010. Dörnyei, Zoltán. “Transfiguration, Beauty and Biblical Interpretation.” M.A. diss., University of Nottingham, 2011. Dudenberg, Ismo. “The School of Valentinus.” Pages 64–99 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics.’ Edited by Anti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen; Leiden: Brill, 2008. Dunn, Geoffrey D. Tertullian. The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 2004. Dunn, James D. G. Did the first Christians worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. London: SPCK, 2010. — Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. — Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1989. Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel & The Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Edwards, John. “New Light on the Converso Debate? The Jewish Christianity of Alfonso de Cartagena and Juan de Torquemada.” Pages 311–26 in Cross, Crescent and Conversion. Edited by Simon Barton and Peter Linehan. The Medieval Mediterranean 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ehrman, Albert. “When Was the ‘Sefer Nitzakhon’ Written?” Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978): 154–57. — “The Sefer Nitzahon: A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaism.” Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974.

Bibliography

361

Eidelberg, Shlomo. The Jews and the Crusaders: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusade. Madison: The University of Wisconsin, 1977. El Kaisy-Friemuth, Maha. “Al-Ghazālī.” Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brill Online. — “Al-Radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat ʿĪsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīl.” Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brill Online. — “Al-radd al-jamīl: Ghazālī’s or pseudo Ghazālī’s?” Pages 275–95 in The Bible in Arab Christianity. Edited by David Thomas. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Elliott, James K. The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Emery, Richard W. “New Light on Profayt Duran ‘The Efodi’.” Jewish Quarterly Review 58 (1968): 328–37. — Heresy and Inquisition in Narbonne. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. Repr., New York: AMS, 1967. Esbroeck, Michel van. “Le manuscript hébreux Paris 755 et l’histoire des martyrs de Nedjran.” Pages 25–30 in La Syrie de Byzance à Islam, VIIe – VIIIe siécles: Actes du colloque international “De Byzance à l'islam.” Edited by P. Canvivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais. Damas: Institut français de Damas, 1992. — “Der von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Verfolgung von seiten Dū Nuwās.” Pages 105–15 in Ausgewählte Vorträge: XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Edited by Werner Diem and Abdoldjavad Falaturi. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft: Supplementband 8. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990. Evans, Craig A. “Jewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew: Observations on three recent Publications.” Mishkan 38 (2003): 70–79. Fassler, Margoth E. Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustine Reform in twelfth-century Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Feldmeier, Reinhard. Die Krisis des Gottessohnes: Die Gethsemaneerzählung als Schlüssel der Markuspassion. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Firpo, Massimo. Antitrinitari nell’Europa orientale del ’500: Nuovi testi di Szymon Budny, Niccolò Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo. Florence: La nuova Italia, 1977. Fisher, J.D.C. Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West. Alcuin Club Collections 47. London: SPCK, 1965. Fleischer, Heinrich L. “Über eine jüdisch-arabische Streitschrift gegen das Christentum.” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 34 (1882), 57–75. Repr. pages 167–86 in Kleinere Schriften: Vol. 3. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883. Fleischmann, Stefan. Szymon Budny: Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weißrussischen Humanisten und Unitariers (ca. 1530–1593). Cologne: Böhlau, 2006. Flusser, David. Jesus. 3d ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001. Ford, David F. “An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims.” Modern Theology 22 (2006): 345–66. Fossum, Jarl E. “Ascensio, Metamorphosis: The ‘Transfiguration’ of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 71–94 in The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Frank, Daniel. Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

362

Bibliography

Frankenmölle, Hubert. “Antijudaismus im Matthäusevangelium? Reflexionen zu einer angemessenen Auslegung.” Pages 168–98 in Studien zum jüdischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Theologie. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Neues Testament 37. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Frey, Jörg. “Zur Vielgestaltigkeit judenchristlicher Evangelienüberlieferungen.” Pages 93– 137 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testamen I.254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. — “Die Scholien nach dem jüdischen Evangelium und das sogenannte Nazo-räerevangelium.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 94 (2003): 122–37. Freyne, Séan. “Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and John’s Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus.” Pages 117–43 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us:” Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, Cal.: Scholar, 1985. Frick, David A. “Szymon Budny and Sacred Philology: Between East and West.” Pages 309– 49 in Vol. 3 of Biblia Slavica. Series II: Polnische Bibeln. Vol. 3. Budny: Part 2 (commentary). Edited by R. Olesch and H. Rothe. Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1994. — Polish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Frimer, Norman (Nachman) E., and Dov Schwartz. The Life and Thought of Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut [‫ כתביו הגותו של ר׳ שם טוב אבן שפרוט‬,‫ דמותו‬:‫]הגות בצל האימה‬. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1992 [Hebrew]. Funkenstein, Amos. “Polemics, Responses and Self-Reflection.” Pages 170–219 in Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. — “Reflections on Anti-Judaism 3: Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewis Polemics in the Late Middle Ages.” Viator 2 (1972): 373–82. — “Changes in Patterns of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Century” [‫]התמורות בווכוח הדת שבין יהודים לנוצרים במאה הי״ב‬. Zion 33 (1968): 125–44 [Hebrew]. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd ed. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. London: Sheed & Ward, 1989. Gager, John G. “Did Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islam?” Pages 361–72 in The Ways that Never Parted. Edited by Adam H. Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. — The Roots of Anti Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Garshowitz, Libby. Review of José-Vicente Niclós, Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ: “La Piedra de Toque” (Eben Bohan): Una Obra de Controversia Judeo-Cristiana. Jewish Quarterly Review 90 (2000): 457–65. — “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ’s Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 299–306 in vol. 1 of The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume. Edited by Barry Walfish. Jewish History 6. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. — “Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut’s Even Bohan (Touchstone), chapters 2–10, based on MS Plutei 2.17 (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from other manuscripts.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1974. Gaon, Solomon. The Influence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the Pentateuch Commentary of Isaac Abravanel. New York: Ktav, 1993. Gathercole, Simon J. The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Bibliography

363

Gaudeul, Jean-Marie. Encounters and Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History. 2 vols. Studi arabo-islamici del PISAI 15. Rome: Pontificio istituto di studi arabici e islamici, 2000. Gebhardi, Brandanus Henricus. Centum Loca Novi Testamenti, quae R. Isaac ben Abraham, in suo ‫ חזוק אמונה‬i.e. Munimine Fidei depravaverat, vindicata. Greifswald: Litteris Danielis Benjaminis Starckii, 1699. Geiger, Abraham. “Isaak Troki: Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts.” Pages 178–223 in vol. 3 of Abraham Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften. Edited by Ludwig Geiger. 5 vols. Berlin: Louis Gerschel, 1876. Gero, Stephen. “The Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth Yeshu.” Oriens christianus 59 (1975): 108–20. Glöckner, Richard. Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen: Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Verwandtschaft zwischen neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen. Walberberger Studien der Albertus-Magnus-Akademie. Theologische Reihe 13. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1983. Golb, Norman. The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A social and intellectual history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. — Jewish Proselytism: A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early Medieval Europe. The Tenth Annual Robbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture. Cincinnati: Judaic Studies Program, University of Cincinnati, 1987. — “New Light on the Persecution of French Jews at the Time of the First Crusade.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 34 (1966): 1–63. Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: Macmillan, 1950. Gondreau, Paul. The Passions of Christ’s Soul in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Repr., Scranton: Scranton Press, 2008. Gousset, Jaques. Jesu Christi Evangeliique veritas salutifera, demonstrata in confutatione libi Chizzuk Emunah a R. Isaaco scripti. Edited by Arnold Borst. Amsterdam: J. Borstius, 1712. — Controversiam adversus Judaeos ternio. Dordrecht: Ex Officina Viduae Caspari & Theodori Goris, 1688. Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden: Von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. 4th ed. 11 vols. Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1897. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century: 1198–1254. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1933. — “The Papal bull Sicut Iudeis.” Pages 243–80 in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neumann. Edited by Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin. Leiden: Brill; Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1962. Grayzel, Solomon and Kenneth Stow. The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century: 1254– 1314. Vol. 2. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989. Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition: Volume 2 — From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604): Part Four. Translated by O.C. Dean. London: Mowbray, 1996. — [Alois]. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Band 1 — Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451). 3d ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1990. — Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). Translated by John S. Bowden. London: Mowbray, 1965. Grindheim, Sigurd. God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? Library of New Testament Studies 446. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Gross, Heinrich. Gallia Judaica: Dictionnaire géographique de la France d’après les sources rabbiniques. Paris: L. Cerf, 1897.

364

Bibliography

Grossman, Avraham. “The Commentary of Rashi on Isaiah and the Jewish-Christian Debate.” Pages 47–62 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan. Edited by David Engel, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Eliot R. Wolfson. Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. — “The Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis in the Twelfth-Century France” [‫הפולמוס היהודי־הנוצרי והפרשנות היהודית למקרא בצרפת במאה י״ב )לפרשת‬ (‫]זיקתו של ר״י קרא אל הפולמוס‬. Zion 51 (1986): 29–60 [Hebrew]. Gundry, Robert H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gutwirth, Eleazar (Eliezer). “Conversions to Christianity amongst fifteenth-century Spanish Jews: An alternative Explanation.” Pages 97–121 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume: Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period. Edited by Daniel Capri et al. Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University; Rav Chen, 1993. — “Religion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon: An Aspect of Profayt Duran’s Activities.” Michael 12 (1991): 142–45. — “History and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish thought.” Helmantica 35 (1984): 231–42. Hagner, Donald A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus: An analysis & critique of the modern Jewish study of Jesus. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 1997. Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Halkin, Abraham Solomon. “Saadiah (ben Joseph) Gaon.” Pages 606–14 in vol. 17 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Hamilton, Jr., James M. “‘The Virgin Will Conceive’ Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18–23.” Pages 228–47 in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Hamori, Esther J. When Gods where Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hanson, Richard P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Harnack, Adolf. “Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth. 5,17) in der ältesten Kirche: Eine Skizze.” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1912): 184–207. Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. Hengel, Martin. Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. Leiden: Brill, 1961. 2nd rev. ed. 1976. 3rd rev. and republished ed. by Roland Deines and Claus-Jürgen Thornton. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/283; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. — “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1.” Pages 281–367 in Studien zur Christologie: Kleine Schriften IV. Edited by ClausJürgen Thornton. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/201. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Bibliography

365

— “Die ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelien.” Pages 99–117 in Beim Wort nehmen — die Schrift als Zentrum für kirchliches Reden und Gestalten: Friedrich Mildenberger zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Michael Krug, Ruth Lödel, and Johannes Rehm. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Repr., pages 702–724 in Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V. Edited by Claus-Jürgen Thornton. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/211. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. — “Jesus, the Messiah of Israel: The Debate about the ‘Messianic Mission’ of Jesus.” Pages 323–49 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1999. — “Jesus the Messiah of Israel.” Pages 1–72 in Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. — “‘Sit at my right hand!’” Pages 119–225 in Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. — The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. — “‘Christos’ in Paul.” Pages 65–77 and 179–88 in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in Earliest Christology. London: SCM, 1983. — The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1976. Herford, R. Travers. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. London: Williams & Norgate, 1903. Heer, Joseph M. Die Stammbäume Jesu nach Matthäus und Lukas. Biblische Studien 15.1/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1910. Herbst, Adolf. Des Shemtob ben Schaprut hebraeische Übersetzung des Evangliums Matthaei nach den Drucken des S. Münster und J. Du Tillet-Mercier neu herausgegeben. Göttingen: Dietrich, 1879. Hofius, Otfried. “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b.” Pages 38–56 in Neutestamentliche Studien. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. — “Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther 3: Hartmut Gese zum 60. Geburtstag.” Pages 75–120 in Paulusstudien. Band I. 2nd ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Holmén, Tom. “Jesus’ Inverse Strategy of Ritual (Im)purity and the Ritual Purity of Early Christians.” Pages 15–32 in Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context: Papers from the EABS-Meeting in Piliscsaba/Budapest. Edited by Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 54. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Hood, Jason B. The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations (Matt 1.1–17). Library of New Testament Studies 441. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Hood, John Y. B. Aquinas and the Jews. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Horbury, William. “The Strasbourg Text of the Toledoth Yeshu.” Pages 49–59 in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. — “Die jüdischen Wurzeln der Christologie.” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 5–21. — “The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Boḥan.” Pages 729–38 in Matthew 19–28: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, by W. Davies and Dale C. Allison. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

366

Bibliography

— Hebrew apologetic and polemical literature.” Pages 189–209 in Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World. Edited by Nicholas De Lange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. — “The Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Study.” Pages 106–31 in Hebrew Study From Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. — Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. — “The Basle Nizzahon.” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 497–514. Repr. and rev. in pages 243–261 in Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. — “The Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut’s Eben Bohan.” Sefarad 43 (1983): 221–37. — Review of David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages. Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 329–37. — “The Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 19–61. — “The Trial of Jesus in Jewish Tradition.” Pages 103–121 in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C.F.D. Moule. Edited by Ernst Bammel. Studies in Biblical Theology 2.13. London: SCM, 1970. — “A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshu.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1970. Horowitz, Elliot. “‘And It is Turned Around:’ Jews against their Enemies in the Festivities of Purim” [ ‫ יהודים מול שונאיהם בחגיגות הפורים‬:‫]׳נוהפוך הוא׳‬. Zion 59 (1994): 129–68 [Hebrew]. Horst, Pieter Willem van der. “Birkat ha-Minim in recent research?” Pages 113–24 in Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity. Essays on Their Interaction. 2nd ed. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 8. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. First published in The Expository Times 105 (1993–94): 363–68. Howard, George. “Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew: A Literary, Textual, and Theological Profile.” Pages 177–234 in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995. — “The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 239–57. — “The Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthew.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 49–63. Hughes, Peter. “In the footsteps of Servetus: Biandrata, David, and the Quran.” Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 31 (2006): 57–63. — “Servetus and the Quran.” Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005): 55–70. Hulen, Amos B. “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 58–70. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. — Lord Jesus Christ — Devotion in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hurtado, Larry W., and Paul L. Owen. ‘Who is this son of man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Library of New Testament Studies 390. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011. Instone-Brewer, David. “Balaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotations in Matthew 2.” Pages 207–37 in Built Upon a Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Isaac, Jules. Jesus and Israel. Translated by Sally Gran. Edited by Claire Huchet Bishop. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.

Bibliography

367

Jacob, Irving. The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature. London: W. C. Luzac, 1886–1903. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. Johansson, Daniel. “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark: Unity and Distinction.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2012. Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Jordan, William C. The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip August to the Last Capetians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989. Jouassard, Georges. “L’abandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition Greque des IV et V siècles.” Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925): 609–33. — “L’abandon du Christ d’après saint Augustin.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 13 (1923): 310–26. Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Jüngel, Eberhard. “Vom Tode des Lebendigen Gottes.” Pages 105–25 in Unterwegs zur Sache: Theologische Bemerkungen. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 61. Munich: Kaiser, 1988. Kahn, Zadoc. “Étude sur le livre de Joseph le Zélateur.” Revue des études juives 1 (1880): 222–46; 3 (1881): 1–38. Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision. New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1998. Kannengisser, Charles. Arius and Athanasius: Two Alexandrian Theologians. Collected Studies 353. Aldershot: Variorum, 1991. — “Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis.” Pages 204–15 in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Edited by Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Repr. in Arius and Athanasius: Two Alexandrian Theologians. Collected Studies 353. Aldershot: Variorum, 1991. Kaplan, Joseph. “Pablo de Santa Maria.” Pages 563–63 in vol. 15 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Kasher, Rimon. “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 547–94 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder, and Harry Sysling. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. Katz, Jacob. Exclusiveness and Tolerance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Kealy, Seán P. Matthew’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation: Book 1. Mellen Biblical Press Series 55a. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997. Kehrer, Hugo. Die Heiligen drei Könige in Literatur und Kunst: Erster Teil. Leizpig: E. A. Seeman, 1908. Kelly, John N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th rev. and repr. ed. London: Continuum, 2011. — Early Christian Creeds. 3d ed. London: Longman, 1972. Kesich, Veselin. “The Antiocheans and the Temptation Story.” Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 496–502. — “Hypostatic and Prosopic Union in the Exegesis of Christ’s Temptation.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965): 118–37. Kessler, Edward. An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

368

Bibliography

Kessler, Gwynn. Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Kidder, Richard. A Demonstration of the Messias. In which the Truth of the Christian Religion is defended, especially against The Jews. 3 vols. London: J. H. for W. Rogers at the Sun & M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet, 1699. Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Kisch, Guido. The Jews in Medieval Germany: A Study of their Legal and Social Status. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949. Kissinger, Warren S. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975. Klatzkin, Jacob. Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris. 4 vols. Berlin: Eschkol, 1928. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 2004. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. Translated by Brian McNeil. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Klijn, A. F. J. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 17. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Klostermann, Erich. Das Matthäusevangelium. 4th ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Kobler, Franz, ed. Letters of Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century. 2nd ed. 4 vols. London: Ararat, 1953. Köhler, Wolf-Dietrich. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Köppen, Klaus Peter. Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung der alten Kirche. Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961. Krauss, Samuel. “Un Fragement polémique del la Gueniza.” Revue des études juives 63 (1912): 63–74. Krauss, Samuel and William Horbury. The Jewish-Christian Controversy: From the Earliest Times to 1789 — Volume I: History. Edited and rev. by William Horbury. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Krey, Philip D. W., and Lesley Smith, eds. Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 90. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Kupp, David D. Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Labarge, Margaret Wade. Saint Louis: Louis IX, Most Christian King of France. Boston: Little, Brown, 1968. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Luc. Études Bibliques. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1921. Lahey, Lawrence L. “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish–Christian Debate in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” Journal of Jewish Studies 51 (2000): 281–96. Langmuir, Gavin I. “Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts/Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: Comment.” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 614–24. Lapide, Pinchas E. Hebrew in the Church: Foundations of Jewish Christian Dialogue. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. — “Der «Prüfstein» aus Spanien: Die einzige rabbinische Hebraisierung des Mt-Evangeliums.” Sefarad 34 (1974): 227–72.

Bibliography

369

Lasker, Daniel J. “Jewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” Pages 97–109 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan. Edited by David Engel, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Eliot R. Wolfson. Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. — “The Jewish Critique of Christianity: In Search of a New Narrative.” Studies in ChristianJewish Relations 6 (2011): 1–9. — Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007. — “The Jewish Christian Debate in Transition: From the Lands of Ishmael to the Lands of Edom.” Pages 53–65 in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication, and Interaction — Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by Benjamin H. Hary, John L. Hayes, and Fred Astren. Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill, 2000. — “Major Themes of the Jewish-Christian Debate: God, Humanity, Messiah.” Pages 107– 130 in The Solomon Goldman Lectures: Perspectives in Jewish Learning — Vol. 7. Edited by Dean Phillip Bell. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1999. — Popular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christianty.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 243–59. — “Teaching Christianity to Jews: The Case of Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics.” Pages 73–86 in Judaism and Education: Essays in Honor of Walter I. Ackerman. Edited by Haim Marantz. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1998. — “Jewish Polemics against Christianity in Thirteenth-Century Italy.” Pages 251–63 in Ḥazon Naḥum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and History. Edited by Yaakov Elman and Jeffrey S. Gurock. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1997. — “Jewish Philosophical Polemic in Ashkenaz.” Pages 195–214 in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. Edited by Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. — “Jewish-Christian Polemics at the Turning Point: Jewish Evidence from the Twelfth Century.” Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 161–73. — “Judeo-Christian Polemics and Their Origins in Muslim Countries” [‫הפולמוס‬ ‫]היהודי־נוצרי ומקורוריו בארצות האסלאם‬. Pe‘amim 57 (1993): 4–16 [Hebrew]. — “Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer: The Earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish Anti-Christian Polemics.” Pages 112–18 in Genizah Research After Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic: Papers read at the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. Edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. — “The Jewish Critique of Christianity under Islam in the Middle Ages.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 57 (1990–1991): 121–53. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. “Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 2 (1930): 39–67. Le Jeune, Martin. Evangelium Matthaei ex Hebraeo fideliter redditum. Translated into Latin by Jean Mercier. Paris, 1555. Leff, Gordon. Heresy in the Late Middle Ages. 2 vols. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Leford, Louis-Théophil. “À propos de ‘L’Histoire de Joseph le Charpentier.” Le Muséon 66 (1953): 201–23. Levine, Amy-Jill, and Marc Z. Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

370

Bibliography

Levinger, Jacob S., and Irene Garbell. “Duran, Profiat.” Pages 56–57 in vol. 6 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Levy, B. Barry.“Why Bar-nash Does Not Mean ‘I’.” Pages 85–101 in vol. 1 of The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume. Edited by Barry Walfish. Jewish History 6. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. Lewis, Bernhard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Lichtenstein-Herschensohn, Yechiel Tzvi. ‫חזוק אמונת אמת‬: Befestigung im wahren Glauben an Jesum Christum, den Sohn Gottes. Leipzig: C. W. Vollrath, 1879? [Hebrew]. Limor, Ora. “Judaism examines Christianity: The Polemic of Nestor the Priest and Sefer Toledot Yeshu” [‫ פולמוס נסתור הכומר וספר תולדות ישו‬:‫]יהודות מתבוננת בנצרות‬. Pe‘amim 75 (1998): 109–28 [Hebrew]. — Ed. Jews and Christians in Western Europe. Encounter between Cultures in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance [‫יהודים ונוצרים במערב אירופה עד ראשית‬: ‫בין יהודים לנוצרים‬ ‫]העת החדשה‬. 5 vols. Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1993–98 [Hebrew]. Limor, Ora, and Israel I. Yuval. “Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth.” Pages 197– 220 in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961. Lods, Marc. “Etude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chretiens.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941): 1–33. Loeb, Isodore. “Polémistes Chrétiens et Juifs en France et en Espagne.” Revue des études juives 18 (1889): 43–70, 219–42. — “La Controverse religieuse entre les Chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge en France et en Espagne.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 17 (1888): 311–37; 18 (1888) 133–56. — “La controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud.” Revue des études juives 1 (1880): 247–61; 2 (1881): 248–70; 3 (1881): 39–57. Loewe, Raphael. “Hebraists, Christian,” Pages 510–551 in vol. 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. — “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate.” Pages 102–54 in The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 2 — The West, From the Fathers to the Reformation. Edited by G.W.H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Longère, Jean. “Raymond of Peñafort.” Pages 1213–14 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Edited by André Vauchez, Barrie Dobson, and Michael Lapidge. J. Clarke, 2000. Lossky, Vladimir. “Christological Dogma.” Pages 95–118 in Orthodox Theology: An Introduction. Translated by Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978. — “Redemption and Deification.” Pages 97–110 in In the Image and Likeness of God. Edited by John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird. Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. Lotter, Friedrich. “Germany.” Pages 293–304 of Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages. Edited by Norman Roth. New York: Routledge, 2002. — “Hostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfälschung bei den Juden-verfolgungen von 1298 (‘Rintfleisch’) und 1336–1338 (‘Armleder’).” Pages 533–83 in vol. 5 of Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Teil V: Fingierte Briefe; Frömmigkeit und Fälschung; Realienfälschungen. 6 vols. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Schriften 33/V. Hannover: Hahn, 1988.

Bibliography

371

Louth, Andrew. “From Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ: St. Maximus he Confessor on the Transfiguration of Christ.” Pages 260–75 in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley S.J. Edited by Peter W. Martens. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2008. Lukaszewski, Albert L. “Issues Concerning the Aramiac Behind ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: A Critical Review of Scholarship.” Pages 1–27 in ‘Who is this son of man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen. Library of New Testament Studies 390. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2011. Lukowski, Jerzy, and Hubert Zawadzki. A Concise History of Poland. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Luther, Martin. “Protokoll und handschrifliche Einträge, Psalm CXXVII.” Page 574 in vol. 3 of D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe: Die Deutsche Bibel. Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1911. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–8. Hermeneia. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. — Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. — Matthew 21–28. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. — The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Maccoby, Hyam. Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages. London: Associated University Presses, 1982. Mackintosh, Hugh R. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956. Madigan, Kevin. The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought: An Essay on Christological Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. — “‘Christus Nesciens’? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the Ancient Latin West.” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 255–78. Maier, Johann. Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike. Erträge der Forschung 117. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Mangenot, Eugène. “Blasphème contre le Saint-Esprit.” Pages 910–16 in vol. 2 of Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. 18 vols. Edited by Alfred Vacant and Eugène Mangenot. Paris: Letouzey at Ané, 1905. Marx, Alexander. “The Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: with Appendices on the Eben Bohan and on the Earlier Hebrew Translations of Matthew.” Pages 247–73 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects: In memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus, 1867–1923, late Chief of the Jewish Division, New York Public Library. New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1929. Repr., pages 444–71 in Bibliographical Studies and Notes on Rare Books and Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Edited by Menahem H. Schmelzer. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1977. Massaux, Édouard. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus. 3 vols. New Gospel Studies 5.1–3. Edited by Arthur J. Bellinzoni. Translated by Norman J. Beval and Suzanne Hecht. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1990–1993. McAfee Moss, Carlene. The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. McCulloh, John M. “Jewish Ritual Murder: William of Norwich, Thomas of Monmouth, and the Early Dissemination of the Myth.” Speculum 72 (1997): 698–740. McFarlane, Kenneth B. John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity. London: English Universities Press, 1952.

372

Bibliography

McGrath, James F. “Jesus as False Prophet.” Pages 95–110 in Who do my opponents say that I am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus. Edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Library of New Testament Studies 327. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. — John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. McGrath, James F. and Jerry Truex. “‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism.” Journal of Biblical Studies (2004): 43–71. McGuckin, John A. The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition. Studies in the Bible & Early Christianity 9. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986. McKnight, Scot. “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective.” Pages 55–79 in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. McVey, Kathleen E. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1989. Meerson, Michael. “Meaningful Nonsense: A Study if Details in Toledot Yesu.” Pages 181– 96 in Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Menocal, María Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 2002. Merḥavia, Ḥaim M. Christianity’s Image of the Talmud: The Attitude to the post-biblical Literature of Israel in the Christian World of the Middle Ages (500–1248) [‫התלמוד בראי‬ (1248–500) ‫ היחס לספרות ישראל שלאחר המקרא בעולם הנוצרי בימי־הביניים‬:‫]הנצרות‬. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1970 [Hebrew]. Merkel, Helmut. Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Miller, James. “The Roots of Polish Arianism.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 229–56. Mimouni, Simon Claude. Le judéo-christianisme ancien: Essais historiques (Patrimoines). Paris: Cerf, 1998. Mitchell, Leonel L. Baptismal Anointing. ACC 48; London: SPCK, 1966. Modica, Joseph B. “Jesus as Glutton and Drunkard.” Pages 50–75 in Who do my opponents say that I am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus. Edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Library of New Testament Studies 327. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Translated by R.A. Wilson and John Bowden. London: SCM, 1974. Repr., 2001. Moses, A. D. A. Matthew’s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Moyise, Steven. Old Testament in the New. London: T&T Clark, 2001. Muller, Earl. “A ‘Subordinationist’ Text in Origen’s De Principiis.” Studia Patristica 41 (2006): 207–12.

Bibliography

373

Müller, Johannes. Judaismus oder Jüdenthum, das ist: Ausführlicher Bericht, von des jüdischen Volcks Unglauben, Blindheit und Verstockung. 1st ed. 1644. 2nd ed. Hamburg: Z. Härtels, 1707. Müller, Mogens. The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation. Sheffield: Equinox, 2008. Münster, Sebastian. Evangelium secundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica, cum vesione Latina atque succinctis annotationibus [‫]תורת המשיח‬. Basle, 1537. Mutius, Hans-Georg von. Die christlich-jüdische Zwangsdisputation zu Barcelona. Judentum und Umwelt 5. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1982. — “Ein Beitrag zur polemischen jüdischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Mittelalter.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980): 232–40. — “Die Beurteilung Jesu und des Neuen Testamentes beim spanisch-jüdischen Religionsphilosphen Josef Albo.” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 27 (1980): 457–64. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Narinskaya, Elena. Ephrem, a ‘Jewish’ Sage: A Comparison of the Exegetical Writings of St. Ephrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions. Studia Traditionis Theologiae 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Nemoy, Leon. “Troki, Isaac Ben Abraham.” Pages 155–56 in vol. 20 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Nes, Solrunn. The Uncreated Light: An Iconographical Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church. Translated by Arlyne Moi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Netanyahu, Benzion. The Marranos of Spain: From the late XIVth to the early XVIth century, according to contemporary Hebrew sources. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966. Neubauer, Adolf, S. R. Driver, and E. B. Pusey. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters. 2 vols. Oxford and London: James Parker, 1876–77. Neusner, Jacob. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. 2nd ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000. — The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Newman, Hillel I. “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature.” Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999): 59–79. Nicholls, Rachel. Walking on the Water: Reading Mt. 14:22–33 in the Light of its Wirkungsgeschichte. Biblical Interpretation Series 90. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Niclós (Albarracín), José-Vicente. “La disputa religiosa de D. Pedro de Luna con el Judío de Tudela D. Shem Tob ibn Shaprut en Pamplona (1379): El contexto en la vida y la predicación de Vicente Ferrer.” Revue des études juives 160 (2001): 409–33. — “L’Évangile en Hébreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut: Une traduction d’origine judéo–catalane due à converti, replacée dans son Sitz im Leben.” Revue biblique 106 (1999): 358– 407. Nirenberg, David. Review of Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb. American Historical Review 112 (2007): 562–64. Norden, Joseph. David Deutsch (1810–73), Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O.-S.: Ein Lebensbild. Myslowitz: Verein für jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur, 1902. O’Callaghan, Joseph F. Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Ochs, Peter, and Nancy Levene, eds. Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

374

Bibliography

O’Collins, Gerald. Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Osborne, Thomas P. “Les femmes de la généalogie de Jésus dans l’evangile de Matthieu et l’application de la Torah.” Revue théologique de Louvain 41 (2010): 243–58. Osburn, Caroll D. “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.” Pages 61–74 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt. 1.1–17.” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 175–92. Otto, Randall. “Dealing with Delay: A Critique of Christian Coping.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 (2004): 150–60. Pahl, Theodor. Quellenstudien zu Luthers Psalmenübersetzung. Weimar: H. Bölaus Nachfolger, 1931. Parkes, James W. The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his political and economic Situation. 2nd ed. Judaic Studies Library. New York : Hermon, 1976. — Conflict of Church and Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism. London: Soncino, 1934. Pennells, Stephen. “The Spear Thrust (Matt 27.49b, v.l. / Jn 19.34).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 99–115. Petersen, William L. “The Vorlage of Shem-Tob’s ‘Hebrew Matthew.’” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 490–512. — Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance & History in Scholarship. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Pines, Shlomo. “Judeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 35 (1967): 187–217. — “The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2.13 (1966): 1–73. Podet, Alan H. A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb by Leon Modena 1571–1648. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001. Pollmann, Karla. “Prudentius.” Brill’s New Pauly. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brill Online. Popkin, Richard H. Disputing Christianity: The 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki’s Classic Arguments. New York: Humanity Books, 2007. Porter, Stanley E., ed. The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. — Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Posnanski, Adolf. Schiloh ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre: Erster Teil — Die Auslegung von Genesis 49,10 im Altertume bis zu Ende des Mittelalters. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904. Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period until its Dissapearance in the Fourth Century. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Przybilski, Martin. Kulturtransfer zwischen Juden und Christen in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters. Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 61 (295). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. Jesus: An Uncommon Journey. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/288. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Pulcini, Theodore. Exegesis of Polemical Discourse: Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and Christian Scriptures. American Academy of Religion. The Religions 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Rankin, Oliver S. Jewish Religious Polemic. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970.

Bibliography

375

Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. Translated by Adrian J. Walker. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Ray, Jonathan S. The Sephardic Frontier: The Reconquista and the Jewish Community in Medieval Iberia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006. Régné, Jean. “Étude sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du Ve aux XIVe siècle.” Revue des études juives 55 (1908): 1–36, 221–43; 58 (1909): 75–105, 200–25; 59 (1910): 58–89; 61 (1911): 1–27, 248–66; 63 (1912): 75–99. Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes. Edited by Gerhard Alexander. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Insel, 1971. Reinhardt, Klaus. “Das Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanien.” Traditio 43 (1987): 321–58. Reinke, Laurenz. Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und von Immanuel: Jes. 7,14–16. Münster: Coppenrath, 1848. Reiser, Marius. “Aufruhr um Isenbiehl oder: Was hat Jes 7,14 mit Jesus und Maria zu tun?” Pages 277–330 in Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift: Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese und Hermeneutik. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/217. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Rembaum, Joel E. “Medieval Jewish Criticism of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 7/8 (1982/83): 353–82. — “A Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscript.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 5 (1980): 81–99. — “The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemics.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 45 (1978): 156–85. — “The New Testament in medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemics.” Ph.D. diss. University of California, 1975. Rengstord, Karl Heinrich and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch, eds. Kirche und Synagoge: Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen mit Juden. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Klett, 1968. Repr., Munich: dtv, 1988. Renoux, Athanase. “Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121.” In Patrologia Orientalis 35.1 and 36.2 (1969–1971). Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’ān and the Classical Muslim Commentaries. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Rosen, Klaus. “Jesu Geburtsdatum, der Census des Quirinius und eine jüdische Steuererklärung aus dem Jahr 127 nC.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 38 (1995): 5–15. — “Zur Diskussion um Jesu Geburtsdatum: Der Census des Quirinius und eine jüdische Steuererklärung aus dem Jahr 127 nC.” Pages 41–58 in Qumran und die Evangelien: Geschichte oder Geschichten? Edited by Walter Brandmüller. Aachen: MM Verlag, 1994. Rosenkranz, Simone. Die jüdisch-christliche Auseinandersetzung unter islamischer Herrschaft (7.–10. Jahrhundert). Judaica et Christiana 21. Bern: P. Lang, 2004. Rosenthal, Erwin I. J. “Jüdische Antwort.” Pages 307–62 of vol. 1 of Kirche und Synagoge. Edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Klett, 1968. Repr., Munich: dtv, 1988. Also, pages 187–242 in Studia Semitica Volume 1: Jewish Themes. Edited by Erwin I. J. Rosenthal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. — “Anti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentaries.” Journal of Jewish Studies 11 (1960): 115–35. Repr., pages 165–85 in Studia Semitica Volume 1: Jewish Themes Edited by Erwin I. J. Rosenthal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).

376

Bibliography

Rosenthal, Herman. “Casimir IV., Jagellon.” Pages 598–99 in vol. 3 of The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Ktav; London: Funk Wagnalls, 1901–1906. Rosenthal, Judah M. “On ‘Sefer Yosef HaMeqane:’ with the Publication of a New Critical Edition.” Immanuel 2 (1973): 68–72. — “Marcin Czechowic and Jacob of Bełżyce: Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th Century Poland.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 34 (1966): 77–97. — “The Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reuben” [‫תרגום של‬ ‫]הבשורה על־פי מתי ליעקב בן ראובן‬. Tarbiṣ 32 (1962/63): 48–66 [Hebrew]. Repr., pages 123–39 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev. Edited by Charles Berlin. New York: Ktav, 1971. — “The Anti-Christian Polemical Literature to the End of the Eighteenth Century” [‫ספרות‬ ‫]היווכוח האנטי־נוצרית עד סוף המאה השמונה־עשרה‬. Areshet 2 (1960): 130–79; 3 (1961): 433–39 [Hebrew]. — “Prolegomena to a critical edition of Milḥamot Adonai of Jacob ben Reuben.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 26 (1957): 127–37. — “The Talmud on Trial: The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240.” Jewish Quarterly Review 47 (1956): 58–76, 145–169. Rosner, Fred, ed. Abraham Maimonides’ Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Controversy. Haifa: The Maimonides Research Institute, 2000. Roth, Cecil. “The Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accustation.” Speculum 8 (1933): 520–26. Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. — “New Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 11 (1986): 189–220. Rothfuchs, Wilhelm. Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus-Evangeliums: Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 5.8 (88). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. Rowland, Christopher, and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Rubin, Miri. Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. — “Desecration of the Host: The Birth of an Accusation.” Pages 169–85 in Christianity and Judaism: Papers read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. Edited by Diana Wood. Studies in Church History 29. Oxford: Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1992. Ruderman, David B. The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 6. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1981. Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ruether, Rosemary. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Minneapolis: Seabury, 1974. Sánchez Caro, José Manuel; Rosa María Herrera García; and Inmaculada Delgado Jara. Alfonso de Madrigal, el Tostado. Introducción al evangelio según San Mateo. Fuentes Documentales 3. Ávila: Institución Gran Duque de Alba; Salamanca Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca 2008.

Bibliography

377

Sandmel, Samuel. A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament. 3d ed. Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2008. Sæbø, Magne, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2: The Middle Ages. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Saenger, Max. “Ueber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes: ‫ ס׳ הכלימה‬oder ‫כלימת‬ ‫הגוים‬.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 4 (1854): 320–27; 5 (1855): 197–202. Sanz Artibucilla, José María. “Los Judios En Aragón y Navarra. Nuevos datos biográficos relativos a Sem Tob ben Ishaq Saprut.” Sefarad 5 (1945): 337–66. Schäfer, Peter. “The Jew who whould be God” (review of Daniel Boyarin Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ). The New Republic (May 18, 2012). Online: http:// www.tnr.com/print/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christboyarin. — Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Schäfer, Peter, Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch, eds. Toledot Yeshu (“Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schaller, Berndt. “Paul Billerbecks Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch: Wege und Abwege, Leistung und Fehlleistung christlicher Judaistik.” Pages 149–74 in Zwischen Zensur und Selbstbesinnung: Christliche Rezeptionen des Judentums. Edited by Christfried Böttrich, Judith Thomanek, and Thomas Willi. Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 17. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 2009. Schlichting, Günter. Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu: Die verschollene Toledot-Jeschu-Fassung Tam ū-mū’ād. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982. Schlosberg, Léon. ‫קצה מגאדלה אלאסקף‬: Controverse d’un Évêque. Lettre adressée à un de ses collégues vers l’an 514: texte arabe. Vienna: Chez l’éditeur, 1880. — Controverse d’un Évêque. Lettre adressée a un de ses collègues vers l’an 514. Traduite en français du texte arabe. Publiée d’après un ancien Manuscrit de la Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris (No 755 du Catalogue). Versailles: F. Vieweg, 1888. Schmitz, Rolf. “Jacob ben Rubén y su obra Milḥamot ha-Šem.” Pages 45–58 in Polémica Judeo-Cristiana: Estudios. Edited by Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodríguez. Iberia judaica 1. Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1992. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History of Theological Conflict. Translated by David E. Green. London: Faber & Faber, 1963. Schonfield, Hugh J. According to the Hebrews: a new translation of the Jewish life of Jesus (the Toldoth Jeshu). London: Duckworth, 1937. — An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel: Translated, with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927. Schreckenberg, Heinz. Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.). Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 172. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1982. Repr. and rev. 4th ed., 1999. — Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.–13 Jh.): Mit einer Ikonographie des Judenthemas bis zum 4. Laterankonzil. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 335. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1988. Repr. and rev. 3d ed., 1997. — Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13.–20. Jh). Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 497. Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1994.

378

Bibliography

Schreiner, Stefan. “‘Ein Zerstörer des Judentums...?’ Mose ben Maimon über den historischen Jesus.” Pages 323–45 in Trias of Maimonides: Jewish, Arabic and Ancient Culture of Knowledge. Edited by Georges Tamer. Studia Judaica. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. — “Isaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (‘Faith Strenghtened’) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki.” Pages 418–461 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. — “Isaac of Troki’s Studies of Rabbinic Literature,” Polin 15 (2002): 65–76. — “Ibn Kammûnas Verteidigung des historischen Jesus gegen den paulinischen Christus.” Pages 453–479 in Geschichte — Tradition — Reflexion. Volume 1: Judentum. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Schubert, Kurt. “Das christlich-jüdische Religionsgespräch im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert.” Kairos 19 (1977): 161–86. Shatzmiller, Joseph. “Jewish Converts to Christianity in Medieval Europe, 1200–1500.” Pages 297–318 in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michael Goodich, Sophia Menache, and Sylvia Schein. New York: P. Lang, 1995. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Shereshevsky, Esra. Rashi, the Man and his World. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1982. Repr., Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1996. Shmuel (Kaufman), Yehuda Even. Sermons of Redemption: The Chapters of Jewish Apocalypse from the Finalization of the Talmud to the Beginning of the Sixth Century [‫מדרשי‬ ‫פרקי האפוקליפסה היהודית מחתימת התלמוד הבבלי ועד ראשית האלף הששי‬: ‫]גאולה‬. Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute; Massada, 1943. Repr. 1953, 1968 [Hebrew]. Siegfried, Carl. “Raschi’s Einfluss auf Nicolaus von Lira und Luther: in der Auslegung der Genesis.” Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1869 (1869): 428–45; 2 (1871): 39–65. Sievert, Rosemarie. Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-jüdischen Gespräch der Reformationszeit. Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum: Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 17. Münster: Lit, 2005. Sim, David C. “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” New Testament Studies 57 (2011): 176–92. Simon, Marcel. “Christian Anti Semitism.” Pages 202–33 in Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Repr., pages 131–73 in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. Edited by Jeremy Cohen. New York: New York University Press, 1991. Simonson, David. “Eine Sammlung polemischer und apologetischer Literatur.” Page 114–20 in Festschrift für Aron Freimann zum 60. Geburtstage. Edited by Alexander Marx and Herrmann Meyer. Berlin: Soncino-Gesellschaft der Freunde des jüdischen Buches e.V., 1935. Siqueira, Reinaldo. “The Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretation.” Kerygma 3 (2011): 23–42. Sivan, Hagith. “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Christian Polemics.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 277–306. Skarsaune, Oskar. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007.

Bibliography

379

Smith, R. Payne. A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke: Part II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859. Specht, Walter F. “Chapter and Verse Divisions.” Pages 105–107 in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Spinka, Matthew. Matthew Spinka, John Hus: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. — John Hus’ Concept of the Church. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Spinks, Bryan D. Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Stacey, Robert C. “From Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration: Jews and the Body of Christ.” Jewish History 12 (1998): 11–28. Stein, Siegfried. Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth Century Narbonne. London: University College London; H. K. Lewis, 1969. — “A Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Me’ir b. Simeon’s Milḥemet Miṣwah (Narbonne, 13th Cent.).” Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959): 45–61. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud — The Steinsaltz Edition: A Reference Guide. New York: Random House, 1989. Steinschneider, Moritz. Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden. Kunde des Morgenlandes 6.3. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1877. — Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century: With an Introduction on Talmud and Midrash — A historical essay from the German of M. Steinschneider. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1857. Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and a Source Book. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1979. Stow, Kenneth R. Jewish Dogs: An Image and Its Interpreters — Continuity in the Catholic-Jewish Encounter. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. — Popes, Church, and Jews in the Middle Ages: Confrontation and Response. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud un Midrash. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–61. Strecker, Georg. “The Problem of Jewish Christianity.” Pages 241–85 in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity: Second German edition with added appendicies by Georg Strecker, by Walter Bauer. Edited by Robert A. Kraft, and Gehard Krodel. Philadelpia: Fortess, 1971. Stroumsa, Sarah. “Jewish Polemics Against Islam and Christianity In the Light of JudaeoArabic Texts.” Pages 241–50 in Judaeo-Arabic Studies: Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. Edited by Norman Golb. Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations 3. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association, 1997. — “Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf: A case study in polemical literature.” Pages 155–59 in Genizah Research After Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic Papers read at the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies. Edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Suciu, Alin. “New Fragments form the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi Fabri Lignarii.” Le Muséon 122 (2009): 279–89. Suler, Bernard. “Martini, Raymond.” Pages 584–85 in vol. 13 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Szyszman, Simon. “Die Karäer in Ost-Mitteleuropa.” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 6 (1957): 24–54.

380

Bibliography

Swartz, Michael D. Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism: An analysis of Maʻaseh Merkavah. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Sweetman, J. Windrow. Islam and Christian Theology: A Study of the Interpretation of Theological Ideas in the two Religions: Part 2 Volume 1 — The Mediaeval Developments significant for comparative Study: Historical Survey of the Second Period. London: Lutterworth, 1955. Swenson, Kristin M. “Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 637–48. Synan, Edward A. The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Talmage, Frank E. Introduction to Sefer HaNizzahon: Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen. “Kuntresim:” Texts and Studies 59–60. Jerusalem: Hebrew University; Dinur Center, 1983–84 [Hebrew]. — “The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran.” Immanuel 13 (1981): 69–85. Repr., pages 281–97 Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver: Studies in Medieval Jewish Exegesis and Polemics. Edited by Barry Dov Walfish; Papers in Medieval Studies 14. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1999. — Ed. Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter. New York: Ktav, 1975. — Review of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki’s Faith Strengthened. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973): 430–32. Tanner, Norman P. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990. Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. Studia Post-Biblica 46; Leiden: Brill, 1995. Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Thomas, David. “Abū l-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Sahl Rabban al-Ṭabarī.” Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brill Online. — “Al-Radd ‘alā l-Naṣārā.” Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brill Online. — Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology. History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Leiden: Brill, 2008. — Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abū ʻĪsá al-Warrāq’s ‘Against the Incarnation.’ Oriental Publication 59. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1996. Thomas, David, Barbara Roggema, and Alex Malett. Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2009–2011. Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ. Edited by Robert T. Walker. Downers Grove: IVP & Paternoster, 2008. Trautner-Kromann, Hanne. Shield and Sword: Jewish Polemics Against Christianity and the Christians in France and Spain from 1100–1500. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Tuckett, Christopher M. Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Trench, Richard C. Sacred Latin Poetry: Chiefly Lyrical, selected and arranged for use with notes and introduction. 3d. rev. ed. London: Macmillan, 1874. Unterseher, Lisa A. The Mark of Cain and the Jews: Augustine’s Theology of Jews and Judaism. Gorgias Dissertations 39. Early Christian Studies 9. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2009. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Étude sur la littérature polémique au moyen-age.” Revue des études juives 100 (1935): 49–77.

Bibliography

381

Vall, Gregory. “Psalm 22:17B: ‘The Old Guess’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 45–56. Valle Rodríguez, Carlos del. “Jacob ben Rubén de Huesca. Polemista. Su patria y su época.” Pages 59–65 in Polémica Judeo-Cristiana: Estudios. Edited by Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodríguez. Iberia judaica 1. Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, 1992. Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1974. Visotzky, Burton L. Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. — “Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 56 (1990): 83–100. Vogt, Peter. Der Stammbaum bei den Heiligen Evangelisten Matthäus. Biblische Studien 12.3. Freiburg: Herder, 1907. Vose, Robin. Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Waysblum, Marek. “Isaac of Troki and Christian Controversy in the XVI Century.” Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952): 62–77. Webb, Robert L. “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus.” Pages 179–230 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by Bruce Chilton, and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Weinandy, Thomas G. In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ. London: T&T Clark, 1993. Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. — “The Baptism of Jesus in the Late Fathers.” Studia Patristica 11 (1972): 268–77. Willi-Plein, Ina, and Thomas Willi. Glaubensdolch und Messiasbeweis: Die Begegnung von Judentum, Christentum und Islam im 13. Jahrhundert in Spanien. Forschungen zum Jüdisch-Christlichen Dialog 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. Williams, A. Lukyn. Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Repr., 2012. — Christian Evidences for Jewish People. 2 vols. Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1911. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998. Williams, Jacqueline A. Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1988. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2001. Wolfson, Harry A. “An Unknown Splinter Group of Nestorians.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 6 (1960): 249–53. — “More about the Unknown Splinter group of Nestorians.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 11 (1965): 217–22. Wright, N. T. “Jesus’ Self-Understanding.” Pages 47–61 in The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. — “Foreword to the New Edition.” Pages ix–xxvi in Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus, by Marcus J. Borg. 2nd ed. London: Continuum, 1989. Wyschogrod, Michael. “Incarnation and God’s Indwelling Israel.” Pages 165–78 in Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations. Edited by R. Kendall Soulen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

382

Bibliography

— “Why is the Theology of Karl Barh of Interest to a Jewish Theologian?” Pages 211–24 in Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations. Edited by R. Kendall Soulen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. — “A Jewish Perspective on Incarnation.” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 195–209. Yarbro Collins, Adela, and John Joseph Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Zajączkowski, Ananiasz. Karaims in Poland: History, Language, Folklore, Science. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961. Zellentin, Holger M. Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 139. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Zunz, Leopold. Zur Geschichte und Literatur: Erster Band. Berlin: Veit, 1845. Zwiep, Irene E. “Jewish scholarship and Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia: Profiat Duran and the art of memory.” Pages 224–39 in Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World. Edited by Nicholas De Lange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Index of Literature Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:1 1:26 1:26–27 1:28 2:2–3 2:7 2:24 4:11 19:11 19:17 33:20 49:10

299, 302 205, 299 302 80 71 80, 232 283 146 145 146 277 3

Exodus 4:1 4:22 10:25 13:13 15:16 17:5 19:3 20:11 20:12 23:12 33:11–23 33:20 34:28 34:29–35 34:30 40:34

110 232 247 195 243 277 233 71 148 71 112 50, 83 188 228 140, 308 339

Leviticus 13:12 19:9–10 19:18 25:23

261 120 236, 283 193

Numbers 12:1–8 12:7 14:22 17 23:19 36:9 36:5–9

112 267 228 261 60, 144, 192, 343 107, 223 107

Deuteronomy 4:24 4:34 4:36 5:12–15 5:16 5:21 6:4 6:4–5 6:13 6:16 8:3 8:17 9:3 9:9 9:11 9:18 9:25 10:10 13:1–5 13:15–17 14:1 18:15 18:15–17 22:23–24 23:19 23:19–20 24:19–20 34:9–12

82 82 49, 82, 233 71 148 236 65 288 229, 283 283 188, 190, 228 228 48, 82 188 188 188 188 188 241 139 281 281 139, 143 143 144 133 120 112

384

Index of Literature

Joshua 1:1 10:12–15

267 232

Judges 6:37 6:39

110 110

2 Samuel 19:10

261

1 Kings 13:4 17:17–24 17:22 18:24 18:36–38 19:8

145 231, 232 232 110, 232 232 344

2 Kings 4:8–38 5:8 5:10 5:14 6:18 13:21

231 110, 228 230, 232 232 145 232

Isaiah 1:8 6:9–10 7 7–9 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14

7:16 8:3 8:23 9 9:1 9:5 9:6 11 11:1–3 14:19

261 283 299 10, 298 228 228 228 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 22, 53, 72, 106, 143, 144, 154, 224, 235, 259, 277, 278, 283, 298, 300, 305, 306, 307, 320, 323, 328 277 283 283 299 300 259 279, 306, 307 49 183, 283 283

29:6 29:13 29:15 38:7–8 41:14 42:1–4 44:9 44:13 49:1–15 51:9–11 52:13 60:1 60:10–12 62:8 62:11

82 283 261 232 253 61, 68, 196, 283 285 234 46 7 298, 303 247 247 243 283

Jeremiah 17:5 23:6 31:14 31:15 32:27

192, 236, 309 277 283 299, 300 61

Ezekiel 7:10 21:27 37:1–14

261 261 231, 233

Hosea 8:5 11:1

153 300

Joel 2:27 3:1

313 313

Amos 3:7 9:11

221, 237–38 261

Micah 5:1 5:2

283, 299 225, 226

Zechariah 2:13 9:9 11:12–13 14:7

71 283, 299, 343 284, 301 59

385

Index of Literature Malachi 3:1 3:10 4:5–6 Psalms 2 2:2 2:6–7 2:8 3:7 4:8 7:6 8:6 9:19 17:7 17:13 22 22:1(2) 22:2 22:6 22:16 22:20 24:1 31:6 33:9 35:2 35:22–23 37:3 37:25 44:4 44:23 44:26 51:13 55:22

283 110, 228 299

56, 63 46, 63 45, 68, 298 121 71 71 71 7 71 243 71 63, 203–204, 253 53, 115, 205, 206, 253, 254, 343 253 253 253 253, 254 193, 309 200 161 71 71 236 203, 343 243 71 71 204 236

59:4–5 68:1 72:17 74:22 82:5 82:6 82:8 91:12 110 110:1 116:11 121:4 132:13–14 135:6 138:12 146:3

71 71 259 71 285 274, 275 71 268 7, 46, 56, 64, 299 7, 46, 63–65, 283 192 49, 71, 148, 179, 342 71 161 85 192, 309

Proverbs 20:27 26:8

162 236

Job 9:20 11:18–19 16:17 22:28 25:6 37:23

285 71 246 114, 199 253 249

Daniel 3:1–30 3:27 7:13

119 202 57, 299

2 Chronicles 24:20–21

284

Inter-Testamental Writings 2 Baruch 21:8

59

Philo of Alexandria De vita Mosis 1.158 235

Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 4.325–26 235

De plantatione 50

Targum Ruth 3:15

Wisdom of Solomon 7:1 232

105

243

386

Index of Literature

New Testament Matthew 1 1:1 1:1–16 1:1–17 1:1–2:23 1:2–16 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:15–16 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:18–24 1:18–25 1:19 1:20 1:20–23 1:20–25 1:21 1:22 1:22–23 1:23 1:24 1:24–25 1:25 2:1–2 2:1–12 2:1–22 2:5 2:5–6 2:6 2:11 2:13 2:13–14 2:13–15 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–20 2:15 2:16–18

300 1, 240 48, 53, 103, 104, 124, 178, 220, 223, 321 181–82 7 177 182 182 182 182 106, 137, 139, 142, 143, 178, 183 1, 177, 223 7, 139, 142, 183 7 235, 321 144 7, 48, 49, 73, 339 1, 106, 305 305 139, 142, 320 7, 9, 300 7, 53, 72, 272, 277, 283, 288, 299 1, 7, 11, 140, 143, 144, 306, 339 7 178, 300, 305 7, 51, 76, 139, 143, 181, 183, 287, 306, 320 283 225 49, 231 225 9, 283 225, 299 283 145 139, 145, 178, 184 220, 227 145, 342 270, 300 343 9, 227 283, 300

2:16–20 2:17 2:17–18 2:19–23 2:22–23 2:23 3:3 3:5–6 3:11 3:13 3:13–17 3:14–15 3:15 3:16–17 3:17 4:1 4:1–10 4:1–11

4:2 4:3 4:3–4 4:5 4:6 4:6–7 4:7 4:8 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:13–15 4:14 4:18–19 4:23 5:1–8:4 5:17 5:17–18 5:17–19 5:17–30 5:18 5:20–24 5:27 5:33–39 5:33–42 5:38

342 9 299 283 7 9, 300 9 178 236 178, 185 103, 104, 108, 124, 186, 220, 227, 321 109, 186, 321 1, 186, 320 178, 185 50, 63, 237 288 300, 308 51, 103, 104, 110, 124, 178, 188, 220, 222, 228, 255, 268, 321 50, 180 111, 189, 191, 228 270, 288 288 111, 189, 191, 228 268, 287, 288 283 288 283 111, 230 342 283, 300 9 293 180 219 11, 12, 178, 320 180 22, 43, 177, 300, 318 320 178 236 236 103 236 44

387

Index of Literature 5:39 5:39–40 5:43 5:43–48 5:43–44 5:43–47 5:44 6:1–4 6:5–15 6:9 6:18–19 6:19–23 6:24–34 6:25–26 7:6–12 7:16 7:20 7:24–29 8:1–4 8:19 8:17 8:18 8:18–20 8:19 8:19–20 8:20 8:21–22 8:21–25 8:22 8:23–25 8:23–26 8:23–27 8:24 8:24–25 8:28–36 8:29 8:30 9:1–5 9:2–8 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:9–13 9:11 9:13 9:18–26 9:20

181 103 283, 300 236 103 44 120 236 236 304, 305 245 236 236 140, 146, 147 236 112 112 219 103, 139, 141, 147, 178 220, 230 301 9 149 139, 147, 149, 150, 178 301 300, 302, 309, 321 138, 147, 150, 191–93, 314 179, 191 139, 147, 148, 335 148 49 179, 191 71 79, 336 179, 191 103 189 57 147 335 57, 139, 147, 149, 150 151, 178, 191–93, 321 41 283 219 177 139, 143, 147 220, 231 139, 147, 152

9:32–38 9:23 9:34 10:1 10:9–10 10:18 10:23 10:25 10:32

220, 222, 231, 255 240 342 140, 165 140, 165 329 57 240 103

10:34 10:34–35 10:37 10:40

177, 299, 306 300 49 68, 300, 303, 305, 309, 310 68 18 299 68 283 138, 153, 237–38 221, 236, 255 300 237 155 53, 57, 138, 155 103, 104, 111, 124, 125, 321 112, 178, 193, 221, 238, 246, 255 59, 112, 238, 244 122 179 18, 103, 219 57 179 342 283 9 46, 56, 61, 68, 180, 195, 196 123 221, 239, 255 240, 270, 342 240 103, 104, 121, 122, 125, 321 221, 241 123

10:41 11:2–6 11:7–15 11:9 11:10 11:11 11:11–15 11:13–14 11:14–15 11:16–19 11:19 11:25–27 11:25–30 11:27 12 12:1–7 12:1–8 12:8 12:10–12 12:15 12:15–21 12:17–21 12:18 12:22–23 12:22–29 12:24 12:27 12:30–32 12:30–37 12:31

388 12:31–32

12:32 12:38 12:38–45 12:40 12:46 12:46–50 12:47–13:18 13:1–4 13:8–13 13:10 13:10–13 13:10–15 13:12–15 13:13–15 13:14–15 13:14–16 13:16 13:35 13:37 13:41 13:43 13:53–58 13:54 13:54–57 13:55 13:55–56 13:57 14:1–2 14:1–12 14:5 14:8–10 14:13 14:19–20 14:25 14:25–33 14:32–41 14:33 14:35 15:1–10 15:1–21 15:7–9 15:17 15:21 15:21–25 15:21–28 15:21–29

Index of Literature 138, 140, 141, 155, 157 158, 166, 180, 194–95, 244 57, 299, 300, 302, 305, 310, 322. 243 221, 240, 242 57, 180 179 240 179 179 179 103, 121 123 240 103, 121 283 179 9 179 9 57, 139, 158–159 57, 243, 245, 323 245 137, 178, 235 49, 69 46, 68, 69 48, 300 51, 76, 300, 329 50, 68, 180, 195 49 240 68 50 342 180 180 335 124 244, 245 112 219 300 283 79, 139 342 103, 121 179 240

15:24 15:29–38 15:31 15:39–16:12 16:13 16:13–17 16:13–20 16:16 16:17 16:20 16:20–21 16:21 16:27 17:1–8 17:2 17:2–3 17:5 17:9 17:12 17:12–13 17:14–17 17:17 17:20 17:22 17:24–27 17:27 18:11 18:11–13 18:18 18:18–20 18:20 19:3–5 19:13–16 19:16–17 19:16–21 19:17 19:22 19:28 20:18 20:20 20:20–23 20:21 20:22 20:22–23 20:23 20:28

68, 123 221, 242 41 236 57, 245 268, 287, 288 221, 243, 255, 264 189, 240, 243, 245 245 180, 195 195 240 323 221, 245, 335 189 189 63, 189, 246 57, 323 57, 112 299 165 306 49, 180 57 50 343 57 103, 121 264 8 306 283 219 46, 65, 66 140, 179, 196, 269, 301, 310, 321 270, 287, 288, 321 179 57, 323 57, 304 321 49, 77, 78 270 160 139, 160 78, 160, 301, 311, 314 49, 57, 68, 140, 143, 144, 145, 178, 191, 192, 271, 299, 301, 304, 305, 311, 321

Index of Literature 21:1–5 21:4–5 21:10–22 21:11 21:15–¡5 21:17–19 21:18f 21:18–19 21:18–21 21:18–22 21:20 21:37 21:46 22:15–22 22:21 22:23–24:25 22:41–45 22:41–46 22:44 23:23–24 23:35 23:37 24:3 24:15 24:24 24:27 24:27–36 24:29–33 24:30 24:34 24:36 24:37 24:39 24:44 25:31 26:2 26:6 26:17–20 26:21 26:24 26:29 26:31–44 26:36 26:36–40 26:36–45 26:36–46 26:38

50, 283 9, 299, 343 221, 246 68 283 179, 197 301 103, 104, 119, 124, 125, 321 269 313 269, 288 189 68 222, 246, 247 343 219 283 63–64 7, 299 181 284, 301 138, 161 180 9 59 57 222, 248 179, 198 57, 60, 299, 323 248 57, 59, 60, 179, 180, 198, 301, 303, 314, 329 57 57, 60 46, 57, 60 57, 323 57 301 284 180, 195 57 306, 343 222, 248, 255 307 103, 104, 113, 124 124 67, 179, 199 50, 116, 138, 157, 161–62, 332

26:38–39 26:38–42 26:38–46 26:39

26:41 26:45 26:47–50 26:47 26:52–54 26:50 26:54 26:63 26:64 27:3–10 27:9 27:9–10 27:11 27:11–13 27:25 27:27–66 27:34 27:38 27:39–43 27:41–42 27:42–43 27:45–46 27:46

27:49 27:51–53 27:54 27:62–66 28:11–15 28:16–19 28:16–20 28:18 28:18–19 28:18–29 28:19 28:20

389 166 51 321 46, 113, 116, 138, 140, 143, 144, 162, 178, 192, 301, 312, 329, 342 68, 118, 138, 161–62, 249, 328 57, 103, 113, 124, 180, 193 235, 284 284 231 343 250 189 7, 57, 299, 323 284 301 9 68 75 146 222, 251 274, 287 284 284 68 200 179, 202 46, 61, 140, 163, 177, 179, 191, 203, 205, 206, 254, 279, 280, 281, 288, 301, 307, 312, 321, 329, 343 81 284 81 231 231 103, 104, 125, 137, 141, 164, 165 106, 120, 139, 164, 179, 206, 222, 321 178, 193, 206, 301, 312, 314 125 165 240 7, 206, 306

390 Mark 1:1–3 1:2 1:5 1:9 1:9–11 1:12–13 1:11 2:10–11 3 3:22 3:27 3:28 3:28–29 4:35–43 4:38 5:19–20 6:1–4 6:3 6:4 6:15 7:6–7 7:19 8:31–33 9:3–4 9:14f 9:14–17 9:14–20 9:17 9:19 9:19f 9:19–20 9:21 9:37 10:7 10:17–18 10:17–19 10:17–21

Index of Literature

10:18

10 283 139 321 186 51 50 150 223 342 139 302 121 71 49, 79, 336 103 46, 69 48, 76, 269, 288, 329 50, 68 68 283 18 249 189 140 165 165 159 165 140 165 159 68, 310 283 66, 270 46 140, 159, 179, 196, 310 70, 274, 287, 321

10:35 10:35–40 10:37 10:38 10:38–40 10:40 10:45 11:1–6 11:11–14

321 49, 77, 78, 270 270 160 78 160, 287, 311 68, 271, 287, 311 50 179, 189, 197

11:12 11:12–14 11:12–40 11:13–14 12:7 12:29–30 12:32 12:35 12:35–37 12:36 13:4 13:24–34 13:26 13:32

14:32–34 14:32–37 14:32–38 14:32–42 14:33 14:34 14:35 14:35–36 14:36 14:38 14:40 14:40–41 14:41 14:62 14:64 15:1 15:2 15:31 15:31–32 15:33–34 15:34 15:39 16:19

119 301 313 271, 288 343 288 122 312 64 7, 46 180, 199 179, 198 57, 60 46, 59, 60, 70, 180, 198, 199, 301, 303, 305, 314, 322, 329 68 103, 113 51 67, 179, 199 113, 114 50, 116, 200 113 46 144, 192, 342 68, 118, 328 114 104, 113 180, 193 7, 57, 235 329 68 68 200 68 179, 202 46, 61, 254, 312, 343 81 7, 235

Luke 1:26–28 1:28 1:30 1:34–35 2:1–5 2:21 2:21–35 2:41–48 2:43–48

80 276 48 7 75 306 49 272 181

391

Index of Literature 2:48 3:21–22 3:21–31 3:22 3:23–25 3:28–38 3:31–32 4:1–2 4:1–3 4:1–13 4:3–4 4:21 4:22–24 4:24 5:24 6:27–89 7 7:14–15 7:16 7:26 7:34 7:39 8:23 8:23–24 8:23–27 9:29–30 9:32 9:52–53 9:57 10:16 10:22 11:15 12:10 12:19 12:22–24 13:31–33 13:33 18:18–19 18:18–20 18:18–22 18:19 18:43 19:28–35 19:37 20:41–44 20:42 20:42–43 21:27 22:31–32

49, 288 51, 76, 178, 186 182 50, 77 220, 223 51 220, 223 50 51 51 270, 288 10 69 46, 68 150 198 79 180 68 68, 70 53 68 79, 336 49 71 189 189 178 302, 309 310 59 342 121, 180, 194–95, 302, 310 302 140, 146, 147 46, 68 68, 70 46, 322 66 310 274 41 50 41 64 46 7 57 46, 180, 195

22:33 22:39–46 22:40–46 22:41 22:42 22:44 22:46 22:69 22:70 23:34 23:35 23:46 23:47 24:19 24:44

235 50 67 312 342 50, 249 68, 328 7 75 140 200 200 81 68, 70 10

John 1:1 1:1–2 1:5 1:12 1:14 1:17 1:29–34 1:45–46 2:1 2:1–4 2:1–11 2:2–4 2:3 2:3–4 2:4 2:7–9 2:9 3:35 4:5–7 4:7 4:7–9 4:7–15 4:19 4:22 4:23 5:25–30 5:26–27 5:30 5:30–31 5:30–32 5:36–38 5:37 6:14

267, 338 267 85 281, 287 267, 339 189 186 178, 183 154 140 49 138 154 154 154 180 155 70 179, 191 152 140 138 68 181 138 140 70 147, 271, 287 180 46 46, 68 46, 68 68

392 7:20 7:40 7:52 8:3–11 8:26 8:26–17 8:40 8:54 9:17 9:29 10 10:6 10:17 10:17–18 10:19–36 10:29 10:30 10:33 10:34 10:34–36 10:35 10:35–36 10:36 10:38 11:4 11:44 12:14–15 12:38 12:49 12:49–50 13:1–11 13:3 13:5–20 13:16 13:20 14:7–10 14:8–10 14:9 14:10 14:13–14 14:20 14:23–24 14:28 15:22 16:15 17 17:25–26 19:10 19:26 19:34

Index of Literature 342 68 68 144 140 46 303, 305 139, 158–59 68 189 267 275 69 249, 343 274, 287, 288 70 273 181, 329 274, 275, 277 275 275 275 275 120, 309, 310 41 180 50 10 195 46, 68 68 301, 314 49 70 310 120 50 50, 77, 78, 273, 287 273, 287 138 273, 287 180 70, 314 142 301, 314 56 46 249 154 81

20:17 20:28

46 267

Acts 1:16 2:33 2:33–35 3–4 3:22 3:23 4:13 5:31 7:34 7:37 7:55–56 13:27 13:33 15 20:16–17 20:28

10 235 7 281 143, 281, 288 68 233 7, 235 281 68, 143 7 10 63, 298 300 276, 288 276, 338

Romans 5:12–14 5:15 8:14 8:34 9:5

80 303, 305, 332 281, 287 7 276, 288

1 Corinthians 1:23 8:4–6 8:6 15:3 15:25 15:25–28 15:28 15:35–57 15:45–49

1 70 272, 288, 337, 338 10 7 64 70 64 80, 332

2 Corinthians 3:7–18

189

Galatians 5:2–12

18

Ephesians 1:20 1:20–22 2:6 4:5

7 235 7 186

393

Index of Literature Philippians 2:5–11

337

Colossians 1:13–20 1:15 1:16 1:17 2:8–9 2:9 3:1

337 332 43 43 276, 288 332 7

1 Thessalonians 2:15–16 146 Hebrews 1:1–3 1:3 1:5 1:13 2:7–8 3:1–6 3:5–6 5:5 8:1

189 7, 235 65 7 314 189 268, 287, 288 63 7

10:7–9 10:12–13 12:1 12:29

70 7 7 82

1 Peter 3:22

7, 235

1 John 3:16 4:2 4:2–3 4:12

276, 288 337 329 272, 288

2 John 7

337

Jude 1:4–5

276, 288

Revelation 1:17–18 3:21 5:12

276, 288 7 276, 288

Rabbinic Scriptures Mishna Pe’ah 1:1

148

Ketubbot 11:1

148

Yoma 4a 21b 37a–b

235 82 236

236

Rosh ha-Shana 6b Sotah 47a

Talmud Babli Berakhot 24b

236

Qiddushin 28a 49b

236 250

Shabbat 31a 88b 104b 116a 116b

236 236 342 12, 195 12

Bava Metzi’a 85a

236

Bava Batra 11a

236

Avot 3:11

192 240

394

Index of Literature

Sanhedrin 37a 38a 43a–b 104b 107b

236 243 240 240 240, 270

Sanhedrin 23c [6,9/4]

75

Midrashim Tanḥuma Yitro 16

82

Hullin 133a

236

Tehillim 4:9

105

Niddah 31a

232

P’sikta Rabbati 11

82

Talmud Yerushalmi Ta’anit 65b [2,1/24] 60

Bereshit Rabbah 6.5 232 8.10 71 31.9 232

Hagiga 77d [2,2/7]

Vayyiqra Rabbah 15.6 232

75

Muslim Scriptures Qurān 2:97 3:55 3:59 3:58–59 4:157

72 53 41 80 53

5:75 16:102 19:30 19:33–34 43:59

53 72 53 53 53

Christian Writings 1. Early Christian Acts of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate 16 81 Apostolic Constitutions 6:25 164 Barnabas 12:9b

61

Dialogue of Athanasius & Zacchaeus 1 40 22 78 28–34 11 30–34 53 43 76 Dialogue of Simon & Theophilus 12–14 11 3.12–13 53

395

Index of Literature Dialogue of Timothy & Aquila 5.12–18 328–29 8.5–6 11, 53 18.6–10 11 18.6–30 53 26.6 11, 53 34.14–20 11, 53 Gospel of Thomas 44 122, 123 History of Joseph the Carpenter 2 76 7 74 9 76 11 76 73–74 73 77 73 78 73 79 73 99 73

Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13 233 Infancy Gospel of Thomas 15 47 Shepherd of Hermas 5.6.5 108 Protoevangelium of James 9:2 89 14:14–21 233 17:1–2 89 18:1 89 20 79, 89 Vita Sylvestry (Donation of Constantine) 2 18 Kebra Nagast 96

83

2. Patristic Ambrose of Milan De fide ad Gratianum 5.5 160 5.16 59 5.139 59 Expositio Ev. sec. Lucam 10 [3.17] 105 8.65–67 67 88 [12:10] 122 Enarrationes in XII Psalmos 39 272 Athanasius De decretis 23

83

De incarnatione 54.6 65 Epistulae festales 6 146

Orationes contra Arianos 2.71 243 3.42–50 59 3.43 60, 66 Augustin Contra Faustum Manichaeum 12.11 146 De symbolo ad chatechumenos 8 83 De Trinitate 1.12 1.23

59 59

Sermones 71.14

157

Basil of Caesarea Epistulae 236 59

396

Index of Literature

Bede Exp. in Ev. S. Matthaei 24 59 27 (28) 164 Chrysostom Homiliae in Matthaeum 41 122 63.1 67

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 1.7.17 107 3.24.6 215 3.25.5 215 3.27.3 215 3.39.16 215 5.10.3 215 6.25.4 215

Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.59.3 79

Gregory of Nazianzus Oratio in laudam Basilii 29.18 59, 279

Cyprian Ad Quirinum testimonia adv. Jud. 2.4 243

Gregory of Nyssa Libri contra Eunomium 1.22 272 3.4 272

Cyril of Alexandria Commentarii in Lucam 122–23 67 Homiliae paschales 17.3 83

Hegemonius Acta Archelai 59

109

Quod unus est Christus 83

Hilary of Poitiers In Ev. Matthaei Com. 8.6 151 26.4 59

Cyril of Jerusalem Catechesis 3.6 154

Ignatius Epist. ad Phld. 3

Ephrem Com. Diatessaron (ed. McCarthy) 4, §7 110–111 5, §§1–11 67 16, §1 119, 120 16, §3 119 16, §§2–5 119, 120 20, §1 116–117

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.26.1 71 2.28.6 60 3.1.1 215 3.9 11, 109 3.9.2 75 3.10.2 323 3.16.3 75, 323 3.16.7 323 3.16.8 64 3.17.1 323 3.18.3–4 323 3.19 11 3.19.1–2 323 3.19.3 8–9 3.21 11 3.22 75

Epiphanius Panarion 29.9.4 30.3 30.3.7 30.13.1–22.4 69.(19) 69.58 78 (58)

215 71 215 215 160, 329 160 89

11

397

Index of Literature 3.22.2 4.12.3 4.23 4.33.2 5 5.21.1 5.21.2 5.28.3 5.31

117. 67 11 272 65 272 188 243 64

Jerome Adv. Helvidium de Mariae virg. perp. 14 89 Adversus Pelagianos 3.2 109, 215 Com. in Matthaeum 1.2.5 225 1.2.11 225 2.11.11 154 2.12.13 215 3.19.17 67 4.24.36 59 De viris illustribus 3 215 Epistulae 20.5 120.8

215 215

Homiliae in psalmos 108 146 John of Damascus De fide orthodoxa 3.8 83 Justin Martyr Apologia I 13.3 32–35 35.38

70 11 253

Dialogus cum Tryphone 43 11 45 75 48–49 72

54 59–60 61 63 66–68 66–69 67 68.1 68.8 69.7 71.3 77 84 84.1–3 84.2 88.4 95.2–4 97 99 99.2 100 100.3 100.3–4 101.1–2 102.3 103.8 104 127–28 128

11 83 83 11 11 53 72 327 10 240 10 11 11 10 8 109 251 253 199 117 75 272 323 66 146 117 253 83 83

Lactantius Divinae Institutiones 4.22 62 5.2 233 5.3 41 Macarius Magnes Apokritikos 3.2 328 3.4 66 4.22 87 Nestorius frag. 24

110

Origen Homiliae Genesium 14.3 226

398

Index of Literature

Comm. in ev. Matthaei 15.10–11 67 55 60

Pseudo-Clement Homiliae 18.1.1–3 67

Contra Celsum 1.6 1.28 1.31 1.33–35 1.34 1.37 1.61 1.62 1.66 1.69 1.70 2.9 2.11 2.24 2.32 2.34 2.36 2.46 3.3 3.22 3.36 4.73 4.42 5.20 6.69 6.73

Recognitiones 1.60.1–3

240 240, 327 249 11 53 324 146 233 146, 184, 227 87 189 117 249 115 75 249 81 233 41 41 41 249 41 41 156 86–87

Frag. ex comm. in ev. Matthaei 487 59 Homiliae Lucam 14.4 109 Prudentius Apotheosis (ed. Thomson) pp. 121–29 330

153

Tertullian Adversus Judaeos 9 11 9.2 9, 226 Adversus Marcionem 3.10.1 79 3.12–13 11 3.13.2 226 4.10 323 Adversus Praxeam 8 83 Apologeticus 21 21.15

83 3

De carne Christi 4 5 17–23 18

87 323 87 61

De idololatria 9.1

226

De resurrectione carnis 51 64 Theodore of Mopsuestia In ev. Lucae com. frg. 4 111 Hom. catech. 15.25

110

Index of Literature

3. Anti-Christian Polemics Julian “the Apostate” Contra Galileos 213A 73 209Df 328 253Ef 328 262Cf 53, 328 Photinus 55

87, 328

Porphyry (ed. Berchman) §28 11 §57 62 §62 41 §73 11 §96 79 §166 66 §175 68, 328 §208 87

4. Medieval Alcuin of York De symbolo 509 (41)

155

Strabo Glossa Ordinaria: Evang. Matt. 24.36 59

Anselm of Laon Enarrationes in Mattheaum 11 154

Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea Matt 11:11 154

Sententie fol. 86d

Summa contra gentiles 4.34.29 280 4.39.1 280

156

Isidore of Seville Etymologiae 7.2.23 243 Petrus Alfonsi Dialog. cum Moyse judaeo 8 277 Peter Lombard Sententiae 4 4.7.3 (45) 4.13.1 (72)

Summa theologiae 1.3.3 280 3.16.4–5 280 3.19.1 280 3.46.12 280 Vincent of Beauvais Speculum historiale 8.91 264

264 187 265

399

Index of Modern Authors Abramowski, Luise 62 Abulafia, Anna Sapir 93, 94, 129, 131–33 Accad, Martin 32, 122 Adler, Michael 328 Akhiezer, Golda 293 Aland, Barbar 319 Aland, Kurt 319 Allen, W. C. 321 Alexander, Gerhard 291 Alexander, Philip 33, 54 Allison, Dale 59, 106, 109, 112, 122, 148, 153, 188, 189, 248, 310 Atiya, Aziz 72 Avneri, Zvi 98, 173, 174, 210 Bacher, Wilhelm 17, 25, 323 Baer, Yitzhak 94, 97, 211, 257, 259, 260, 265 Baltes, Guido 215, 318 Bammel, Ernst 42, 47, 54, 81, 327 Banitt, Menahem 129 Bar-Ilan, Meir 243 Bat Ye’or 35 Battenberg, Friedrich 171, 174 Batto, Bernhard 71 Bauckham, Richard 4, 233, 337 Bauer, Walter 42, 64, 75, 81, 214 Beaumont, Mark 273 Becker, Eve-Marie 321 Becker, Hans-Jürgen 20, 34 Bedenbender, A. 20 Beeson, Charles 109 Beinart, Haim 210, 211 Ben-Chorin, Shalom 17 Benedict XVI 17 Ben-Sasson, Haim 169–71 Ben-Shalom, Ram 172 Berchman, Robert 11, 41, 62, 66, 68, 79, 87, 328

Berger, David 6, 16, 20, 42, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 136, 137, 144, 149, 150, 156, 163, 167–206, 288, 321, 324 Berger, Samuel 213 Berlin, Anne 257, 258, 260, 264, 265, 287 Bezold, Carl 83 Biale, David 11 Biere, Christina 20 Billerbeck, Paul 20, 75, 236 Bindley, Herbert 5 Biscioni, Antonio 216 Blastenbrei, Peter 174 Blau, Joshua 32 Bliemetzrieder, Franz 156 Bloch, Renée 235 Blumenkranz, B. 14, 18, 93, 94, 129, 130, 134, 146, 171, 326 Bobinchon, P. 2, 26 Bockmuehl, Markus 148 Borg, Marcus 231 Bowman, Robert 337 Boyarin, Daniel 4, 158, 335 Braude, William 82 Brayer, Menachem 232 Brettler, Marc 320 Breuer, Mordecai 175, 176, 188, 192 Briggman, Anthony 243 Brown, Raymond 60, 75, 76, 106 Broydé, Isaac 127 Burnett, Stephen 17 Burkett, Delbert 57, 323 Burrell, David 333 Burton, Robert 292 Bynum, Caroline 64 Cabaniss, Allen 325 Carlton Paget, James 12, 326, 331 Casey, Maurice 57 Chadwick, Henry 75, 87, 115, 146, 327

402

Index of Modern Authors

Chapman, David 252 Chazan, Robert 5, 24, 25, 54, 85, 91, 92, 94, 96–99, 101, 102, 105, 111,123, 124, 129–35, 137, 171, 172, 173, 212, 341 Chernus, Ira 189 Chester, Andrew 4 Chidiac, Robert 113, 119, 275 Chiesa, Bruno 25, 266 Chilton, Bruce 189 Chokr, Melhem 32 Christensen, Michael 65 Cohen, Jeremy 21, 93, 94, 96, 97, 134, 146, 170, 172, 173, 207, 251, 258, 265, 266, 286, 288, 289 Cohen, Mark 94, 95 Cohen, Shaye 23, 215 Collins, John 57, 335 Cook, John G. 2, 327 Cotton, Hannah 75 Courbage, Youssef 35 Cragg, Kenneth 275 Cramer, Peter 187 Dán, Robert 294 Dapaah, Daniel 238 Davies, William 59, 106, 109, 112, 122, 148, 153, 188, 248, 310 Deines, Roland 1, 10, 17, 44, 47, 186, 247, 319–20 De Lacy, Phillip 232 De Lagarde, Paul 74 De Lange, Nicholas 2, 29, 146 De Lubac, Henri 323 Delegado Jara, I. 265 Denzinger, H. 5, 60 Deutsch, David 293–315 Deutsch, Yaacov 12 DeVine, Charles 276 Di Capua, Angelo 136 Dietrich, Ernst Ludwig 291 Donaldson, Terrence 317, 320 Dörnyei, Zoltán 335 Driver, Godfrey 83 Driver, S. R. 3 Dunn, James 4, 63, 70, 196, 268, 337 Dudenberg, Ismo 79 Edwards, James 215, 318 Edwards, John 212,

Ehrman, Albert 137, 167, 169, 175 Eidelberg, Shlomo 173 Eisenstein, Judah 6, 342 El Kaisy-Friemuth, M. 113 Elliott, James 318 Emery, Richard 173, 257, 258, 260 Evans, Craig 19 Evans, Ernest 87 Evetts, B. T. A. 72 Falls, T. B. 327 Fargues, Philippe 35 Fassler, Margoth 154 Feldmeier, Reinhard 68 Ferguson, Everett 109, 187 Finkel, Joshua 41 Firpo, Massimo 294 Fisher, J. D. C. 187 Fleischer, Heinrich 31 Fleischmann, Stefan 294 Fletcher, Charles 41 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin 335 Flusser, David 17, 320 Ford, David E. C. 265 Ford, David F. 339 Fossum, Jarl 189 Frank, Daniel 302 Frankenmölle, H. 317 Frey, Jörg 318 Frick, David 293 Friedländer, Jonathan 257–59 Frimer, N. 209, 211, 216 Freyne, Séan 317 Funkenstein, Amos 21, 326 Gadamer, H.-G. 2 Gager, John 54, 146 Gale, Aaron 320 Gaon, Solomon 265 Garbell, Irene 258 Garshowitz, Libby 209–219, 227, 235, 252–55 Gathercole, Simon 8, 70, 335 Gaudeul, Jean-Marie 98 Gebhardi, B. H. 296 Geiger, Abraham 6, 291, 292–94, 297 Gero, Stephen 30 Glöckner, Richard 71 Golb, Norman 34, 130 Goldstein, Morris 12, 20

Index of Modern Authors Gondreau, Paul 329 Goodman, Alan 63 Gousset, Jaques 296 Graetz, Heinrich 127, 128, 171, 174, 291, 293 Grayzel, Solomon 94, 97, 134, 173, Green, F. W. 5 Grillmeier, A. 5, 61, 68, 82 Grindheim, Sigurd 196, 335, 337 Gross, Heinrich 92 Grossmann, A. 23, 323 Gundry, Robert 9 Gutwirth, E. 211, 259, 285 Hagner, Donald 22 Hahneman, Ge. H. 319 Halkin, Abraham 100 Hamilton, James 10 Hamori, Eshter 334 Hannah, Darrell 72 Hanson, Richard 5, 70, 156, 329 Harnack, Adolf 22 Harris, Murray 276 Heer, Joseph 76 Hengel, Martin 3, 4, 7, 23, 63, 148, 247, 337 Herbst, Adolf 214 Herford, Travers 75 Herrera García, R 265 Herskowitz, William 25, 341–42 Hebwitt, James 215 Hodgson, Leonard 83 Hoffmann, Joseph 11, 327 Hofius, Otfried 189, 335 Holmén, Tom 231 Hood, Jason 106 Hood, John 96, 97, 146 Horbury, William 4, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23–26, 29–31, 91, 105, 127, 128, 132, 134, 135, 145, 151, 157, 167, 168, 170, 175–76, 192, 209, 210, 213–216, 258–60, 335, 337 Horowitz, Elliot 171 Hovorun, Cyril 249 Howard, George 214, 215, 216, 219, 239, 246 Hughes, Peter 295 Hulen, Amos 326 Hurtado, Larry 4, 57, 337

403

Instone-Brewer, D. 9, 225 Isaac, Jules 317 Jacob, Irving 114 Jastrow, Marcus 158 Johansson, Daniel 71 Johnson, Marshall 106 Jordan, William 129, 132, 133, 171, 172 Jouassard, Georges 203 Juel, Donald 10 Jüngel, Eberhard 281 Kahn, Zadoc 127, 128, 137, 141 Kamen, Henry 212 Kannengiesser, Ch. 70 Kaplan, Joseph 212 Katz, Jacob 16 Kasher, Rimon 323 Kaufman, Y. 23 Kealy, Seán 13, 23 Kehrer, Hugo 226 Kelly, John 7, 38, 115 Kesich, Veselin 111 Kessler, Edward 20 Kessler, Gwynn 232 Kidder, Richard 296 Kingsbury, Jack 8 Kisch, Guido 174 Klatzkin, Jacob 279 Klauck, Hans-Josef 89 Klausner, Joseph 17 Klijn, A. F. J. 318 Klostermann, Erich 68, 321 Kobler, Frany 259 Köhler, W.-D. 23 Kohn, Jakob 257–59 Komoszewski, Ed 337 Köppen, Klaus Peter 111 Korobkin, Daniel 25 Küng, Hans 281, 333 Krauss, Samuel 11, 14, 15, 18, 23–26, 29, 31, 74, 76, 91, 127, 128, 132,134, 135, 167, 168, 175, 209, 240, 258–60 Krey, Philip 264 Kupp, David 8, 306 Lagrange, M.-J. 75 Lahey, Lawrence 329 Langmuir, Gavin 16

404

Index of Modern Authors

Lapide, Pinchas 17, 91, 127, 128, 136, 138, 140, 141, 156, 214, 215, 217, 320 Lasker, Daniel J. 2, 3, 6, 14–15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29–86, 92, 98, 110, 118, 122, 140, 147, 148, 150, 153, 168, 172, 182, 199, 249, 251, 258–61, 325, 332 Leff, Gordon 265 Leford, Louis 74 Levene, Nancy 339 Levinger, Jacob 258 Levine, Amy-Jill 17, 320 Levy, Barry 57 Levy, Joshua 94, 101–125, 143, 144, 161, 182, 185, 186, 196, 213, 220, 224, 227, 230, 246, 250 Lewis, Bernhard 35, 95 Lichtenstein-H., Y. 296 Limor, Ora 14, 26, 34, 36, 55, 89, 168 176 Lindars, Barnabas 63 Littman, Gisèle 35 Lockwood, W. 25, 266 Lods, Marc 327 Loeb, Isodore 92, 134, 169, 209, Loewe, Raphael 18, 244 Löfstedt, Bengt 154 Lona, Horacio 327 Longère, Jean 97 Loofs, Friedrich 39 Loserth, John 265 Lossky, Vladimir 337 Lotter, Friedrich 172–74 Louth, Andrew 335 Lukaszewski, A. 57 Lukowski, Jerzy 292 Luz, Ulrich 22, 57, 59, 60, 67, 106, 111, 119, 148, 151, 160, 161, 164, 189, 203, 248, 306, 310 Maccoby, Hyam 97, 127, 134, 135, 211, 334 Mackintosh, Hugh 38 Madigan, Kevin 59, 329 Maier, Johann 12 Malett, Alex 35 Mangenot, Eugène 122 Männchen, Julia 20 Marx, Alexander 214 Massaux, Édouard 13, 23

McAfee Moss, C. 9 McCarthy, Carmel 67, 109–111, 116–17, 119, 120, McCulloh, John 171 McDaniel, Thomas 215 McFarlane, Kenneth 265 McGrath, James 70, 158, 275 McGuckin, John 335 McKnight, Scott 317 McVey, Kathleen 88 Meerson, Michael 12, 252 Menocal, María Rosa 95 Merḥavia, Haim 134 Merkel, Helmut 75 Metzger, Bruce 319 Miller, James 293 Mimouni, Simon 318 Mitchell, Leonel 187 Mocatta, Moses 297 Modica, Joseph 53 Moltmann, Jürgen 281, 337 Monferrer Sala, J. P. 275 Montefiore, Claude 17 Morray-Jones, C. 82 Moses, A. D. A. 189 Moyise, Steven 10 Muller, Earl 70 Müller, Johannes 296 Müller, Mogens 57, 151, 272, 323 Murciano, Prosper 26, 34, 226 Najman, Hindy 235 Narinskaya, Elena 330 Nemoy, Leon 291 Nes, Solrunn 335 Netanyahu, Benzion 91, 211, 257–61, 285, 286 Neubauer, Adolf 3 Neusner, Jacob 17, 71, 334 Newman, Hillel 252 Newman, John Henry 154 Nicholls, Rachel 336 Niclós A., José-Vicente 209, 210, 213, 215, 218, 255, 259 Nirenberg, David 171 Nolan, Mark 17 Norden, Joseph 297 O’Callaghan, Joseph 95 O’Collins, Gerald 38

Index of Modern Authors O’Neill, John 335 Ochs, Peter 339 Osborne, Thomas 106 Osburn, Caroll 13 Ostmeyer, K.-H. 222 Otto, Randall 248 Overman, Andrew 319 Pahl, Theodor 20 Parkes, James 79, 82, 133, 146 Pennells, Stephen 81 Pérez, Gonzalo 72 Perlmann, Moshe 25, 58 Petersen, William 12, 215 Pines, Shlomo 54, 160 Podet, Allen 26, 268 Pollmann, Karla 330 Popkin, Richard 291, 293, 297 Porat, Dina 171 Porter, Stanley 10 Posnanski, Adolf 3, 91, 92, 93, 127, 175, 188, 226, 257, 258, 264, 269, 277 Pritz, Ray 318 Przybilski, Martin 129 Puig i Tàrrech, Armand 89 Pulcini, Theodore 275, 310 Pusey, E. B. 3 Rankin, Oliver 167 Ratzinger, Joseph 17 Ray, Jonathan 96 Régné, Jean 132 Reimarus, Hermann 291 Reinhardt, Klaus 264 Reinke, Laurenz 8 Reiser, Marius 8, 339 Rembaum, Joel 2, 20, 30, 31, 36, 81, 91, 92, 106, 122, 137, 147, 167, 206, 322, 324, 326 Rengstorf, K.-H. 127, 130 Renoux, Athanase 13 Resnick, Irvin 85, 93 Robinson, Forbes 74 Robinson, Neal 273 Rodríguez, Carlos 91, 92, 259 Roggema, Barbara 35 Rosen, Klaus 75–76 Rosenblatt, Samuel 100, 115, 302 Rosenkranz, Simone 30–36, 42, 43, 79, 82

405

Rosenthal, Erwin 23, 127, 135, 258, 259, 294 Rosenthal, Herman 293 Rosenthal, Judah M. 14, 91–94, 100, 102, 114, 118, 128, 134, 136–65, 169, 181, 182, 185, 192, 194, 206, 251, 253, 294 Rosner, Fred 334 Roth, Cecil 171 Roth, Norman 3, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 210, 211, 212, 217, 247, 251, 257, 259 Rothfuchs, W. 9 Rowland, Christopher 82 Rubin, Miri 171 Ruderman, David 268 Ruether, Rosemary 317 Runesson, Anders 321 Rushdie, Salman 102 Russell, Norman 65 Sæbø, Magne 323 Saenger, Max 259 Saldarini, Antjony 319 Sánchez Caro, J. M. 265 Sanders, E. P. 148 Sandmel, Samuel 17, 320 Sanz, José María A. 211 Schaller, Bernd 20 Schäfer, Peter 4, 11, 12, 60, 110, 240, 327 Schubert, Kurt 139 Shatzmiller, Joseph 34 Schlichting, Günter 11 Schlosberg, Léon 31 Schmitz, Rolf 91 Schoeps, H.-J. 20 Schonfield, Hugh 12, 214 Schönmetzer, A. 5, 60 Schreckenberg, H. 14, 85, 91, 96, 98 Schreiner, Stefan 24, 25, 293, 298 Schwartz, Dov 209, 211, 216 Segal, Alan 158 Shedinger, Robert 215 Shereshevsky, Esra 129 Siegfried, Carl 19–20 Sievert, Rosemarie 291, 294 Sim, David 319, 321 Simon, Marcel 146 Simon, Stanislaus 168 Simonson, David 175 Siqueira, Reinaldo 248 Sivan, Hagith 23, 29

406

Index of Modern Authors

Skarsaune, Oskar 54 Slutsky, Yehuda 171 Smith, Lesley 264 Smith, Payne 67 Sourdel, Dominique 32 Specht, Walter 244 Spinka, Matthew 264, 265 Spinks, Bryan 187 Stacey, Robert 171 Stein, Siegfried 25, 172 Steinsalz, Adin 192 Steinschneider, Moritz 35, 167 Stillman, Norman 95 Stökl Ben Ezra, D. 13 Stow, Kenneth 94, 134, 171, 173 Strack, Hermann 20, 75, 296 Strecker, Georg 72 Stroumsa, Sara 29–86, 110, 122, 140, 147, 148, 150, 182, 199, 251, 325, 332 Suciu, Alin 74 Suler, Bernard 98 Swartz, Michael 82 Sweetman, Windrow 113, 119, 274, 275, 310 Swenson, Kristin 253 Synan, Edward 94 Syszman, Simon 292 Talmage, Frank 24, 74, 83–84, 115–116, 121, 168, 226, 237, 240, 251, 257–59, 262, 264, 266–86, 288, 291, 342 Tanner, Norman 39 Taylor, Miriam 331 Thiselton, Anthony 1, 4 Thomas, David 35, 55, 98, 201 Thomson, H. J. 330 Thornton, C.-J. 247 Torrance, Thomas 38 Trautner-Kromann, H. 25, 91, 92, 99, 127, 128, 129, 132, 135, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 209, 258, 259 Trench, Richard 154 Truex, Jerry 158 Tuckett, Christopher 13 Unger, Christian 297 Unterseher, Lisa 146 Urbach, Ephraim 127, 136, 137, 169, 175–76

Vall, Gregory 253 Van Bekkum, W. J. 23 Van der Horst, P. J. 23 Van Esbroeck, M. 31 Varner, William 11, 40, 53, 76, 87, 329 Vermes, Geza 17, 57 Vermes, Mark 109 Visi, Tamás 26 Visotzky, Burton 23 Vogt, Peter 76 Von Kortzfleisch, S. 127, 130 Von Mutius, H.-G. 18–19, 25, 97, 101, 105, 107, 125 Vose, Robin 172 Wade Labarge, M. 133 Wagenseil, J. C. 6, 174–76, 196, 197, 296, 297, 322 Waysblum, Marek 291, 293 Webb, Robert 238 Weinandy, Thomas 38 Wickham, L. 59 Wilken, Robert 109, 266 Willi, Thomas 222 Willi-Plein, Ina 222 Williams, A. Lukyn 6, 14, 93, 98, 109, 115, 122, 146, 212, 296 Williams, F. 59 Williams, Frank 72, 160 Williams, Jacqueline 13 Williams, Rowen 70 Wilms, Franz-Elmar 113, 119, 275 Wittung, Jeffery 65 Wight, N. T. 196, 231 Wright, Wilmer 53 Wolfson, Harry 30 Wyschogrod, M. 5, 6, 321, 334, 338–39 Yarbro Collins, Adela 57, 335 Yuval, Israel 26, 168, 171, 173, 240 Zajączkowski, Ananiasz 291–93 Zawadzki, Hubert 292 Zellentin, Holger 12, 153 Zunz, Leopold 169 Zwiep, Irene 258

Index of Persons & Subjects

Abelard, Peter 97, 135, 146, 156, 264 Abner of Burgos 93, 210, 212, 217, 255, 261 Abrogation of Torah, s. Appendix II Abū Bakr 32 Adam of St. Victor 154 Adversus Christianos 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 29 Agobard of Lyon 146 Alcuin of York 156 Alfonsus, Petrus 93, 264, 277 Al-Ghazālī 113, 119, 273, 275 Al-Jāḥiẓ 41 Al-Makarim, Abu 72 Al-Muqamaṣ, D. 30, 42, 62, 332 Al-Qirqīsānī, Ya’qūb 25, 42, 266, 302 Al-Ṭabarī, ‘Ali 32, 55 ’Al Tehi ke-Avoteka 259 Albo, Josef 25 Amiel, Pierre 173 Anti-Semitism 146, 212, 317 Anselm of Laon 154, 156 Apocrypha 30, 32, 48, 51, 55, 72–74, 76, 81, 88–89, 110, 144, 233, 318 Apollinarius of Laodicea 115 Apollinarian/-ism 38, 115–16, 156, 162, 166, 198, 202, 204, 207, 272, 329, 332 Arian/-ism 55, 67, 88, 155, 160–61, 166, 305, 329 Aquinas, Thomas 67, 97, 122–23, 154, 264, 280, 281, 329, 333 Basle Nizzahon 151, 168, 170, 192 Ben Abraham of Troki, Isaac 15, 174, 278, 291–315 Ben Hayyim, Levi b. Abraham 286 Ben Isaac of Troyes, S. [Rashi] 10, 19, 23, 129, 130, 243, 264 Ben Meshullam, Nathan 128, 131

Ben Maimon, Abraham b. Moses 334 Ben Naḥman, Moses 97 Ben Reuben, Jacob 15, 24, 29, 36, 91–126, 128, 186, 194, 210, 212, 213, 219, 222, 224, 225, 227, 250, 255 Ben Simon, Me’ir 25, 84, 124, 168, 172, 173, 341–44 Ben Solomon, Moses 168 Ben Solomon, Samuel 135 Benedict XIII 210 Bernard of Clairvaux 130, 156 Biṭṭul ‘iqqare ha-Noṣrim 25, 260 Bodo-Eleazar 325 Boleslaw 292 Bonet Bonjorn, Davi 259 Budny, Szymon 293, 294, 298 Burton, Robert 292 Callixtus II 156 Casimir IV 292 Cedrenus, Gregorius 109 Celsus 11, 41, 53, 75, 81, 86, 115, 117, 146, 184, 233, 240, 249, 324, 327 Christiani, Pablo 97, 325 Converts 30–31, 32, 34, 55, 175–76, 211–13, 218, 259–60, 325, 329 Cornutus, Walter 135 Crispin, Gilbert 92–93, 118 Creed, Athanasian et al 4–5, 7, 136, 155–57, 161–62, 271 Crescas, Ḥasdai 25, 249, 259–61, 266, 282, 286, 333 Crusades 35, 95, 96, 130–34, 173 Cur Deus homo 100, 118 Cyril of Alexandria 39, 67, 83, 154, 164 Czechowic, Marcin 294, 315 De Lille, Alan 97, 135 De Lyre, Nicholas 19–20, 93–94, 102, 122, 264, 277, 278, 283, 284, 325

408

Index of Persons & Subjects

De Madrigal, Alonso (Tostado) 265 De Peñafort, R. 96–98 De Santa María, Pablo 98, 212, 217, 259, 261, 325 De Valladolid, Alfonso 93, 210, 212, 217, 255, 261 Debates, religious 15, 25, 85, 97, 127–28, 132, 134–135, 172–73, 210–11, 259–60, 293–94 Dhimmi 35, 94 Donin, Nicholas 135, 325 Du Tillet, Jean 214, 218, 343 Duran, Profiat (Efodi) 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 211, 212, 219, 225–27, 257–89, 293, 324, 332, 333, 337, 338 Duran, Simeon b. Zemah 16, 25, 26, 34

Incarnation, s. Appendix II Infancy Gospels 30, 32, 73–74, 76, 79, 88–89, 144, 233 Innocent III 96 Innocent IV 135

Eisenmenger, J. A. 6 Emunoth ve-De‘oth 100, 115, 302 Ephrem the Syrian 67, 88, 109, 110, 116, 119, 120, 198, 330 Eshkol ha-Kofer 25 Even Boḥan 6, 17, 22, 24, 26, 93, 108, 123, 209–256, 269, 274, 278, 286, 301, 303, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 335, 343 ‘Ezer ha-Emunah 25

Karaism 292 Kelimmath ha-Goyim 19, 22, 24, 26, 68, 117, 219, 226, 245, 249, 257–89, 303, 306, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 324 Kitāb al-anwār 25

Farissol, Abraham 268 Ferrer, Vicente 210, 211 Gabriel, the angel 48, 49, 51, 72, 73, 76, 80 Galen 232 Gregory I, the Great 60 Gregory IX 96, 135 Gregory X 128 Hadassi, Judah 25 Ḥizzuq Emunah 24, 56, 68, 113, 123, 174, 291–315, 322, 324, 333 Hus, Jan 264 Hypostatic Union 17, 44, 103, 279–81, 289, 337–38, see also Appendix II Ibn al-Layth 32, 41 Ibn Ezra, Abraham 11 Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova 275, 310 Ibn Kammūna 24–25, 58 Ibn Musa, Hayyim 16

Jaime I 97 Jerome 11, 34, 59, 67, 79, 89, 109, 122, 146, 154, 203, 215, 225, 226, 263, 264, 277, 278, 284, 285 Juan I 258 Judah ha-Levi 25 Judah of Melun 135 Judas Iscariot 51, 240, 306, 343 Julian, Emperor 11, 53, 74, 75, 87, 326–28

Lateran Council, fourth 96, 128, 134 Lectionary 13, 52 Le Jeune, Martin 214 Lipmann Mühlhausen, Y. T. 26, 167, 168, 324 Livyat Ḥen 286 Logos-sarx 115–16, 156, 198, 204, 207, 329, 332 Lombard, Peter 187, 264–65 Louis VII 146 Louis VIII 131–32 Louis IX 97, 131–35 Luther, Martin 19–20, 278, 298 Magen Avot 26, 324 Magen va-Ḥerev 16, 26, 268 Magen ve-Romaḥ 16 Maimonides 334 Marsilius of Padua 265 Martini, Raymond 98, 214, 222, 264, 286, 325 Mary, s. Appendix II Matthew, Gospel of — Hebrew translations 213–15, 218–19, 225–26, 318 Milḥamot ha-Shem 19, 24, 26, 29, 36, 68, 91–126, 141–44, 147, 156–58, 174,

Index of Persons & Subjects 162, 164–68, 182–88, 194, 196–202, 204, 206, 213, 220, 224, 228, 230, 269, 280, 296, 307, 308, 312, 313, 322, 324, 332 Milḥemet Miṣvah 25, 84–85, 124, 137, 168, 172–73, 185, 200, 202, 204, 322, 341–44 Modena, Leon 16, 26, 267 Moses of Coucy 135 Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas 25, 93 MS Rome (Or. 53) 24, 136–137, 147, 149–51, 154, 163, 168–70, 175, 176, 181, 182, 185, 192, 193, 194, 197, 199, 206, 322 Münster, Sebastian 6, 175, 214, 218, 343 Nachmanides 97 Nestor ha-Komer 23–24, 29–90, 99, 102, 103, 106, 107, 110, 113, 115, 121, 122, 125, 140, 142, 147–50, 159–65, 168, 176, 182, 184, 186, 191–200, 203, 206, 224, 231, 250, 251, 269, 270, 274, 307, 308, 311, 312, 322, 325, 329, 333, 342 Nestorius of Adiabene 30 Nestorius of Constantinople 30, 31, 39, 62, 83, 110 Nicholas III 173 Nicholas IV 173 Nizzahon Vetus 17, 24, 26, 27, 68, 109, 113, 115, 119, 123, 137, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149–52, 156, 160, 163–166, 167–207, 224, 225, 227, 230, 238, 242, 246, 248, 250, 253, 269, 270, 274, 280, 301, 303, 306–14, 322, 324, 332 Odo of Tournai 85, 118 Pedro IV 210 Pedro de Luna 210 Philip II, Augustus 131, 171 Philip IV 131, 170, 172 Polemics — Christian 11, 14, 40, 53, 71, 75, 76, 87, 89, 115, 146, 160, 327–29 — classification 21 — definition 14 — Jewish 35, see Appendix II — function 14, 18

409

— Muslim 32–33, 41, 55, 113, 119, 273, 275, 310 — pagan 2, 11, 41, 53, 62, 64, 66, 68, 74, 75, 79, 81, 86, 87, 115, 117, 266, 146, 184, 233, 240, 249, 324, 326–28 Postilla perpetua 19, 264 Porphyry 11, 41, 62, 66, 68, 79, 87, 266, 326–28 Pugio Fidei 98, 214, 222, 264, 286, 325 Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf 23–24,29–90, 99, 102, 103, 106, 107, 110, 113, 115, 121, 122, 125, 140, 142, 147–50, 159–65, 168, 176, 182, 184, 186, 191–200, 203, 206, 224, 231, 250, 251, 269, 270, 274, 307, 308, 311, 312, 322, 325, 329, 333, 342 Qeshet u-Magen 16, 25–26, 34, 226, 324 Qimḥi, David 11, 19, 24, 274, 293 Qimḥi, Joseph 24, 83, 93, 116, 212, 213 Qirqisani, Jacob 25, 42, 266, 302 Rabanus Maurus 154 Radd ‘alā al-Naṣārā 41, 55, 62 Rambam 334 Ramban 97 Rashi 10, 19, 23, 129, 130, 243, 264 Reimarus, Hermann 24, 291 Saadia Gaon 42, 100, 115, 302 Sefer ha-Berit 24, 83–84, 92, 115, 116, 212, 251 Sefer ha-‘Iqqarim 25 Sefer ha-Niṣṣaḥon 26, 167, 168, 324 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 24, 27, 68, 78, 97, 113, 115, 123, 128–66, 167–69, 173, 176, 182–85, 191–207, 227, 236, 242, 250, 270, 271, 274, 280, 301, 306, 307, 309, 311–13, 323–24, 332 Servetus, Michael 294, 295 Socinus, Faustus 293, 294 Solomon ha-Levy 212, 217, 259, 261, 325 “Son of Man” 19, 57–61, 114, 139, 144, 149–52, 158–59, 271–72, 178, 180, 191–93, 199, 207, 221, 243, 244, 253, 271–72, 275, 287, 300–305, 309, 311, 315, 322–323, 334–35 suppositum 280–81, 338

410

Index of Persons & Subjects

Ta‘anot 168, 188, 192, 199 Talmud 12, 50, 97, 110, 134–35 Tanqīḥ 24–25, 58 Tela Ignea Satanae 174–75, 177, 197, 296, 297, 322 Teshuvot be’Anshei ’Awen 259 Toledoth Yeshu 11–12, 15, 22, 29, 30, 33, 34, 48, 50, 51, 54, 74, 76, 105, 110, 145, 181, 240, 252, 327, 342, 343 Trinity, s. Appendix II “Two Natures of Christ” 5, 15, 60, 111, 112, 117, 125, 201, 246, 249, 254, 280, 331, 337–38 “Two Powers in Heaven” 99, 157–58, 203–204

Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq 24, 41, 74, 116, 121, 237, 240, 276, 342, 343 Vincent of Beauvais 264 Virgin Birth, s. Appendix II Voltaire 291 Wagenseil, J. C. 6, 174–76, 196, 197, 296, 297, 322 Whitehands, William 131 William of Champeaux 156 William of Ockham 265 Wycliffe, John 264–65