An Anonymous Dialogue with a Jew (Corpus Christianorum in Translation) 9782503534459, 2503534457

Citation preview

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM IN TRANSLATION

6

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM Series Graeca 30

ANONYMVS dialogvs cvm ­i vdaeis saecvli vt videtvr sexti nvnc primvm editvs cvrante José H. Declerck

TURNHOUT

FHG

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Introduction, translation and notes by Lee M. FIELDS

H

F

Academic Overview Peter Van Deun Institute for Early Christian and Byzantine Studies Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

© 2012, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

D/2012/0095/7 ISBN 978-2-503-53445-9 Printed on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

9

Introduction The Present Work The Dialog Genre and Adversus-Judaeos Literature The Question of Authenticity General Introduction to ADI The Text and Versions Summary of Contents Tone and Style of the Dialog Authorship and Date The Case for an Egyptian Provenance A Case for a Palestinian or Syrian Provenance Olster and the Question of Evangelistic Motive ADI within the Sphere of Adversus-Judaeos Dialog Literature   General Similarity among Dialogs Based on Interpretation of Scripture Special Similarity among Dialogs Based on Juxtaposition of Scripture Divergence as Evidence of Independence of ADI and Dialogs Generally Agreement-Disagreement between the Dialogs

11 11 12 16 20 20 20 21 22 24 27 30

Bibliography Abbreviations Ancient Sources in Modern Editions Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions Christian Works: Dialog Corpus

51 51 54 54 55

5

35 35 37 39 47

Table of Contents

Other Greek and Latin Works Referenced Secondary Sources An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

56 59 65

Chapter 1: Introduction 67 The Author Ponders Why the Jews Reject Christianity 1-4167 The Author at a Chance Meeting Invites a Jew to Answer His Question 42-5269 The Jew, Being Assured of Safety and Method, Agrees to Debate 52-11869 Discussion of How to Interpret Scripture 119-27072 Chapter 2: The Existence of the Trinity 79 Summary 1-1779 That God Has a Son 18-3180 The One God as a Plurality 31-8980 The Adoptive Sonship of Israel Implies a Prior Natural Sonship to God 90-11583 God’s Natural Son Must Be of the Same Essence as God 116-143  84 Evidence for the Trinity 144-34485 Abraham at the Oak of Mamre 152-25885 Moses at the Bramble Bush 259-27790 The Seraphim in Isaiah’s Vision 278-32291 Summary 323-34492 Chapter 3: Proof of the Existence of the Son 94 Transition 1-2094 That Scripture Refers to a Partner of God in Essence as “Son” and “Angel” 21-3496 Theophanies: Appearances of This “Angel” 35-24896 Summary 249-264104 Chapter 4: The Possibility of the Incarnation 105 That OT Prayers Asked for the Incarnation 1-40105 That the Incarnation was Necessary 41-77106 That the Incarnation should be of the Son 78-115108 Chapter 5: The Virgin Conception 111 A New Question 1-12111 A Virgin-directed Answer from the Writings of Moses 12‑227  112

6

Table of Contents

The Identity of the Child Born to the Virgin from Isaiah 228-548 

120

Chapter 6: From the Annunciation to the Baptism 133 Introduction 1-21133 The Virgin Conception and Birth Predicted 22-67134 The Name Predicted 68-138135 The Place of Birth Predicted 139-160138 The Flight to Egypt Predicted 261-309143 Life in Nazareth Predicted 310-329145 The Ministry of John the Baptist Predicted 330-339146 The Baptism of Jesus Predicted 340-420147 Chapter 7: The Miracles

150

Chapter 8: The Passion 155 Transition 1-8155 Jesus Predicts His Suffering 9-19155 The Prophecy of Riding on the Donkey and the Colt 20‑51156 The Triumphal Entry 52-75157 Christ, the Stone Rejected 76-109158 The Betrayal of Judas 110-190159 Jesus Condemned by Jews and Gentiles 191-243163 Jesus in the Hands of the Jews 213-224164 Jesus in the Hands of the Gentiles 225-235164 Jesus in the Hands of the King 236-243165 Jesus’ Suffering and Crucifixion 244-342165 Chapter 9: The Crucifixion 169 Various Aspects of Crucifixion Predicted 1-36169 Isaiah 53 Treated 37-161170 Prophesies of Jeremiah 162-192175 Amos and Cosmological Phenomena at the Death of Christ 193-217176 Zechariah and the Restoration of the Cosmos 218-253177 Jesus’ Legs Not Broken 254-262178 The Burial of Jesus 263-274179 Chapter 10: The Resurrection 180 The Resurrection of Christ in Jacob’s Blessing of Judah 1-50180 The Resurrection in the 9th, 15th and 29th Psalms 51-125182 Other Psalms Predicting the Resurrection 126-186185

7

Table of Contents

The Honor Given by God to the First Day Points to the Greatness of Resurrection Day 187-209187 Pentecost Points to Resurrection Day 210-281188 Resurrection Anticipated in the Psalms and Prophets 282‑318  191 Prophecies about the Guards of the Tomb 319-329193 Descent of the Logos to Hades 330-341193 The Jew Josephus as a Witness for the Resurrection 342-382193 Chapter 11: The Ascent of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit 196 The Ascension of Christ 1-80196 Christ Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father 81-102199 The Descent of the Spirit 103-130200 Chapter 12: The Return of Christ 202 Daniel’s Son of Man Predicts the Second Coming 1-50202 Distinctions between the First and Second Comings 51-115 204 That Christ is the Expected One from Gen 49.10-11 116‑188207 Interpretations of Gen 49.10-11210 Chapter 13: A Note to Jews and Christians 212 Summary of the Argument 1-31212 A Closing Call for the Jews to Repent 32-60213 A Warning to Christians about Conduct 61-89215 Indices Index of Scriptures  Index of Non-Scriptural Sources Quoted in Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis  Index of Subjects  Index of Names 

8

217 219 228 230 234

Acknowledgements

I cannot adequately express my gratitude to Dr Adam Kamesar, my advisor and first reader, and to Dr Isaac Jerusalmi, my second reader, for their guidance at the dissertation level. This translation is a thorough revision of that in my dissertation. I was honored to have José Declerck go through my translation and the Greek text numerous times. The majority of the revisions were due to a change in translation philosophy from being a bit more functional to one of being more formal, specifically retaining Greek word order as much as proper English would allow. Besides these, Dr Declerck made corrections and suggestions, and the work is much improved because of his wise, patient, and thorough labor. Of course, all errors that remain are entirely my responsibility. Finally, I offer sincere thanks to Brepols for this opportunity. In particular, I offer thanks to Bart Janssens, who initially invited me to submit a contribution, and to Loes Diercken, who brought the project to completion. The project took longer to complete than any of us originally imagined, and their patience and kindness was truly a blessing. χάρις τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ σωτήρι ἡμῶν τῷ ἀντιλαμβάνοντί μου.

9

Introduction

Jerry Falwell, a well-known conservative Christian in the United States, once recounted a story about Larry King, the famous Jewish talk-show host. Upon King’s fortieth anniversary of broadcasting, Bryant Gumbel had the opportunity to turn the tables by interviewing Larry King. One particular question drew Falwell’s attention and he described King’s answer as “brilliant.” The question was this: “Larry, you have interviewed almost every famous personality. If you could interview God, what one question would you ask him?” Larry King’s reply? “If I could ask God one question, I would ask him, ‘Do you have a son?’” The answer to this question sits at the heart of Jewish-Christian relations. This issue has been central from the early history of the Christian movement as also it so remains today.

The Present Work The early Christians used literary vehicles already present in their Greco-Roman world to transport their thoughts to their intended audience. One such vehicle was the dialog. When employed by Christians in Jewish-Christian conflict, these dialogs pitted a Christian against a Jew to demonstrate the superiority of Christian belief over Jewish. In 1994, José Declerck added another example to the corpus of Jewish-Christian dialogs by publishing Anonymus Dialogus

11

Introduction

cum Iudaeis (hereafter ADI) in the Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca.1 Declerck’s critical text became the object of study by the present author in the course of completing Ph.D. studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Cincinnati. The resulting dissertation, “An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew: An Introduction and Annotated Translation” (hereafter referred to as ADIDiss) goes into more detail on textual matters, especially comparing the LXX, and on comparisons with relevant Greek literature, primarily Christian adversus-Judaeos but also Jewish.2 The aim of the present work is primarily a translation; hence most of the analysis in the footnotes is limited to those that aid understanding of the translation. The translation is a thorough reworking with the aid of Dr José Declerck, who was kind enough to offer many valuable recommendations. The main philosophical change was to make this translation more formal (or “literal”) than that of ADIDiss. However, there were also numerous improvements made chiefly as a result of Dr Declerck’s contribution. Of course, any inadequacies that remain are the fault of this author. The remainder of the introduction will (1) set dialogs in the context of adversus-Judaeos literature, (2) discuss the question of authenticity of the dialogs, (3) specifically introduce ADI, and (4) discuss the question of evangelistic motive for the dialogs in general and for ADI specifically.

The Dialog Genre and Adversus-Judaeos Literature The body of Christian adversus-Judaeos literature is a vast sea of literature spread over many centuries, languages and geographic José Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis: Saeculi ut videtur sexti, CCSG 30 (Turnhout, 1994). 2  For access to the dissertation, please see UMI Dissertation Services, 300 North Zeeb Road, p.  O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346, 800-5210600, www.bellhowell.inforlearning.com; see more directly http://www.proquest. com/en-US/products/brands/pl_umidp.shtml. 1 

12

Introduction

regions.3 Simon classifies this body of literature according to genre:4 (1) collections of Scriptures (testimonia), (2) treatises in epistolary form, (3) homilies, (4) poetical works, (5) sermons, and (6) dialogs. Until the second quarter of the twentieth century, the Jewish-Christian prose dialogs were largely ignored. However, studies, beginning with those of Williams and Parkes5 in the midthirties, have now provided a reliable general guide to the history and themes of this literature. Schreckenberg has provided an upto-date bibliography. Further studies by Vincent Déroche and Olster have prepared the way for more detailed studies of specific texts.6 The dialog as a Greek literary form goes back to the dialogs included in the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and the most classic examples are the Socratic dialogs by Plato. Their usage seems virtually to have ceased until they reappear in the period of the Second Sophistic, when there arose the desire to imitate the classical Greek models.7 A possible explanation for this decline is offered by Lim. He describes the dialog: General of classical antiquity was a high-level literary device in which open discussion and fair hearing of different views on a given subject was practiced. The actual and intended readership was the intellectual elite. The lower intellectual classes had little interest or ability to conduct such discussions. The aim of the dialog was more than transfer of knowledge, but the promotion and maintenance of elite culOne need only glance at the size of the work of Heinz Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main, 1982-88), to get an idea of its immensity. 4  Marcel Simon, Verus Israel (Paris, 1964), 171. 5  A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935), and James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (1934; rpt., Cleveland, 1961). 6  Vincent Déroche, “La Polémique anti-Judaïque au vie et au viie siècle un mémento inédit, les Képhalaia,” Travaux et Mémoires 11 (1991), and David Olster, Roman Defeat, Christian Response, and the Literary Construction of the Jew (Philadelphia, 1994). 7  Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians (Minneapolis, 1994), 134; Reginald Hackforth, “Dialog, Greek,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1970), 337. For a good treatment Christian dialogs in the context of dialogs in general, see Simon Goldhill, ed., The End of Dialogue in Antiquity (Cambridge, 2008); this work deals with the nature all Christian dialogs. 3 

13

Introduction

ture, since not everyone was able to participate in this type of discussion.8 He further argues that within Christendom, since there was a relatively small number of Christian intellectual elite spread thinly over a large geographical area, the dialog form was not widely used – it simply did not meet the needs or have a wide enough readership.9 Just how common adversus-Judaeos dialogs were among the early Christians is not certain. Through the first four centuries AD, there are only two known Jewish-Christian dialogs by Christian authors. The earliest one seems to be the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, which is attributed to Ariston of Pella and dates to c. 140. However this is not preserved, and it is necessary to rely on the brief account of Origen (Cels. 4, 52).10 The earliest extant Christian dialog, contemporary with the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, is that by Justin Martyr. Only three of his many works survive, of which one is the well-known Dialogus cum Tryphone, c. 160.11 It is during the period from the fifth through the eighth centuries that the dialog form seems to become more common, reaching its apex in the seventh century.12 This sudden rebirth of the dialog may be a reflection of the growth of the number of intellectual elite after the legalization of Christianity, during which time Christianity felt the need to establish itself in intellectual circles.13 Richard Lim, “Christians, Dialogues and Patterns of Sociability in Late Antiquity,” The End of the Dialogue in Antiquity (Cambridge, 2008), 152-6. 9  Lim, “Christians, Dialogues,” 156-7. 10  See Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 28-30, Schreckenberg, 1:180, 467; Johannes Quasten, Patrology (4 vols. 1950-86; rpt., Westminster, Mass.), 1:195-6. Some have argued that it was used as a model for various later dialogs (see the brief discussion in Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 29-30, 169-70; and Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain [Paris, 1914] 1:54f n 1); this is debatable, but it probably did inspire at least the title of the 8th century composition Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium (see Schreckenberg, 1:467-8). 11  On Justin Martyr, see Quasten, 1:196-219. The literature on this dialog is immense, for which one may begin with Schreckenberg, 1:605-6. 12  Averil Cameron, “Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period,” in Dispute Poems and Dialogs in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East (Leuven, 1991), 99, says this literature represents perhaps the most common form of Greek writing in the century. Olster, 3, refers to “the explosion of anti-Jewish texts in the seventh century.” 13  Lim, “Christians, Dialogues,” 166-7, 169. 8 

14

Introduction

The subjects were always religious, although in this period religious subjects were often political in character.14 Dating these dialogs with precision is very difficult, since even those dialogs that provide a datable setting may actually come from a later time. For example, the Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo has a dramatic date c. 535, but many scholars put the date of the composition at more than a century later.15 Proposed dates for the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae range from c. 200 to the sixth century, with the latter being the most probable.16 So also the date of the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei is highly disputed, which the latest scholarship dates it to the sixth or seventh century, the middle of the period from the fifth to the eighth centuries.17 From this period also come several Latin works. The Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii is dated c. 420.18 The Altercatio Simonis et Theophili, attributed to Evagrius,19 was probably written about 430-440.20 The Adversus Judaeos, a

Cameron, “Disputations,” 92. So also Lim, “Christians, Dialogues,” 158, who notes that one of the distinctions between Christian and classical dialogs is that whereas originally the dialogs had an air of conviviality among the participants, the Christian dialogs were polemical and adversarial in tone. 15  See Schreckenberg, 1:397-99, and Olster, 138-57, who assigns it a Palestinian provenance. Déroche, 276-7, dates it c. 600. 16  Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 67, dates the work to 200; Schreckenberg, 1:391, gives fifth-sixth centuries. Déroche, 276, follows Robert Gerald Robertson, “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila” (Harvard 1986) in placing it in the sixth century after Novella 146, issued in 553. 17  Dating varies; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 117, gives a date of 325. Schreckenberg, 1:285, broadens that to the fourth through the fifth centuries. Déroche, 276, assigns to it a date of the sixth or seventh century. 18  Schreckenberg, 1:331. Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 295-97, dates it c. 384. 19  Gennadius, in his continuation of Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men, lists two men named Evagrius. The first, no. 11, was a monk who lived in Pontus c. 345-399 (on whom see Frederick W. Norris, “Evagrius of Pontus,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity [New York, 1990] 329-30). The second, no. 51, is the author of this dialog, whom Gennadius refers to as “another Evagrius” and describes this dialog as “very well known.” 20  Schreckenberg, 1:367-68; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 298, dates “?c. a.d. 400.” 14 

15

Introduction

discussion of St Sylvester with the Jews at Rome, is dated to the end of the fifth or to the beginning of the sixth centuries.21 However, it is the Greek works that are of interest here. In addition to the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, preserved in incomplete form is Dialogus de Trinitate by Jerome of Jerusalem. It is dated to either the fourth or the eighth century.22 Two Greek dialogs from Syria originate in this period: the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium dating from the seventh or eighth century,23 and the Trophaea Damasci, which was written in 681.24 Finally, there is the Doctrina Iacobi from the year 634.25

The Question of Authenticity Authenticity is a major issue in the study of these dialogs. Throughout the centuries the common view was that these dialogs record the general sentiments, if not the words themselves, of debates Schreckenberg, 1:255, 613. Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 339-47, assigns it to the period of the fifth century; he begins by quoting a portion which gives the dramatic date as the fourth year of Constantine the Great. 22  For the text, see PG 40:847-59. Juster, 1:59, says general opinion puts Jerome in the fourth century, but he also cites Batifoll and Bardenhewer, who place him in the eighth. For a summary see Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 167-69, who follows Batifoll. Schreckenberg does not mention this work. Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide (New York, 1974), 119, lists the work but does not treat it. 23  Schreckenberg, 1:467-68, 640, says it originates about the beginning of the eighth century. See especially the work of Olster, 158, who says it was “written before the full disaster of the Arab invasions had been revealed.” For its connection with the Altercation of Jason and Papiscus by Ariston of Pella, see note 5. Déroche, 279, gives the range of 630-640, and suggests an Egyptian provenance. 24  Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 162, n 3. Olster, 118, resists the notion that the provenance can be known with certainty, and simply assigns the work to seventh century Syria. 25  Schreckenberg, 1:437-38, 637; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 152. The modified Ethiopic translation is called Sargis d’Aberga. See Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 152, n 3, for information on the Greek text and Syriac, Arabic and Slavonic translations as well as on the Ethiopic. This dialog is of special significance to Olster, 158-79, as an example of a dialog which may actually have had evangelizing the Jews as its purpose. 21 

16

Introduction

that actually occurred and were witnessed. Among modern scholars, Williams comes the closest to this view. He thinks that the dialogs reflect a sincere, if insensitive and ignorant (with respect to Jews and Judaism) desire to convert Jews to Christianity, or at least to help Christians withstand Jewish attack.26 Few today, if any, believe all of these dialogs to represent actual events or verbatim accounts of real discussions.27 However, authenticity as used here means the question of whether or not the issues were actually raised in the discussions that in fact took place between Jews and Christians. The terms rhetorical and genuine serve to represent the two opposing viewpoints. The rhetorical view understands the dialogs essentially as literary exercises without any connection to actual interchange between Jews and Christians going on at the time they were composed. Harnack promoted this view with great influence. He did not believe that Jews and Christians had much to do with each other at all, and the dialogs afforded no evidence for such. For Harnack, the Jew, as the Christian conceived of him, served as a purely rhetorical figure to produce theology. Olster summarizes Harnack’s view: ‘It was no Jewish challenge, theological or otherwise, that dictated the choice of a Jew, but the Jew’s rhetorical usefulness in conveying a “rational,” “gentile,” theology.’28 Others who hold the dialogs to be rhetorical include Baron, Ruether and Rokeah. To them the issues may (or may not) be genuine, but the Jewish point of view presented in the dialogs certainly is not. For Baron, the Jewish side of the arguments is so distorted Adversus Judaeos, xvi, 417-8. Amos B. Hulen, “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity,” JBL 51 (1932), 62-3. However, we must point out two facts in this regard. First, discussions between Jews and Christians did in fact take place, and that not rarely (so Cameron, “Disputations,” 104-5, and Simon, 166-72; Simon argues against Harnack, Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani nebst Untersuchungen über die antijudische Polemik in der alten Kirche [Texte und Untersuchungen, 1, 2, Leipzig, 1883], 75ff, who denies any significant interchange). Second, there is evidence to suggest that at least some Byzantine dialogs were indeed verbatim accounts (so Cameron, “Disputations,” 101, notes a formal debate at Carthage just before the Lateran Synod at Rome in 649). 28  Olster, 14. 26  27 

17

Introduction

that it is impossible to determine from the dialogs what the Jews believed.29 Likewise Ruether believes the dialogs present merely what Christians thought the Jews would say rather than how the Jews actually argued.30 Rokeah basically agrees with Harnack, except that in his view the dialogs up to the Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo were indeed intended to evangelize Jews.31 Olster’s position certainly fits in the rhetorical category; however he represents a new turn in dialog studies. He argues, against the assumption of many scholars, that the Roman (what modern scholars call Byzantine) Christians had a worldview that did not separate spiritual and physical.32 They believed they were God’s chosen race and that the empire’s victories were proof of God’s favor. However, the serious defeats at the hands of the Persians and then the Arabs in the first half of the seventh century caused a crisis in belief. Olster believes that this is reflected in the seventh century dialogs. The Jew was merely “a rhetorical device to personify the doubts within their own community with a recognizable, evil, and most important, eminently defeatable, opponent.”33 Thus he argues that the dialogs (except for the Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati) were intended neither to convert Jews, nor to refute Jewish attacks, but were intended to strengthen a Christian audience so that they could make a defense for their hope of protection and restoration in the face of Arab victories. Others hold a genuine view, meaning that although these written dialogs may not be summary accounts of real time debates, the arguments posed are genuine. Hulen believed that one could discover from the dialogs the Jewish arguments in the debates. He, as the first to study the dialog of Gregentius, sought to show the strength of the arguments of Herban, the Jewish interlocutor, based on the evidence found in the dialog. Parkes also believed Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1957), 5:111‑2. 30  Ruether, 166. 31  David Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (Jerusalem, 1982), 47. 32  Olster, 183. 33  Olster, 3. 29 

18

Introduction

that the dialogs from the East “reproduce definite and plausible Jewish arguments, and [Christians] are at times hard put to answer them.”34 Simon, Wilken35 and Cameron also understand the issues as genuine. Vincent Déroche36 also rejects Harnack’s minimalist approach. He supports his argument in three ways. First he argues on the grounds that debates were a part of actual life. The very form of a dialog assumes that this was a common occurrence. In addition, he cites other types of texts, which imply that such debates took place. For example, there are legal injunctions against such religious debates. The Talmud itself gives indications of such debates. Further, Déroche quotes a chapter from the Patrum spirituale, which gives an anecdote about Cosmas the Scholiast, who had devoted his life to reading and writing against the Jews “to bring them back to the truth.”37 Second, Déroche cites the fact that the number of OT quotations dwarfs that of NT quotations. The cause for this can only be, he reasons, the fact that the Jews reject the NT. Third, Déroche argues that the writing of dialogs is motivated by some social or theological event. Thus the coincidence of forced baptism crises and the explosion of the appearance of dialogs is a significant indicator. Distinct from the dialogs, on the other hand, are the sermons, which, he says, take on a much more defensive posture.38

Parkes, 276. Robert L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven, 1971). He treats a broader range of literature than just the dialogs, but does specifically mention the Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 14. He points out, 16, 19, that the Christians made exegetical arguments in much of their literature since the JewishChristian interchange necessarily required such a Christian response. 36  See pages 282-90. 37  PG 87/3:3040C-3041A. See Déroche, 285. 38  Déroche, 287. 34  35 

19

Introduction

General Introduction to ADI The Text and Versions The sole Greek manuscript of ADI, designated B by Declerck, dates from about the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century. The text was previously known only from the Georgian and Armenian versions.39 Towards the end of the 11th century Arsen of Iqalto made a very literal translation of this dialog into his native language of Georgian and integrated it into his Dogmatikoni, a collection of theological, dogmatic and moral works, prepared for his countrymen.40 In the 13th century this Georgian version was translated into Armenian by Simeon of Plinžahank’, and there are manuscripts of the Armenian version, which date to the 14th century.41

Summary of Contents The manuscript divides the dialog into fifty chapters of varying length.42 Declerck followed this arrangement when he first wrote about his discovery, but chose, in his critical edition, to follow the thirteen-chapter division as indicated by the text itself (13, 2-29),

See J. Declerck, “Le DIALOGOS,” 118-21; for the date of the copy see Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xvi. For the Georgian text see L. Dathiachvili, Theodore Abukuras traktatebi da dialogebi targmnili berznulidan Arsen iqaltoelis mier (The Treatises and Dialog of Theodore Abu Qurrah, a Translation from the Greek of Arsen of Iqalto), (Tiflis, 1980). In addition to the works mentioned by Declerck, see also L. Dathiachvili, “Antimahmadianuri polemika Téodore Abukuras na romebsi” (“The Anti-Islamic Polemic in the Works of Theodore Abu Qurrah”), in: Sakitkhebi VII-VIII, 1976, 82-101; and I. Lolachvili, Arsen Iqaltoeli (Tiflis, 1978). 40  Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xv, who points out that this translation antedates Vatopedinus 236. Declerck cites a letter from M. B. Outtier, who describes the style of the translation as literal. 41  Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xvi. 42  Numbers were written in the outer margin next to the text and are visible in a photocopy of the manuscript I obtained from the Vatopedi monastery. 39 

20

Introduction

which may be summarized as follows.43 Chapter 1 forms an introduction, which deals with the problem of method. Chapters 2-5 offer a theological basis for the Messiah being God’s son: proof of the existence of the Trinity (2), proof of the existence of the Son (3), the possibility of the incarnation (4), and the virgin conception (5). Chapters 6-12 match the life of Jesus with Old Testament passages. The topics treated are the annunciation to the baptism by John the Baptist (6), the miracles (7), the passion (8), crucifixion (9), resurrection (10), the ascent of Jesus and descent of Spirit (11), and the return (12). Finally, chapter 13 is a double epilogue addressed to Jews and to Christians.44

Tone and Style of the Dialog Andreas Külzer45 gives two pieces of evidence for the fictional nature of our dialog: first, the tone of the Christian is uncharacteristically polite46 and second, there are clarifying additions within quotations to the Minor Prophets that would be unnecessary to provide for a Jew in a real dialog. This conclusion is valid; clearly this is not a verbatim account of a dialog that actually occurred. However, the politeness of tone is not evidence against authenticity as defined here. ADI stands with the “Dialogus cum Tryphone” and the Doctrina Jacobi as an example of kindly treatment of opponents in stark contrast to works such as Gregentius and the anti-Jewish sermons of John Chrysostom. Moreover this tone is quite in keeping with the admonition to Christians at the conclusion of ADI regarding Christian behavior (13, 61-89). Further, McGiffert has pointed out that dialogs and treatises actually employ quite similar styles, even to the extent that 43  See Declerck, “Le DIALOGOS,” 118 and n. 2, and Anonymus Dialogus, xxiii-xxiv. 44  Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxiv, xxvii. 45  Disputationes Graecae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild (Stuttgart, 1999), 139. 46  Perhaps the most severe verbiage is the Christian’s frequent address of the Jew as “man,” which can be used in a pejorative sense; see LSJ, s.v., ἄνθρωπος, 6. It is significant to note that this same expression the speaker puts into the mouth of an anticipated objection by the Jew (see below, p. 47; ADI 6, 100).

21

Introduction

the mere addition of names would convert many treatises into dialogs. In fact McGiffert noted that the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, which he edited, begins as a dialog and long before the conclusion is reached, the dialog becomes a treatise.47 Our dialog follows a similar pattern. The words of a supposed Jewish interlocutor are found in direct discourse through chapter five. But beginning with chapter six, no such direct speech is found. The Christian speaker continues to address the Jew,48 but then, at line 100, the Christian speaker provides the Jewish question in the form of a hypothetical question, “But perhaps you might say, ‘Man, you have quoted …, how has …?” This occurs again beginning at line 228. After that, however, the Christian speaks only to an unspecified “you.”49 This continues until ch. 13, at which point the Jewish interlocutor is once again specifically addressed at line 32. In addition, our author does not employ names at all; the speakers are referred to as “the Christian” and “the Jew.” Once again, though this does indicate that this is not a verbatim account of an actual dialog that took place, it does not preclude our dialog from being “authentic” as we have here defined the term.

Authorship and Date The Greek text and the Georgian version are anonymous. However, the Armenian version attributes the work to John the Damascene (c. 650-749). If this were correct, the date of the text would be much more certain. After comparing the ADI with the works of John, Declerck concludes that there are too many discrepancies

McGiffert, 11. e.g., as “man” in ADI 6, 1 (see below, 45). 49  In the NT, the second per. pron. might be used in a non-specific sense (so BDF ß281 and Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume III, Syntax, 39-40). If that is the case here, then the Jewish interlocutor is entirely removed beginning in ch. 7. If not, the use of second per. sg. verbs and pronouns continues to include the Jewish interlocutor through ch. 12. The latter option is perhaps better since the Jew emerges again in ch. 13. 47 

48 

22

Introduction

and too few significant correspondences to maintain seriously this attribution. Thus it is best to view the dialog as anonymous.50 One of the problems of ADI is that there is no direct evidence for assigning a date. Commonly these dialogs give historical details or some elaborate setting by which one might ascertain a date.51 For example, Schreckenberg points out that in Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes 1 (PG 89:1237B6) the author points out that it has been more than 800 years since the Jews have had a temple in which to offer sacrifices.52 An extreme example of a detailed setting is that found in the Disputatio Gregentii cum Herbano Judaeo, which portrays the main character, the bishop of Taphar in southern Arabia, as the Christian champion in a public debate held in the presence of the king and lasting four days against the best opponent the Jews could put forward. The audience consisted of Jews, Christians, and pagans. The debate takes place some time after the massacre of Christians by the Himyarites, the native Arabians, whose capital city was Taphar.53 However, ADI is almost entirely lacking in these historical or scenic elements. In fact, virtually no historical details are found. The setting is revealed only by the musing of the author as to why, when almost the whole world has become Christian, the Jews alone continue to reject Jesus as the Christ. Then, one day while pondering this, a Jew happens to pass by and the conversation, a private one, ensues. Declerck then turns to indirect evidence, namely, the reference to a wide dissemination of Christianity, key theological terms or beliefs, the dialectic method used, the discussion over Aquila’s version, and external matters. After considering these issues, Declerck gives a terminus ante quem as c. 900, when the Georgian translation was made, and a terminus post quem as the middle of Declerck, “Le DIALOGOS,” 119; Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, lii-xc. Declerck is followed by Averil Cameron, “Review of Jose H. Declerck, Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis. Saeculi ut videtur sexti,” JTS 50 (1999), 363, and Külzer, 137, n. 181. 51  See Déroche, 281. 52  Schreckenberg, 1:466. 53  For a summary, see Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 141-2, and Hulen, 65. 50 

23

Introduction

the sixth century, based on the frequent use of the phrase unus de Trinitate (ὁ εἷς τῆς τριάδος), “the one of the Trinity,” which was not generally used until after that time. He says it fits most likely before the beginning of the seventh century, based on the absence of remarks about the iconoclastic controversy, and, more specifically, during the rule of Justinian I because of his policies to make the empire purely orthodox, probably sometime after 553, when Novella 146 was enacted.54 One final note appropriate here concerns the contrast of ADI with the model proposed by Olster. We may recall from p. 7 above that Olster sees the Jewish interlocutor of the seventh century dialogs as a mere rhetorical figure whose defeat serves to bolster the Christian against the failure of nerve in the aftermath of military losses to the Muslims. Assuming Olster to be basically correct, how might ADI compare? In ADI 3, 71-86, as mentioned in n. 28 of ADIDiss, our author identifies the Jews with Ishmael as being the servant of Isaac, who represents the church. It seems unlikely that this would have been done if the time of writing were after the victories of the Muslims.

The Case for an Egyptian Provenance Declerck argues for an Egyptian provenance based on three pieces of evidence: the author’s familiarity with the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, agreement with certain distinctive biblical citations found in the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, and the importance given to the story of the tree in Hermopolis at the arrival of the infant Jesus (ADI 6, 277-290).55 Regarding the first point, in 5, 132-3, the author of ADI quotes Ex 3.3 and uses a rare reading, διαβάς, which varies from the traditional LXX. Declerck points out that though this reading is found in both Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, the interpre54  Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xlii-li. For a discussion of this Novella, see Schreckenberg, 1:413-4, and Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987), 402-11. Declerck is again followed by Averil Cameron, “Review,” 364, and Külzer, 140. 55  Anonymus Dialogus, xxxix-xli. He is followed by Külzer, 140.

24

Introduction

tation of Ex 3.3 followed by ADI is that of Cyril of Alexandria rather than Gregory of Nyssa. In addition, Declerck cites several passages from Cyril, which have a close verbal and hermeneutical affinity to ADI.56 Declerck is correct and insightful in pointing out that at times our author draws from Cyril of Alexandria rather than directly from Gregory of Nyssa. However, Cyril of Alexandria was quite well known from controversies in the councils and knowledge of his writings was not limited to Egypt. Indeed, his works were already being translated during his lifetime and Justinian I, the emperor ruling when ADI was written, was familiar enough with the works of Cyril of Alexandria that he could affirm a given work to be genuinely by him.57 Though reliance on Cyril of Alexandria seems to be established, the consequence that ADI is Egyptian in origin is not. Second, Declerck argues that ADI reveals much similarity to the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae in biblical citations, which purports to take place in Alexandria and was very probably a work composed in Egypt. The research in ADIDiss also shows that ADI has many affinities with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae. However, it is difficult to determine direct borrowing or even the precise nature of the relationship. Compare, for example, Conybeare’s discussion of the similarity of the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae to Epiphanius.58 Conybeare uses other sources for comparison in order to “triangulate” on the nature of the relationship and concludes that, due to the number of significant differences, the two works used a common source, and there is no direct dependence of one on the other. Likewise there are differences between ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae. See, for example the chart comparing the interpretation of details of Ps 2.7-8 in ADIDiss, 47, n. 7. The various interpretations of three details, the identities of the king and kingdom, and the function of the referent in the Psalm reveal that ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae differ on all three counts. On the other hand, ADI agrees on Anonymus Dialogus, xxxix-xl, and n. 27. Quasten, 3:119, 128. 58  Frederick C. Conybeare, The Dialogs of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and Timothy and Aquila (Oxford, 1898), xxv-xxxi. 56  57 

25

Introduction

all three points with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and Gregentius’ Disputatio cum Herbano Iudaeo, both of which appear to be Egyptian,59 but also in two of the points with the Syrian document Trophaea Damasci.60 Further, ADI shows several affinities with the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium.61 For example, of all the dialogs examined, only our document and the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium treat Zech 14.6-7 and then juxtapose Am 8.10.62 But in the treatment of Ps 2.7-8 just mentioned, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium agrees with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae against ADI. Though we do not deny a relationship or perhaps even familiarity of the author of ADI with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, it seems tenuous to use that relationship as evidence for an Egyptian provenance for ADI. Third, Declerck63 argues that in ADI 6, 277-290, the author attaches such importance to the account of the emigration of the infant Jesus and his family to Hermopolis in Egypt and the two miracles done there at the infant’s presence that one might infer an Egyptian place of writing. He bases this on certain differences between the account in Sozomen and ADI. First, Sozomen emphasizes the healing power of the tree, a matter completely ignored by our author. Second, whereas Sozomen says that he had heard about the bowed tree from a great many people, Declerck argues that the author of ADI (6, 288-290) says that there are some eyewitnesses who claim that the tree has remained in that position up to his own time. Although Declerck acknowledges that 59  Déroche, 276. Neither Déroche, 276-277, nor Schreckenberg, 1:397399, make any comment on the location of writing, but since the dramatic setting is Arabia, Egypt is likely. 60  The Trophaea Damasci does not make mention of the third item, namely whether or not the referent is a prophet. Regarding the provenance, the dramatic location of Damascus in the Trophaea Damasci is not opposed by Déroche, 280, and Olster, 118-119, identifies it as Syrian. 61  Déroche, 279, and Schreckenberg, 1:467, consider the work Egyptian; on the other hand Olster, 118-119, views it as Syrian. 62  See ADI 9, 225, and ADIDiss, 171, n. 78, for comparison with other literature. 63  Anonymus Dialogus, xxxvii-xxxviii, xli.

26

Introduction

our author may have simply adopted the perspective of Sozomen as his own,64 the “differences” which Declerck lists are not so much contradictions as they are omissions. It seems more likely that dependence on Sozomen weakens the argument for an Egyptian provenance for ADI. In summation, Declerck’s evidence for an Egyptian provenance seems inconclusive.

A Case for a Palestinian or Syrian Provenance If an Egyptian provenance is inconclusive, then one must look for other features of ADI, which might assist in determining a place of origin. If it could be established that our author had direct access to Origin’s Hexapla, one would have evidence for Caesarea or the vicinity as a likely place of origin.65 Numerous times our author makes comparisons with the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion with the LXX. Some can be verified in the collection of fragments by Field, others cannot. In one case, ADI 5, 382383, 391, our author gives a reading for Isa 8.3, which he attributes to Aquila, that is otherwise unknown. Declerck mentions some examples of where our author’s report of the Hexaplaric readings

Anonymus Dialogus, xxxviii, n. 25. Declerck also offers this as an explanation for our author’s claim to have read the apocryphal book of Jeremiah, a claim otherwise made only by Jerome (see Anonymus Dialogus, xxxv). 65  As far as is known, Origen’s Hexapla, begun in Alexandria and completed in Caesarea, was never copied in its entirety, and was probably destroyed there during the Arab conquest of 638, along with the rest of the books in the library at Caesarea, or perhaps, but not probably, at Tyre. See D. C. Parker, “Hexapla of Origen,” ABD, 3:189; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Winona Lake, Ind., 1989), 118, 124; Otto Eisfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (ET, Oxford, 1965), 709-12; Claude Cox, “Hexapla,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity2, 1:525; H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1914; rpt., Peabody, Mass., 1989), 73-8. See Jellicoe, 126, for the possibility that the Hexapla was taken to Alexandria in the seventh century and that it was destroyed there in 651. 64 

27

Introduction

differs from other reports.66 However, these examples do not demonstrate any direct dependence on the Hexapla, and it is best to agree with Declerck that our author obtained these readings from commentaries, dialogs, or marginalia.67 Two other items may provide evidence for an Asian or Palestinian place of origin: the nature of the LXX text used by our author and our author’s possible direct knowledge of Hebrew tradition. If it can be shown likely that our author’s Greek Old Testament was Lucianic, and that he had some direct link to Hebrew tradition, then to that same degree Asia Minor, Syria or Palestine can be inferred as the place where our author worked. The Lucianic Text-type. Lucian made a recension of the Septuagint originating in Antioch. Not much is known of the life of Lucian the Martyr. He was probably born at Samosata about the middle of the third century, trained at Edessa, Caesarea and Antioch.68 In the preface to his translation of first and second Chronicles, Jerome mentions the regional popularity of various Greek versions of the OT. He says that in Egypt the text of Hesychius is preferred, while from Constantinople to Antioch, Lucian’s is preferred. In the regions between, the Palestinian texts of Origen are used.69 In ADIDiss, xxvii-xxviii, is a chart summarizing the use of the Lucianic readings found in ADI. The examples cited there are sufOne interesting example is found in ADI 6, 100-117 (= p. 47 below). Here our author begins his argument with the (unsubstantiated) premise that the name Emmanuel, meaning “God with us,” means savior. Then, since savior is the exact meaning of the name Jesus, it follows that Jesus is Emmanuel. The proof for this identity our author finds in Hab 3.13, which he quotes, “You went out for the saving [ἰησουΐαν] of your people.” The question is, where did he get the reading ἰησουΐαν (iēsouian)? Declerck notes that it is unknown in Greek, and unattested in Field’s Hexapla and the apparatus of the Göttingen LXX. The (pointed) Hebrew text reads ‫( ְליֵשַׁ ע‬leyēša‘). The second column in Origen’s Hexapla would read λιήσουε (liēsoue; see Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxiii, n. 7), to which our author’s reading closely corresponds. However, it is not an exact match. Declerck is certainly correct when he refers to it as a “mot mystérieux.” 67  Anonymus Dialogus, xxxiii-xxxiv. Külzer, 139, follows Declerck here. 68  For a useful survey, see Bruce M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible” in Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden, 1963), 1-3. 69  PL 28:1392A; quoted by Metzger, “Lucianic Recension,” 4, and n. 1. See also Jellicoe, 158. 66 

28

Introduction

ficient to show that the author of ADI at times used a text type that agreed with the Lucianic recension against the LXX. There are five cases where ADI disagrees with Lucianic. Of these, only two, Isa 52.13 and 53.12, are cases in which the Lucianic witnesses are not themselves split. In both of these cases, the LXX is followed. Knowledge of Hebrew Tradition. Külzer, 139, notes that in ADI 5, 264-265 and 297-299 (pp. 81, 82 below), our author argues based on a genuine knowledge of Hebrew, or more probably a literary tradition of such knowledge. Our author uses the term τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν, “the Hebrew.” In 5, 264-265, our author places in the mouth of the Jew the argument that at Isa 7.14 the Hebrew (in agreement with Aquila and Symmachus) does not read virgin, but young woman. In 5, 297-299, our author claims his own knowledge of the Hebrew text of Isa 7.14 in the reading of Emmanouel. However, his reference to τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν may merely be indirect knowledge based on the second column of the Hexapla.70 A more plausible piece of evidence may be found at ADI 10, 142-144, where our author discusses a Jewish teaching that the care of God is called a “rising up,” or “resurrection.” In this case “rising up” corresponds to the Hebrew ָ‫( מ‬māqôm), “place,” from the root ‫ קום‬, “to rise.” Perhaps our author reveals his awareness that the term ‫( הַ ָמּ‬hammāqôm), “the place,” was used by the rabbis as an epithet for God.71 Though this does not prove direct knowledge of the Hebrew tradition, it does suggest at least some indirect knowledge of Jewish traditions on the part of our author. To strengthen this, we can see also some familiarity with Jewish beliefs mentioned in Jewish sources.72 If all this is true, then when our author explicitly attributes an interpretation to the Jews, he may be accurately portraying the teachings of Jews, with 70  This is the most likely possibility, as pointed out to me by Dr. Kamesar, and, as discussed on p. 28 above, because no solid evidence exists that our author had direct knowledge of the Hexapla. 71  See below p. 139, n. b and ADIDiss, 183, n. 32. 72  For example, see the present work, p. 185, n. a (= ADIDiss, 165-6, n. 42; see also n. 45), for rabbinic beliefs on the miracles to be performed by the Messiah when he comes. Another problem text in Jewish circles is Jdg 13.22 and 6.22-23; for discussion, see ADIDiss, pp. 57 and 60, nn. 46, 61.

29

Introduction

whom he had contact. For example, our author says that the Jews argue that Zech 9.9-10 is referring to Zerubbabel (ADI 8, 34-35, p. 108 below). However, routinely Jewish teachers have considered this passage to be messianic and I have found no exact parallel in rabbinic literature for this understanding.73 The use of a text in the Lucianic tradition and occasional knowledge of Jewish tradition by our author make Asia Minor, Syria or Palestine seem just as likely as Egypt as the place of origin.

Olster and the Question of Evangelistic Motive Recall that in the summary above of the rhetorical and genuine views on understanding the dialogs, those who take a rhetorical view generally deny to them any evangelical motive. Rather, they understand the purpose to be for the internal consumption of the Christian community so that Christians could make a defense for their hope. First we will treat Olster’s list of characteristics that indicate a non-evangelistic motive, then those that he believes characterize evangelistic dialogs. To illustrate a non-evangelistic motive, Olster cites three passages from the Trophaea Damasci: “we are ‘prepared’ and ‘anxious’ to ‘make a defense to all who question us about the cause of the hope that is in us [1 Peter 3:15]’” (Prolog 1); “I have no desire to make you all Christians; in fact, I cannot do so, but I can make you bad Jews” (2.8.2); and, “Our discourse is not with Jews alone, but to every sort who does not believe in Christ” (4.5.1).74 Olster, 12, concludes, “the Jew is no simple theological opponent but a witness to Christ’s power and Christian superiority, a proxy for those whose argument was victory.” Further, Olster gives three basic characteristics of adversusJudaeos dialogs, which demonstrate that their purpose is not See the present work, p. 157, n. a (=ADIDiss, 140, n. 8). Translations and emphases are Olster’s and are cited from G. Bardy, Les Trophées de Damas, controverse judéo-chrétienne du viie siècle, PO (Paris, 1927), 190, 233, 270 (=20, 63, 100). 73 

74 

30

Introduction

evangelistic. Instead, their purpose is political and their method is to exploit “the rhetorical image of the Jew.” 75 These dialogs (1) contain generically religious (and racial) stereotypes, subordinating religious theological refutation to religio-political apologetic; (2) are intended to strengthen the Christian community and keep Christians from defecting in view of the crisis of defeats at the hands of invaders, rather than to answer the Jews; and, (3) constantly affirm Christianity’s integrity and Christian restoration. In comparison, ADI seems to emphasize theological refutation over religio-political apologetic. In ADI 3, 8-100 (pp. 94-98 below), a chapter devoted to proving that God has a son, our author does mention the political disadvantage of the Jews, and even assumes that this is the proper situation for the Jews. But this fact is used to show that even Hagar, the symbol of the future synagogue (contemporary with our author), called the “angel” who appeared to her Lord and therefore shows awareness of the preincarnate Christ. With respect to Olster’s second and third points, the victory and restoration elements do not appear in ADI. If Declerck’s dating of our document is correct, then this of course would be due to the fact that during the reign of Justinian I, Rome was advancing and prospering; therefore these were not issues at the time of our author. Olster does see one dialog, the Doctrina Iacobi, as the lone exception, a dialog that is truly evangelistic. He identifies eight contrasts that may be seen between it and the other dialogs.76 These he sees as the defining marks of an evangelistic dialog. (1) The Doctrina Iacobi has a Jewish protagonist, in addition to the Jewish antagonist. (2) It ignores the usual themes of contemporary literature. (3) It is pessimistic with regard to the Roman Empire in that it affirms no restoration either imperial or ecclesiastical. (4) It overflows with historical detail. (5) It uses historical detail in an eschatological sense, in a way completely foreign to other dialogs. This text is the lone voice speaking of the destruction of Olster, 158. Olster, 158-179. Cameron, “Disputations,” 102, also sees the Doctrina Iacobi as a key text but does not elaborate. 75  76 

31

Introduction

the Roman Empire and the implications thereof (e.g., the end of the age and the conversion of the Jews). (6) The Jewish antagonist has a “social identity.” Olster sees this Jewish social identity in several idiosyncratic features found in the Doctrina Iacobi. For example, the author reveals clearly the non-Christian Jew’s negative attitudes toward Jewish converts to Christianity. The author also presents Jewish organization accurately as revolving around leaders instead of around the synagogue with an informed laity. Additionally, the author mentions Christian mistreatment of Jews, Jewish fear of gentiles, and acknowledgment of forced baptism of Jews with no offer of an excuse for such wrongful action on the part of Christians. (7) Not only is there an account of the refutation of the antagonist, but great emphasis is placed on describing antagonist’s conversion, baptism and Christian education. (8) There is idiosyncratic treatment of topoi. Olster considers the Doctrina Iacobi to be far different from the other dialogs for the following reasons. (a) It minimizes Jewish guilt for the crucifixion (164). (b) It points out that some Jews did accept Jesus as Messiah and that God preserved them from Roman devastation of Judea (165). (c) While much anti-Jewish literature regards Mosaic Law as punishment for sin, the Doctrina Iacobi praises it, though encouraging the Jew to turn to the “new” law of Christ “precisely because it accomplished the ends of the Mosaic Law,” whose adherents were rejected only “since the coming of Christ” (165-6). (d) The Doctrina Iacobi understands Christ’s mission not as a saving of the gentile and a condemnation of the Jew, as in other literature, but assumes that Jews did have knowledge of God, and were unable to share it with gentiles. Thus Christianity is the spread of this knowledge from Jews to gentiles, and Jewish acceptance of Jesus as Messiah would result in their full restoration as God’s people, as opposed to other dialogs which treated the Jews as irretrievably lost, or nearly so. Moreover, not only would conversion free the Jews from all punishments for killing Christ, but after conversion Jewish identity would still be maintained (166-7). Olster seems to be the only one to offer a list of defining characteristics of evangelical dialogs and in the process renders a great service. However, some of his elements defy generalization. Item

32

Introduction

1: the presence of a Jewish protagonist is too idiosyncratic to constitute a general principle. Items 3 and 5: the historical facts about the destruction of the empire77 and a failure to speak about its restoration can only apply to writings after the Parthian and Arab invasions of the seventh century. As for the rest of the defining characteristics, ADI weaves its way in and out among them. Thus ADI, as opposed to the Doctrina Iacobi, does treat themes similar to those of other dialogs (item 2), and does not overflow with historical detail (item 4). It does not go into great detail about the antagonist’s conversion, baptism and Christian education (item 7). In fact this component is evidence of items 6 and 8. Regarding the “social identity” of Jewish laity, ADI does not present the Jew as a legal expert, but simply as a Jewish man who was knowledgeable about the law and prophets as one might expect (1, 42-45, p. 69 below). The Jewish fear of legal repercussions of engaging in debate is present, though the Christian assures the Jew that he should have no fear (1, 49-73, pp. 6970 below). Another reason for avoiding dialog with the Christian given by the Jew in our dialog was that Christians use Aristotelian and Platonic forms of argumentation, in which the Jew describes himself as unlearned (1, 79, pp. 70-71 below). Of the four topoi mentioned by Olster under item 8, two of them are relevant in ADI. (1) Olster’s first point is that the Doctrina Iacobi minimizes Jewish guilt for the crucifixion. Though our author does clearly indicate direct Jewish responsibility, guilt for that act seems to be assumed and is not the focus of our author. Jewish responsibility is indicated in three places in ADI. The first occurrence is in ch. 1. The Christian tries to reassure the Jew that he can discuss freely without fear of legal repercussion based on the fact that Christians are taught to imitate the kindness of Christ. The proof comes from listing sufferings of Christ, who then, even while being crucified, prayed for the forgiveness of “the sin of you who crucified him” (1, 63-64, p. 70 below). Second, 8, 269-315 (pp. 166-167 below) does give a lengthy discussion that refers to JewNevertheless ADI does not glorify the Empire at all and explicitly speaks of an end of all kingdoms at the consummation of the age (12, 43-44, see p. 203 below). 77 

33

Introduction

ish responsibility for the crucifixion. However, the main error of the Jews was their rejection of the Messiah when he came. Third, our author views the Jews’ current political situation as a result of their rejection of Christ (9, 104-123, pp. 173-174 below). In ADI 9 the OT is said to have predicted that they would kill the Messiah; therefore either the Jews killed him in the past and are currently suffering for their rejection of him or they must do so in the future and their nation will suffer some other loss. However, the author does mention a few Jews who were knowledgeable of at least some of the truth (e.g., 10, 270, p. 191 below), including the nonChristian Josephus (10, 342-346, 360-375, pp. 194, 195 below). In addition, the author’s attitude toward the fate of the ignorant, unbelieving Jew is sorrow (12, 63-64, p. 204 below). (2) Olster’s fourth topos is that salvation is available to the Jews (as well as gentiles) by their acceptance of Jesus the Messiah. Though ADI uses punishment of the Jews as proof of the end of their institutions, the perspective of the author is less on the Jews being rejected by God and more on the Jews’ turning from the way. In a detailed treatment of Gen 49.11, the reliance of the gentiles on the Jewish nation is very explicitly taught (12, 155-183, p. 208 below). Our author closes with an appeal for the Jews to repent and accept Jesus as their long anticipated Messiah in 13, 3260, pp. 213-214 below. Indeed, ADI begins by appealing to the example of Christ as a model for good Christian behavior (1, 52-118, pp. 69-72 below)78 and concludes with a warning to Christians as to their conduct (13, 61-89, pp. 215-216 below). In the context of the dialog this warning only makes sense if the “conduct” refers to behavior of the Christian towards the Jews. The warning is so strong as to say that wearing the name “Christian,” if not attended with good behavior, is good only for condemnation. It is best to understand that ADI had the conversion of the Jew as at least part of its aim. ADI has significant congruence with the characteristics identified by Olster, and even makes explicit claims to this end.

78 

See ADIDiss, 2, n. 10.

34

Introduction

ADI within the Sphere of Adversus-Judaeos Dialog Literature Simon identifies the issue of the connections between the dialogs as significant for the history of the genre. On one hand, he criticizes Williams for sidestepping it and treating each text independently.79 On the other hand, Simon says Harnack’s opinion that the monotonous and stereotypical character of the anti-Jewish literature, which would imply a blind following in a deep, oft-traveled rut, must not be exaggerated.80 To make a proper evaluation it is necessary to examine carefully not merely the general usage of Scripture in the various dialogs but the interpretations or applications of these Scriptures.81 Following this method, there emerges a picture of the relationship between these dialogs, which runs counter to any sweeping generalization that the authors basically plagiarized the work of earlier writers. The work ADIDiss compared ADI with other dialogs. That study noted general similarities among the dialogs based on interpretation of Scripture as well as special similarities based on the juxtaposition of like passages of Scripture. It also revealed that there is evidence based on divergence on Scripture use that ADI, and perhaps the dialogs generally, were much more independent than Harnack had concluded. The chart on p. 30 below, taken from ADIDiss, l-li, summarizes many of the agreements and disagreements between the dialogs.

General Similarity among Dialogs Based on Interpretation of Scripture To be sure, authors of dialogs did not feel the need to reinvent the wheel. There are a number of scriptural passages common to dialogs that are treated in the same way. We have not included here passages discussed in dialogs, which are explicitly interpreted See Simon, 167 (ET, 136), and Williams, Adversus Judaeos, xvi-xvii. Simon, 171 (ET, 140-1). 81  For a list and explanation of sources used for comparison, see ADIDiss, xv‑xvii. 79 

80 

35

Introduction

in the NT. In such cases determining relationships would obviously be impossible since all could have drawn directly from the NT itself. For example, Ps 21.17, “they have pierced my hands and feet,” on the basis of all four Gospels, is treated in an identical fashion by six other dialogs beginning with Justin, Dial.82 Again, our document treats also the following verses 18-19, as do four of these dialogs. Verses 18-19 are not explicitly quoted in the NT, but the correspondence with the text of the Gospels is so close that we may treat them as though they were.83 However there are several passages treated similarly in JewishChristian dialogs, which, even though they may be interpreted in the NT, go beyond NT interpretations. One example is Isa 7.1016, treated at length in ADI 5, 228-450, see pp.  120-124 below. This text and interpretation is significant because in post-New Testament Christian literature the debate came to center around the word παρθένος, “virgin,” as found in the NT quotation and the word νεανῖς, “young girl,” as found in some of the versions. This issue was the object of much discussion in ecclesiastical literature (see notes to those lines). ADI sides with common Christian interpretation without being especially idiosyncratic.84 Second, Ps 21.18-19 is treated in ADI 9, 20-24, pp. 169-170 below. While v. 17 is treated by six other dialogs, vv. 18-19 are treated by only four. Once again, however, the four are in agreement with ADI.85 Third, Amos 8.9-10 is treated by ADI in 9, 200-206, pp. 176-177 below. There is perhaps an allusion to Mt 27.45 and parallels, but the NT does not make the connection explicit. Three dialogs (as well as a number of ecclesiastical writers) agree with our document in doing just that.86 Fourth, our author interprets Isa 50.5-6 The others are the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, and Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes; see ADIDiss, 159, n. 6. 83  See ADIDiss, 159, n. 7. 84  See ADIDiss, 88, n. 61. 85  See ch. 9, n. 7. 86  The Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, and the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium; see ch. 9, n. 75. 82 

36

Introduction

in the same way as five other dialogs.87 Fifth, Ps 117.26-27 is briefly mentioned in ADI 8, 58-69, p. 158 below, as Messianic. The same application is made by four other dialogs, three of which seem to oppose a specific Jewish argument, but all treating it as if the Jews agreed that the passage is Messianic.88 Finally, Isa 53 is a common text in dialogs. ADI 9, 37-161, pp.  170-175 below, treats this as well, bringing out all the familiar fulfillments so common in the NT and other ecclesiastical literature. The fact that there is such commonality is not surprising. Nor does it prove much. These might well be deep ruts, such as Harnack recognized, but because they were so often traversed by so many sources, they have little to offer in terms of showing relationships. Other factors are more diagnostic.

Special Similarity among Dialogs Based on Juxtaposition of Scripture There are several occasions where we have pointed out in the notes to the translation that both ADI and other dialogs juxtapose two Scriptures in identical fashion. For example, see ADI 9, 15-24, pp. 169-170 below, on Ps 21.17 and 18-19. These two passages are juxtaposed in all four of the dialogs which treat vv. 18-19.89 As mentioned above, all the interpretations are the same. Though it might appear that this serves as a diagnostic illustration of dependence, in this case our literature is treating these passages together simply because the NT itself puts them together (Mt 27.35 and 39-40; Mk 15.24 and 29; Lk 23.24 and 35). The Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, the Doctrina Iacobi, and Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes; see ADIDiss, 151, n. 67. 88  The four dialogs are the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae (the only other one not dealing with specific Jewish arguments), the Trophaea Damasci, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, and Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes; see ADIDiss, 142, n. 20. 89  They are the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, and Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes; see ADIDiss, 159, nn. 6, 7. 87 

37

Introduction

However, other examples of juxtaposition more strongly suggest a relationship between ADI and other individual dialogs. Am 8.10 and Zech 14.6-8 are juxtaposed both in ADI 9, 220-230, pp. 177-178 below, and in the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium 12.90 What makes this significant is that the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and the Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo by Gregentius, both treat the former passage, but not the latter. On the other hand, Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes, treats the latter but not the former. Within the entire corpus of our literature as we defined it for our present research, the juxtaposition of these two passages occurs only in the dialogs, and then only within the first two mentioned, even though the interpretations of these verses are common both inside and outside our corpus.91 This would suggest a connection between ADI and the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium. A relationship between ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae is suggested by two juxtapositions. First, our author juxtaposes Jer 11.19 and Isa 3.10 in 9, 172-188, pp. 175-176 below, as does the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae.92 Jer 11.19 is a common proof text in patristic literature and in our dialogs. Isa 3.10 is less frequently used, but is mentioned in the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, which, however, does not use Jer 11.19. Second, both ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae juxtapose Ps 87.5 and Isa 14.19.93 I have not found this juxtaposition elsewhere. Finally, ADI agrees in a juxtaposition of Scriptures with the Doctrina Iacobi. They both link Gen 49.10-11 and the account of Balaam in Numbers 22-24. There are two significant accompanying facts. First, ADI and the Doctrina Iacobi interpret Gen 49.1011 in the same way and in a manner distinct from that of both Justin, Dial., and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae.94 Second, this See ADIDiss, 171, n. 78. See ADIDiss, 171, nn. 75, 78. 92  See ADI, 168, 169, nn. 63, 65. 93  See p. 179, n. b below, and for more discussion ADIDiss, 174, n. 87. 94  Other works take either interpretation, but among the dialogs, there is a definite pairing between ADI and the Doctrina Iacobi on the one hand and Justin, Dial., and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae on the other. See p. 181, n. b below and ADIDiss, 176, nn. 5, 6. 90  91 

38

Introduction

same juxtaposition is found in Gregory of Nyssa, Test. 2. These two facts together suggest a common relationship between ADI and the Doctrina Iacobi, and in turn, of both of them with Gregory of Nyssa. As we have seen, Declerck has demonstrated that our author was familiar with the works of the Cappadocians. This suggests that further investigation of the Doctrina Iacobi should be undertaken to see if the same connection can also be proved. From the evidence of juxtaposition of Scripture, we find ADI in agreement with the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and with the Doctrina Iacobi. In these same places we find ADI in disagreement with each of these dialogs as well. This suggests some degree of independence between the dialogs. But the divergence of interpretation makes the stronger statement.

Divergence as Evidence of Independence of ADI and Dialogs Generally Külzer, 139-40, following the notes of Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus, xxxi-xxxii, identifies some distinctive textual readings of Scripture that ADI holds in common with other dialogs. He mentions the agreement of ADI in its texts of Gen 49.11 and of Isa 14.19 with those found in the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, and the agreement of the text of Deut 28.66 in ADI 9, 3-5, p. 169 below, with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei and with the Adversus Judaeos disputationes.95 He suggests that herein lies the possibility for direct dependence on a Christian list of interpreted texts. We agree with Külzer and Declerck that the textual affinities of the distinctive readings of passages, including Gen 49.11 and Deut 28.66, demonstrate the commonality of the text used by these dialogs. It is known that several books of testimonies existed and these may have been the common source for a given textual reading. But it needs to be born in mind that in these books Bible passages were collected from all over Scripture under various headings or subjects. Interpretations were not given in any detail. We must assume that the various collectors considered the 95 

Külzer, 139-40; Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxiii.

39

Introduction

meanings of the texts to be obvious. However, the divergence of the interpretations of these passages found among the authors of the dialogs indicates independence in their work. With respect to Gen 49.11, ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae treat the verse quite differently. ADI makes extensive use and gives detailed interpretation of Gen 49.8-11, and especially v. 11.96 In the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, however, Gen 49.11 only appears in 34.710 (Conybeare, 86-87) and without detailed interpretation. With respect to Deut 28.66, Declerck notes the distinctive text, which ADI holds in common with the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei 36 (Conybeare, 26) and Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes (PG 89:1248C-D). They also share a common interpretation, which is also found in the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 24.4 (Conybeare, 80), the Doctrina Iacobi 33 (Bonwetsch, 32, 11), and the Trophaea Damasci 2.7.1-3. But even here, Trophaea Damasci has an even fuller explanation of the Scripture. So, in spite of the similarity of text which appears between various dialogs, there is also a high degree of difference in how the dialogs interpret many passages. In what follows, we will examine some of these interpretations more closely, which reveal a large degree of independence on the part of our author, at least, and perhaps on the part of many of the surviving dialogs. ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae against other dialogs. The fact that ADI shares some interpretations solely with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae seems to support the suggestion of Declerck about a close relationship between the two. In fact, of the dialogs in our corpus, only the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae has interpretations in sole agreement with ADI. For example, in ADI 2, 22-23 (p. 80 below), the Jewish interlocutor of our dialog quotes Deut 6.4, the shema passage, and juxtaposes Deut 32.29 (= Isa 44.6). This same juxtaposition is found in both the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 5.20-11 (Conybeare, 68) and Gregentius, Disp. 1 (PG 86:625D11).97 The common Chris96  For quotations that include v. 11, see ADI 10, 23-25, and 12, 122-127, 157159, and 165-180 (pp. 181, 207, 208 below) and passim. See especially the chart on pp. 210-211 below at the end of ch. 12. 97  See ADIDiss, 20, n. 4, for details and for another example p. 87, n. a below, treated in greater detail in ADIDiss, 32, n. 48.

40

Introduction

tian response was to quote Ps 32.6, which says that it was the “Word of the Lord” which was responsible for creation, this “Logos” being the Christ. Our author makes use of this verse (ADI 2, 140-143, p. 85 below) along with many of the dialogs. However, he uses it in the discussion on Gen 1.26, specifically with respect to the expression “let us make.” The question arises as to whom the Lord was speaking. The Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 4.21-25 makes the exact same application of Ps 32.6 as our author.98 However, it is worded very differently. Compare the two texts: ADI 2, 138-143, p. 55 below

Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 4.22-24

Οὐκοῦν ἑτέρῳ τινὶ παρὰ τοὺς κτιστοὺς ἀγγέλους προδιαλέγεσθαι πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, κοινωνῷ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὄντι καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν· τῷ γὰρ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν, καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν.

ἐρῶ δέ σοι περὶ τῆς κτίσεως, πρὸς ἃ ἀπεκρίθης· τίς ἀρχιτέκτων οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν, καὶ διαγράφων αὐτήν, πάντως ἐρεῖ, γενηθήτω ὧδε οὕτως, καὶ ὥδε οὕτως; ἆρα τίνι ἐρεῖ; δεῖ ὅτι τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ· τῷ γὰρ λόγῳ κ¯υ¯ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν, καὶ τῷ π¯¯ν¯ι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν. καὶ εἰ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις ἔλεγεν ὁ θεός, ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον, τί οὐκ εἶπεν, ποιήσατε ἄνθρωπον, κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἐμήν;

Well then, man, be assured that God is holding a conversation with someone other than the created angels, someone who is a partner in essence and in power and activity; for by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Now I will tell you about the creation, about which you asked. Will any engineer building a city and planning it ever say, “Let it be this way here, and that way there”? To whom will he say this? It is necessary that he say it to those with him, for By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. And if God was saying to the angels, “Let us make man,” why did he not say, “Make man according to my image”?

98 

See ADIDiss, 29, n. 36 for details.

41

Introduction

It is obvious that ADI makes explicit the necessity of the addressees having the same nature and active power, while the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae does not, though the latter seems to assume that point in the conclusion. In the second example, ADI 2, 198-204, p. 87 below, uses Gen 18.3 as a proof for the Trinity based on the use of the singular pronoun σου, “you.”99 Typically the singular pronoun is interpreted as pointing out one of the three angels. Our author considers the singular pronoun as referring to the three as one, hence the Trinity. In this case ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae agree in an interpretation against the Doctrina Iacobi. The Doctrina Iacobi also takes the singular pronoun as referring to the three as one, but the three are still angels and the singular pronoun is used because of their equal dominion. This line of reasoning is found earlier, however, in the west. To these interpretations we may add ADI 4, 34-35, p. 106 below, in which an unusual textual reading of Lam 4.20 is the same as that found in the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae. Lamentations 4.20 is not used in any other sources of our literature, but is understood in other Christian literature as Messianic. But the precise point that Lam 4.20 specifically names Christ as Lord, based on this exact reading, is found only in these two dialogs.100 The similarities found in these examples are significant precisely because they go against trends in other dialogs, and in our literature generally. Yet despite these similarities, there are also differences that are subtle but real nonetheless. ADI and Other Dialogs against the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae. Besides these agreements between ADI and the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, there are also some significant divergences. We refer to two biblical passages used in ADI, which are very common in the dialogs but which, as treated by our author, reveal some of the distinctive characteristics of our text. We mentioned above, p. 25, that Psalm 2.7-8 is treated in seven dialogs besides ADI 3, 21-34, p.  96 below. ADI and three others interpret the 99 

See ADIDiss, 33, n. 50. See ADIDiss, 66, n. 11.

100 

42

Introduction

details according to one pattern while the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and two other dialogs interpret the details according to another pattern.101 An even more complex example is found in the text of Gen 49.9-10 as cited in ADI 12, 116-188, pp. 206-209 below. There are four readings in which ADI differs from the LXX. In three of these cases ADI agrees with the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae (and in one of these three cases other dialogs agree against the LXX). However, in one case, ADI and the Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei agree against the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae (and the LXX).102 Some divergence occurs in almost every treatment of this passage, either in terms of degree of detail or the content itself. Unique interpretations by the author of ADI. Although ADI certainly falls in line with the main theological themes of our literature, the large number of apparently innovative interpretations brought forth by our author suggests that ADI is the fruit of much independent labor. We may classify innovative interpretations in two categories: (1) those not found in our corpus, but which are found in other Christian literature and, (2) those not found elsewhere at all. Since an argument from silence is weak, in both cases especially telling are those cases in which ADI is at variance with another interpretation. (1) We list the following examples of interpretations unique in comparison with the remainder of our corpus. In ADI 5, 387413, pp. 126-128 below, our author includes an interpretation of Isa 8.4 in which the “Spoils of Damascus” is understood as the sin of idolatry, which Christ defeated. Though found outside our corpus, this interpretation differs from those given in the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae and in Justin, Dial.103 In ADI 6, 299-309, p. 145 below, the unicorn is interpreted as a symbol of the Messiah, an interpretation found in Origen. The Doctrina Iacobi quotes the passage but conspicuously omits the phrase about the unicorn.104 See ADIDiss, 47, n. 7, for details. See ADIDiss, 215, nn. 33-35, for details. 103  See ADIDiss, 96, nn. 98, 99, for details. 104  See p. 145, n. a below (=ADIDiss, 122, n. 79). 101 

102 

43

Introduction

(2) We now mention examples of interpretations we have not found elsewhere. An example of a unique textual reading is found in ADI 3, 68, p. 97 below. There our author includes in the quotation of Isa 9.6 an article, which the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, the Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, and the LXX all omit.105 In ADI 2, 110-111, p. 84 below, our author quotes Ps 88.27-28. One of our dialogs treats verses 26 and 28, but not v. 27. Two dialogs treat the verses but do not argue in the same fashion as does our author. In fact, I was unable to find any other source which argues that just as the existence of human adoption requires a precursor of natural sonship, so also God’s adoption of humans requires the precursor of divine sonship.106 The visitation of the three “men” in Genesis 18 is commonly treated in Christian texts, but ADI is alone in addressing the issue of why a divine being would be in need of refreshment as the text would imply.107 It seems very likely that this addresses a challenge raised by opponents. Two very significant examples are found in ch. 5. First, in ADI 5, 54-111, pp. 113-115 below, our author gives an innovative interpretation of the law of uncleanness of a woman after childbearing in Lev 12. Yet the entire passage is completely ignored in our corpus. He asks why the phrase “if she become inseminated” is mentioned only in the case of bearing a male child and not in the case of bearing a female child. Though the text is interpreted outside of our corpus,108 I cannot find any other source that uses this line of reasoning. Second, in 5, 148-192, pp. 117-119 below, our author gives a unique interpretation of the law of the red heifer in Num 19, in which the heifer is taken to be a symbol of the Virgin. This identification is in contrast to the NT and other early Christian literature, but might be related to Jewish identifications of the heifer with Miriam.109 Of course Christian writers commonly used Ps 21 as a source of predictions about the Messiah. Verse 21 is usually considered a prayer See ADIDiss, 50, n. 19. See p. 84, n. b below (=ADIDiss, 26, n. 28). 107  See p. 88, n. c below and ADIDiss, pp. 33, 35, nn. 50 and 54, for sources checked and various interpretations. 108  See ADIDiss, 76, n. 12. 109  See p. 119, n. a below, and for more detail, see ADIDiss, 82, n. 40. 105 

106 

44

Introduction

on the lips of the Messiah. Instead, in ADI 7, 60-62, our author uses v. 21 in a unique way understanding the original prayer to be the words of David. This prayer serves then as that uttered by the Canaanite woman whose son had died and thus becomes a prediction of the healing ministry of the Messiah and fulfilled only in Jesus.110 What follows is a list of remaining interpretations offered by our author which seem to be innovative, even in comparison to literature outside our corpus. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and certainly in the course of future studies some of these arguments may well turn up in other sources. Nevertheless, there are enough here to be significant. In the table, ADI references marked with a question mark (?) are interpretations that are paralleled in other texts, but are not identical. Therefore the interpretation in ADI may not be unmistakably unique. List of Apparently Unique Interpretations by ADI ch. 2 ch. 4 ch. 5

ch. 6 ch. 7

ch. 8 ch. 10

110 

ADIDiss, p. 36, nn. 56, 57 (less complete is p. 89, n. a below) ADIDiss, p. 64, n. 5? (p. 105 below) p. 118, n. a (= ADIDiss, p. 82, n. 40) p. 119, n. d below (an updating of ADIDiss, p. 84, n. 46) ADIDiss, p. 88, n. 62 ADIDiss, p. 97, n. 100 (an etymology, p. 127 below) ADIDiss, p. 124, n. 88(p. 147) ADIDiss, p. 130, n. 5 (p. 150, n. c below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 132, n. 9 (p. 151, n. c below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 136, n. 29 (p. 153 below) ADIDiss, p. 144, n. 26 (p. 159, n. b below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 146, n. 35 (p. 160, n. c below) ADIDiss, p. 176, n. 5 (p. 181, n. b below) ADIDiss, p. 179, n. 18 (p. 183 below) ADIDiss, p. 182, n. 28 (see p. 184, n. c below for a briefer treatment) See ADIDiss, 134, n. 21.

45

Introduction

ch. 11 ch. 12

ADIDiss, p. 193, n. 74 (see p. 192, n. a below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 194, n. 79 (see p. 192, n. c below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 195, n. 83 ADIDiss, p. 198, n. 99 ADIDiss, p. 204, n. 28 (see p. 199, n. b below for a briefer treatment) ADIDiss, p. 212, n. 18 ADIDiss, p. 217, n. 42?

Of these, the one cited in ADIDiss 97, n. 100, relates to unknown etymologies and the one cited in ADIDiss 198, n. 99, is a defense of Josephus, which I have not been able to locate elsewhere. Though at times the dialogs may reflect mere replication without learning,111 the example of Cosmas, mentioned by Déroche, demonstrates that composing dialogs was not merely copying or rehashing old arguments, but was a task to which one could devote one’s life. We conclude that this sizeable collection of differences in interpretation is substance enough to show that ADI (and perhaps some other dialogs as well) were largely independent efforts. In fact, it suggests that the desire to discover new “proofs” provided much of the motivation for the writing of dialogs like ADI. Strengthening the church so as to avoid the conversion of its members to Judaism was perhaps one task served by these dialogs. However, we agree with Déroche, as mentioned on p. 19 above, that this task is one which may have been better served by the other genres of adversus-Judaeos literature. The dialog form was ideally suited to accomplish the goal of bringing the Jews “back to the truth” and the method was to construct the perfect weapon, which could be used by others.112

111  See Averil Cameron, “New Themes and Styles in Greek Literature” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I (Princeton, 1992) 99. 112  Déroche, 285-6. Compare Cameron, “New Themes,” 96-97, who says that in the seventh century there was a rivalry between factions to produce “more and yet more texts in support of their own position.”

46

Introduction

=



2-28

 bis

2-30 2-31

= =

2-36

=

=

=

=

2-48



=

=

2-50



=



2-54 3-7

=

3-19

=L







=

=

=

=



=M =

4-11 6-50

=L 

3-63

5-98

=



2-84

4-6

Ps.-Anastasius, Adversus Judaeos disputationes

Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo



Trophaea Damasci

=

Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium

Doctrina Iacobi

2-4

Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae

Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei

ADIDiss

Justin, Dial.

Agreement-Disagreement between the Dialogs113

= 

 =L

=L

Citations from ADI are given by chapter number and footnote number in ADIDiss. The symbol “=” indicates interpretations like those is ADI; the symbol “  ” indicates interpretations different from ADI. Some dialogs preserve the same understanding of a verse, but have a different way of expressing it; to indicate this we use the combination “=  .” On a few occasions it was important to point out equivalent interpretations with significantly more (=M) explanation than ADI and those with less (=L). 113 

47

ADIDiss

6-91

8-3  =

8-34 = = =

8-76 = = = =

8-79 =

=

=

=

=

8-86

9-6

9-67

=

9-7

9-11

9-41



9-63

=

6-89

9-4

=

=

=

=

9-65

=

9-66

=



6-98 =

6-101 =

6-66

7-31 

7-38 

=

=

48

7-24

9-5

=

=

9-8

=

=

=

=

=

=

=





=

=

=

=

=

Ps.-Anastasius, Adversus Judaeos disputationes

Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo

Trophaea Damasci

Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium

Doctrina Iacobi

Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae

Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei

Justin, Dial.

Introduction

=



= =

=

=

= =

ADIDiss

10-5, 6

10-24

9-75

9-87



9-82



11-5 =

11-9 =

11-28  =

9-75

9-86

=

10-74

12-32ff

49

=

=

=



10-78 Ps.-Anastasius, Adversus Judaeos disputationes

Gregentius, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo

Trophaea Damasci

Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium

Doctrina Iacobi

Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae

Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei

Justin, Dial.

Introduction

= =

= =

=

= =  =

= =  =

   

Bibliography

Abbreviations For the abbreviations of ancient works in Greek, see G.  W.  H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961). For works in Latin, see Albert Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-francais des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout, 1954). For commentaries, etc., Comm. in (etc.) is included in the abbreviation. For abbreviations of rabbinic works, see Patrick H. Alexander, et al., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass., 1999), 79-81. AB

Anchor Bible

ADI

José H. Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, CCSG 30 (Turnhout, 1994) Lee M. Fields, “An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew: An Introduction and Annotated Translation” (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2001) Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae

ADIDiss

AJ ABD ANF B

b.

Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman, 6 vols (New York, 1992) Ante-Nicene Fathers The Greek manuscript of ADI, Athonensis Vatopedinus 236, distinguished from the biblical manuscript Vaticanus, which will have a preceding abbreviation “MS” Talmud Bavli

51

Bibliography

b.

ben, i.e., “son of.”

BAGD

BJ

Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1980) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1961) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart, 1967-1977) Josephus, Bellum Judaicum

ByzZ

Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CCSG

Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum Series Latina

CG

Fragments from the Cairo Genizah Targum mss, followed by the letter of the manuscript, taken from M. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum (Cincinnati, 1986) M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols (Turnhout, 1974-1987) Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum

BDF

BHS

CPG CSEL DCG ET

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. by James Hastings (Edinburgh, 1906) English translation

FOTC

Fathers of the Church

Gen. Rab.

Genesis Rabbah

GNO

Gregorii Nysseni Opera, ed. by W. Jaeger (Leiden, 1952)

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte HuckA. Huck and H. Greeven, Synopse der drei ersten EvangeGreeven lien (Tübingen, 1981) ICC International Critical Commentary IDB Jannaris Jastrow

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by G. A. Buttrick, 4 vols (Nashville, 1962) Antonius Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (1897; repr., Hildesheim, 1968) Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (1903; repr., New York, 1971)

52

Bibliography

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

LAB LCL

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum = Ps. Philo’s Biblical Antiquities Loeb Classical Library

Lev. Rab.

Leviticus Rabbah

LSJ LXX

H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1996) Septuagint

MS

Manuscript

MT

Masoretic Text

NA27

NPNF1

Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart, 1993) The New International Commentary on the New Testament Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series

NPNF2

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series

NT

New Testament

NTA Num. Rab.

New Testament Apocrypha, E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (Philadelphia, 1963-1966) Numbers Rabbah

OECT

Oxford Early Christian Texts

OT

Old Testament

OTAP PG

The Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, James A. Charlesworth, 2 vols (Garden City, NY, 1983-1985) J. –P. Migne, Patrologia graeca

PGL

G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961)

NICNT

PL

J. –P. Migne, Patrologia latina

PO

Patristica orientalis

PRE

Pirqe de Rabbi Eleazar. The citations given are of the chapter followed by folio of the Warsaw edition and the page number in G. Friedlander, Pirkê‚ de Rabbi Eliezer, 4th ed. (New York, 1981)

53

Bibliography

R.

Qere = Massoretic notation to read a word differently than written Rabbi

SC

Sources chrétiennes

Schwyzer

Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, 2 vols (Munich, 1939-1950) H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. by G. M. Messing (1956; repr., Cambridge, 1984) Targum Onqelos

Q

Smyth Tg. Onq TWNT y.

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. by G. Kittel (Stuttgart, 1932-1979) Talmud Yerushalmi

Ancient Sources in Modern Editions Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions Hebrew Bible Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart, 1967-1977). Septuagint and Hexapla Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, 2 vols, F. Field (Oxford, 1875). The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, H.  B. Sweet (Cambridge, 1907-1912). Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum Graeca iuxta LXX Interpertes, A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart, 1982=1935). Genesis, John William Wevers, Septuaginta, 1 (Göttingen, 1974). Exodus, John William Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast., Septuaginta, 2.1 (Göttingen, 1991). Leviticus, ed. by John William Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast., Septuaginta, 2.2 (Göttingen, 1986). Numeri, John William Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast., Septuaginta, 3.1 (Göttingen, 1982).

54

Bibliography

Deuteronomium, John William Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast., Septuaginta, 3.2 (Göttingen, 1982). Tobit, Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta, 8.5 (Göttingen, 1983). Psalmi cum odis, Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 10 (Göttingen, 1931). Iob, Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta, 12.1 (Göttingen, 1962). Duodecim Prophetae, Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta, 13 (3rd ed.; Göttingen, 1984). Isaias, Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta, 14 (Göttingen, 1983). Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta, 15 (Göttingen, 1957). Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta, 16.2 (Göttingen, 1954).

Christian Works: Dialog Corpus114 (Anonymous). Dialogus Athanasii et Zaccahaei The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zachaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, Frederick C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898). (Anonymous). Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships”, Robert Gerald Robertson (Ph.D. diss., Harvard, 1986). The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zachaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, Frederick C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898), p. 65. (Anonymous). Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati Doctrina Iacobi nuper Baptizati, n. Bonwetsch (Berlin, 1910). (Anonymous). Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, Arthur Cushman McGiffert (New York, 1889), p. 51. (Anonymous). Trophaea Damasci. Dialogus contra Iudaeos Les Trophées de Damas, Gustave Bardy, PO 15, (Paris, 1920). Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita. Adversus Judaeos disputationes PG 89:1203. These works are referred to in the dissertation collectively as “our literature.” Works from PG and PL are cited only when no critical edition was available. 114 

55

Bibliography

Gregentius Tapharensis. Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo PG 86:621. Jerome of Jerusalem. Dialogus de Trinitate PG 40:848. Justin Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo Die ältesten Apologeten, J. Goodspeed (Göttingen, 1914), p. 90. Justin Martyr The Dialogue with Trypho: Translation, Introduction, and Notes, A. Lukyn Williams (London, 1930).

Other Greek and Latin Works Referenced (Anonymous). Evangelium Pseudo-matthae Evangelia Apocrypha, Constantinus de Tischendorf, 2nd ed. (1876; repr. Hildesheim, 1966), p. 54. ANF 8:368. Apostolic Fathers Apostolic Fathers, Kirsopp Lake, LCL, 2 vols (London, 1912). The Apostolic Fathers, J. B. Lightfoot, Two Parts in Five Volumes (2nd ed. 1889; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989). Athanasius. Orationes tres adversus Arianos PG 26:12. NPNF2 4:306. Basil of Caesarea. Homiliae super Psalmos PG 29:209. Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus Clément d’Alexandrie, Le Pédagogue. Livres I-III, Henri-Irénée Marrou, et al., SC 70, 108, 158 (Paris, 1960-1970). Clement of Alexandria. Christ the Educator, Simon P. Wood, FOTC 23 (New York, 1954). ANF 2:209. Cyprian. Ad Quirinum (Testimonia) Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera. Ad Quirinum, Ad Fortunatum, M. Bévenot, CCSL 3 (Paris, 1972), p. 1. ANF 5:507.

56

Bibliography

Cyprian. Epistula septuagisima Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epstularium. Epistulae 1-81, G.  F. Diercks, CCSL 3B-C (Turnhout, 1994-1996). Saint Cyprian: Letters (1-81), trans. by Sister Rose Bernard Donna, C. S. J., FOTC 51 (Washington, D. C., 1964). ANF 5:421. Cyril of Alexandria. Adversus Anthropormorphitas PG 76:1129A Eusebius of Caesarea. Commentarii in Isaiam Eusebius Werke 9. Der Jesajakommentar, J. Ziegler, GCS (Berlin, 1975). Eusebius of Caesarea. Demonstratio evangelica115 The Proof of the Gospel being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, trans. by W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols (London, 1920). Hippolytus. Demonstratio de Christo et antichristo Hippolytus Werke. Erster Band: Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften. Zweite hälfte: Kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften, Hans Achelis, GCS 1,2 (Leipzig, 1897). ANF 5:204. Irenaeus. Adversus haereses Irénée de Lyon. Contre Les Hérésies 1.2, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, Adelin Rousseau, S. J., et al., SC 264, 294, 211, 100**, 153 (Paris, 1965-1982). ANF 1:315. Jerome. Commentariorum in Esaiam S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Comentariorum in Esaiam, Marci Adriaen, CCSL 73 (Turnhout, 1963). Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae Flavii Josephi Opera, B. Niese, vols 1-4 (Berlin, 1887-1892). Josephus, H. St J. Thackery, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldman, vols 4-10 (Cambridge, 1930-1965). Josephus. Bellum judaicum Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. by B. Niese, vol. 6 (Berlin, 1894). Josephus, ed. by H. St J. Thackery, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldman, vols 2-3 (Cambridge, 1927-1928).

115 

Eusebius 6, I. A. Heikel, GCS 23 (Leipzig, 1913), was not available to me.

57

Bibliography

Maximus the Confessor. Ambiguorum liber PG 91:1032. Novatian. De Trinitate Novatianus. Opera quae supersunt, G. F. Diercks, CCSL 4 (Turnhout, 1972), p. 11. ANF 5:611. Origen. Commantariorum series in Matthaeum Origenes Matthäuserklärung, II, Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz, GCS 11 (Leipzig, 1933). Origen. Contra Celsum Origène. Contre Celse, Marcel Borret, S. J., 1-8, SC 132, 136, 147, 150, 227 (Paris, 1967-1976). ANF 4:239. Origen. De principiis Origène. Traité des Principes 1-5, Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, SC 252, 268 (Paris, 1978-1980). ANF 4:239 Origen. Epistula ad Iulium Africanum PG 11:48. ANF 4:386. Origen. In Numeros homiliae xxviii Origenes Werke VII. Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Zweiter Teil. Die Homilien zu Numeri, Josua und Judices, W.  A. Baehrens, GCS 30 (Leipzig, 1921). Origen. Libri x in Canticum Canticorum Origenes Werke VIII. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten Kommentar zum Hohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen, W. A. Baehrens, GCS 33 (Leipzig, 1925), p. 61. Procopius of Gaza. Catena in Octateuchum PG 87/1:21. Sozomen. Historia ecclesiastica Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique1-4, J. Bidez, B. Grillet, G. Sabbah, A.J. Festugière, SC 306, 418 (Paris, 1983-1996). NPNF2 2:239.

58

Bibliography

Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera 1. Opera Catholic. Adversus Marcionem, various editors, CCSL 1 (Turnhout, 1954), p. 441. ANF 3:269. Tertullian. Adversus Praxean Q. S. F. Tertulliano. Contro Prassea, Giuseppe Scarpat (Turin, 1985). Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani. Adversus Praxean, A. Kroymann and E. Evans, CCSL 2 (Turnhout, 1954), p. 1159. ANF 3:597. Theodoret. Eranistes 1-3 (Dialogus) Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Eranistes, Geerard H. Ettlinger (Oxford, 1975). NPNF2 3:160.

Secondary Sources Bardy, Gustave, Les Trophées de Damas: Controverse Judéo-Chrétienne du VIIe Siècle (Paris, 1920). Baron, Salo Wittmayer, Religious Controls and Dissensions. Vol. 5 of his A Social and Religious History of the Jews 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1957). Beckwith, Roger, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, 1986). Berthold, George C., ‘Maximus the Confessor’, in Encyclopedia of the Early Church 1st ed. (New York, 1990), pp. 590-592. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and Charles A Briggs, The New Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, Mass., 1979). Cameron, Averil, ‘Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period’ in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, ed. by G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 42 (Leuven, 1991), pp. 91-108. —, ‘New Themes and Styles in Greek Literature’ in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problems in the Literary Source Materials. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. ed. by Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad, (Princeton, 1992), p. 81-105.

59

Bibliography

—, ‘Byzantines and Jews: Some Recent Work on Early Byzantium’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 20 (1996), pp. 249-274. —, Review of Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis. Saeculi ut videtur sexti, ed. by Jose H. Declerck (Turnhout, 1994), JTS, 50 (1999), pp. 363-365. Conzelmann, Hans, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia. (Philadelphia, 1975). Cox, Claude, ‘Hexapla’, in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (New York, 1997). vol. 1, pp. 524-525. Declerck, José H., ‘Le DIALOGOS PROS IOUDAIOUS du codex Athonensis Vatopedinus 236’, Byzantische Zeitschrift, 82 (1989), pp. 118-121. —, Anonymous Dialogus cum Iudaeis: Saeculi ut Videtur Sexti, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca, 30 (Turnhout, 1994). Delling, Gerhard, a[rcwn. TWNT,1, pp. 488-489. Déroche, Vincent, ‘La Polémique anti-Judaïque au VIe et au VIIe siècle un mémento inédit, les Képhalaia’, Travaux et Mémoires, 11 (1991), pp. 275-311. ‘Diatessaron’, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1997), pp. 477-478. Eisfeldt, Otto, The Old Testament: An Introduction, ET (Oxford, 1965). Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT (Grand Rapids, 1987). Fields, Lee M., ‘An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew: An Introduction and Annotated Translation’ (PhD diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2001). Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols (1909-1938; repr., Baltimore, 1998). Goldhill, Simon, ed., The End of Dialogue in Antiquity (Cambridge, 2008). Grabbe, Lester L., Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretations: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta, 1988). Hackforth, Reginald, ‘Dialog, Greek’, in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1970), p. 337.

60

Bibliography

Harl, Marguerite, et al,. La Bible d’Alexandrie, I. La Genèseed. by (Paris, 1986). Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (Repr., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983). Hulen, Amos B., ‘The “Dialogues with the Jews” as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity’, JBL, 51 (1932), pp. 58-70. Jellicoe, Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study, (1968; repr., Winona Lake, Ind., 1989). Jugie, M., ‘Immaculée Conception’, in Dictionaire de Théologie Catholique. Paris, 1927. 7.1:893-975. Juster, Jean, Les Juifs dans L’Empire Romain: Leur Condition Juridique, Économique et Sociale. 2 vols Paris, 1914. Kamesar, Adam, ‘The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century’, JTS, NS, 40 (1990), pp. 51-75. Külzer, Andreas, Disputationes Graecae contra Iudaeos: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen antijüdischen Dialogliteratur und ihrem Judenbild (Stuttgart, 1999). Lagarde, Paul de, Onomastica sacra (Göttingen, 1887). Lake, Kirsopp, Apostolic Fathers, LCL, 2 vols (London, 1912). Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961). Leutsch, E.  L., and F.  G. Schneidewig, Paroemiographi Graeci, 2 vols (Göttingen, 1839, 1851). Lewy, Hans, Sobria Ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik (Gießen, 1929). Linder, Amnon, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987). Metzger, Bruce M., Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden, 1963). —, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York, 1977). Norris, Frederick W., ‘Gregory Thaumaturgos’, in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 1st ed. (New York, 1990), pp. 403-404. Olster, David M., Roman Defeat, Christian Response, and the Literary Construction of the Jew (Philadelphia, 1994).

61

Bibliography

Parker, D. C., ‘The Hexapla of Origen’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, 1992), vol. 3, pp. 188-189. Parkes, James, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (1934; repr., Cleveland, 1961). Pope, Marvin H., Song of Songs, AB (New York, 1977). Principe, Walter H., ‘Filioque’, in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 2nd ed. (New York, 1997), vol. 1pp. 281-283. Quasten, Johannes, Patrology. 4 vols (1950-86; repr., Westminster, Mass., n.d.). Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh, 1914). Robertson, Robert Gerald, ‘The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard, 1986). Rokeah, David, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (Jerusalem, 1982). Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974). Salvesen, Alison, ‘Symmachus in the Pentateuch’, JSS, 15 (1991). Schreckenberg, Heinz, Die christliche Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld. 2 vols (Frankfort am Main, 1982, 1986). —, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1977). Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols (rev. ed. Edinburgh, 1973-1987). Setzer, Claudia, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30-150 C. E. (Minneapolis, 1994). Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel: Étude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l’Empire Romain (135-425) (Paris, 1948). —, Verus Israel: A Study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135-425), trans. by H. McKeating (Oxford, 1986). Swete, Henry Barclay, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, rev. by Richard Rusden Ottley (1914; repr., Peabody, Mass., 1989).

62

Bibliography

—, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1887, 1891, 1899). Tischendorf, Constantinus de, Evangelia Apocrypha, 2nd ed. (1876; repr. Hildesheim, 1966). Wevers, John William, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta, 1993). —, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (Atlanta, 1998). Wilken, Robert L., Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven, 1971). Williams, A. Lukyn, Adversus Judaeos: a Bird’s-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1935).

63

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Author Ponders Why the Jews Reject Christianity 1-41 To God must be entrusted divine matters, and to humans human affairs, or rather, even human affairs must be entrusted to God: For in him we live and move and exist (Acts 17.28), so somewhere the divine Apostle says. When therefore to God alone belongs the knowledge even of human affairs, not to mention divine matters, what kind of human mind or reason shall be able to behave presumptuously toward divine teachings? But since the seeking after divine matters has also been given to humans – for I think this is what Moses, by way of a hint, said in Deuteronomy to the Israelite people: These words which I am commanding you today, are in your heart and in your soul; and you shall teach them to your sons, and you shall speak with them while sitting in your house, and while walking in the way, and when you lie down and rise up (Deut 6.6-7), and whatever you might do – it is not unreasonable for me also, who always lives in sins, after having called upon God to be merciful (Exod 32.12; Deut 21.8; Amos 7.2; 4 Macc 6.28) to me for this bold act, to undertake a kind of investigation into divine matters. But, Word of God, and God and Master and Guardian of all,a and especially Declerck compares to Wis 9.1-2. “Word of God” undoubtedly refers to Christ. The second phrase, “God … of all” may be an epithet of Christ or of the Father. In Wis 9.1-2, God is identified as “the one who made all things by your Logos.” The prayer would then be addressed to the first two members of the trinity. The text either views these persons as a unity, speaking in the singular, or better, addresses only one, the Word. a 

67

3

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

4

of this molded figure, give me the wisdom seated beside your thrones (Wis 9.4), so that I may speak intelligently and ponder worthily the things said; for you are also the leader in wisdom and the corrector of the wise (Wis 7.15). But I shall begin this bold deed, trusting that God will lead also in this search; for God is the One who teaches a man knowledge (Ps 93.10). Often times the thought occurred to me while I was pondering by myself, why the nations, on the one hand, all submitted and came overa to the gospel of Christ, almost all having come inside the apostolic nets, so that just a few are still held entirely in the ancient error, but the Jews alone, though having a Law, Prophetsb and Patriarchs, by whom also we have been led, as guides to the gospel of Christ, having their heart, yes indeed, hardened (Mark 8.17), and wearing a veil over their mind – for as it advances, my work shall demonstrate most clearly, with God’s blessing, I trust,c that Law, Prophets and Patriarchs have led us to the gospel of Christ, –, “Why therefore,” I was wondering, “though having teachers and writings in common, did they not obey the ancestral teachings, and why do they continue not to accept that the God, proclaimed by Law and Prophets, became a man?” d

a  ὑπεχώρησεν; lit., withdraw, retreat. The sense seems to be that the nations both submitted to the gospel and backed away from, or gave up, their pagan beliefs to the gospel. b  Declerck refers to Luke 16.29, where in the story of the rich man and Lazarus Abraham tells the tormented soul of the rich man that his family has and can heed “Moses and the prophets.” With the text reading ὡδήδησαν, we may also compare Gal 4.24, where Paul writes that “the law was our guide (παιδαγωγός) to Christ.” c  σὺν θεῷ φάναι is a difficult, but common, expression. Literally, “to speak with God.” The meaning is a sort of request to be speaking in line with God’s approval, “may I be speaking by God’s grace/assistance/blessing.” d  Simon, 177, notes that the method of the Christian apologists was not to convert the Jews to an alien religion (Christianity), but rather to the true understanding of their own Jewish religion, away from the mistaken teachings of the Jewish scholars. Our author is saying that the incarnation is clearly taught in the Old Testament, and he wonders why the Jews failed to understand, or believe, this teaching and why they continue to reject it.

68

1. Introduction

The Author at a Chance Meeting Invites a Jew to Answer His Question 42-52 While I was occupied with these and further quandaries, I happened to meet a Jew, who, as I found out later, had great knowledge of the legal and prophetic writings, but who had it in such a way as one could expect, since he was a Jew, and was enslaved to the shadow of (the) letter,a and I said to him, Ch(ristian)b “Come, man, provide as fittingly as possible answers to me, who seeks to learn something from your Jewish tribe.” At first, however, he was reticent, saying that he feared the power of our speaking,c as though thinking that we have our strength in some liberty of speech, rather thand in divine teachings, and he said to me,

The Jew, Being Assured of Safety and Method, Agrees to Debate 52-118 J(ew) “We who practice Judaism do not have the power to speak against you who practice Christianity.” – “What is there to hinder you?” I said to him. “Surely you are not in any way afraid that we shall lay hands on you, and that a  PGL, s.v., σκία, notes the metaphorical use of the sense shade, phantom, in the phrase τὰς σ. … τῶν λόγων διώκοντες, “those pursuingthe shadows words,” as being used of sophistry. Therefore, applied here, our phrase refers to the unreality of letter as compared to the spirit of the Scripture, i.e., the real meaning. b  The text reads simply Χ (and Ιουδ in referring to the Jew), but Declerck omits these, as later additions by an editor. These notations occur only here. c  δεδιέναι λέγων τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς λόγου τὴν δύναμιν; in view of what follows, one is tempted to understand δύναμις in the sense of some sort of legal force. However, the lexicons do not bear out this use of the word. The author’s first remark is indeed about freedom of speech as the perceived strength of Christian argument as opposed to the alleged real strength, namely “divine teachings.” But the Jew says that Jews have no authority, δύναμις, to speak against the Christians. The Christian then lists the harms, which Christians had in the past suffered at the hands of Jews and of which the Jew need have no fear: (1) being personally seized, (2) ridiculed for the temple hair (κόρρη), (3) imprisonment, (4) scourging. d  Lit., “and not.”

69

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

5

we shall make sport of your temple hair,a and that after putting you away into prison we shall scourge you, the very thing which was once zealously with great force pursued by you Jews, who persecuted us? We hope to be disciples of the peaceful and gentle Christ:b being insulted, he did not return insult; suffering, did not make threats (1 Pet 2.23), but to him that hits the right cheek, he encouraged his disciples to present also the left (Luke 6.29);c and being crucified, prayed that (God) would forgive you your sin, you, who were crucifying him.d By these laws the tribe of the Christians lives; we learned to regard as benefactors even those who stone us. And one witness is Stephen, who was stoned by you and prayed for you;e and so also is Paul himself, having suffered so many things by you Jews and willing, if it were possible, that he was cursed, for the sake of Jews.f Therefore, man, since you have so many examples of the kindness of Christ, why are you afraid to hold a discussion with the servants of Christ?”g But he said to me, “Do not make this assumption.h I as well know the kind acts of the Church of God. But some of you, when they hold some such discussions with us, having left behind Moses and the Prophets, from whom is the discovery of truth, converse a  κόρρη; later Attic for κόρση, the side of the head, or the hair thereon (LSJ, s.v., κόρση). The Hebrew expression would be ‫( ְפּאַ ת ר ֹאשׁ‬pe’at rō’š), lit. corner of the head, but used to refer to the hair on the temples (Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v.,‫) פאה‬. This term is similar to the Greek equivalent to the Latin tonsura, namely, κουρά. The practice of ritual tonsure for monks (a shaving of the scalp rather than long hair on the corners) began in the fourth or fifth century (see “Tonsure” in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. [Oxford, 1997] 1631-2). Between Jews and Christians there may have been mutual mistreatment centering on religiously distinctive hair styles. b  Declerck references Matt 11.29 in regard to Christ, and Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 42 13 and Or. 43 29, whose historical context has to do with heretics, rather than Jews. In Or. 43 (e.g., 73), Basil is described as a peaceable man as well. This attitude is adopted in our dialogue. c  cf. Matt 5.39. d  cf. Luke 23.33-34. e  cf. Acts 7.59-60. f  cf. Rom 9.3-4. g  cf. 1 Cor 7.22. h  i.e., that the Jew is afraid to discuss with the Christian either on account of the weakness of his position or fear of hostile reprisal.

70

1. Introduction

with us on the basis of the works of Aristotle and Plato, creating syllogisms and paralogisms, in which we admit and do not denya that we are unlearned; this methodology is what causes us to flee the examination of our teaching, and what does not allow us unlearned ones to discuss with liberty of speech.” I gave an approving smile at these utterances, and said to him, “Weapons of children, truly, have become your blows, and your tongues have been weakened (Ps 63.7b-8a); for thinking to hide your own passivity, though (really) fleeing from the force of the Gospel message, you falsely invent that we place our trust in Platonic and Aristotelian teachings. For which Christian have you ever heard teaching a Jew, and bringing up any syllogisms, as you said, or paralogisms, into an alliance on the matter under investigation? It is not so, it is not! On the contrary, our teaching was thought by the Greeks, who sought wisdom, to be foolishness (1 Cor 1.18, 22). But ‘we ourselves speak wisdom,’ says the Apostle, ‘not that of this world, but wisdom in mysteries, which is hidden (1 Cor 2.6-7) in the Law and in the teachings of the Prophets.’” “How then?” he said. “Do not the Christians use Greek, lest I say again Aristotelian, syllogisms and paralogisms, whenever they discuss faith mattersb to anyone?” – “They do,” I said. “For truth is dear; but they do not use them when they conduct a disputation with Jews, as you said, but rather when they contend with someone who is pagan,c or with anyone of those among the heretics who himself, in the guise of a Christian, also is in fact pagan; for every Christian, acquiring as strength and ability Christ whom he has put on (Gal 3.27), by taking up the arms of his opponent, through these same arms al-

cf. John 1.20; John says John the Baptist “agreed and did not deny” that he was not the Christ. b  δογματίζουσι; lit. “offer an opinion”; in this context, discussions about the faith. c  Ἑλληνίζοντα; lit., those who speak Greek, live according to Greek culture; here it refers to pagans, see PGL, s.v., ἑλληνίζω, 2. This terminology is drawn from the quotation of 1 Cor 1.18, 22 above. a 

71

6

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

ways defeats his opponent as a matter of course.a Since therefore both the pagansb have used their own weapons against the message of the faith, and the heretics in turn have used the weapons of the pagans, it is reasonable that the Church, in the course of showing by those same weapons that their teachings are unsound and weak, has used their own weapons against them, just as the church now draws up in battle formation with you who practice Judaism, receiving her strength and power from the weapons that you think are yours, namely, Law and Prophets. Now let us leave behind all these preliminaries, and come to the matter at hand; for I shall engage you in dispute using nothing but your Mosaic and prophetic writings.” “Let us begin,” he said.

Discussion of How to Interpret Scripture 119-270 And I said to him, “Do you see, man, that almost all the nations have come to the word of the mystery of Christ and have been baptized – for there is no nation under the sun in which Christ is not proclaimed –, and that the Jews alone disbelieve the divine decrees? But if even no one belonging to a nation – this is only hypothetical – had received the Christian message, it would still be expedient for all the Jews to follow Christ, because they are led to this conclusion by both Law and Prophets, through which also we have been led to the mystery of Christ; but though the teachers, who lead us and you by the hand to the light of knowledge,c are common why did you, being near-sighted in the eyes of your soul, have taken voluntary blindness? a  εἴωθεν ἀεὶ καταβάλλειν τὸ πολέμιον; lit., “is accustomed always to defeat his opponent.” On the use of Greek forms of argument, compare Theodoret, Eran., Prologue: “I shall write it in the form of a dialogue with questions and answers, propositions, solutions, and antitheses, and all else that a dialogue ought to have” (NPNF2 3:160-1). See also Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeos, xlv-xlvii and nn. 12 and 16, who argues that our author’s claim is not entirely valid. b  παῖδες Ἑλλήνων; lit. “children of the Greeks.” c  cf. Hos 10.12.

72

1. Introduction

“And, that the teachings, by which we (Christians) and you (Jews) have been nourished, are common, can be learned from what follows: we have learned to believe in‘one God, Maker of all, both visible and invisible, ’a who has brought everything into existence from nothing.” b – “We also believe this,” the Jew said. – “We believe all things to be governed by the providence of God who created them,” I said, “and nothing happens without purpose nor by chance.” – “This idea we also accept in this way,” he said. – “We also expect a resurrection and judgment of of the things done during our lives;” I said, “and a just recompense, both that there be extended forever to the righteous the enjoyment of good things and to the sinners the unending punishment.”c – “All these things,” said he, “we are taught by Moses and the prophets, and not one word of opposition against any of theses things occurs to us. But it is obvious to everyone on which point we differ: namely, you believe that a son of God became a man and that he was crucified, something which neither Moses nor the prophets in any way taught us.”d And I said to him, “May God, man, who makes the jabberings of infants coherent (Wis 10.21), both give to me a message when I open my mouth (Eph 6.19), and may he give to you an ear to hear, and may the instruction of the Lord open your ears (Isa 50.4-5), so that you might learn the things of which you are deprived. But if God grants – for from him knowledge comes –, I shall summarize our doctrine for you from here on, but, you must answer sincerely when I ask you: all things which Moses and the prophets have transmitted, did they in the same way clearly indicate them

Declerck cites Sozomen, Symbolum Nicaenum, lines 1-2 (p. 226). Declerck compares Liturgy of Basil (p. 313) and Wis 1.14, “For he created all things into existence.” c  There is no hint of the author’s leaning toward Augustinianism, Pelagianism, or semi-Augustinianism. d  At this point the Jew does not challenge the idea that God even has a son. Nevertheless, chapter 3 is entirely devoted to the topic. a 

b 

73

7

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

8

to you by bald facts of the letters, or are some things written in a concealed manner and escaping the ears of most people?” – “They have transmitted everything clearly,” he said, “and we do not allow ourselves to understand anything beyond the letters of the text.” When I had heard this, I remembered the words of Paul, who wrote about thema that, until now when Moses is read, a veil lies upon their heart (2 Cor 3.15); for truly indeed the letter kills, but the spirit makes alive (2 Cor 3.6). And I said to him, “Understand, man, and open the nearsighted eyes of your heart, and be enlightened by the light of the truth:b for in the whole of Scripture you might find many, indeed innumerable, things spoken by means of some deeper sense in a concealed manner, the breadth of which not only am I unable to speak, but neither is the whole world able. But so that you will not think the things said are said in vain, explainc a few things from the writings of Moses to me as one who seeks to know, that I may thus discuss with you in an uninhibited manner also the subjects to follow. “Who among those outside of both the Christian faith and the religion of you Jews religion – for up to now the matter is common to us both – hearing that a serpent made Eve stumble by words,d does not laugh out loud at us, since he knows it is an impossible act for a speechless animal to produce speech; for mankind alone of the creatures on the earth has been honored with speech. And when someone hears that the serpent said this to Eve, and then Eve said that to the serpent, and again that God spoke to the serpent and the serpent to God,e how will he not reasonably think that the things mentioned are silly, old wives tales? And what sort of envy, capable of giving birth to plotting, has so cleverly impelled the serpent, the irrational beast, against the man, in order that i.e., the Jews. cf. Acts 9.3; 22.6. c  διάνοιχον; “open,” but in the sense of “explain” τὰς γραφάς, as in Luke 24.22; Acts 17.3. d  cf. Gen 3.1-6. e  cf. Gen 3.1-2, 4-5, 14. a 

b 

74

1. Introduction

it might accomplish such a deceit against the man, which would lead him into the very pit of destruction?a And the testimony which says, The serpent was craftier than all the beasts which were on the earth (Gen 3.1), what excess of laughter does it not cause among those who do not accept the divine writings as divine? On this basis certain Celsuses and Julians and Porphyrysb drew up in battle lines against us. For since craft is one of the forms of excellence, it is by man of course that itc should be attained,d and then only with toil and pain, since according to Solomon, the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind which muses much, and hardly do we guess correctly about the things on earth, and we only find the things right before use with difficulty (Wis 9.15-16); but as for an irrational beast,f how shall it possess such craft, and deal treacherously against rational creatures by use of reason? “Then again: if (a pagan) hears that Cain, after he murdered Abel, was condemned to groan and tremble (Gen 4.12.), and a few lines later, sees that very same Cain begetting children, and founding a city, and calling the city by the name of his son,g how will such a person accept that the things said are divine? For it will be granted perhaps that Cain has begotten children in his suffering, even if, at least according to the words of Moses, no other woman, from whom a son should be born to Cain, had been created besides Eve; but let it be assumed that also this is indicated by inference.h cf. Gen 3.1-2, 4-5, 14. Celsus (late second century) and Porphyry (c. 232-c. 305), of course, the pagan philosophers who wrote works against Christianity, and Julian is the Roman emperor, known as the Apostate (331/2-363), who wrote Against the Galileans. c  i.e., craft. d  That is, by man and not by a snake. e  ἐν ποσὶν, lit., “afoot”. f  The “irrational beast” is the serpent (cf., line 182), and the author is continuing with the logical argument of a pagan against the validity of the scriptures and therefore the Christianity and Judaism. g  cf. Gen 4.17. h  κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον, lit., “according to what is not mentioned” is a technical term among the ancient interpreters of texts which refers to material implied by an author, who does not spend time narrating unnecessary details (see Adam Kamesar, “The Evaluation of the Narrative Aggada in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature,” JTS, 45 (1994) 54. a 

b 

75

9

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

But how will Cain be able to found a city, a solitary man, groaning and trembling (Gen 4.14), and not even able to maintain himself with respect to physical need? Or did he perhaps appoint Adam to the task of brickmaking and Eve to carpentry? But, even if we should grant this, Cain still required many other artificers for the needs of his city. However, lest I myself, in assembling such a mass of scriptural problems † for another †,a should seem to be speaking against the Holy Scriptures, after mentioning one other thingb that is indicated symbolically, I shall move on to other matters;c for it is not to demonstrate thisd that I am concernede at present, but the matter has compelled me to introduce a few things from the Mosaic writings, for the refutation of the objection.f “Jacob the great, the patriarch, sent by his holy parents into Mesopotamia for the wooing for his weddings,g came to a place and slept – for the sun had set –, and having taken a stone he placed it under his head (Gen 28.11). In a dream he saw a vision of the tall ladder, and the angels of God going up and down, God himself standing on the ladder both speaking this and promising that to the one who was dreaming.h Does it seem to you that these things are enigmas of certain things, or, since they are a dream, does it seem to you that they should also be understood simply as a dream?i But Jacob awakes from his sleep (Gen 28.16), he a  Declerck inserted the crosses to indicate a corruption. In correspondence, he suggested that a possible understanding is “on behalf of another,” in which the “other” would be a pagan arguing against Christianity, in which case the crosses are not necessary. In any case, the text is difficult. b  i.e., the following discussion on Jacob. c  i.e., “Lest anyone think I agree with these charges which the pagans bring against the Scriptures, let me not dwell on the matter, but summarize by saying that these difficulties are cleared up if we understand the deeper teachings imbedded and simply move on to another topic.” d  i.e., defend the difficult passages of Scripture. e  οὐδὲ … καθέστηκε σπουδὴ δεῖξαι; lit., “zeal does not exist in me to show.” f  i.e., that everything in the Bible must be taken literally. g  cf. Gen 27.46-28.2. h  cf. Gen 28.12-15. i  οὕτω; lit., “thusly.” The sense of the question is, “Does it seem to you that these dream events ought to be interpreted as figures, or should they simply be understood literally as a dream, with no greater import than that?”

76

1. Introduction

thanks God who had been seen (by him), he considers the place as awesome,a he calls it the house of God, and says it is the gate of heaven (Gen 28.17), he promises a tithing of his possessions. Then what? He takes the stone, which he had placed under his head, pours olive oilb on it, and says, “If the Lord will be with me and will keep me in my way, in which I am going, and gives me bread to eat and a cloak to wear, etc.” (Gen 28.20), what will happen? “The Lord shall be my God, and this stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be ‘a House of God’” (Gen 28.21-22). “Explain clearly, Jacob,” someone who wants to investigate might say to him, “what sort of ‘House of God’ (Gen 28.17, 19, 22) will the stone by your head be? How big was it in size, that it could be carved and become a house? When was this stone produced, if indeed it was able to be produced?” But Jacob really knew both what he had seen and what he had heard and which “Gate of Heaven” (Gen 28.17) and which “House of God” he meant (Gen 28.17, 19, 22) and what that stone anointed with olive oil prefigured.c But you who wear the veil of hardness,d remain uncircumcised in your hearts and ears (Acts 7.51). For, behold, it was shown to you from the first book of the great Moses that most of the holy words find “their hidden beauty”e in certain covert meanings and enigmas: for in fact all the glory of the daughter of the king is within (Ps 44.14).\f “Scripture” “But if anyone should try to bring out into the open one by one the things which are said in a concealed manner, which world could contain the meaning of the prophetic enigmas,f when they call certain kings eagles (Ezek 7.3, 7), and God himself a lion (Hos 5.14) and a bear (Hos 13.8) and a leopard (Hos 13.7), and again either God or the devil a mountain (Dan 2.34; Isa 41.15?); and when they introduce living beings (Ezek 1.5sqq.), craftsmen (Zech 1.20) cf. Gen 28.22. cf. Gen 28.18. c  Our author does not identify this type. However, it must refer to something Christological.  d  Declerck refers to Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 32.15. e  Declerck identifies this phrase with Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31.21 and 32.15. The phrase is repeated in ADI 6, 298. f  cf. John 21.25 in which John says that Jesus did so many things that “the world could not contain the books written.” a 

b 

77

10

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

11

and land-measurersa to indicate the angelic powers, and a myriad of other such things, through which they teach symbols of important facts? And the book of Song of Songs itself, who shall refrain from saying that it is a brothel of complete licentiousness, unless he should consent that certain divine patterns are shown through the things said?”

a 

cf. Zech 2.1.

78

Chapter 2: The Existence of the Trinity

Summary 1-17 After he heard these things, he said that he was grateful to God who trains his church so thoroughly.a So I said to him, “Since it has now been clearly demonstrated that many things of the Law and the Prophets have been given through enigmatic sayings, let us come to the matter at hand. For it has been said that you Jewsb and we Christians share the same ideas on creation and providence, on both the resurrection and judgment of men, and on eternal life and eternal punishment, indeed not a single difference is known;c but it remained, as you said, that while we believe that the son of God became man for our sake, and being crucified consented to death, and being resurrected was taken up, and is expected to judge the world, you Jews believe no such thing to be taught from your Scripture. Therefore, since we both have agreed to the fact that the Scripture of Moses and the prophets speaks many things a  This statement in an actual dialogue could be sarcastic. Since this is not an actual incident, our author probably intended the remark as a sincere one. In being grateful to God for providing the Church with teaching such as the Christian gave in chapter one, the Jew is conceding the point of that chapter, namely, that scripture does say things enigmatically. b  The terms Jews and Christians are not in the text, but are inserted to make clear the plural number of the pronouns ὑμῖν and ἡμῖν, respectively. c  cf. ADI, p. 73 above.

79

12

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

through enigmatic sayings, let us proceed, with God’s word leading us, to the matter at hand.

That God Has a Son 18-31 “Answer me, man, do you believe that God has no son at all, or do you yourself also agree that he has a son, but regard it as impossible that he became flesh and was crucified?”a “I believe that God has no son at all,” he said. “For neither did Moses hand down, nor a prophet teach any such thing; but on the contrary they preached by everything they said that God is one (Deut 6.4), and that except for him there is no God” (Deut 32.39; Isa 44.6). “Truly,” I said, “God is one (Deut 6.4), and except for him there is no other (Deut 32.39; Isa 44.6); for in this way we both believe and teach (others) to believe. But seeing that we find in the divine Scripture that the word ‘one’ may be meant in many ways, tell me in what senseb do you say ‘God to be one.’” And he said, “How is the word ‘one’ said to be understood in many meanings in the Scripture?”

The One God as a Plurality 31-89

13

And I said to him, “The divine Scripture is accustomed to apply the word ‘one’ as well to many, as to two, as to, the fewest, to that which is one in both nature and number. We see ‘one’ applied to many, as when said it says, ‘All the earth was one lip and one tongue’ (Gen 11.1), and ‘A horse and rider he threw into the sea’ (Exod 15.1), ‘I shall wipe out the man, whom I made’ (Gen 7.4). Will a  The question of our author implies that he knows of Jews who believe that God has a son, but who deny that his fate is as the Christians describe it as fulfilled by Jesus. b  σημαινόμενον; a technical term among ancient grammarians, which means “the implied sense rather than the form,” see also LSJ, s.v., σημαίνω A.III.3.

80

2. The Existence of the trinity

there be anyone, even among the very uneducated, who will say that though every living thing has two lips by nature, now the whole earth is said to have one lip? And would he say that a horse and his rider, only one in number, he threw into the sea (Exod 15.1, 21)? And how can the truth of this statement be maintained? But he was evidently speaking of horses as one in nature and not in number, and he referred to the rider in the same manner. And the verse ‘I shall wipe out the man, whom I made,’ (Gen 7.4) does not mean one in number, but (as one) in nature; for only then were all but a few destroyed. You find that two are said to be one, when you hear, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ (Gen 2.24).a And the divine Scripture indicates one both in nature in number, when it says, ‘There was a certain man from the sons of Levi, who took a wife from the daughters of Levi’ (Exod 2.1), and “His name shall be Abraham (Gen 17.5), and ‘There was a man in the region of Ausis, whose name was Job’ (Job 1.1), and ‘One woman from the sons of the prophets was crying out to Elisha’ (4 Kgdms 4.1); for I know that in these places “one” was said of people living alone and not in a couple. Therefore according to which of these three senses do you say Deity is one?” And he said, “According to the singular and uncoupled, as you said.” And I say, “Therefore when you find in Scripture that God is holding a conversation with some partner, both while creating and sustaining, how will you be able to understand the singular and uncoupled? For (the verses) ‘Let us make man’ (Gen 1.26) and ‘Come let us go down and confuse the languages’ (Gen 11.7) do not indicate that which is singular and uncoupled, but they indicate the singularity of the nature and distinction of the persons; for Deity is one, but one in nature, not in its persons.

The author misses the mark a bit in this example. In the first point, a singular noun in the Bible text is used in a collective sense for a plural. In the third point, a singular noun is used in a “singular and uncoupled sense” with respect to both nature and number. Here, however, for want of a dual form in the Greek Bible, a text with the number two is used. However, the direction is backward, since “the two” become one, rather than an exact parallel of a singular being used to refer to a pair. a 

81

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

14

“But perhaps you will say, ‘When he said Let us make man (Gen 1.26) and Let us go down and confuse the tongues (Gen 11.7), God used the plural meaning, indicating by this the royal character and the worthiness of his rule; for this is what even the kings of the earth are accustomed to.’a But when you say that the kings on the earth do this, you have provided the solution to the problem; for therefore most of all God (does) not (act) in this way, because men (act) in this way.b For men are temporal and mortal, and require the aid of their subjects to accomplish what they want to do, without whom they are not even able to appear what they are,c let alone to do what is necessary; God, on the contrary, has need of no one, but is himself the cause of that which exists both so that it exists and so that it comes into existence.d Therefore how is it that the only self-sufficient one, would take on someone else as a partner in creation, unless only that one be like him in essence and power? But since you think that you are learnede also about the meanings of Scripture, show me where in Scripture it is found that either God uses the plural voice for himself, or that one of those who have received enlightenment from him made use of something similar. But you would not find it even if you went through the whole divine Scripture, except these passages now set before us, over which is also our debate; but no one is allowed to The Jew does not say this in our dialogue; nevertheless it was part of the Jewish argument (see ADIDiss, 24). b  τὸ ζητούμενον λέλυκας, διατοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστα θεὸς οὐχ οὕτως, ὅτι οὕτως οἱ ἄνθρωποι; lit., “you have solved the problem; for on this account most of all God is not such and such, because men are such and such.” The problem, of which the author speaks, is the explanation of the plurals as majestic. The author is refuting this explanation these passages by rejecting the basis of that interpretation, namely, that the usage is common among human kings. The Christian is granting that humans do speak this way, but the mere fact that humans do this does not mean that God does. In fact, since God is different from man by nature, God indeed would not speak of himself as a human king would. c  φαίνεσθαι; lit., appear. The point is that a king only appears to be what he is because his subjects treat him as a king. Without subjects, he cannot be recognized as being a king. d  cf. Col 1.17: “all things hold together in him [i.e., Christ].” e  πολύς; lit., great, in this context probably refers to the Jew’s knowledge. This idiom can be used either as a polite form, or as an indication of certainty in answer to a question (LSJ, πολύς I.2.b.). It is not to be understood as ironic. a 

82

2. The Existence of the trinity

set forth these problem passages before us as though their interpretation is commonly agreed upon. And that God has a son, you shall learn from here on; for it is necessary indeed to confirm the truth by common knowledge.a

The Adoptive Sonship of Israel Implies a Prior Natural Sonship to God 90-115 “When God through Moses commanded to the Pharaoh to release Israel from the harshness in Egypt, he calls Israel his first bornb son when he says, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4.22), and Free my son so that he may worship me (Exod 4.23); for in this way the rest translate instead of the Seventy.c And again in the Additional Law:d Let all the sons of God find strength in him (Deut 32.43), and through David: I said, ‘You all are gods and sons of the Most High’ (Ps 81.6), and through the prophet Isaiah: I have begotten and raised sons (Isa 1.2). And the diligent searcher will find many other such passages throughout the Divine Scripture, through which sometimes the people, at other times the individual, received a promise to be called sons. If therefore every adoption is a copy of the natural sonship – for no one could ever imitate something that does not exist –, and if, looking toward the one who is a natural father who has gotten a son, the man who has not gotten a son takes an adopted son, (thereby) imitating nature by a  i.e., as Adam Kamesar has pointed out to me, our author argues that the Jew cannot prove a plural of majesty based on parallel passages. The term used here, ταῖς κοιναῖς ἐννοίαις, is a technical expression in ancient philosophy meaning “universal belief ” (see ADIDiss, 24-5). b  The Church’s Christological arguments centered on the exact meaning of the word “πρωτότοκος”: Orthodoxy determined that πρωτότοκος, “born,” has no reference to Christ before the incarnation, since he is also called μονογενής, “onlybegotten,” a term implying sameness with God and absence of brothers. See, for example, Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 4.3. c  See Field, Hexapla 1:87. d  Ἐπινομίδι, i.e., Deuteronomy. The usual name of the book is Δευτερονόμιον (“Deuteronomy”); but Philo uses in addition to this ἡ Ἐπινομίς, “Additional Law,” see Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 215.

83

15

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

means of art, and making up the lack of natural offspring by artificial sonship,a then it most necessarily follows that the God who promises either to Israel or to some individual, as he said about David, He shall call upon me, ‘You are my Father,’ and I shall make him my firstborn son (Ps 88.27-28), has a real son by nature begotten from his essence, to whom the adoption of the adopted sons shall be referred to, according the imitation of physical sonship. For if the natural son does not come first, how shall an adopted son be deemed worthy of adoption?b

God’s Natural Son Must Be of the Same Essence as God 116-143 “It is in conversation with this natural son, one who is a partner in his essence and deity, that he says, Let us make man and so on (Gen 1.26); also Come let us go down and confuse (Gen 11.7) are words of one person speaking to another. But if any of you practicing Judaism would distort the truth, and would dare to say that it was in conversation with angels that God said, Let us make man… (Gen 1.26) and Come let us go down and confuse their tongues (Gen 11.7), he must see the pit of your blasphemy; for if he does not assign to God one son of the same essence as a partner in creation, he will assign to him an infinite number of myriads of co-creators, and of partners in divine providence, which is impossible. And he shall select one of two bad alternatives; for either he shall say a  διὰ τῆς θετικῆς υἱότητος, lit., “through adopted sonship,” is as opposed to τῆς κατὰ φύσιν υἱότητος, of natural sonship, in the apodosis begun in line 102; hence the translation artificial. b  In ADI, the thrust of this long conditional clause and summary sentence seems to be not only that adoption exists only because the reality of physical sonship provides a model, but that natural sonship assumes the idea of likeness of essence. The apodosis states that if human adoptive sonship follows only from the prior example of human natural sonship, then (in the apodosis) it is reasonable to conclude that God, who “adopts” a human people or person, first had a legitimate son, i.e., one who is of the same essence. Thus God’s adopting humans, which we can understand on the basis of human physical adoption, prepares the way for us to understand the existence of a real son of the nature and essence of God.

84

2. The Existence of the trinity

that also the angels are uncreated and of the very essence of God, so that they, by being both uncreated and composed of the same essence as God, will be able to act as co-creators with him and as partners in divine providence for his creatures, or else he must say that they themselves will be simultaneously created and creators, which is impossible. And that wea have been taught that angels are creatures of God and not gods is obvious; for we know those who say, He who makes his angels winds and his ministers flaming fire (Ps 103.4; Heb 1.7), and, Let all the works of the Lord bless the Lord; let the angels of the Lord bless the Lord (Dan 3.57, 59), even though you do not allow the second passage. Well then, man, be assured that God is holding a conversation with someone other than the created angels, someone who is a partner in essence and in power and activity: for by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of his mouth all their host b (Ps 32.6).

Evidence for the Trinity 144-344 “This is the tradition of the true faith, which is venerated with respect to the Father and the Son and the Spirit. We above all flee polytheism, we place both our faith and hope in one God, but not as we acknowledge him to be one in nature, do we understand him also to be in one person as well. And to this conclusion we have not been led naively, nor haphazardly, but Moses as first gave us basic instruction with respect to such teachings; then the God of Moses, having become flesh, made himself clear the true teachings.

Abraham at the Oak of Mamre 152-258 For how else shall someone who lays claim to the truth and who lovesc wisdom understand the divine and superhuman a  Probably the “we” refers to Christians, otherwise our author is finding common ground with the Jew. b  ἡ δύναμις used for heavenly host, see PGL, s.v., δύναμις VII. B. c  cf. Wis 8.2.

85

16

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

17

which was seena by Abraham at the Oak of Mamre, at which time Moses transmits literally that God was seen by Abraham at the Oak of Mamre, while he was sitting at the door of his tent at noon; and lifting up his eyes Abraham looked, and behold three men stood above him; and having run (towards them) he fell upon his face to the groundb and did obeisance and said, “Lord, if I have found favor before you, do not bypass your servant; let water be taken and let them wash your feet, and you cool under the tree, and I will take bread and you shall eat; and afterward you shall go on your way, wherefore you have turned to your servant.” And the Lord said, “Do as you have said”” (Gen 18.1-5). “And what,” says the Jew, “do these things about the Oak and Abraham have to do with the matter at hand?” And I said to him, “First, the holy writ has God was seen (Gen 18.1) and When he lifted up his eyes Abraham saw three men (Gen 18.2). So the one who can see so clearly while he is seated at the door of his tent (Gen 18.1), as could also the friend of God, Abraham, and who does not ramble after things external and worldly, and who is not simply sitting but doing so at noon (Gen 18.1), when the sun from the mid heavens shines down equally upon all things,c so that no one be in the dark, and who is sitting at the door of his tent (Gen 18.1), and who being ready for the exodus from the body,d who is having nothing to do with any of the human affairs, unless it is absolutely necessary, but is living above the visible things, lifts up his eyes and sees God appearing as three men and standing above him (Gen 18.2). For is not God, who is glorified by us in three persons, above anything elsee? So then he runs (toward them), and having gone outside of his tent, he falls on his face, considering himself earth and ashes (Gen 18.27) – and quite righta  Declerck supplying . For ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον as idiomatic for superhuman, see LSJ, s.v. ὑπέρ, B.II.1. b  Our author emphasizes that Abraham is worshipping, rather than simply bowing down out of polite custom. c  Or “the sun enlightens everything equally”. d  see PGL, ἔξοδος, 3, for similar phrases referring to death. This seems more at Abraham’s being ready for a vision, or ecstatic experience. e  τινος … ἐπάνω, above anything (else); expanding on above him, ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ.

86

2. The Existence of the trinity

ly; for would not anyone who tries to gaze intently at that beauty of triple-bright power consider himself truly to be earth and ashes? (Gen 18.27) –, and he says, Lord, if then I have found favor before you, do not bypass your servant and so on (Gen 18.3).a Someone shall say to him, “What are you saying, Abraham? Three men you see, and having run down to the three you bowed down. And how now can you say, Lord, if therefore I have found favor before you [singular], do not bypass your [singular] servant (Gen 18.3)? To which of the three are you putting the question? Did you offer the honor to one of the men, thinking him to be the strongest, and have no care for the two others who were lesser? But nevertheless a little further you will say again, Let water be taken and let them wash your [plural] feet, and cool [plural] under the tree, and I will take bread and you [plural] shall eat; and afterward you [plural] may go on your way, wherefore you [plural] have turned to your [plural] servant (Gen 18.4-5). How therefore can you converse now with one saying, Lord, if I have found favor before you [singular] (Gen 18.3), when you are about to speak to him a little later as to a plurality?”

Abraham would reply, “One God are the three with whom I am conversing; one in essence is God, who is apprehended in three persons. So, therefore I both converse as I would with one God, (thereby) indicating the oneness of his nature and the equality and unchangeableness of his deity, and again I approach the one as I would (approach) three, having been taught the distinction of the three persons. Hence I ask also that their feet be washed, not as an earthly-minded readerb could understand it, as though they are wearied from their journey – for not a  The proof is based on interpreting Gen 18.1-5 alone. A lengthy tool employed toward this end is Abraham’s explanation of why he ran to the three and worshipped, addressing a singular entity, and yet when he washed feet, it was addressed to a plural.  The obvious explanation being that Abraham understood that they were “God…in three persons…one in essence.” b  οὐχ᾿ὥσπερ τις τῶν χαμερπῶν ὑπολάβοι; χαμερπής, lit., “creeping on the ground,” used figuratively, “base, earthly, unworthy.” The figurative sense would yield, “not as any of those of those who take Scripture literally (‘earthily’).”

87

18

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

even angels could suffer this, much less indeed God, whose servants and creatures are the orders of angels –, but in order that I might be able to attend to even the ultimate and uttermosta teachings of the Triune Deity, which are represented by the feet. For this is also why I said, cool under the tree (Gen 18.4), not in order that they themselves should have relief from the blazing sun – for if this were the thing that was asked by me,b I would have said, ‘be cooled,’ and not ‘cool under the tree’ (Gen 18.4), – but I ask so that they might provide shade for my own heart, and cool its flame,c burning to seek after the Triune Deity. Because of this burning I have also left my ancestral land and grown to hate my polytheistic error, so that I might come to know the God who has now appeared to me, as far as it is possible and as far as he is willing to appear. For this was the promise I was deemed worthy to receive apart from my father’s house,d when God said to me, Depart from your land, and come to a land which I will show you (Gen 12.1; Acts 7.3). This was the divine teaching he revealed to me, a teaching of which I will not begrudge to give a share also to my wife Sara. And I will run to her while she is in the tent (cf. Gen 18.6, 10) – for a woman who is both barren and has not yet received the seeds of such teachings, is living in the tent (Gen 18.6, 10) up to now under the shadow of the truth – and I will say to her, ‘You too must Hurry, woman, and mix three measures of fine flour, and make cakes (Gen 18.6). For indeed I, having now as first opened the eyes of my mind, was deemed worthy to see God, as far as it is possible for the human mind to see, and I have seen that he a  ἐσχάτοις καὶ τελευταίοις; perhaps in the sense of humble and mundane (earthly < mortal), or extreme and fine (i.e., subtle or detailed). The translation follows the latter. b  That is, “If I had asked that they come under the tree to find relief for themselves.” c  Gen 18.4 either understands ὑμᾶς (‘your’) from the preceding phrase, “let them wash your (ὑμῶν) feet” (cf. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genèse, 174, who renders “rafraîchissez-vous”), or simply leaves the verb as intransitive, “cool down” (LSJ, s.v., καταψύχω, III). Our author is taking the verb καταψυχθῆτε, “cool,” as middle voice instead of passive, therefore making Abraham the “object” of the verb cool. Though Gen 18.4 is commonly understood by Christian writers as an epiphany of Christ (e.g., Novatian, Trin. 18.11-16; Eusebius, Comm. in Isa. 41 on Isa 6.1 [GCS, 37, 4]), no one seems to make a point of this particular phrase and the hermeneutical problem posed by a divine figure needing refreshment. d  ἐκ τοῦ πατρικοῦ οἰκοῦ; i.e., either after he was out or so that he would go out from his father’s house and from the idolatry associated with it.

88

2. The Existence of the trinity

is three persons. Now therefore you also must mix three measures (Gen 18.6) and hide them in yourself;a for at this point in time the teachings regarding the Triune Deity are hard to accept, but there will be a time when they will be proclaimed to the whole world; but for now it is necessary that having become cakes these (teachings) be well hidden, until the invisible one (Heb 11.27), the living one, he who has descended from heaven (John 6.51, 58) breaks this bread for those who are hungry, who by becoming bread himself,b and strengthening the heart of man (Ps 103.15).c And if you make these teachings into cakes, make them out of fine flour, so that they may be firm, pure and unadulterated, and have in them no rough husks; for if you mix it quickly, and do not turn around and become a pillar of salt (Gen 19.26), as a woman of our own race will soon suffer, you, who to this day are childless and barren, will truly give birth to a son named Joyd – for this is what Isaac meanse –, this son prefiguring the voluntary manifestation for sacrifice of the one member of the Trinity, the word of God who is going to become flesh.f

Thus were the things that that friend of God,g Abraham, saw and indicated in advance.

a  There is a wordplay on cakes, ἐν + κρυφία, and hide, ἐν + κατακρύπτω. The significance of ἐν σεαυτῇ, “in yourself,” seems to be in Sara’s bearing the nation of Israel, from which will come the Christ. b  In John 6.51, 58, Jesus is specifically called ὁ ἄρτος, “the loaf.” Our author takes the three measures of flour for the cakes with the three Persons of the Trinity. He then equates the cakes with the term “bread,” an epithet for Jesus, and thus seeks to strengthen his argument that God is a Trinity and Jesus a fully divine member of it. c  This phrase is quoted below, pp. 103, 104. In the latter, he seems to identify the Holy Spirit as the bread, which strengthens the heart. d  cf. Gen 18.10-14. e  Declerck cites Lagarde, 177, 77-78 and 193, 5, which both read Ἰσαακ γέλως καὶ χαρά, “Isaac (means) laughter and joy.” So also many other sources, see Grabbe, 171, in accordance with biblical etymology. f  On this Declerck rightfully refers to Gen 22.2-12, the binding of Isaac. Also see below, p. 117. g  cf. Jas 2.23, where Abraham was called “God’s friend”.

89

19

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Moses at the Bramble Bush 259-277 “But when God himself was conversing with Moses at the bramble bush, on what account did he call himself God of Abraham and of Isaac and God of Jacob (Exod 3.6)? Why was it necessary that the word God be repeated three times? For if he had said ‘I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,’ how might the meaning have been corrupted?a And do not ever think that by this we are declaring that there are three gods – for polytheism is far from our foldb –, but accept that God has dimly intimated from a distance the teachings about the Trinity to his worthies, to the extent that they were able to hear or see, even though Moses rightly called himself weak in speech and slow-tongued (Exod 4.10), being dumbfounded by the majesty of the Triune Deity. And therefore also he himself says in Deuteronomy, Hear, Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord is one (Deut 6.4), intimating to those who are able to grasp hold of the truths and are true Israelites,c who have a mind abled to exalt or see God, what is meant by the threefold repetition of Lord and God and by the words there is one Lord (Deut 6.4), namely, that he is one “according to the principle of union (of natures)”e and of deity, but three according to the principle of persons.

παρεβλάπτετο means to damage (indirectly) (LSJ, s.v., παραβλάπτω 1), injure, impair, hinder, prevent. The idea is that by not repeating God three times the significance of the message would have been lost, or the resultant text might be misleading. b  αὐλή, courtyard, is commonly a metaphor for the Church (PGL). This may hint at the identity of the Church with the true Israel. c  Our text here reveals no knowledge of Hebrew, but rather relies upon some such interpretation as found in the Onomastica sacra. With respect to the name Israel, Declerck cites Lagarde, 170, 90; 181, 82; 203, 92. d  Or perhaps “willing”; see PGL, s.v. δύναμαι. e  Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistula 101.31. a 

90

2. The Existence of the trinity

The Seraphim in Isaiah’s Vision 278-322 “Deemed worthy to see the divine mysteries also was Isaiah, who was purified by the seraphim and with the coal,a when he witnessed the death of the leprous king,b and became free from the unclean kingdom.c For what says Isaiah himself? It came to pass in the year, in which Uzziah the king died; I saw the Lord seated on a lofty and exalted throne; and seraphim stood in a circle about him, each having six wings, and with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one was crying out to the other, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory,” when also the lintel was lifted by the cry and the house was filled with smoke (Isa 6.1-4). Why was the lintel shaken, if not in order that the door of knowledged should be opened (Acts 14.27) easily to the inspired prophet? For if there be no lintel, neither is it possible to put a key in the door. Thus the door of knowledge was opened (Acts 14.27) to him, and he saw divine things to the extent that he was able to see them. Wherefore also he sees the house filled with smoke; for darkness was still the secret place of God (Ps 17.12; 2 Kgdms 22.12; Job 22.14), who still uttered these things (through the medium) of shadows. But observe what can be concluded: when he saw the mortification of the leprous king,e and when he was no longer serving unclean rulers, then he sees the Lord seated upon a lofty and exalted throne, then he sees the seraphim encircling that royal throne and singing. And what is the song, so great and divine and apt for the all-holy Trinity alone? It is Holy, holy, holy (is) the Lord Sabaoth (Isa 6.3), the truly thrice-holy Entity and Name,f cf. Isa 6.6-7. i.e., Uzziah; cf. Isa 6.1; 2 Chr 26.21. c  i.e., Isaiah’s own people. The point seems to be that when Isaiah’s lips become purified, he is no longer a part of that people with unclean lips, namely, the Jews (cf. Isa 6.5-6). d  In Acts 14.27, the phase “door of faith” (as opposed to “door of knowledge” used here) opened to the Gentiles is used regarding the results of Paul’s first missionary journey. e  lit. “when he saw the death of the leprous king.” f  πρᾶγμα καὶ ὄνομα; i.e., the reality and its designation. a 

b 

91

20

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

the thrice-Desired One and thrice-Bright Object of rejoicing, the True Life and the True Truth, of which even the holy seraphim were shown to be heralds, when they say Holy, holy, holy (Isa 6.3).

21

For if you, divine seraphim, had said, ‘Holy is the Lord Sabaoth,’ or ‘All-holy is the Lord Sabaoth,’ or ‘Supremely holy is the Lord Sabaoth,’ what would have resulted from this? What does your thriceholy melody mean? – (The seraphim would say) ‘It is because we were assigned to worship and serve a triad, that we say Holy, holy, holy (Isa 6.3), according to the principle of three persons,a but we offer the undivided honor and unceasing service to the three persons as to one God; hence we also rightly apply to the thrice-holy one (the title) Lord Sabaoth (Isa 6.3), since we apply the expression to one God,b “the mind making a separation in that which is inseparable,”c “and not allowing to be scattered by breaking up by number what cannot be broken up.”’ d

These things thus the all-holy seraphim, which are continually set aglow by the divine fire,e wherefore indeed they acquired their name, made known through what they taught.

Summary 323-344 “But the prophet, after he has heard these words, says, Wretched man that I am, because I am pricked (Isa 6.5), stopping short of calling himself earth and ashes (Gen 18.27) like Abraham did, and weak in speech and slow-tongued (Exod 4.10) just as previously the lawgiver had done at the bramble bush. So much the great myscf. p. 90 above. εἰς ἕνα θεὸν τὸν λόγον συμπτύσσοντες; lit. “folding together the expression into one God.” c  Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 23.11. d  Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 23.10. e  Declerck cites Lagarde 173, 71. See also Wutz, 123, and 705, 24: “Seraphim means ‘spirit of the resurrection’ or ‘he displays the one who burns’ or better ‘the glowing one’”; for analysis, see also Wutz, 110f, 491. Declerck also cites Lagarde, 198, 51 (sic, 54): “A seraphim is a blazing (being) or a chief of a fiery mouthpiece.”; for analysis see Wutz, 201. Cf. Eusebius, D. e. 7.1: “Seraphim is translated chief of their mouth.” a 

b 

92

2. The Existence of the trinity

tery about the Trinity, until the one member of the three, the God-word, became man, and opened the door of knowledge (Acts 14.27), by having become a door for those seeking to enter (John 10.9), was hidden and was in some way dimly indicated in advance to the great men. For it was shown in advance to Abraham at the oak of Mamre; but he commended to Sarah to make these words into cakes.a It was shown to Moses in the bramble bush;b but he calls himself weak in speech and slow-tongued (Exod 4.10). Then the seraphim teach Isaiah this; but he says he is wretched and unclean (Isa 6.5), and unable to administer such teachings, but he is cleansed by the divine coal, and he is taught to say to Israel;c You shall indeed hear and not understand; you shall surely see and in know way perceive; for the heart of this people has become fat, and they have closed their eyes, and with their ears they have heard dully (Isa 6.9-10); for (Israel) did not accept the divine teachings about the Trinity.”

cf. p. 90 above. Again the notion is that the words were hidden. cf. p. 90 above. c  cf. p. 91 above. a 

b 

93

Chapter 3: Proof of the Existence of the Son

Transition 1-20 22

After the Jew had heard these things, he said to me; “The issue under investigation was whether God has a son; but what was said by you now indicates (the existence of) a trinity.” But I said to him, “I know that this was the question at first, but the discussion up to this point has not proceeded out of sequence; for of those which are acknowledged to have a common nature, the discussion understood the teachings about their substance to be common as well.a And since it has been shown that it is in a trinity that God is declared to be one, the winning of the

a  The text is difficult. The context favors the understanding that ὁ λόγος, “the discussion,” is the obvious subject. However, this makes τοὺς λόγους, the same lemma, mean “teachings.” τοὺς λόγους apparently is speaking generally of descriptions in the Bible; i.e., Scripture has common teachings about the substance of those persons of the Trinity which have a common nature. As applied in the following argument, the discussion will make clear that the three persons of God are of one, or of a common, nature. The alternative is to take ἡ γραφή as the subject. This would give the sense, “Of those persons whose nature Scripture recognizes as shared …” This alleviates the problem of τοὺς λόγους above, but rendering the second half is still a problem. Perhaps we might continue, “so also the discussion (sc. ὁ λόγος) understood that its (i.e., Scripture’s) teachings about their substance is that they have it in common.”

94

3.  Proof of the Existence of the Son

point in questiona shall belong to the present discourse; it shows in what follows that one of the Trinity became flesh, namely the one whom the Divine Scriptures also call Son (Ps 2.7),b and Word (Ps 32.6; 106.20; John 1.1) and Angel (Isa 9.6) and Wisdom and Power (1 Cor 1.24),c both Effulgence and Exact Likeness (Heb 1.3d) and Mirror (Wis 7.26), and in addition to these many other names, which show the greatness of his Unapproachable Grace.e However since you are a densef sort in your understanding, and it is necessary to refine for you what is said because you do not ‘bring up the cud, ’g and do not refine the divine teachings with the teeth of your soul – for this is what those fit for the whole burnt sacrificeh do, those who are the pupils of the church of Christ –, from here on I shall discuss again with you, since you seek to know {20}, whether it is believed that God has a son.

In favor of this latter alternative is that οἶδε, “which are acknowledged” as a present sense does not fit well as referring to the previous portion of the discourse as does the past tense of παρέλαβε, “understood.” This shift in tenses may well signal a shift in subject. The problem of the meaning of κοινούς, “common,” exists in either interpretation, for what in the first clause it is the nature that is shared, but in the second the teachings are common. a  viz., that God has a son. b  cf. Matt 2.15. c  cf. Prov 8.1 sq. d  cf. Wis 7.26. e  τῆς ἀπροσίτου χάριτος, i.e., God; see PGL, s.v., χάρις, which can refer to any member of the Trinity or to the Trinity itself. f  παχύς; lit., fat, broad, thick; it is used of being earthly (as opposed to spiritual), carnal, dense or insensitive in thought. g  μηρυκισμός, a chewing of the cud, is found in Lev 11.7, as Declerck notes. The Christian is saying the reason he first treated the previous point, namely that the trinity is hinted at in the OT, is to prevent backtracking which the Jew would require when bringing up issues, which would not have been proved had the point not been previously covered. h  cf. Lev 6.23.

95

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

That Scripture Refers to a Partner of God in Essence as “Son” and “Angel” 21-34

23

“To whom, do you suppose, has God, speaking in the prophets, said: You are my son, this day I have begotten you, etc. (Ps 2.7)? For if you believe that this has been said to the prophet who wrote the second psalm, you will by all means be forced to demonstrate that hea received the nations as an inheritance from God and the ends of the earth as his possession (Ps 2.8); but if it is impossible for this ever to be demonstrated with reference to a mere man, the passage will be easily applied to our savior, who shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the inhabited world (Ps 71.8). For to him alone God has uttered the phrase, This day I have begotten you (Ps 2.7); for you could find that the one whom he has begotten before all time, and was pleased to be begotten again in time, is often called also Son (Ps 2.7b) and Angel (Isa 9.6).

Theophanies: Appearances of This “Angel” 35-248 “Now also take on another question: can the God, who according to you is a single entity both by substance and by person – for now, for the moment, I will conduct the inquiry in accordance with what you believe, and I will put the question to you in the manner you wish to answer – can hec ever be called an angel of his own and can he himself send himself and be sent?” “How is this possible?” he said. “How therefore will anyone,” I replied, “who contends for the truth understand the teaching revealed in Abraham’s sacrifice,d in which he hastened to offer Isaac? But for the moment now, keep in suspense for me what was then typified; for this event – and let it

i.e., the prophet. cf. Matt 2.15. c  i.e., God. d  cf. Gen 22.2-12. a 

b 

96

3.  Proof of the Existence of the Son

be said with the help of Goda – will have its own connection at the appropriate place,b when our discussion requires the interpretation of the salvific passion; but let us come to the present question. For the Sacred Text has, An angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven, and said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And he says, “Here I am.” And he said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the boy, and do not do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, and you did not spare your beloved son on my account” (Gen 22.11-12). Take note, man, with fear of God, what is said: he who calls Abraham is called an angel; the text now shows that the angel is God. For now I knew, says the angel, that you fear God, and you did not spare your beloved son on my account, so that the conclusion is ‘Now I knew that you fear me, God, and have not spared your beloved son.’ God cannot be called his own angel can he? Yet the one who is making an utterance is called an angel of the Lord (Gen 22.11). Surely no angel of the Lord has ever yet dared to call himself as God has he? Yet now when making an utterance to the patriarch, he calls himself God. He really and truly is God in substance, even if he thought it well to be called an angel by way of accommodation. For this very reason Isaiah also, who was cleansed by the seraphim and with the coal,c is carefully taught to call the Lord, who became flesh on account of the salvation of men, an angel of the great council (Isa 9.6). “Having learned this in advance, even Hagar the Egyptian, who gave birth to your Ishmael for slavery, and who became a prototype for your synagogue, is carefully taught to call the angel, who was seen by her and gave an utterance to her, ‘God.’ For the Sacred Text says, An angel of the Lord God found Hagar by a spring, and he said to her, ‘Hagar, handmaiden of Sarah, from where do you come and where are you going?’ (Gen 16.7-8), as though he was saying ‘Synagogue, servant woman of the church, from where do you come and where are you going?’ And she says, ‘I am running away from Sarah my mistress’ (Gen 16.8). Then he says, a  σὺν θεῷ, lit., “with God”; for the notion, “with the help of,” see LSJ, s.v. σύν, A.2. Compare σὺν θεῷ φάναι in ch. 1, p. 68, n. c, and the note there. b  ADI treats the topic of the salvific passion in c. 8. c  cf. Isa 6.6-7.

97

24

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

You have dared to attempt impossible things, woman.a It is necessary that you submit to your mistress and serve her,b and not flee the yoke of your servitude.c For you will give birth to a son and you shall call him Ishmael (Gen 16.11); and this means ‘hearing God’;d for indeed you shall hear with hearing, but not (Isa 6.9) believe; for such a people that of the circumcision will be. But your mistress, the Church of the Gentiles, shall give birth to Isaac, the one legitimately begotten, both being and named ‘unspeakable joy.’e For since you, Hagar, are a sojourning, you will only sojourn in ‘hearing God’ f and not settle there; for you shall not believe in the words of the Spirit;g but on the other hand Sarah your mistress ‘is ruling’ h both in word and in fact, wherefore also she derives her name, and will become a house of the living God.

For this very reason also your Hagar, who was instructed of the things concerning herself, and because she was at all deemed worthy of divine knowledge, even if this knowledge was only partial, brightened by joyi – for as I said she was the image of the synagogue –, she called the name of the Lord who was speaking to γύνιον can be used as a term of endearment or contempt. Either connotation is possible, but though in the Bible text the angel is caring for Hagar and would seem to be more endearing, our author is drawing a comparison of Hagar to the synagogue. Therefore some contempt, or perhaps simply condescension, seems indicated. b  cf. Gen 16.9: “Return to your mistress and humble yourself in her hands.” c  In this passage the Church is regarded as Israel, and the Jews as Ishmael. This sentence may have reference to the fact that the Christians govern the Jews, in the belief that this is the fulfillment of prophecy. This is common in Christian thought going back to the NT itself (e.g., Gal 4.21-31). d  Declerck cites Lagarde, 170, 88; 193, 6 e  Declerck cites Lagarde, 177, 77-78; 193, 5 f  Declerck cites Lagarde, 186, 9 g  The genitive in the phrase τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ πνεύματος, “in the words of the Spirit” could be either attributive, in which case the rendering should be “spiritual words/teachings,” i.e., the spiritual understanding of the meaning of the text; or it could be an ablatival use, in which case the words are from the Holy Spirit (or else a possessive genitive) i.e., simply the Scriptures, viewed with true meaning. The translation renders the latter view by capitalizing “Spirit.” h  Or “is a ruler.” Declerck cites Lagarde, 173, 59 i  There is nothing in the biblical text that indicates that Hagar was joyful; the expression must have been made by the author due to the context of God’s caring for Hagar. a 

98

3.  Proof of the Existence of the Son

her, “You are the God who cared for me” (Gen 16.13). Take note, man, that the angel who is speaking, is called Lord and God by the woman, who typifies the synagogue, or rather by Moses who wrote what is said. “Or will you perhaps dare say that the ‘angel’ who spoke with Abraham as well as the one who conversed with Hagar was one of the created beings, who are sent for ministry (Heb 1.14), and who when he hears himself called ‘God’ and ‘Lord,’ accepts it, seeming to be honored by the name? But notice that having been seen by Abraham, he himself called himself ‘God’ when he said, Now I knew that you fear me, your God, and have not withheld your beloved son (Gen 22.12). But compare if you wish, to the praises, as it seemed to you, of your Hagar, which she offered to the angel, as you think, in praise,a the words of the angel who was seen by Manoah, and you will know how God does not allow the mind of men in its error to serve the creature rather than the creator (Rom 1.25). For there also the angel of the Great Council (Isa 9.6) was first seen by the woman, and predicted the birth of Samson, and made clear the appointment of the one to be born; the woman makes known the details of the vision to her husband; Manoah prays to God, saying, Let him indeed come, Lord, the man of God, the one who came to my wife, and let him enlighten us as to what we should do for the boy about to be born (Judg 13.8, 11). For still serving the strictness of the letter, he prays for a man of God (Judg 13.8) and not ‘an angel of God’ or (simply) ‘God’ to come to him. But it is God that hears (Judg 13.9) and comes again as an angel, and enlightens Manoah, clarifying ahead of time the future events. Then Manoah says to the one who seemed to be a man and not God or an angel, Allow us to detain you and let us prepare a goat kid before you (Judg 13.15). Alsob this request he made at the inappropriate time: for the one who receives the kids for sacrifice on the

Gen 16.13 above. The καί here marks this as an additional request. The first request by Manoah was to ask for a man of God. This second request is untimely, as suggested to me by José Declerck, since Manoah’s request for the “angel” to eat would require that the incarnation have already happened. a 

b 

99

25

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

left hand had not yet become flesh. And hea says to him, dragging him out from his overpowering and debasing dullness,b

26

‘If you detain me,’ he says, ‘I will not eat your bread (Judg 13.16): for I am bread that will soon become flesh and life to those who are nourished (by it).c And if you prepare a whole burnt offering, you shall offer it to the Lord (Judg 13.16): for it is clear that you, the one wanting to prepare a goat kid for me (Judg 13.15), and thinking that I am a mere man, would not shrink back from preparing whole burnt offerings for me, even if I were an angel, one of the created beings, and this was known by you. But not so, man, neither think I have need of bread – for I am bread that maintains life –, nor offer to me a whole burnt offering in any other way than as to the Lord; for in as much as I am God I accept whole burnt offerings, even though I am regarded as an angel in deference to the dispensation of those being saved.’

“Then Manoah knew, it says, that it was an angel of the Lord (Judg 13.21), and he says to him, What is your name, so that when the matter takes place we may glorify you?’ (Judg 13.18) And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask my name? Indeed it is wonderful’ (Judg 13.18). Thus he showed clearly to Manoah that it was God who was the one speaking to him and not a man, as he mistakenly prayed, nor a created angel, but truly God, who was going to become a man. For what angel’s name was Wonderful and hidden to men? But that name was ‘wonderful,’ that the Logos displayed after he became flesh, saying, ‘I have manifested your name, Father, to men’ (John 6.48). Then Manoah says to his wife, ‘We will die, woman, because we have seen God’ (Judg 13.22). You see how much fear God elicits when he appears as an angel, whenever he wishes to offer a glimpse of his divinity. “Having seen once in Babylon that ‘angel’ deliver those around Hananiah in the fiery furnace and sprinkle the flame, and having been joined to the three as a fourth, the Babylonian tyrant said to those standing around, Did we not throw three men bound into i.e., the ‘angel.’ ἐκ τῆς κρατούσης καὶ κατασπώσης παχύτητος; παχύτητος is literally, “thickness”; see PGL for the metaphorical use of κατασπάω. c  Declerck refers to several passages in John 6.33, 41, 48, 51; 14.6 etc. a 

b 

100

3.  Proof of the Existence of the Son

the furnace? Here I see four men unbound and walking around, and the appearance of the fourth is like a Son of God (Dan 3.91-92). For this same (personage) is also the Word of God, through whom the heavens were established (Ps 32.6), and the angel of the Father’s Great Council (Isa 9.6), and Son of God (Dan 3.92) who is of the same substance. And long ago he was made known not only to the righteous men, but also to foreigners; for not of the Jews alone but also of the Gentiles is he God.a “But so that you might understand the reverent fear which the prophets had, and how they know to distinguish a created angel created for service from the uncreated and blessed divinity, consider the story of Daniel, that when he saw Gabriel as a man flying and giving certain divine teachings, he saw another man, whose name he did not mention because it was ‘amazing’; nevertheless he saw him clothed in linen (Dan 10.5) and speaking words, the meaning of which the prophet could not bear, and fell on his face; and there was no strength in him at all.b Then thus Daniel said to the man who strengthened him and urged him to have courage,c Lord, at your appearance my inward parts turned within me, and I had no strength; and how will your servant, lord, be able to speak with this my lord? (Dan 10.16-17). Such fear would seize the prophets,d and they knew how to distinguish, by the grace given to them from the Spirit, the servile angelic creaturee from the creator (Rom 1.25). So a created angel did not venture to say to Abraham that he was himself the God, on account of whom he did not spare Isaac; nor did Hagar or Manoah, who later became a judge, have boldness to say, in her case, that You are God who cared for me (Gen 16.13), or in his case to his wife, We shall die, woman, because we have seen a  Note that here the Jews, or at least the biblical characters favored by God of whom he has spoken, are referred to as δίκαιοι, “righteous men,” while Gentiles are referred to as ἀλλόφυλοι, “foreigners.” b  cf. Dan 10.8. c  cf. Dan 10.11-14. d  Declerck’s edition reads the interrogative τίς, which may be incorrect. The translation renders as if it is the indefinite τις (suggested by Adam Kamesar). e  Adam Kamesar suggested to me perhaps, “the created servile nature of angels.”

101

27

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

28

God (Judg 13.22), but each one was enlightened as he was able to bear, and just as the power of the One who enlightened wished it. “Hence also when Gideon, threshing his father’s wheat (Judg 6.11), saw the angel appointing him to judge Israel and arming (them) for the war against Midian, he did not dare to call the angel ‘God,’ but ‘angel,’ even though that angel had promised to grant him strength and to give him the prizes of victory against the Midianites, and even if by the touch of his rod he lighted a fire for the sacrifice, and was snatched away into heaven together with the flame. For what did Gideon say after all these things? ‘Ah, ah, Lord, for I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.’ And the Lord said to him – not the angel of the Lord, but the Lord of the angel –, ‘Peace be to you; do not fear, you will certainly not die’ (Judg 6.223). Did the angel call himself God then? Or did Gideon say the angel was God? By no means: for those of the Spirit knew the things of the Spirit (Rom 8.5):a: for truly they are led by the Spirit, and they applied the appropriate terms to God and creation. And Jacob, the one who overcame his sufferings,b and who therefore received the right to be called Israel,c wrestles with God, who was seen as a man, and he is injured in his thigh, bearing the symbol of human weakness.d And what sort of Lord rained on Sodom from another Lord, for Moses said, The Lord rained … fire from the Lord (Gen 19.24)? For was it not enough to say, “The Lord rained down fire on Sodom”? “And what sort of angel would he, who from Jacob became and is named Israel, when blessing the sons of Joseph at his death, place on the same level as God and take as a partner in the blessing? For he says, May God, to whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac were Also quoted in ch. 5, p. 120. Declerck cites Lagarde, 167, 32; 177, 78; 192, 94;203, 91-92. The phrase “who overcame his sufferings” (ὁ τὰ πάθη πτερνίσας) is, of course, a play on the meaning of Jacob’s name and his grasping the heel (πτέρνα) of Esau. The application seems to be his struggle, or overcoming, of the angel. c  Here our author appears to understand “Israel” to mean “a man who has seen God.” d  cf. Gen 32.24-26, 28 a 

b 

102

3.  Proof of the Existence of the Son

pleasing, the God who feeds me from my youth until this day, the angel who delivers me from all bad things, bless these children (Gen 48.15-16). Do you actually think that such a one as Jacob either dared or accepted to place an angel, one of the created beings, on the same level as God? Did God alone not suffice to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, but was it necessary that the angel be given in partnership to hima in the blessing? But notice the absurdity, man, and flee the blasphemy; for either he is calling the Father ‘God’ and calling the Son both ‘God’ and ‘angel’ because of the future incarnation,b or else the patriarch is applying the whole (blessing) to the Son, knowing that he is God and the ‘angel’ of his Father.c And for this very reason, previously speaking to his two wives in Mesopotamia about their father Laban and relating in detail that which had appeared to him in a dream, he shows clearly that the angel who was seen by him truly is God. For he himself says, And the angel of the Lord said to me in a dream, “Jacob, Jacob.” And I said, “What is it?” And he said, “I have seen everything Laban is doing to you. I am the God who was seen by you in a place of God, where you anointed a stele to me and offered a prayer to me” (Gen 31.11-13). See, also now this beloved one of God predicts the mystery of Christ to his wives, when he says that the ‘angel’ who was seen by him, is the God of Abraham and Isaac his father, to whom he also set up a stele and anointed it because of the unction; for when he had become a man hed was anointed.

i.e., God. i.e., if the phrases from Israel’s blessing, ὁ θεὸς ὁ τρέφων με and ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ῥυόμενος (“the God who takes care of me” and “the angel who delivers me”) both identify one person, the Messiah. This Messiah is the angel, or messenger, in the incarnation. The phrase διὰ τὴν μέλλουσαν σάρκωσιν refers to that future event. c  i.e., the “angel” or “messenger of the Lord.” cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 56.10, who does not shrink from calling the second person of the Trinity an Angel, because he is a messenger to God the Maker of the Universe. d  i.e., Jesus. a 

b 

103

29

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Summary 249-264 “It has therefore been shown through multiple passages that the solitary, as you say, God has an ‘angel,’ a partner in his own counsel and divinity, whom the Law and the Prophets know as ‘God’ in substance, glorified and worshiped together with him.a This ‘angel,’ as I said, the Scriptures call by different names, at times son (Ps 2.7; cf. e.g., Matt 2.15), another time word (Ps 32.6; 106.20; John 1.1), another wisdom (1 Cor 1.24; cf. Prov 8.1 sqq), likeness (Col 1.15) and effulgence (Heb 1.3b), light (John 1.9) and life (John 11.25), and whatever expressions similar to these are used to indicate the power which provides for the created beings; for neither has a mind perceived nor has a law spelled out what God is ‘in substance,’ but on the basis of his good actions for us we have learned to name the benefactor.c For if God is understood as a father, the one who has proceeded or proceeds from him may fairly be called son; and if he is understood as mind, then that one who proceeds from him would be fairly called reason;d and likewise if you go on to the remaining issues at hand,e you discover a truth which is accessible according to the faculty of our understanding.f

i.e., the Father. cf. Wis 7.26. c  Declerck refers the reader to Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 15. Here Gregory of Nyssa answers the question as to why God would descend to take the form of a man. He argues that we only know God through his actions; his beneficent actions to fallen humanity reveal him to be man’s benefactor. d  εἰ δὲ νοῦς, λόγος ἐκεῖνος, lit., “but if (he is) mind, that one (is) word.” e  i.e., possible designations for the two persons of the godhead. f  πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἡμέτερας καταλήψεως ἐνδεχομένην ἀλήθειαν; lit., “a truth possible to the faculty of our understanding.” The Greek is difficult, but the meaning is clear: human understanding of God is imperfect; we proceed by human notions, but know nothing with absolute certainty. a 

b 

104

Chapter 4: The Possibility of the Incarnation

That OT Prayers Asked for the Incarnation 1-40 “Therefore now thata the discussion has demonstrated before that the men who were worthy of divine adoptive sonship have the natural son of God as their standard,b and that he is the angel of the great council (Isa 9.6),c and God in essence, creator of all and sustainer of the things produced by him,d it is time now for the discussion to prove that precisely he, the Word of God, became a man. But who will be able to count the prophetic prayers, by which they beseech and ask their own Master to come for his redemptive economy of the divine incarnation, when they say, One who sits over the cherubs, manifest yourself (Ps 79.2), and Bow the heavens… and come down (Ps 143.5), and Rouse your power and come to save us (Ps 79.3), and Lord, God of miracles, turn to us and show your face, and we shall be saved (Ps 79.8)? Indeed some of them offered a petition to God the Father himself, when they say, Send out, a  Ὅτ᾿ ἄν τοιγαροῦν ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν ἔμπροσθεν; lit., “Since therefore the discussion pointed out previously.” b  πρὸς τόν φύσει τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὶν τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχουσι; lit., “have reference to the natural son of God.” Declerck notes that this refers back to ch 2, p. 83. c  See pp. 97, 99, and 101. d  προνοητὴς τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ προβληθέντων; προνοητής means the one who foresees and provides (PGL), i.e., the one who providentially cares for. προβάλλω means to cast before and can be used in a variety of generic ways; here it seems to refer to creation. See above p. 100 and the summary on p. 104.

105

30

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

31

Lord, your wisdom from the holy heavens, and send it from your glorious throne, so that by being present with me it may labor and I may know what is pleasing to you (Wis 9.10), and another (prayed), Show us O Lord your mercy, and give us your truth (Ps 84.8). And if anyone would collect from Scripture, he would find myriads of such requests, whereby the divine prophets urged the prophesied One to come even before the appointed time, if such a thing were possible. After they were informed on this subject by the grace of the Holy Spirit who spoke in them,a they thus reported the good news to mankind, one saying, God will come manifestly, our God, and he will not be passed over in silence (Ps 49.2-3), and, He will come down as rain upon a fleece, and like a drop dripping on the earth (Ps 71.6), and another again, Suddenly the Lord whom you seek and the messenger of the covenant whom you desire will come to his sanctuary (Mal 3.1), and another likewise, He who is coming will come, and he will not delay (Hab 2.3 and Heb 10.37), and another still, Behold a man, Anatoleb is his name (Zech 6.12), and another, Behold Christ the Lord will come before us, of whom we have said, “In his shadow we shall live” (Lam 4.20), and still another, Behold the Lord is coming with strength, and his arm with power (Isa 40.10), and another, He who delivers will come from Zion and turn away impiety from Jacob (Isa 59.20). But so that our discussion will be tested in proper sequence, I shall begin what is being said somewhere from the beginning.”c

That the Incarnation was Necessary 41-77 – (The Jew said, ) “Why was it necessary at all for God to become a man, and why did he not, just as in times past he saved the human race by Moses and the rest of the saints, appoint also now someone of those who are worthy of the task?” cf. Matt 10.20. Most Christians applied anatole, rising, sunrise, East, to the Messiah. c  ἄνωθεν ποθὲν τῶν λεγομένων ἀπάρξομαι; lit., “I shall begin from what has been said above.” This is difficult, since one is hard pressed to point to some clear passage in the argument. a 

b 

106

4. The Possibility of the Incarnation

And I (said) to him, “Man, you are like the proverbial jar with a hole in it,a in which one pours something but retains nothing: for otherwise you would in any case have known above all through the prophetic teachings mentioned that for greater sins the world needed greater help. But listen to a few more things in addition to what has been said: for it is indeed necessary to give also an answer for this. From the first the devil, the inventor of evil, having used the snake as his instrument, and by bringing Eve into deception, and through her having led Adam astray by a deceit of divinity, notice that I did not now say ‘by a promise of divinity, ’ b the devil brought down the poor wretches. For he says to them, “Why did God say, ‘You may eat from any tree in the garden’?”, etc. (Gen 3.1); to which he added after the words of Eve, “You will not die; for God knew that when you eat from the tree, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3.4-5). Since therefore, as I was saying, the devil drew the human nature, tricked by a promise of divinity, away from what was proper, it was necessary that the true God become a man in true fashion, so that he might render useless the strength of the devil (Heb 2.14), overcoming the tempter through man, the same one whom the wretched one contrived cunningly to grieve God. For in the first place, while trying to bring down the worship of the God who is one in nature to a belief in many gods, by means of the snake he was the first to coin the name of the polytheistic belief, saying to Eve, You will be as gods (Gen 3.5). And further he was trying to corrupt the image of God with deception, by persuading her that God was depriving them of the tree of knowledge as though he was envious of them. Therefore logically, since man did not become God according to the suggestions of the snake, it was a  πίθῳ τετρημένῳ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν. This was already an old proverb at the time of Aristotle, who in Oeconomica 1 (1344b) refers to it as ὁ λεγόμενος τετρημένος πίθος, “the so-called jar with a hole in it.” Declerck cites Origen from Paroemiographi Graeci, E. L. Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewig, ed., VI, 79 (Göttingen, 1851, 2:387). b  ὑπόσχεσις; an undertaking, engagement, promise (LSJ, s.v., ὑπόσχεσις). Our author seems to be saying that what the devil said cannot be considered a promise, since he is unable to carry out such an action, but rather was a mere deceit.

107

32

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

necessary for God to become a man, so that we might ‘undergo the beautiful conversion, ’a and the trick might become bait to the devil: for through whatever devices someone may sin, through those same devices he is disciplinedb” (Wis 11.16).

That the Incarnation should be of the Son 78-115 “And why,” said the Jew, “did not rather the Father or the Spirit become a man, instead of the Son?” – “Now,” I said, “you are asking a matter beyond human thought and well-fitting to the pupils of the church. But, however, since we are not able to place a stumbling block for our brother (Rom 14.13) – for cursed is everyone who causes the blind to stray in the way (Deut 27.18) –, and we have been taught spiritually to raise up together our enemy’s ass, which has fallen under the burden (Exod 23.5), Christ the spiritual lawgiver has commanded us to raise up your mind, which has fallen, just as the ass, under (the burden of) the concept.c Therefore indeed eagerly accepting also this question of yours, if God will give me speech in the opening of (my) mouth (Eph 6.19), in agreement with the Scriptures we have learned to believe that is one in essence, but we have come to understand by the sacred teachings that this divinity is hypostaseis, this is to say, persons.d Of these Declerck identifies this as a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 38.4. ADI simply changes the subject from singular to plural. b  Perhaps even “is punished,” as the LXX reading, κολάζεται, and suggested to me by Adam Kamesar. The identification of this quotation is not found in Declerck’s Greek edition, but I am grateful that he pointed it out to me in personal correspondence. c  ὑπὸ τὸν λόγον; perhaps “under your thought.” d  Though orthodox Christians did argue over whether the Trinity was three persons or three substances, Gregory of Nazianzus at the Council of Constantinople in 381, Or. 42.16, reasoned that this was a needless point of contention since the two sides argued merely which was the preferable of two labels, without any actual disagreement in theology. Thus the two terms ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον were interchangeable. At the time of the Nicean Council, ὑπόστασις was used both in its etymological sense of substance (= οὐσία) and in its derived sense of person (= πρόσωπον). a 

108

4. The Possibility of the Incarnation

three holy persons, by Scripture we have learned to call one ‘the Father,’ one ‘the Son’ and one ‘the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore we believe the Father to be unbegotten: for out of nothing his existence has come into being; and we believe the Son to be begotten: for we believe him to be begotten from the Father; and we proclaim the Spirit to be proceeding:a for this one also has his emergence from the Father.b Since therefore whicheverc of these three holy persons wasd to become a man, it was at any rate necessary that (that person) be begotten from a woman: if the Father were incarnated and became a man, since he is unbegotten, as I said, he would become begotten, and the same (person) would be found to be “begottenly unbegotten.”e Likewise also if the Spirit were ἐκπορευτὸν, a term applied to the procession of the Spirit from the Father (PGL). Our author agrees here with orthodoxy in the East by saying that since the Son is begotten (γεννητόν) from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορευτόν) from the Father, therefore the Son and Spirit are each an emergence (ἡ πρόοδος) from the Father. In the West, of course, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (Tertullian, Prax. 4.1), and that the Spirit receives from the Father and the Son (Hilary of Poitiers, Op. hist. frg. 2.31). Finally the tradition developed that “the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten, but proceeding (the western creed, Quicunque vult). See the rest of the summary by Walter H. Principe, “Filioque” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 281-3. c  In his apparatus to the Greek text, Declerck notes that B has οἷα, “which,” neuter plural, by the scribe, and οἵα, also “which,” feminine singular, by a later corrector, and he adopts the latter suggesting, in comparison with the Georgian, that one should understand it as οἱαδήποτε, “such and such a kind,” or better, “whichever one,” as rendered in ADIDiss, 70-71. In correspondence, Declerck suggests the possibility that the original reading may have been ἡ μία (sc. ὑπόστασις), “the one (nature)”: the ἡ would have been the source for the οἱ syllable (which were both pronounced the same by Byzantine times) and the μία could have been written as the digit ᾱ. However, he concludes that it is more likely the current text is likely original as the lectio difficilior, which still yields a good sense. d  εὐδόκησεν. According to PGL, this verb took on a technical sense in relation to the workings of the Trinity being used specifically of the Father’s divine counsel. e  The translation is that of the word found in the citation of Declerck, Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.12 , by Browne and Swallow in NPNF2 7:305. Gregory of Nazianzus is refuting the challenge of opponents of monarchianism, who say that if the Son is the same essence as the Father, and if the Father is unbegotten, then the Son must also be unbegotten. Thus Gregory of Nazianzus concedes that this is true if in fact it is true that “begottenness” is a characteristic of essence, and also points out that the Father would then be a strange mixture of “begottenly unbegotten.” Gregory of Nazianzus denies that “begottenness” is a characteristic of essence. a 

b 

109

33

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

incarnated and became a man, (the Spirit) who is proceeding, and neither unbegotten nor begotten, it would also be found to be “begottenly proceeding,” and a confusion and a disappearance of the distinction of the three persons would result from this. But what happened? The one begotten of old before eternity, from the father, was begotten again from a virgin woman, and again he has remained in possession of the distinctive property of his person, being begotten and being born again, and neither the salvation of man has been hindered, nor has there been a confusion of the three persons, but each person has remained in possession of its own distinctive property, shining forth because of the common riches of divinity.”

110

Chapter 5: The Virgin Conception

A New Question 1-12 After I had said these things, he said to me, [Jew] “I obstructed the course of the dispute a little while ago, by interrupting the flowa and putting forward some questions; therefore it is necessary that you, man, come to the issue at hand and show how God has become a man. But since the main point of the teaching is that a virgin woman gave birth without seed, the very thing which you believe to be true – for I hear this miraculous thingb from the Christians –, prove to me precisely this thing, if indeed itc is possible. For a virgin giving birth without a man is beyond the realm of possibility; and even if we should grant that God has become a man, a virgin giving birth without a man seems impossible to me.”

a  Literally, “cutting through the chain.” The interruption probably refers to the matters of chapters 2-4; cf. pp. 68, 79 above, where “the matter at hand” is the Christian teaching that God became a man. b  Literally, “this thing being wondered at.” c  i.e., the virgin birth, or “if it is possible (to prove it),” which Declerck prefers.

111

34

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

A Virgin-directed Answer from the Writings of Moses 12‑227

35

And, after weeping over the things that were said, I invoked that all-Holy Virgin herself, she who gave birth to the Word, to the Wisdom and to the Truth, she who teaches all divine understanding and knowledge, she who is the archetypal representation of incorruption, to hold my right hand, and to lead me with counsel, and to place a well-fitting word on my tongue and to say to me, Open your mouth, and I will fill it (Ps 80.11), and, Open it and eat this scroll.a While I was praying these things with tears, the benevolent mother of the benevolent God, having shown her ready compassion, enjoined me to begin the question with Moses himself. And she gives me a mind to present the man speaking with me the passage in Leviticus, which goes as follows: The Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and you will say to them, ‘If a woman is inseminated and bears a male, she will be impure seven days; according to the days of the separation of her monthly cycle she shall be unclean’” (Lev 12.1-2), to which is added, “‘But if she bears a female, she shall be unclean twice seven days’” (Lev 12.5). After I had quoted these words, I said to the Jew, “Tell me, man, do you believe that every last letterb of what was written by Moses was necessary, and (that) no chapter,c no sentence, not the least letter or stroked was written superfluously or by chance by the lawgiver, or do you believe that some of them are uttered at random and by coincidence?” a  cf. Ezek 2.8-9: “‘And you, son of man, listen to what I am telling you, and do not become embittered like a house which embitters, open your mouth and eat what I am about to give you.’ And I looked and behold: a hand was stretched out toward me, and in it was a scroll.” b  ἕως μιᾶς συλλαβῆς; lit. “down to one syllable.” c  λόγος; obviously “chapter” is anachronistic. The idea is probably something smaller than a book but including some size of pericope larger than a sentence. d  ADI: κεραία, “projection.” This is likely a reference to the three-stroke extensions written atop of seven different Hebrew letters in Pentateuch manuscripts. These are known in the Talmud in Aramaic as ‫( תגין‬tagin), “crowns, serifs,” and in Hebrew as ‫( ְכּ ָת ִרים‬kethārim), “crowns.” See references in Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v., ‫תָּ גָא‬, ‫כֶּ ֶתר‬, which sites for example b. Men. 29b, in which both terms are used.

112

5. The Virgin conception

Crying out loudly, “God forbid,” he said, “(that) down to the last strokea was anything superfluous said in the words of the lawgiver; all (of it is) perfect, all (of it is) complete, all (of it is) full of divine illumination.” And I said to him, “Therefore you believe that he wrote not a letter or a stroke beyond what was necessary, but everything in measure and in number (Wis 11.20) and in order, such that the man wrote nothing superfluous or incomplete.” “God forbid that this idea should ever enter a man’s mind,” he said. “For whatever Moses said, he who says that God said it, would not stray from what is fitting; and how could God ever say or allow the lawgiver to say anything superfluous or incomplete?” And I after praising and agreeing with his statement, said to him, “Now therefore let the great Moses take on myb question with a view to an explanation of the issue at hand; for with reason I am impelled to interrogate Moses, who is a servant of the incarnate God, as though he were present at our discussion, precisely to ask him questions. [Christian as though to Moses] Tell me, most divine lawgiver, who is attested never to have written one thing among your holy utterances that was superfluous or incomplete, what does the following passage mean to you, The Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and you will say to them, ‘If a woman is inseminated and bears a male’, etc., ‘ but if she bears a female’ and so on”? (Lev 12.1-2, 5). Why with respect to the male child have you written down, If she becomes inseminated, but with respect to the female child you did not repeat the phrase, If she becomes inseminated? Either take off the first phrase and say, ‘If a woman bears a male,’ or else concerning the female also add the phrase, ‘If she becomes inseminated and bears a female,’ so that the meaning of the things indicated may be maintained equally. For if none of your words is superfluous, the (phrase), If she becomes inseminated, does not stand importunately concerning only the male; (and) if none of your (words) is incomplete, you Declerck refers to Matt 5.18. δεξάσθω μου ὁ τηλικοῦτος Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον τὸ ἐρώτημα. The μου, “my” is far removed from τὸ ζητούμενον, “the question,” but it would be strange indeed for the Christian to refer to the Lawgiver as “my Moses.” a 

b 

113

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

have not importunately left unsaid the (term) ‘being inseminated’ concerning the female? Tell us the meaning of the mystery. Why are you silent and do not say what you have learneda?

36

“Being present and having heard these things Moses immediately made a great bellow, [As though Moses to the Christian] Not my words are these, man; they are God’s, who utterly commanded me to teach these things to the spiritual Israel, who could understand the meaning of the things said. I will tell the mystery and shall not withhold it.b God showed me that the whole age will have one virgin woman, who will give birth to a male without the seed of a man; therefore I said concerning the male child, If a woman becomes inseminated and bears a male, she shall be unclean (Lev 12.2), leaving open the possibilityc that also without being inseminated one woman during the whole age might give birth to a male, this woman who is not unclean, God forbid (that)! Indeed, I, or rather God, said nothing superfluous or incomplete. But concerning the female (child), I have not prescribed, “If she becomes inseminated and give birth to a female”; for I know that without the insemination of the mother,d it is impossible for a female to be born.e Therefore I guarded the mystery of the divine birth which would sometime later take place by saying, If a woman becomes inseminated and she bears a male, she shall be unclean (Lev 12.2), thereby granting to those who are spiritual and worthy of the grace to understand the corollary; and this was that, “If she is not inseminated, and give birth to a male, she shall not be unclean, but clean and unblemished.” And when I uttered this divine mystery, which is above both human understanding and reason, well then I also said that which is in harmony with nature(, namely), But if she bears a female she shall be in any case unclean (Lev 12.5); for never will a female be born without a man or from a virgin; but one male i.e., learned from the Holy Spirit. cf. John 1.20. c  ὡς ἐνδεχομένου τοῦ κ.τ.λ.; lit., “as the event of one woman giving birth … was allowable.” d  τὴν τεκνοῦσαν; lit., “the woman who gives birth.” e  The assumption is that a daughter will not be born without insemination, i.e., miraculously. The notion is that God knows this will not happen in history and he only promised that a son would be miraculously conceived. a 

b 

114

5. The Virgin conception

by one Holy Virgin without being inseminated shall be born, and she who bears this (male child) shall be forever clean and unblemished, free of and incapable of receiving any spiritual or bodily dirt; for she shall be a virgin even after the birth, just as she was before the birth.a On account of this therefore, I have added to the (phrase), If she is inseminated, the (phrase), she shall be unclean (Lev 12.2), on the assumption that the other (meaning) is clear:b for everyone who listens intelligently (to the passage) will say, “But if she does not become inseminated and bears a male, it shall be understoodc that she shall not be unclean, but a virgin forever both clean and unblemished.” And in any case it was necessary for me to use the previous limitation, so that I could reveal in advance the future divine mystery to be: God concealed in the awkwardness of the letterd the mysteries of his ineffable incarnation, having judged the people with circumcision of the flesh not worthy to hear such words. But to me God did not now for the first time manifest the mystery of the Holy Virgin, but also (he did this) when I was deemed worthy of a divine vision, though not yet being deemed worthy of it earlier. For when at Mount Horeb I was tending my father-in-law’s flock, I saw an amazing sight, a bush flashing divine fire, and the Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xlvi, cites M. Jugie, “Imaculée Conception,” Dictionaire de Théologie catholique (1927), 7:908ff, that the notion that Mary might have sustained any soiling appears during the second half of the fifth century and doctrine over this issue develops in the following centuries. Declerck also says that the expression “virgin mother,” which appears below in ch. 5, p. 120, and ch. 6, p. 133, must be used guardedly as a criterion for dating, since the expression occurs in other periods. b  ὡς τοῦ ἄλου σαφοῦς καθεστῶτος; lit., “since the alternative [i.e., if she gives birth and is not inseminated she is not unclean] is clear.” c  There is a textual problem. B reads ἀκούσατε, but Declerck notes that the MS has an erasure here with room for three letters. So he reconstructs the text to read ἀκουσεται. Then he extends the quotation down to the end of the sentence, ‘clean and unblemished.”’ The translation renders Declerck’s reconstruction (against ADIDiss, 78, n. 20). It is possible to explain the erasure by taking the text of B, ἀκούσεται, “will understand,” as a resumption of ἐρεῖ. As a result, the quotation is shorter: ‘everyone who listens intelligently to the passage will say, “But if she does not become inseminated and bears a male,” and he will understand that she shall not be unclean, but a virgin forever both clean and unblemished.’ This shorter quotation would then be an abbreviated form of the argument. Declerck’s reconstruction makes the text easier; this alternative retains the more difficult reading of B. d  τὸ γράμμα; i.e., the literal meaning of Scripture. a 

115

37

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

bush remaining the very same as before, and undamaged by the fire;a the very thing which showed to me beforehand the mystery of the Virgin. For when I killed the murderer of my fellow countryman,b and fled Pharaoh, the scattererc of good things, and from Egypt, which oppressed (us) greatly,d and led the animals of the eminent Jethro out of the well-watered and free-flowing life to the dryness in Horebe – and he who listens intelligently in any case knows that Pharaoh means “scatterer,” Egypt means “oppressor,” f Jethro means “eminent”g or “thoroughly wetted,” and Horeb means “dry” in the Hebrew language – as I was saying, when I led the animals of the father of womanish dispositionsh out of the materialistic life to the dryness in Horeb, then was I deemed worthy to see the mystery of the bush, alight yet not burning. And first I heard the voice of God out of the fire which was in the bush, and I was deemed worthy to

cf. Exod 3.1-2. cf. Exod 2.12. c  Declerck cites Maximus the Confessor, Ambig. (PG 91:1300D12), which treats difficult passages in Gregory of Nazianzus, chiefly dealing with Christological issues (see George C. Berthold, “Maximus the Confessor,” Encyclopedia of the Early Church1, 591). d  cf. Exod 2.15. e  cf. Exod 3.1. f  Declerck cites Lagarde, 174, 3; 186, 100 g  Declerck cites Lagarde, 203, 94; 179, 17. h  Or, “notions.” The author’s exact line of reasoning is difficult to follow. Compare “the animals of the father of womanish disposition” here to the above, “the animals of the eminent Jethro.” “Jethro” is clearly parallel to “father.” This leaves “womanish disposition/notion” as parallel to “eminent/wealthy.” José Declerck suggested to me that the “womanish dispositions” are the luxuries of Jethro. Thus Declerck understands περισσός and περιττός above as meaning “wealthy.” Notice also that the author drops the name Jethro and substitutes the term father. Perhaps this movement to more general terms is designed to lead the reader to the allegorical interpretation of the story. In other words, just as Moses in this section led the “creatures of the father,” i.e., sheep, from the “materialistic life,” i.e., their inclination for ease, into the “dryness in Horeb,” i.e., the location of the burning bush, which was the place of revelation, so also Moses led Israel, the people of the Lord, out of the materialistic life of Egypt into the dry region of Sinai, the place of revelation. a 

b 

116

5. The Virgin conception

say, I will cross overa and see this great sight; why (it is) that the bush is not consumed (Exod 3.3)? I said “crossing over” not pointing to a physicalb migration, but to the transient passing away of the time, since the word has indicated this, (namely), that sometime later the mystery of the bush will be revealed through the Virgin; which is also why I heard, not to draw near to this place (Exod 3.5); for far from the Israel of flesh and from the worship by law was such a mystery. I was also commanded to take off the sandals from my feet (Exod 3.5), and in this condition to touch the holy ground; by which it was shown to me that in the last times the course of this awesome teaching would be easily understoodc by the nations. So I was taught in advance from the sight at the bush the mystery of the Holy Virgin, but I hid this under the awkwardness of the letter, since God had judged Israel according to the flesh to be unworthy of such a great sight. ‘Also to Aaron God showed this in advance along with me; he was my brother; and he had been anointed with the olive oil of anointing, and the unguent of his consecration dripped upon his beard and clothing; and he was high priest, the only one able to enter into the most sacred places. For the Lord said to me and Aaron, Speak to the sons of Israel, and let them take to you an unblemished red heifer, which has on it no blemish, and on which no yoke has been placed; and you shall give it to Eleazar the priest; and they shall lead it outd Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxix-xl, points out that this reading, is found in Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio in diem natalem Christi. (PG 46:1136B) along with other similar but not identical wording. However, Declerck says that the interpretation is not found in Gregory of Nyssa, but that this same διαβάς with the identical interpretation as in ADI is found in Cyril of Alexandria, Adversus Anthropormorphitas 26 (PG 76:1129A). b  τὴν τοπικὴν … μετάβασιν. The English topical does not catch the sense well. The idea is movement from place to place. c  εὐδιάλυτος; i.e., easily unraveled (in the sense of figured out) by the nations as opposed to Israel, from whom it is hidden. This is the interpretation of the command to loosen (λῦσαι) the sandals. d  B: ἐξάξουσιν ἔξω with MS 319; LXX: ἐξάξουσιν αὐτὴν ἔξω; see Göttingen LXX. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 312, considers ἐξάξουσιν to be an indefinite plural best rendered as a passive which makes it clear that Eleazer is not the subject of the verb. But notice on p. 119 below that Eleazar is precisely made the subject of the verb and becomes the one who leads the heifer outside the camp. Eleazar as a symbol of the power of God the Father, who extends the effect of the atonement beyond the people of Israel, then stands for the Church. a 

117

38

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

39

outside the camp to a clean place and slaughter it and so on (Num 19.2-3); then further on, and they shall burnt it up, and her skin and flesh and blood with the dung shall be burnt up (Num 19.5); and the ashes of the heifer shall be for the water of sanctification for the sons of Israel (Num 19.9-10).a And by this the divine mystery with respect to the Holy Virgin was made clear to us, she being a heiferb on account of the female (correspondence), red on account of the earthiness, blameless on account of the virginity, she who did not have, even after she gave birth, any blemish; and a yoke of a man was never placed on her, but she was completely pure, completely clean, completely unblemished, dedicated to God alone. And God commanded us, both me, Moses, who typifies the written law, and Aaron, who had become a firtfruit of the worship according to the law by the anointing, to take the heifer, to give it to Eleazar, who received the priesthood after our generation, and (God commanded) him to make the whole burnt offering, (the heifer) being completely consummated together with its skin and dung, he was to make that the whole burnt offering to God by the divine fire, and nothing of hers being given to anyone else. The heifer, when given to Eleazar, was showing us that in the later days the Virgin would be reserved for the Son of God for a divine whole burnt offering. For (the name) Eleazar means ‘strength of God,’c when translated from the Hebrew; and who is the ‘strength of God,’ except his arm and his right hand (Ps 43.4), concerning which I said in song, Your right hand, Lord, is glorified with strength (Exod 15.6)? Of this Virgin the ashes will, after the divine burning,d be able to wipe clean the filth of all sin.e But it was also outside of the camp (Num 19.3) of the sons of Israel that the mystery of the heifer was accomplished: for neither the law, which, as I said, I represented, nor the priesthood according to the law, which is signified by Aaron, nor the synagogue of the people, which the camp displayed in advance, accomplished the mystery a  The author has omitted words from the text unnecessary for his point, as is a common practice by the Fathers. b  In Heb 9.13-14 Christ is compared to the red heifer. This is followed in Epistula Barnabae 8. I can find no other likeness of Mary to the red heifer. c  Declerck cites Lagarde, 162, 31. d  μετὰ τὴν θείαν πύρωσιν; i.e., “after having been made fiery by God.” e  At this point, the author poses a new argument to support the notion that the heifer prefigures Mary, viz., the offering did not take place among the Jews but rather among the Christians: “outside the camp.”

118

5. The Virgin conception

which was believed to be present in Christ and the Virgin, but Eleazar, ‘the strength of God,’ when he took (the heifer) outside our camp accomplished the mystery, in a clean place (Num 19.3), which signifies the Church. ‘And I know that also Mary my sister, who once was a virgin and struck up the timbrel, a symbol of virginity,a by means of the deadness of the membersb signified in advance the mystery about the Holy Virgin; she (Mary)c by her unblemished virginity taught us to sing the victory ode, after the opposing force had been utterly destroyed through her,d and to say, Let us sing to the Lord, for he has been gloriously glorified (Exod 15.21). a  B: παρθένον οὖσαν ποτὲ καὶ τῆς παρθενίας σύμβολον ἀνακρουμένην τὸ τύμπανον. The two participles are parallel. In this way the clause after the καί makes the timbrel a symbol of virginity. Support for this equation is found in Gregory of Nyssa, Virg. 19. He writes, “Thus, Miriam’s timbrel being a dead thing, and virginity being a deadening of the bodily passions, it is perhaps not very far removed from the bounds of probability that Miriam was a virgin. However, we can but guess and surmise, we cannot clearly prove, that this was so, and that Miriam the prophetess led a dance of virgins, even though many of the of the learned have affirmed distinctly that she was unmarried…” (NPNF25:364-5). It seems to be a distinctly Christian interpretation, and not very widespread at that. See next note. b  μέλος, “members,” can be used of parts of the body or of musical members, hence songs. The timbrel as a figure of virginity comes about because the timbrel consists of dead wood and dead skin. c  ἥτις; Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, lxxvi, takes the Virgin Mary as the antecedent. The designation of ἥτις as the Virgin Mary as having “unblemished virginity” stands in contrast to Miriam, who was just described as having once been a virgin (παρθένον οὖσαν ποτέ) when she sang with her timbrel but also with the implication that she did not remain so. The main association of Mary with Miriam is the shared name. The main prophetic element is the timbrel itself. d  δι᾿ αὐτῆς could refer back to three possible antecedents. (1) Through Mary’s virginity (διὰ τῆς ἀμώμου παρθενείας). In this case our author would mean that Miriam’s virginity prefigures the Virgin Mary; but many at the time held the theology that Mary’s virginity is tied to her sinlessness, which was thought to be necessary for Christ’s human nature be untainted by inherited sin. (2) Through the victory ode (τὴν ἐπινίκιον … ὠδήν). This might suggest the identification of ἥτις with Miriam, since hers is the ode quoted. However, I can find no place where Miriam’s song is the instrument of victory over the Egyptians. It is not Miriam’s ode, but Mary’s that is in view. The point is that the Virgin Mary taught people how to sing the ode of Miriam with true meaning, and the truth of the ode, rather than the ode itself, won the victory over the spiritual Enemy. It is through this victory that the Lord shall be glorified. For this meaning of διά for the occasion, see BAGD, s.v., διά III. 1. e. (3) Through Mary herself, because she gave birth to Christ and overcame death. This is reflected in the translation and seems most likely.

119

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

40

‘Of this all-Holy Virgin also that ark, which I built by divine command, was a very true type; for it was of unrottable and incorruptible wood (Exod 25.9); and it had inside the jar,a in which lay the manna, and the rod which had budded without any human gardening,b and the tablets which God had given. And these handiworks fashioned by myself typified (the following): the ark, the incorruptibility of the Holy Virgin; the jar, or rather the manna, the living bread which came down from heaven (John 6.51); and the rod which had budded without the care of man, the shootc of Jesse which had grown without the seed of a man from the Virgin mother; and the tablets, on which the law of God had been inscribed, the Virgin who had received and had born the essential Word of God. All these things I handed down in types and enigmas, and they received divine fulfillment when the all-Holy Virgin, the incorruptible treasure of holiness, which was dedicated to God on account of its preciousness on all sides, received within her the same one who came down from heaven (John 3.13), who both is and is called Word of God, and bore him without human intervention. Therefore also the ark was decorated both inside and outside with pure gold (Exod 38.2), showing the beauty of the Virgin, pure and unadulterated in body and soul, and fit for the receiving of God.’

“When we hear these things from Moses both then and now, we who are of the Spirit have learned always to understand the things of the Spirit (Rom 8.5) in this way.d

The Identity of the Child Born to the Virgin from Isaiah 228-548 “Isaiah, the chief of the prophets, did not even write down the mystery of the Virgin through any so-called enigmas, but he showed so plainly the truth that the reader does not even require the least bit of logical disputation, but is escorted unswervingly στάμνος literally means jar, but can be used metaphorically for womb (PGL). cf. Num 17.8. c  cf. Isa 11.1. d  cf. above p. 102. a 

b 

120

5. The Virgin conception

by his words to what happened later. For he says: The Lord again spoke to Ahaz saying ‘Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord God to the depth or height.’ And Ahaz said, ‘I certainly will not ask, nor will I test the Lord.’ And he said, ‘Listen, House of David. It is no small thing for you to contend with men, is it? And how can you contend with God? Therefore the Lord himself will give a sign; behold the Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Immanuel; he shall eat butter and honey; for…a before he knows good or evil (Isa 7.10-16), he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of the king of the Assyrians’ (Isa 8.4). What could be clearer for proof than this prophetic utterance? He says, Behold the Virgin shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Immanuel (Isa 7.14); now the name Immanuel translated into Greek means God with us (Matt 1.23). So, what other virgin had a son, except only the one rightly venerated by all of us as the God-bearer? And who born from another woman is called Immanuel, except God alone, who has accepted to be reckoned ‘among us’?” After he (the Jew) heard these things, he used these words against me: “According to your own imagination you are understanding the prophetic passages, since it is clear about whom Isaiah wrote these things in advance.” But I said to him, “Tell (me) about whom (he wrote), since you have no doubt about the truth.” And he said, “(He wrote it) about Hezekiah the son of Ahaz the king; for indeed it was for this reason that the prophet imparted this message for Ahaz, giving good news of the child about to be born to him.” And I, having heard these words, say to him, “And did a virgin give birth to Hezekiah, man?”

The author omits πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι αὐτὸν ἢ προελέσθαι πονηρὰ ἐκλέξεται τὸ ἀγαθόν, “before he knows or prefers evil, he will choose the good.” a 

121

41

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

42

And he said to me, “Our copies do not have Behold the virgin (Isa 7.14), but Behold the young woman (Isa 7.14); for indeed the Hebrew as well as Aquila and Symmachusa have it this way.” And I said to him, “Understand, man, and seek the truth by believing Zachariah,b and do not think that the truth has ever been hidden by means of words. For first of all you would find that the noun ‘young woman’ both by the lawgiver Moses and other saintsc in several places in Scripture is used for one who is agreed to be a virgin; for (the Scripture) is found to have called a woman betrothed to one man and raped and deflowered by another by the term ‘young woman, ’d also Rebekahe likewise and the (woman) married to the priestf as well and the (girl), Abishag,g in the same way. And actually your apparently strong point is shown to be particularly weak; for also a virgin is called ‘young girl’ in the Scripture.h Therefore those who have translated the Scripture used by us, that is the Seventy, did not do violence to the precise a  Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch ( JSS 15, 1991) 283-97, deals with the identity of Symmachus based on the quotations from Eusebius and Epiphanius. According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite Christian, a member of a group considered by Eusebius (et al.) to be heretical. According to Epiphanius, Symmachus was a Samaritan who became disgruntled with his co-religionists and converted to Judaism. The purpose of his translation, then, was to refute Samaritans. Salveson convincingly demonstrates that Epiphanius’ account is the more trustworthy and that the disagreement of Eusebius can be explained. To sum up, Salveson concludes that Symmachus was a Samaritan who converted to Judaism and did his work in Caesarea about 200 and that he was perhaps the pupil of R. Meir, known in the Talmud as ‫סומכוס‬. In our text, by including of Symmachus among “our copies,” the Jew indicates acceptance of the version. This acceptance would be surprising if he were an Ebionite Christian. So, our document corroborates Epiphanius’ account. b  cf. Zech 8.16. c  i.e., biblical writers. d  cf. Deut 22.25-27. e  cf. Gen 24.16. f  cf. Judg 19.1-9. Our author’s argument is difficult here, for νεᾶνις, “young girl,” is used of a concubine, which would seem to be a case in which it is used of one who cannot be a virgin. g  cf. 3 Kgdms 1.2-4. h  Our author’s point is not that παρθένος, virgin,” means νεᾶνις, “young girl,” but that in the LXX there are cases in which a woman who is a virgin is called νεᾶνις.

122

5. The Virgin conception

(meaning), but having found that ‘young woman’ indicates ‘virgin’ in many places, believing in the intention of the prophecy, that God promised to the house of David a sign, being led by the divine spirita they thought as follows: ‘What sort of a sign will a young woman giving birth be, which would be worthy of the beneficent God?’ b Therefore they have put down in writing what would happen later, the verse Behold the virgin, etc. (Isa 7.14), the very thing which the divine grace hinted through them, proclaiming the truth of the unusual sign. “And second, when Isaiah (spoke) these things to Ahaz, or rather (when) God uttered the message, Ahaz was king, and you cannot speak in opposition to this; but Hezekiah was born to him before he became king, as will be obvious to one who reads the Books of the Kings with understanding.c Therefore how could Isaiah be saying about the already-born Hezekiah that he was about to be born? For that is ridiculous. And was Hezekiah ever called Immanuel? For this you will not be able to falsify as you did in the case of the (term) ‘young woman’; for indeed as well the Hebrew, and Aquila, and Theodotion, and Symmachus give the name of the son born from the virgin as Immanuel (Isa 7.14).d And did Hezekiah, before knowing good or evil, receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presences of the king of the Assyrians (Isa 7.16 and 8.4)?e Who will tolerate these words? What sort of ear will be able to bear these absurd things? Who does not know that Hezekiah stripped off the doors of the sanctuary of the house of the Lord, for which you had reason to boast, and all the gilded pillars, and that he sent them because of fear as a ransom to the king of the Assyrians (4 Kgdms 18.16), and that afterward Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 3.8. i.e., since it is the norm, it could not be considered an unusual event or sign. c  cf. 4 Kgdms 18.2 with 16.2. The former says that Hezekiah was 25 years old when he began to reign and the latter says that Ahaz ruled sixteen years. Putting these passages together does indeed demonstrate that Hezekiah was born before Ahaz became king. Jerome, Comm. in Is. 3.7.14, on Isa 7.14 (CCSL 73 [1963] 105), pointed this out. By the time of our author, this information must have spread widely in the Church. d  See Field, Hexapla 2:443. e  cf. Isa 7.1; 4 Kgdms 18.17-35; Isa 36.2-20. a 

b 

123

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

43

when he received the (little) book of the reproaches by Rabshakeh through the messengers, a man serving the king of the Assyrians,a he rent his garments (4 Kgdms 19.1; Isa 37.1) and in a way pleasing to God appealed to God on account of his piety? Who does not know the things that happened in the time of Hezekiah: that God, moved as a friend to man, once with a bitter message forced the Assyrians to return to their own region,b and again, when (the Assyrian army) was besieging Jerusalem and had almost captured Hezekiah, caused him to flee after losing so many myriads of his army?c Do not be deceived; God is not mocked (Gal 6.7); it was not Hezekiah who was named by the prophet, but the God of Hezekiah, the one who became a man on account of us. But if you would scrutinize the words of prophecy with the fear of God, the truth itself would have drawn you to itself; but now fleeing from the strength of the truth, you are deceived neither knowing the Scriptures nor their power (Matt 2.29; Mark 12.24). “For since the letter of the prophecy holds that the Lord again spoke to Ahaz saying, ‘Ask for yourself a sign’ then after other things, ‘Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the Virgin,’ and so on (Isa 7.10-11), if what was said was about the mother of Hezekiah or another woman giving birth after conception according to the usual habit of nature, what kind of sign was being given by the Lord, on account of the fact that the prophet said, The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the Virgin, and so on (Isa 7.11)? But in reality this was the sign, which was sought from the ages, (which) extended its influence to the depth and height. This sign also led to the contention with the Lord God (Isa 7.13) or, as Aquila said, the trouble,d since it was not believed by those who are unpersuaded by the words of the Spirit; for a virgin has given birth and has remained a virgin, and the one who was born is truly God; but if you do not believe, neither will your understand (Isa 7.9). cf 4 Kgdms 18.17-35; Isa 36.2-20. cf. 4 Kgdms 19.7; Isa 37.7. c  cf. 4 Kgdms 19.35; Isa 37.36. d  On Aquila, see Field, Hexapla 2:443. a 

b 

124

5. The Virgin conception

“For the prophet, when he was about to touch on this sign with respect to the Virgin, wrote about the hardness of your minda because of seeing (it) in advance; wherefore seeing in advance both your unwillingness to turn away from evilb and seeing the salvation of the Gentiles, with some swiftness he hurried on to make the promisec to the Gentiles, prophetically intimating the transfer of the gift of God moving from you to the Gentiles by saying: Drink this first, saying, act quickly, region of Zebulon, land of Naphtali, way of the sea, and the rest who have settled the seacoast and the (region) beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people sitting in darkness has seen a great light; those settled in the region and shadow of death, a light shall shine on you (Isa 9.1-2). Then after some (verses), as if showing a glimpse to his hearers the reason for the rising of such a light, he also says That a child has been born to youd and a son has been given to you, whose rule has been set upon his shoulder, and his name is called angel of great counsel, wonderful counselor, mighty God, magistrate, prince of peace, father of the coming age (Isa 9.6).e For even if your Aquila has rendered some of these things otherwise, since, as he thought, he was opposing the truth of the divine incarnation, nevertheless the others, Theodotion, and Symmachus, obviously imply these things; after whom even Aquila agreed closely most of the time. For how could one, who neither remained pagan but neither did he become a Christian or a Jew,f be able to obstruct the truth for (a) cf. Isa 9.6. The “you” here is plural meaning “the mind of you Jews.” The text is ὑμῶν τὸ πρὸς κακίαν ἀνένδοτον; lit. “the unyielding(ness) of you (Jews) with respect to evil.” c  τὸν λόγον ἐπισπεύδει καταγγέλλειν; lit., “he hastened to promise the word.” d  Our author may be separating the prophet from the nation of the Jews, who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah. e  See Field, Hexapla 2:448-449. f  This claim that Aquila did not (fully?) become a Jew goes against what little information has come down to us about the life of Aquila. He was a pagan, who was converted to Christianity, but was excommunicated because he refused to give up his practice of astrology. Afterward, according to Epiphanius, the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, and the Chronikon Paschale, he was converted to Judaism, even receiving circumcision. See Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 31-33; Conybeare, Dialogues, xxv-xxix. See also the discussion by Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus, xlix, n. 25. a 

b 

125

44

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

45

long (period of time)? For just as the mythical Proteus,a (Aquila) appeared in all (forms), except in one, that is not to fight against the evidence.b But answer me who brings the questions with the very (words) of Aquila; what child was born to you and (what) son given to you; and the rulec was on his shoulder, and he called his name wonderful counselor, mighty powerful one, father, even prince of peace (Isa 9.6d)? Or to speak a little from the things hereafter,e to what prophetess did the Lord go and say that she would bear the male? For thus the truth enjoins (us) to think that the Lord, who says to the prophet, Take for yourself a tome (Isa 8.1), or according to Aquila a piece of leather (for writing), or a chapter or book according to Theodotion and Symmachus, himself says, And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived in her womb and bore a son (Isa 8.3); and the things further on the prophet said as though in his own person, And the Lord said to me, ‘Call his name Spoil Quickly, Plunder Speedily’– or as Aquila renders, Hurry the Spoil, Hasten to Plunder –, ‘because before the child knows how to call “mother” or “ father,” he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of the king of the Assyrians’ (Isa 8.3-4). For the three render these things similarly to the Septuagint.

a  According to Homer (Od. 4.385ff), Proteus is an Egyptian daimon, who has the power to take any form. But if held long enough, that is until he resumes his true form, he will answer questions (Herbert Jennings Rose, “Proteus,” Oxford Classical Dictionary 2nd ed. [Oxford, 1970] 891). b  Compare Declerck’s translation, “il a pris toutes les apparences, sauf une, à savoir celle de celui qui lutte contre les évidences,” Anonymus Dialogus, xlix. Our author’s point is that Aquila, being neither Jew nor Christian, despite his bias, was in no position to obstruct the truth (pointed out to me by Adam Kamesar). c  τὸ μέτρον, = Aquila, see Field, Hexapla 2.448-449. d  This is the text of Aquila, as opposed to the LXX used in ch. 3. e  ὄπισθεν, “in the back parts; following, yet to come (in books)”; s.v., LSJ, II.2. Here the author anticipates his discussion of the point that the Virgin was a prophetess beginning in ch 6, p. 134 below.

126

5. The Virgin conception

“Of whom, born of a woman called Immanuel,a except of the one from a virgin alone, have you ever heard the name, which seems unanimously to all (three translators), either Spoil quickly, plunder speedily according to the Septuagint and Symmachus and Theodotion, or Hurry the spoil as it seems to Aquila? And what son before knowing how to call father or mother, has received the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of the king of the Assyrians (Isa 8.3-4)? For since the truth did not yield to your desire to apply these things to Hezekiah, since it showed (instead) that when these things about the message concerning the Virgin and the one who would be born from her were told in advance to Ahaz, Hezekiah had (already) been born to Ahaz, and that Hezekiah always accomplished the wars against his enemies in a faulty manner, (then) demonstrate, if indeed you can, these prophetic words have occasion to be said with respect to any other person. But you will not be able, may this not happen; for only our Savior, born ‘of the Holy Spirit and a virgin, ’ b is named Immanuel, and (only) he spoiled quickly, and speedily, so to speak, ‘plundered’ the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria (Isa 8.3-4), that is, having stopped the outpouring of the sacrifices which were of blood – for this is what ‘Damascus’ meansc –, and the spoils of Samaria (Isa 8.4), that is to say the error of idolatry: for Samaria became a workshop of the heifersd and of the straying like them; the very things which our Savior despoiled, when he brought about these things right in the presence of the

Identifying Isa 7.14 and 8.3. Declerck identifies this as a quotation from Symbolum Constantinopolitanae of the year 360, which he cites from the edition by Giuseppe Luigi Dossetti, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli (Roma, 1967) lines 7-8, p. 246. PGL, xxix, lists the text as apud Athanasius, Syn. 30, where Athanasius quotes the creedal statement adopted by the synod. c  Declerck cites Lagarde, 190, 22-23 and 202, 65 d  The literal reference is doubtless to the acts of Jeroboam, 3 Kgdms 12.28.‑31. a 

b 

127

46

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

king of the Assyrians; for this was a termination of the ruler of this age (1 Cor 2.6, 8),a the correcting of the straying.b “And what child was born to youc and son given to you (Isa 9.6), of whose peace there will be no limit, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with justice and righteousness, forever more (Isa 9.7), except only the very one the Virgin both conceived of the Holy Spirit and has given birth to? For it is clear that the things said were about someone who was going to rule and to practice justice and righteousness upon the throne of David forever more (Isa 9.7); but who at the time of Isaiah and afterward did rule over the tribe of Judah, that is to say, over the house of David, is clear even if we should be silent. For neither Ahaz, in whose time these things were prophetically declared, nor Hezekiah, his successor, were able to be the fulfillments of the things said: for Ahaz was impious, and, though Hezekiah was devout, he neither ruled forever upon the throne of David (Isa 9.7), nor was the peace he established boundless, but indeed he had serious wars instigated against him, nor did he ever act shrewdly in those wars, that he should ever be believed to have initiated (a reign of) peace, and he would have died quite young, had not God, moved by the tears of the man, consented to add a number of years (to “The ruler of this age” in 1 Cor 2.6, 8 probably originally referred to those who crucified Jesus, viz., Jewish and Roman authorities, with the Jewish authorities primarily in view (see Robertson and Plummer, I Corinthians, ICC, loc cit., Gordon D. Fee, First Corinthians, 103; against Cullman, Christ and Time [see Fee], Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, loc. cit., and Delling, ἄρχων, TWNT, 1:489). But early on this phrase came to be understood of demonic forces (for references going back at least to Tertullian, see Robertson and Plummer, 37), their ruler, of course, being Satan. Our author refers to Satan. b  The general idea of our author is clear: Christ captured Damascus and despoiled Samaria, symbols of blood sacrifices and idolatry, and the kings of Judah never accomplished this feat in any way. However, it is unclear exactly who the referents of Damascus and Samaria are, or even whether the referents are the same or different. The Jews and Jewish religious practices are probably in view in the Damascus interpretation. Samaria may represent Jews, pagans, or members of either who do not believe in Christ. The two images seem to be summed up together in the phrases “our Savior despoiled,” “brought about these things … of the king of the Assyrians,” “the ruler of this age.” and “the correcting of error.” c  Note the author’s alteration of the LXX ἡμῖν, “to us,” to ὑμῖν, “to you,” to directly apply the text to the Jews. a 

128

5. The Virgin conception

his life). And how Amon and Manasseh fulfilled the kingship (is) easy to learn. And who will not weep with the prophet Jeremiah over Josiah, since he died so pitiably? And over his sons, whose kingship the Egyptian and Babylonian tyrantsa ended, after having fought against (the sons) in a variety of ways, and over both the fiery wasting of the sanctuary and the ravaging of Jerusalem, who among those who knew how to write lamentsb did not mourn? Therefore which of these has established the kingdom forever (Isa 9.7)? Whose was ‘the peace not having a limit’? Therefore say either that the words of the prophet were false and the fulfillment of the things prophesied have not happened to anyone – for let it stand as proved that this has in no wise happened to the kings of Judah who (came) after Isaiah –, or else be led to the truth and be persuaded that the God who became a man fulfilled all these things. “But now I am going on to another prophecy of this divine man, which announces the divine Word about to become flesh, and how from the seed of David (Rom 1.3; John 7.42; 2 Tim 2.8) the mystery of the economy is accomplished. For (Isaiah) says, Behold now the Master, the Lord Sabaoth will mightily confound the glorious ones, and those high in pride shall be dishonored (Isa 10.33); then having proclaimed beforehand the disappearance of Lebanon and the lofty,c he adds to these (words), And a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a blossom shall rise up from the root; and about to rest upon him are a spirit of God, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and strength, a spirit of knowledge and godliness; and a spirit of (thed) fear of God shall fill him. According to general opinion he will not judge, nor will he reprove according to report, but he will provide judgment with justice a  τύραννοι; although in earlier Greek this term did not necessarily carry a negative connotation with its meaning of “ruler,” by our period it did (see PGL, s.v., τύραννος), so the translation intends to include the modern negative connotation. b  i.e., those, like Jeremiah, who were faced with circumstances suitable for writing laments. c  cf. Isa 10.34. d  ADI does not have the article following the pattern from the previous phrases. English prefers the article here, because it treats “God” as a proper noun, which θεός is not in Greek.

129

47

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

48

for the humble and he shall reprove the glorious ones of the earth with justice; and he shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth, and with breath through lips he shall destroy the ungodly ones; and he shall gird his loins with justice and shall anoint his sides with truth. And wolf will graze together with lamb, and leopard shall rest with goat and so on (Isa 11.1-6); lest I now list all the pairs of dissimilar animals, which live together in unity […] of these prophetic fulfillments.a “Therefore who is the rod which has come out from the root of Jesse, or, as Aquila and the restb said, from the trunk of Jesse (Isa 11.1)c? And what are the blossom, or branch, as seems (best) to Aquila, or the shoot, as Theodotion and Symmachus render, the (blossom, etc.), which has come forth from the rod, in order that a spirit of God might rest upon him, and the other things which have been enumerated (Isa 11.1-2)? He said rod and blossom, and added a spirit of God shall rest upon him (Isa 11.1-2); butd (shall it rest) on the ‘rod’ or on the ‘blossom,’ or on the ‘branch’? For now I am also using the other versions. And what is the meaning of the rod or the blossom, that he may judge the glorious ones of the earth, not according to general opinion nor according to report, but he shall judge with justice, and shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth, and with breath through lips he shall destroy the ungodly one; and he shall gird his loins with justice, and shall anoint his sides with truth (Isa 11.3-5)? For now I do not know to what to apply the words, whether to the rod or the blossom or the branch. When shall wolf graze with lamb, or leopard rest with goat (Isa 11.6)? And when shall lion and cow and bull feed together and when shall they be led by a little child (Isa 11.6)? And when shall bear and ox and their young be together, and a lion eat straw (Isa 11.7)? And a  Declerck supposes a lacuna (***) because the phrase as it stands does not make sense. One might read ἐκφάσεων, expressions, for ἐκβάσεων, fulfillments. This would yield, “lest I now list all the pairs of the dissimilar animals, which live together in unity from these prophetic expressions,” i.e., he simply does not wish to take time to list all the pairs of animals found in the current text. Such a conjecture seems no more difficult than the lacuna suggested. b  οἱ λοιποί, i.e., Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. c  Field, Hexapla 2:452. d  ἆρα, indicating some anxiety or impatience (LSJ).

130

5. The Virgin conception

what infant has laid his hand on a hole of asps or on a nest of young asps (Isa 11.8)? When did all these things receive fulfillment? If you have a word of understanding, answer; but if not, place (your) hand over your mouth (Sir 5.12), and understand the meaning of the prophetic words. “For Isaiah himself adds to the matter as though not wishing that the mind of men go astray in pondering, …a the root of Jesse shall be and the one who rises up to rule over the nations (shall be), in him the nations shall have hope, and his rest shall be worthy (Isa 11.10), and he himself all but uttering the same things as did Jacob the patriarch, who said in the blessings to Judah: Judah, might your brothers praise you; your hands will be on the back of your enemies; the sons of your father shall bow to you, to which he adds after many things, a ruler from Judah shall not fail and a leader from his loins, until He for whom it is stored up shall come, and he himself is (the) expectation of the nations (Gen 49.8, 10).b For who has become the expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10)? Judah himself, the chief of the tribe? You will not be able to show anyone among the Gentiles as saved by him. But (what of) Perez, his son? How or when or in what manner? Perhaps you shall say king David – for you have no one to show who has become more notable than he from the tribe of Judah –, but the truth rebukes you, when it introduces to you David himself saying, The kingdom is the Lord’s and he himself is master of the nations (Ps 21.29). And every expectation is in all events referred to the one who is master; accordingly none of the descendants of Judah is lord of the nations, nor was Judah himself (the) expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10), but rather it is Christ who came from Judah and who became (the) expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10). Wherefore also Balaam, the hired servant of Balak, even though he was a diviner and a stranger to the truth, moved by a divine spirit at that time, with many other things that received their fulfillment, in a beautiful way prophesied this a  It is uncertain whether the author or a copyist omits LXX reading: ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, in that day.” b  Williams, Justin Martyr, 249, n. 1, renders ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ᾧ ἀπόκειται as “until He [i.e., Messiah] come for whom it is laid up.” This seems to be the understanding of ADI as well. See also the notes in ADIDiss, at ADI 12, 130f and 140f.

131

49

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

50

also. For he says, How beautiful are your houses, Jacob, your tents, Jerusalem, as shady groves, and as gardens by rivers, and as tents, which the Lord pitched, as cedars by water. A man shall go out from his seed, and shall rule over many nations, and he shall be exalted more than the kingdom of Gog …;a God has lead him from Egypt and so on (Num 24.5-8); of which each part shall be discussed in its own place.b So who else shall become (the) expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10), than (the one) on whom the nations placed their hope, (nations) who (already) had a master and a lord ruling? For then, really, then wolf with lamb and leopard with goat, and lion and ox and bear (Isa 11.6-7) and heifer on one place of green grass dwelt, nourished beside restful water, having restored their souls, and having been guided into paths of justice for the sake of the name of the Lord their God (Ps 22.2-3). Furthermore it was also an infant, perhaps despised by many as one just born, who laid his hand on a hole of asps (Isa 11.8), (the hand) which wrote the message of the faith, which examined closely the hiding place of the poisonous dogmas, and (the hand) which did not allow (that hiding place) to lurk in harmfully ‘for the gross deceit of the simpler ones.’c

The LXX reads καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, meaning “and his kingdom shall be exalted more than Gog.” Though αὐτοῦ is omitted in a few MSS of the LXX tradition (see Göttingen) the parallelism with the next clause makes the presence of αὐτοῦ most likely. ADI seems purposely to omit αὐτοῦ to change the meaning to “and he shall be exalted more than the kingdom of Gog.” On “Gog,” see Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 405. The author omits καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, “and increased will be his kingdom.” b  See below ch. 6, p. 145, and ch. 10, p. 181, though the author does not keep strictly to his promise of discussing each part in detail. c  Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.1. a 

132

Chapter 6: From the Annunciation to the Baptisma

Introduction 1-21 “Therefore indeed, man, having heard through many passages from the Law and the Prophets, both that God is proclaimed (to be) one in a triad, and that one of the triad, being the Son of the Father, at the end of the age has become a man from a virgin mother, present your (faculties of) hearing to the word of faith, and receive the illumination of the grace which (is) beyond man, from the Evangelists of the New (Testament), of course after having bound your tongue from hereon. For it shall be shown to you, if you listen wisely to what is said, that all the divine teachings about the mystery of Christ, which the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed down to us (Luke 1.2), from the beginning the Law and Prophets wrote in advance, having announced in advance all the things which received fulfillment at the end (of time). Now for a better demonstration of the things said, it is necessary to make a kind of comparison in a few words, – for no one is able to grasp everything together at one time – and (it is necessary) to show one by one the truth of the deeds, being common and handed down by one and the same Spirit, those who wrote our gospel, and who all over the earth became heralds Here begins a new section, concluding with ch. 12, in which the author seeks to show that Jesus, and not another, is the Messiah predicted in the OT. a 

133

51

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

of the divine dispensation, teaching the truth of the things that happened, were led on to write.

The Virgin Conception and Birth Predicted 22-67

52

“For one of them – and Luke (was) his name – says, The angel Gabriel was sent by God to a virgin, betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the name of the virgin (was) Mary. And entering to her, the angel said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you”, etc., after which he says, Have no fear, Mary: for you have found favor with the Lord, and behold you shall conceive in your womb and shall bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus; this one shall be great and shall be called son of the Most High, and so on (Luke 1.26-28). These things Moses has proclaimed in advance as has been shown previously, since he foreknew that one pure woman in the whole age would give birth without seed;a if you have understood the details of these things through what has been said, you have proof of these things fresh in your mind. And you have also heard the words of Isaiah who has written clearly and said, Listen now, house of David. It is no small thing for you to contend with men, is it? And how can you contend with God? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call name Immanuel (Isa 7.13-14). Look, you have clear proof that she who gave birth was a virgin, and that she was from the house of David, and that the teachings of the Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists are in agreement. “Again the Evangelist introduced the Virgin as astonished and as incredulous that she could give birth without conception, and saying, How shall this be, since I do not know a man? To this question the angel answered, (The) Holy Spirit shall come upon you and (the) power of the Most High shall overshadow you (Luke 1.34-35). And also Isaiah wrote about these things in advance saying, The Lord said to me: ‘I went to the prophetess, and she conceived in her a 

See pp. 112-115 above.

134

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

womb and bore a son.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Call his name Spoil Quickly, Plunder Speedily’ (Isa 8.1, 3).a That the Virgin to whom the Lord came was a prophetess, you shall also clearly learn from the things written further on by the Evangelist. For he says that after having magnified the Lord (Luke 1.46) the all-Holy Virgin added, For behold, from now on all generations shall bless me, because the Mighty One has done great things for me (Luke 1.48-49). Therefore that all generations have blessed, do bless, and shall bless her holy miracle and name (Luke 1.48),b even the stones are crying out.c And furthermore it is easy to see that also the banishment of Israel according to the flesh, and the calling of the nations were prophesied by the all-Holy Virgin when she said prophetically, He has brought down rulers from (their) thrones and raised up the humble, he has filled those who hunger with good things and sent away empty those who have plenty (Luke 1.52-53).

The Name Predicted 68-138 “And also concerning the name of Jesus, of which the angel made mention to the Virgin, well to remember the things said by God to Israel in the book of Exodus, and to be struck by the unsearchable greatness of the wisdom of God. For the Scripture says there in the person of God himself, Behold I am sending my messenger before you, so that he will keep you in the way, so that he lead you into the land which I have prepared for you. Watch for yourself and listen to him; do not disobey him: for he will not shrink back from you; for my name is upon him (Exod 23.20-21). And notice that when Jesus son of Nun, according to the historical meaning of the text, had led the people into the land of promise, God, who was giving an oracle to Moses, indicated in advance that his name would be applied to the one who would lead the people into the a  Our author’s omission of 8.1b-2 allows him to identify the Lord as the subject of the verb in v. 3 instead of the prophet Isaiah. b  τὸ ἅγιον αὐτῆς … θαῦμα καὶ ὄνομα; i.e., that miracle wrought in her (the virgin conception) rather than by her. c  cf. Luke 19.40.

135

53

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

54

Holy Land, which was promised to them; he who was once named ‘Nun’a by his father, but was later renamed ‘Jesus’ by Moses,b when he was sent forth to spy out the land with the rest (Num 13.18), and he began to set foot on the Holy Land. So this name ‘Jesus’ was honorable and hidden from the beginning, and (was) like a scented unguent and a gift given by Moses to the one about to lead the people in war.c For whyd has Moses not called Nun by any other name, but named him ‘Jesus,’ except that he foreknew by the Spirit that God who was going to become flesh would be called Jesus, just as he (=Moses) says, ‘My name is on him (Exod 23.21) who is going to lead the people into my land’? Now according to the language of the Hebrews, ‘Jesus’ interpreted is ‘savior, ’e as anyone who carefully seeks can learn. Therefore the angel in saying to the Virgin, Call his name Jesus (Luke 1.31) did not dare to say this without deeper reason, nor as by chance, but God who had sent him rejoiced at this name from long ago. “But perhaps you will say, ‘Man, you have quoted Isaiah when he wrote in advance (that) Immanuel (would be) the name of the one born from the Virgin, and how has the angel now revealed that the one born was to be called Jesus?’ But listen also to this and have no doubt: for if the one who chooses to read the divine (books) would look at the realities which the names indicate,f it is the same to say ‘Jesus’ and ‘Immanuel.’ Wherefore also another angel giving an oracle to Joseph called the name of the child

Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 195, points out that Ναυή, “Nun”, in the LXX, and the standard form throughout Christian literature, represents the Hebrew ‫נון‬, Nun.He also says that originally the reading was ναυν, the Ν and the Η being easily confused in uncial script. Wevers also mentions that Αὑσή, which appears in line 90 of Declerck’s text, is given as the name of Joshua in Num 13.9 and that it represents the Hebrew ‫הושע‬, “Hoshea,” this being the shortened form of “Joshua”. The name here in ADI, Ναυσή, is probably a combination of the two or perhaps τὸν Αὑσήν became by diplography τὸν Ναυσήν. b  cf. Num 13.17. c  Lit, “make war for the people.” d  ἐπεὶ τίνος ἔνεκεν; Declerck closes this sentence with a period rather than a question mark. The translation renders it as a rhetorical question. e  cf. Matt 1.21. f  Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.13 a 

136

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

Immanuel:a for thus Matthew, the firstb Evangelist, has handed down to us. And as for Immanuel, which interpreted (means) God with us (Matt 1.23), what else does anyone say except ‘savior,’ which is exactly what ‘Jesus’ means?c For the God who came with us, has been salvation of the human race. Wherefore also Habakkuk – and also he is one of the 12 prophets – says, You went out for the salvation of your people to save your anointed ones, which the rest render, You went out for the savingd of your people (Hab 3.13). “And let no one despise my argument by pretending that the Lorde taught that the verse Behold I am sending my messenger (Exod 23.20; Matt 11.10; Mark 1.2; Luke 7.27) was said about John (the Baptist), while I dared to present it now as about Jesus (son) of Nun. For let such a one know that about John the Lord did not cite the verse in Exodus, but the (verse) in Malachi, who prophesied among the Twelve. For thus (the text) there reads, Behold I am sending my messenger, and he shall survey the way before you, and the Lord, whom you seek, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, shall suddenly come into his sanctuary (Mal 3.1); but in Exodus it is not so, but rather, Behold I am sending my messenger, to keep you in the path and to lead you into the land (Exod 23.20); for (the Exodus passage does) not (say), “to prepare (the) way for you,” f which is what is meant by the phrase, he shall survey

a  cf. Matt 1.20-23, where again the angel commands that Joseph name the child Jesus. b  ὁ εἷς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν, lit, “the one of the Evangelists” (LSJ, s.v., εἷς 1.c). c  See Lagarde, 174, 87; 175, 16; 183, 19. d  cf. Field, Hexapla 2:1009. See also below lines 390-391. Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxiii and n. 7. Our author’s point is that (1) “Jesus” refers to the Lord’s saving acts and (2) “Immanuel” means “God is with us,” and that whenever God is with someone it is for salvation. The verse in Habakkuk merely proves the former. e  Declerck cites Exod 23.20 here and makes no reference to the Gospels. However, Exod 23.20 and Mal 3.1 both begin with these words and our author’s point is that in the NT Jesus is quoting Mal 3.1. Therefore, our author is using the term Lord as a reference to Jesus rather than to the first person of the Trinity, as would be implied by a reference to Exod 23.20. Therefore the translation adds the NT references. I owe this observation to Adam Kamesar. f  cf. Matt 11.10; Mark 1.2; Luke 7.27The preparation was John’s task.

137

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

(Mal 3.1).a My work has gone a little out of sequence, but it has not done this outside (the bounds) of what is appropriate (for this discussion), since it has been eager to show that the Lord has divinely – for what more can one say about God? – brought forward the verse from Malachi, and that now the verse from Exodus (is) said historically of Jesus (son) of Nun, and that from all times God is appropriating for him the name, ‘Jesus.’ b

The Place of Birth Predicted 139-160 55

“What else? As (the) place of the birth of our Savior, our Evangelists introduce the city of Judea which is called Bethlehem. For Matthew says, When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold magi from the east and so on (Matt 2.1). And Luke as well knows Bethlehem to be the location of the divine birth: for when there a census took place by the Romans, he reasonably mentioned also Joseph; (Luke) brought (him) with the Virgin into (his) own city called Bethlehem, and he makes clear that it was there that the birth took place. But notice that also the a  ἐπιβλέψηται; the point being that “Messenger” John came to prepare (κατασκευάζω), as in Mal 3.1 and Matt 11.10, but the “Messenger of the Covenant,” Jesus, came to “keep people on the road.” b  We may summarize as follows. In this paragraph our author is countering a potential rebuttal to his argument that began in line 68. His argument, we recall, is that the name, which the angel commanded Mary to name the baby, i.e., Jesus, was predicted in Exod 23.20-21. “My Messenger” in Exod 23.20 is a predictive reference to OT Joshua as the successor of Moses and that Joshua stands as a type of the one who will truly lead his people to the promised land, Jesus Christ. The rebuttal to this argument seems to have been that in the Gospels Jesus quotes Exod 23.20 and refers it to John the Baptist; therefore Christians cannot argue that Exod 23.20 predicts the coming of Jesus. The difficulty involved is that the beginning words of Exod 23.20, Mal 3.1 and the NT quotations are identical, but that the conclusion of the quotation in the NT matches neither OT text. In this paragraph our author counters this rebuttal first by noting that Jesus in the NT is quoting Mal 3.1 of John the Baptist. The proof is because the phrase “who shall prepare the way for you” in the Gospels corresponds in meaning to Mal 3.1 and not to Exod 23.20. Second, our author affirms that the Messenger of Exod 23.20 is different from the one in Mal 3.1. Therefore our author defeats the rebuttal because Exod 23.20 is not quoted by Jesus.

138

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

prophets predicted this very same thing by name. Therefore in the first place let there be present the Bethlehemite David, the prophet of the region, who, having sought to find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob (Ps 131.5), and neither having dozed with the eyes of his heart, nor having closed the eyelids of his spirit, heard with the ears of understanding (that) the place Ephratha was the location of salvation. *** or anyone who wishes will have to prove that in Bethlehem there has been another place or tabernaclea of God besides the mystery of the incarnate presence, and then if indeed he desires, let him not believe (it), but rather, even then he should not disbelieve in the Spirit.b For if someone should wish to take what was previously said by David in the way the Hebrews do,c and say that the things prophesied were about the sanctuary (which was) in Jerusalem, which Solomon has built later, he should know that he is deceiving himself, being completely unable to hide the truth. For the place in which the sanctuary was built, I mean Jerusalem, has been a city of Benjamin, not of Judah,d and the allotment of Judah was not the same as the one of Benjamin,e and no city of a different tribe and belonging to Benjamin could ever be found to have been called in Scripture Ephratha as a homonym to Bethlehem.f “And that Bethlehem has been called Ephratha it is easy to learn from the book of Genesis. For it says there, And Rachel died and was buried on the way of Ephratha, that is Bethlehem, and again, And Jacob said to Joseph, ‘When I came from Mesopotamia i.e., a physical tabernacle building. Our author is arguing that “place” = “tabernacle” and that they must refer to the incarnate Messiah. A common set of uses for τόπος was as a circumlocution for any of the three persons of the Godhead (PGL, s.v., τόπος). Compare the rabbinic use of ָ‫הַ מּ‬, “the Place, Existence, Substance,” for God, not because he is physical, but because “He is the existence (the preserver) of the world, but his world is not His existence” (Gen. Rab. 68.9 as cited in Jastrow, s.v., ‫)מ‬. ָ c  Ἑβραϊκῶς; lit., “hebraically”; our author is speaking of an application of the Scripture to OT Israel rather than to later Jews. d  cf. Josh 18.28. e  καὶ ἄλλος κλῆρος ὁ τοῦ Ἰούδα καθέστηκε καὶ ὁ τοῦ Βενιαμὶν ἕτερος; lit.: “there exists one allotment which is Judah’s and another which is Benjamin’s.” f  i.e., there could not exist two distinct cities, one in the region of Benjamin and the other in Judah, each with the two names Ephratha and Bethlehem. a 

b 

139

56

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

of Syria, Rachel your mother died …,a when I drew near to the horse course of Chabratha of the land to go to Ephratha; and I buried her in the land of the horse course; that is Bethlehem (Gen 48.3, 7). And you will find also in Jesus (son) of Nunb in the allotments of the tribes and cities literally as follows: And their cities were, …c first of the tribe of the sons of Judah … on the desert † Kata Bieel † and Eder and Jagur, and after a very large number of cities and villages, Tekoa and Ephratha – that is Bethlehem –, and Phagor and Etam and others (Josh 15.21, 59a). Therefored it has clearly been shown that Bethlehem is the city of Ephratha; but when did David find a place for the Lord and a tabernacle for God (Ps 131.5) would be in Ephratha? Therefore either prove what you cannot prove – it would be impossible even if this had happened typologically –, or welcome the force of the truth shining forth in this way, namely, that David proposes the divine incarnation to be ‘a place for the Lord’ and ‘a tabernacle for God’ (Ps 131.5) in Bethlehem. “Wherefore also Micah, who also himself prophesies in a most divinely inspired way, says thusly, And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are too few to be among the thousands of Judah; from whom shall come forth for me (one) to be a ruler of Israel, and his goings forth were from the beginning from days of the age, and after some (words), And the Lord shall stand …e and shepherd his flock with strength, and by the glory of the name of the Lord their God they shall exist (Mic 5.2, 4). “This prophetic utterance they brought up to Herod who was king of Judea at that time. Therefore the Jews, when asked where The author omits the intervening verses as not germane. i.e., the book of Joshua. c  The ellipses in the quotation are those of the author. d  Declerck keeps this with the previous paragraph. But, as suggested to me by Adam Kamesar, it seems best to begin a new paragraph here. Our author’s first argument was about the location. At this point he turns to the chronological argument to prove that the arrival of this “place” and “tabernacle” of the Lord in Bethlehem will occur at some time after the life of David. The evidence provided is the later prophecy of Micah and confirmation by the account in the gospels that the Jews in Jesus’ time were still looking for the fulfillment of that prophecy. The force of the chronological argument is made explicit on p. 96. e  ADI omits καὶ ὄψεται, “and he will see.” a 

b 

140

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

the Christ would be born (Matt 2.6), the cowards kept silenta on the difference of the divinity of Christ in comparison to a simple ruler (by omitting the rest of the verse), And his goings forth were from the beginning from days of the age (Mic 5.2): for while they were thinking that they hid the procession of the only-begotten from his Father before the ages,b they revealed the place – for they were not yet enraged to jealousy from the wonders (to the point) of a slaying of God, since they would have done even thisc –, but they willfully hid the distinctive character of his true deity. For what ruler of Israel came forth for God from Bethlehem, so that anyone might be able to fit this prophecy to him? For David – for he alone of the kings was born in Bethlehem, and had grown up (there) and ruled as king – was indeed already dead and buried; for when Micah wrote this prophecy, Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah (Mic 1.1) were governing Judah. And how many kings from Judah, up to Hezekiah, were set up over Judah, everyone knows, who has a concern for knowledge. And therefore what was said was not about David: for everyone from David up to Hezekiah had already lived, but also all those after David were born in Jerusalem; and after Hezekiah only a very few were king, they themselves both having been born and having ruled in Jerusalem, and the affairs of the kingdom of Judah took their end by the captivity. Therefore how can the elements of the prophecy of Micah have their fulfillment in one of the kings of Judah? “But perhaps you will say that, ‘Scripture often uses one time for another, and sometimes it mentions as though past, ἀποσιγήσαντες; lit., “having kept silent.” The sentence is poorly constructed in Greek without a main verb. b  When Matthew quotes Mic 5.2 in the mouths of the chief priests and scribes, who cited the verse to answer Herod’s question about where the Messiah was to be born, they omitted that part of the verse which says καὶ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος, “and his goings out were from the beginning from days of the age.” Our author takes this phrase as a reference to the relation of the Son to the Father in the Trinity and the omission of it to be deliberate. c  ἂν πεποιήκεσαν, a contrary to fact construction, in which the author seems to insinuate that the Jews were capable of having murdered Christ when he was a baby, a feat which only accomplished later to the adult Christ. a 

141

57

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

58

as when it says, In the river they shall pass through on foot (Ps 65.6), as though it was at some future time that those who had already passed through with Jesusa were going to pass through, and again, God, the nations have entered into your inheritance, they have polluted your holy sanctuary, they have made Jerusalem into a storehouse of fruits and so on (Ps 78.1), (speaking) about those who would at a later time pillage Jerusalem. So, indeed what is so amazing also now if the prophetic word, using certain scriptural idioms,b spoke about the one who had already been king and has his departure from Bethlehem, namely, David, as about one coming in the future?’ “In response to this I say that there are many things to say and show that what was said was not about David; in refuting you I offer the very thing which youc also left unexpressed when the prophecy from Micah was quoted to Herod. For let us say that one may grant – and even this (is) a concession (to your point) – that some of the matter may be applied to David, what will you do with the passage, And his goings forth were from the beginning from days of the age, … and the Lord shall stand and shepherd his flock with strength (Mic 5.2, 4)? For the one who (being from Bethlehem) became a ruler is not one (person), and the one whose goings forth are from the beginning from days of the age (Mic 5.2) another, and not another (person) shall stand and shepherd his flock with strength (Mic 5.4), but the first and the second and what follows (are) about one and the same (person), so that the conclusion is, ‘The Lord shall go forth from Bethlehem to be ruler in Israel, and his goings forth were from the beginning from days of the age, and he shall stand and shepherd his flock with strength’ (Mic 5.2, 4); these things cannot possibly be said of David. Therefore it has been shown by many (arguments) that also the prophets predicted

i.e., Joshua, cf. Josh 3.17. κατά τινα τῆς γραγῆς ἰδιώματα; lit., “according to certain idioms of Scripture.” c  ἀπεσιώπησας; a second person singular verb. This verb is similar to the one used on p. 141 (ἀποσιγήσαντες) of the Jews who answered Herod’s question of the birthplace of the Messiah and that our author seems to be assimilating the Jew of this dialog with those in the New Testament account. a 

b 

142

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

the place of the Savior’s birth according to the flesh, which also the Evangelists have truthfully recorded.

The Flight to Egypt Predicted 261-309 “Next, when Herod was mad for murder and daring (to carry out) the slaughter of the infants, the Evangelist brings in an angel, giving an oracle to Joseph to take the child and his mother, to go down into Egypt,a and to remain there until the death of Herod (Matt 2.15). And also Isaiah wrote these things in advance; for he said, Behold the Lord sits on a swift cloud and shall enter Egypt, and the hand-crafted (idols) of Egypt shall be moved (Isa 19.1). For when, after the prophecy of Isaiah, did the Lord enter into Egypt seated on a swift cloud (Isa 19.1)? And why do I say ‘after Isaiah’? And before Isaiah, when did the one who is omnipresent and who fills all things (Eph 1.23) sat on swift cloud and came into Egypt (Isa 19.1), except when he received flesh endowed with a soul, and while fleeing the bloodguiltiness of Herod, he went down into Egypt for the reasons of a greater dispensationb and ‘moved’ the hand-crafted (idols), the termination of all the idols being shown by means (of the destruction of the idols) of Egypt. And those who know to this day, not from hearsay but from sight – and this is better, being the unerring standard of judgmentc – say that when the all-holy Virgin with the Savior and Joseph reached Hermopolisd – this is one of the Egyptian cities, to which it so happened that she made her flight at that time – all the idols of the city fell down and shattered on the ground, giving an obvious signthat all worship of cf. Matt 2.13. i.e., the salvation of mankind. c  Declerck refers to Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 16.5 (translation is that of NPNF2 7:249): [τὸ συνειδὸς …] τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ ἀψευδὲς κριτήριον, “[the conscience …] our internal and unerring tribunal.” For συνείδησις used in the sense of “observation,” see PGL, συνείδησις III. d  The tradition that Hermopolis was one of the cities in Egypt to which the family fled dates to the Ante-Nicean period, see, e.g., Evangelium Pseudo-matthae 22 (Tischendorf, 90; ANF 8:377). a 

b 

143

59

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

the idols will be cast down. And also they say a persea, which is a very large tree, standing before the city was bowed down to the ground, and (that) it showed by its form the worship that is owed to the creator by all creation; and those who have seen (it) say that to this day it exhibits a symbol of the bowing to the earth.a Now whether you say that swift cloud (Isa 19.1) means either the Holy Virgin by the fact that also sheb had her origin from the earth, but she is ‘swift’ because she is free from all earthly passion and sublime and mysterious,c or that it means the rational soul of the Lord, or (that it means) the flesh, which he assumed from the godbearer, you would not err from what is proper: for the wisdomd of God becomes various and manifold (Heb 1.1) whenever it wishes; and even if it is simple and uncompounded, it adorns ‘the hidden beauty’e of the church with golden fringed garments (Ps 44.14). a  On the name of the tree, PGL lists only περσίς, signified as quite different from the Persis in LSJ, and as “? = περσέα.” On this story of the flight to Hermopolis and of the persea tree, see Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 5.21 (GCS 50:229; NPNF2 2:343). Sozomen reports the story that when Joseph and Mary came to the city with the infant Jesus this tree bowed down and worshiped Jesus’ arrival. Sozomen says either that this was a sign of the presence of God in the city, or that the tree, previously worshiped in heathen custom was shaken because the demon who had been the object of worship moved in response to the presence of the one who came to end all such false worship. He concludes the account by noting that the tree was permitted to remain as a symbol of what had happened and that it had the ability to heal those who believed. b  i.e., the Virgin. c  ἀπόκρυφος; for this sense see PGL, s.v., 1 and 2. Adam Kamesar suggested to me that this may either be related to Jerome’s etymology of ‫῾( עַ ְל ָמה‬almâ) in Isa 7.14, from the root ‫῾( עלם‬lm), meaning “hidden” in the sense of cloistered (Adam Kamesar, “The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14,” JTS 41 [1990] 63), or perhaps it is a reference to the Virgin’s holiness. d  i.e., wisdom as revealed in the Scriptures; see PGL, s.v., σοφία, C.4., and the following note. e  For the quotation Declerck refers to Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31.21, and Or. 32.15; cf. above p. 50. In the former, the reference is to hidden meaning in the Scripture; in the latter the reference is to viewing God himself. The interpretation a few lines earlier, that the swiftness of the cloud represents a freedom, sublimity or mysteriousness (ἀποκρυφόν), reminds our author of this phrase from the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus. As suggested to me by Adam Kamesar, the Scripture is here being described as complicated and containing deeply hidden meanings, as evidenced by the possible interpretations of κοῦφος, swift; in spite of its simple style and language, it contains elaborate and “hidden beauty.”

144

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

“Then after the death of Herod, again the angel gave an oracle to Joseph to take the child and his mother, and to go from Egypt to the land of Israel (Matt 2.20). And also this Moses has set out in advance, when he introduced Balam, who spoke to Balak concerning the Christ using the medium of the people: God led him from Egypt, he has as it were the glory of the unicorn (Num 24.8).a And also in Hosea, the first of the 12, you will find something similar; for he also says, Wherefore Israel is an infant, and I have loved him and out from Egypt I have called my son (Hos 11.1); for thus Aquila in his translation renders instead of the 70.

Life in Nazareth Predicted 310-329 “Then after the return from Egypt, Christ settled in a city of Galilee called Nazareth in the mountains of Zebulon and Naphtali (Matt 4.13). Also of this you have Isaiah as a very clear messenger, in which he says, region of Zebulon, land of Naphtali, … Galilee of the nations, … a light has arisen for you (Isa 9.1-2; Matt 4.15-16). And the Evangelist also adds to these words a very good reason, when he said that Jesus settled in Nazareth therefore: so that what was said by the prophets might be fulfilled that he be called a Nazarene (Matt 2.23). You ask which prophet predicted this? Listen:b clearly ‘the Nazarene’ translated from the Hebrew language into For several references identifying the “unicorn” as a figure of Christ see PGL, s.v., μονόκερως, 2. In our literature, only Didascalia Jacobi 1.9 (Bonwetsch, 6, 25-7, 2) cites Num 24.7-8, but conspicuously omits this phrase about Egypt and the “unicorn.” Nor is this verse listed in the indices of ANF or Biblia Patristica 5. On translation of the LXX see Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 407. However, the interpretation of this passage is common in Origen; see, e.g., Hom. 1-28 in Num. 6 (on Num 24.8) (GCS 30:165, 4). For other references, see Biblia Patristica, vol. 3, under the entries for the relevant verses. b  B reads Ἄκουε φανερῶς, lit., “listen clearly,” with semicolon following. In correspondence, José Declerck mentioned LSJ, s.v., φανερός, I.5, which cites a use of φανερῶς with ἀκούσαι in Aristophanes, Nubes, 291, but the context is not the same as here. Declerck suggests a change in the punctuation, deviating from B, moving the semicolon to follow ἄκουε and making φανερῶς the first word in the following clause. The translation above reflects that change. a 

145

60

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Greek, means ‘blossom’;a well then our Savior is a ‘blossom’ and was said to be such in advance by Solomon in the Song of Songs and was written (as such) by Isaiah. For, when from the person of the groom Solomon dramatizes the divine mysteries of the undefiled union, he says these things to the bride: I am a blossom of the plain, a lily of the valleys (Song 2.1),b and Isaiah has seen in advance, A blossom from the root of Jesse rising up by the Spirit; upon whom, he has written that the holy Spirit of God shall rest (Isa 11.1-2).c

The Ministry of John the Baptist Predicted 330-339 “Thereafter those who wrote our gospel introduce John,d preaching repentance and baptism in the desert of Judea for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1.4; Matt 3.1; Luke 3.3). For he says, Then appeared John in the desert preaching and saying, ‘Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is near’ (Matt 3.1-2). This was the very thing that also Isaiah was writing prophetically in advance and saying, A voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the ways of the Lord, make straight his paths’ (Isa 40.3; Matt 3.3; Luke 3.4). For who else after Isaiah preached in the desert the arrival of God except John alone?

a  Declerck cites Lagarde, 175, 24-25 and 183, 41-42. Lagarde, 175, 24 reads καθαρός (“pure”); cf. 196, 89 ἅγιος ἢ καθαρός (“holy or pure”). Lagarde 175, 24-25 continues, Ναζηραῖος ἐξηνθισμένος, “blossomed” and Νάζαρ ἄνθος (= Armenian; see Wutz, 977). For discussion of relation to Hebrew roots, see Wutz, 377. b  See Pope, Song of Songs, 369-70 for survey of Christian interpretations. He points out that the majority of ancient Christian writers attribute this saying to the groom and identify the bloom and lily as Christ, as does our document. See, for example, Origen, Cant. 3 (GCS 33:78; and Procopius of Gaza’s scholia = PG 17:260D). c  See text and notes at on ch. 5 on p. 130 above for our author’s discussion of the versions and significance. d  i.e., the Baptist.

146

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

The Baptism of Jesus Predicted 340-420 “Next even the mystery of the baptism was typified in advance by Moses from the beginning; for as a type he led all Israel through the sea,a and he sprinkled water of sanctification on those who were stained (Num 8.7). “Now, by how many prophets do you find that the baptism which the Lord himself received was predicted? For the Evangelists, who have written the story (of Christ’s baptism), say the following: that the Lord was baptized and there came down upon him the Spirit as a dove, and a voice from (the) heavens, ‘You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased’ (Matt 3.16-17; Mark 1.10-11; Luke 3.22). But listen to David crying out and saying, God our King of old has accomplished salvation in the midst of the earth. You have restrained the sea by your power, you have broken up the heads of the dragons in the water, you have broken the head of the dragon, you have given it as food to the Ethiopian people (Ps 73.12-14), and again, The voice of the Lord (is) upon the waters, the God of glory has thundered (Ps 28.3). And Isaiah, who knew well the things of God,b indicated in advance both the gladness of the same desert and the rejoicing of the Jordan when he said, Be glad, thirsty desert, let the desert rejoice and let it blossom as a lily, and the desert places of the Jordan shall bloom forth and rejoice; and the glory of Lebanon has been given to it and the honor of Carmel (Isa 35.1-2). For when did God break up the heads of the dragons in the water, and break the head of the dragon, and give it as food to the Ethiopian people (Ps 73.12-14), except when being baptized in the Jordan, (and) having broken up the head of the devil and of the rebellious powers under him, he gave it as food to the Ethiopian people (Ps 73.14), (which took place) when Ethiopia hastened (to stretch forth) its hands to God (Ps 67.32), bringing the Ethiopian as first fruit from among the nations through Philip.c For in fact, cf. Exod 14.21-22. Ἡσαΐας δὲ ὁ τὰ θειὰ πολὺς; lit., “Isaiah who was great with respect to divine matters”; for this special use of πολύς with the article see LSJ II.3. c  cf. Acts 8.26-48. a 

b 

147

61

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

62

according to the words of Job, with a fishhook he caughta the dragon (Job 40.25), which is king of all those beasts in the waters and beginning of God’s creation, made to be played with by the angels (Job 40.19) and (by) those who seek angelic way of life. And when was the voice of the Lord heard upon the waters (Ps 28.3), except the voice of the Father when testifying that he and the Christ share the same honor and substance?b And when did the desert places of the Jordan bloom forth or rejoice (Isa 35.2), except when Christ was well pleased to be baptized in the Jordan? And (as for) the glory of Lebanon or the honor of Carmel (Isa 35.2) – these were mountains famous for the worship of idols – when were these given to the desert, except when Christ changed the worship of the demons into (the worship of) himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit? For then, (and) truly then, every mountain and hill, according to the voice of Isaiah, was brought low (Isa 40.4), (namely) the constructions of idolatry; and every valley was filled, and what was crooked became straight and the rough roads became smooth paths, when all flesh saw the salvation of our God (Isa 40.4-5), saying according to the language of the Hebrews ‘Jesus, our God,’ since ‘Jesus’ translated means ‘savior’ and ‘Jesouia’ (means) ‘salvation.’c Then finally the prophet about whom I speak, having been led to B: Ἤγξεν, from ἄγχω; LXX: ἄξεις, from either ἄγω, ἄγνυμι, or ἀΐσσω [to dart (forth), LSJ, s.v., ἀΐσσω I; to harpoon?], which would mean “catch.” José Declerck in personal correspondence cited Henricus Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, I, 555 C, “he checked, bridled.” This also makes sense, though instrument of the fishhook may favor the former. b  ἡ πατρικὴ μαρτυροῦσα τῷ Χριστῷ τὸ τῆς ἰσοτιμίας καὶ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὁμοούσιον, lit., “the father’s (voice) testifying for Christ to the sameness (sc., with the Father) of his equal honor and of his substance.” cf. Matt 3.16-17; Mark 1.10-11; Luke 3.22. c  On ἰησουΐα, see p. 93 above, where our author claims that “the Rest” render Hab 3.13 with ἰησουΐαν = “salvation.” Adam Kamesar suggested to me in correspondence that our author is assuming what is in the Hebrew text based on the knowledge that “Jesus” = “savior.” See his article “The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14” JTS, 41 (1990) 58-60, where he discusses the error of Origen, who assumed that there was a one-to-one correspondence moving from Greek to Hebrew. Likewise our author had σωτηρία, “salvation,” in Hab 3.13, and found ἰησουΐα in some text (perhaps the second column of the Hexapla as mentioned above). So when he reads τὸ σωτήριον in Isa 40.5, he assumes the Hebrew of ἰησουΐα behind it, and equates it with a reference to Jesus Christ. Our author’s exegesis of 40.5 seems to be unique at this point. For more see ADIDiss, ad loc. a 

148

6.  From the Annunciation to the Baptism

these things by the Divine Spirit, and seeing these things with the eyes of his mind, cries out with joy, Look, my God, my Savior (is) the Lord, I shall put my trust in him (Isa 12.2), as if to say crying out most clearly, Look, my God, Jesus, is the Lord, and I shall put my trust in him, because the Lord is my glory and my praise, and he has become my Salvation (Isa 12.2). “And (Isaiah) adds to this the rejoicing that will come from the waters for those who believe, when he urges all to draw water for themselves with confidence. For he adds to what has been said, Draw water with gladness from the wells of Salvation (Isa 12.3), and again, You who thirst, come to the water, and you who have no money, go buy and drink wine without money or price (Isa 55.1). Notice the trustworthiness of the prophecy: You who thirst, he says, come to the water (Isa 55.1) – this is well (said); for everyone who thirsts comes to water –, and you who have no money, go buy (Isa 55.1). [The author as though to Isaiah:] What should they buy, divine prophet? They have no money with which they will make the purchase. [Isaiah, as though to our author:] ‘Faith is what is needed,’ he says, ‘not of any payment of money; for those who thirst coming to spiritual water, drink wine without silver and price (Isa 55.1), (wine) which gladdens the heart of man (Ps 103.15). For it was this that the Lord demonstrated to me in an oracle when he said, The Lord Sabaoth shall make (a feast) for all the nations on this mountain; they shall drink gladness, they shall drink wine, they shall anoint themselves with ointment on this mountain (Isa 25.6-7). And God who commands me has shown to me also the calling of the nations, when he said to me after the previous words, Deliver all these things to the nations: for this is his counsel upon all the nations (Isa 25.7).

149

63

Chapter 7: The Miracles

64

“Thereafter thena our Savior begins with his signs, he exhibits the operation of his divine power. But so that he might show clearly that he himself, after he formed Adam in the beginning, had given the woman to him (as) a helper (Gen 2.18), also now he did not deem (it) unworthy to attend a wedding, but by his presence he showed also marriage (to be) honorable (Heb 13.4).b Then by showing that he himself truly ‘makes all things and changes (them) for the better, ’c he supplied (from his own means) what was lacking to those who had called on him, by making the water wine and giving a ‘wineless’ d wine to those in need (of it).e For when once Jerusalem was reproached, because its wine merchants i.e., after the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. cf. John 2.2. c  Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 24.7, and Or. 43.57. The first citation is in error, but the second is nearly an exact match. d  οἶνον … νηφάλιον; lit., “a wine unmixed with wine,” or “a sober[ing] wine.” Drunkenness is viewed as a sin in the moral texts, especially those dealing with the behavior of the clergy (e.g., Gregory the Great, Past., 3.32 (SC 382:490-2; NPNF2 12:64), the influence of wine to take away pain also leads the drunk person to sin and be out of control, the opposite of being awake). However, Hans Lewy, Sobria Ebrietas (Geißen, 1929) traces the concept of “sober inebriation” back to Philo. He demonstrates (107) that the connection between the NT (in such passages as Eph 5.18) and the concept of Philo was an easy one for Church fathers to make. He does not mention the use of the precise term οἶνος νηφάλιος, nor does he mention any connection of this concept with the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. e  cf. John 2.7-9. For our author the water seems to represent an inadequate understanding of the Messiah in the OT and the wine represents the revelation that Jesus was the Messiah as evidenced by his first miracle. a 

b 

150

7. The Miracles

mixed the wine with water (Isa 1.22), thereby deceitfully mixing the wine with too much water for those who were rejoicing,a he himself as God changes the diluted life for a ‘wineless’ gladness, and offers a draught to those worthy of the Spirit, (a draft which is) able to gladden (the) heart (Ps 103.15). I have noticed this predicted in the Psalms, when I hear the (Psalmist) say, This is the change done by the right (hand) of the Most High; I remembered the works of the Lord, for I will remember your wonders from the beginning, and I shall meditate on all your works (Ps 76.11-12). For it is clear that this was the beginning of the wonders (Ps 76.12) of the Lord, about which the change by his right (hand) (Ps 76.11) took place. For if anyone should think (that) the ‘beginning’ of the works of the Lord (is) the making of the world in the creation, he will be wide of the mark: for thereb no (mere) ‘change, ’c or, ‘alteration,’ as one might say more clearly, has taken place, rather (what took place was) both creation and existence from non-being into being. Therefore it is well and properly said that the ‘beginning’ of the works of the Lord is the change by the right (hand) of the incarnate Most High (Ps 76.11), the (change) which made the water (into) wine.d “Next notice with me Christ taking up the book of Isaiah in the synagogue and reading (from it) to the people of the Jews, A Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, on account of which he anointed me; he has sent me to proclaim good news to the poor (Isa 61.1; Luke 4.18), the one who a short time thereafter teaches and says, Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens (Matt 5.3). For he himself proclaimed freedome also to the captives (Isa 61.1), because he loosed from their chains all those being held The phrase “diluting/mixing the wine with water” has become idiomatic for failing to understand properly the OT predictions about the Messiah. See ADIDiss, ad loc., for further discussion. b  ἐκεῖ γὰρ; lit., “for there,” i.e., in the case of creation. c  The Psalm reads ἀλλοίωσις, “change.” Our author argues that “change” here must be understood in the sense of μεταποίησις, an alteration of already existent matter. Since this is so, it cannot refer to creation since creation was ex nihilo. d  John 2.11 says the changing of the water into wine in Cana of was the “first of the signs” (ἀρχὴ τῶν σημείων) which Jesus performed. e  ἄφεσιν, which can also mean forgiveness. a 

151

65

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

66

by the devil and those bound with the cords of their own sins and let them go free.a “And to how many blind people did the Savior bestow the gift of sight? The books of the Evangelists happen to be full (of them)! For one of them (= the Evangelists) related the things concerning the man blind from birth (John 9.1), another (related) the things concerning the son of Bartimaeus,b another the things concerning the two who have been healed in his house,c and another the indeterminate crowd of blind, which regained sight by a mere command, when he says, And he granted sight to many blind (Luke 7.21). You find in the gospels lame walking around (Matt 15.31), paralytics moving around, deaf hearing (Matt 15.31) and stutterers speaking, and another one with a withered hand (Matt 12.10d) healed by the word of the Savior. But listen to what Isaiah wrote in advance about these things: Be strong, relaxed hands and palsied knees; comfort (one another), fainthearted in understanding; be strong, do not fear; behold our God renders judgment and he will render (it); he himself shall come and save us; then (the) eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then the lame shall leap as a deer, and the tongue of the stutterers shall be clear (Isa 35.3-6). “When you see some of the Evangelists proclaiming the daughter of the Canaanite woman (to be) healed, consider David praying for the woman and saying, Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only begotten from the hand of the dog (Ps 21.21). For what sword could have caused a deeper wound to the soul of the Canaanite woman,e when she saw her daughter torn about by the demon as if by a dog? But if someone would want to apply these words of the psalm also to Jairus, he would not err from the mark; for a sword obviously was piercing also his soul dreadfully, when In Luke 4.18-19 Jesus reads Isa 61.1-2 as being fulfilled in himself. cf. Mark 10.46-52. c  cf. Matt 9.27-30. d  cf. Mark 3.1; Luke 6.6. e  Ποίας γὰρ ῥομφαίας οὐκ ἦν τῇ ψυχῇ τῆς Χαναναίας ἡ πληγὴ βαρυτέρα; lit., “For of what sort of sword was not the stroke deeper for the soul of the Cananaite woman?” cf. Matt 15.21-28; Mark 7.24-30. a 

b 

152

7. The Miracles

he saw his only child snatched away by death as though by a dog; the very (child) which Christ (then) dragged away from the very nets of Hades.a “When you hear that Christ tread upon (the) sea, consider with reason the words of Job, addressing God who had become man: Who alone has stretched out heaven and who walks on the sea as on firm ground (Job 9.8). And reflect also on what is said in the Psalms: Your path is on the sea, and your footpaths (are) in many waters, and your tracks will not be known (Ps 76.20), (which was) unambiguously said to God. But what praise will this passage contain, if it is addressed to God our Father,b if the one who fills all things (Eph 1.23) is believed to walk on the sea? Rather it is clear that it refers well to the God who became man, (to) the one who also (himself) fills all thingsc since (he is) of the same essence with his father, but became a man on account of us and walked on (the) sea. “When you see a woman who was bent forward now straightened up,d take careful notice of the passage in Psalms, which says, The Lord … straightens up those broken down (Ps 144.14). If you hear that a woman with flowing blood was dried up from an issue of blood by touching the hem of the Master’s garment,e look what Isaiah wrote in advance, The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons of Israel and the daughters of Zion, and he shall clean out their blood (Isa 4.4).f If you see a leper asking the Savior to scrape cf. Matt 14.25; Mark 6.48; John 6.19. Ποῖον δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν ἔπαινον ἕξει, πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα λεγόμενον, lit., “And what kind of praise will this verse merit, being said with respect to our God and father.” c  cf. Eph 1.23. d  Luke 13.11-13. e  cf. Mark 5.25-29; Luke 8.43-44; Matt 9.20-22. f  Our document is unique in applying Isa 4.4 to a specific miracle of healing by Jesus. Other Christian texts apply it to spiritual healing. In our literature, only Doctrina Iacobi 1.17 (Bonwetsch 15, 12) cites Isa 4.4, but applies it is baptism into Christ (τὸ ἅγιον βάπτισμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.9, applies it to spiritual purification without reference to baptism. Origen, Princ. 2.10, uses Isa 4.4 as an example to say that all the references to healing physical maladies are to be understood as figurative for spiritual cleansing. Irenaeus, Haer. 4.22, applies it to Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. a 

b 

153

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

67

off the leprosy by mere will, when he says, Lord, if you are willing, you are able to cleanse me (Matt 8.2; Mark 1.40; Luke 5.12), look at the passage of the psalm, which David indicated in advance in song, Remove from me, Lord, reproach and contempt (Ps 118.22), speaking ahead of time as though he were the person who received healing at the acceptable time (Isa 49.8; 2 Cor 6.2). When you hear about Lazarus, who four days after burial smelled (of death) and was prepared for decomposing, that he returned to life at the Master’s voice,a and (when you hear about) the one who was bound with grave clothes (John 11.44) that he went about and left the grave behind, contemplate the passage of Isaiah in its deeds,b since he has said as though (speaking) in the voice of God the Father to the Lord who had become a man, I have given you for a covenant of a race, for a light of nations, to lead (the) bound ones from their bonds and those seated in darkness out of a prison house (Isa 42.67), and again, Saying to those in bonds, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be unveiled’ (Isa 49.9).

a  b 

cf. John 11.1-44. i.e., the calling to life of the dead.

154

Chapter 8: The Passion

Transition 1-8 “Then finally, after the other myriads of his divine wonders, of which even this world could not contain the books written (John 21.25) because of their number, our Christ forges ahead to his divine and salvific suffering for the world. But notice even on this point the accomplishment of all the things uttered in advance, or rather to say (it) more clearly, look at how Moses and the prophets wrote down the later events so many generations in advance.

Jesus Predicts His Suffering 9-19 “The Lord, going up to Jerusalem (Matt 20.17; Mark 10.32) from Galilee, where he also performed most of his miracles, began to tell his disciples all the things about to happen to him, (namely) that he would both be delivered to the Gentiles by the Jews, and he would be mocked, and be spit on, and be slapped, and be beaten (Luke 18.32-33), and on top of all these he would be nailed to a cross and die; for how would the one who gave the prophets the ability to prophesy, the one who knows all things before their beginning (Sus 35a), not be likely to reveal to some degree to his own disciples the hidden things of the mystery of his presence?

155

68

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

The Prophecy of Riding on the Donkey and the Colt 20‑51

69

“When he went to Bethany, he sent two of his disciples into the village opposite (Luke 19.29-30; Matt 21.1-2; Mark 11.1-2), having commanded them to untie the donkey and the colt which were tied up.a For it was finally time that the will of the Lord should come to pass, and that at the level of their understandingb the things that up to the time of Christ had not yet held the ‘Logos’ (to be the) riderc be summoned for the divine knowledge.d “Then after he mounted up he entered Jerusalem,e fulfilling the words of the prophet Zechariah, who said, Rejoice greatly, Daughter of Zion; proclaim (it), Daughter of Jerusalem; look, your king comes to you righteous and saving, he himself is gentle and mounted on an ass and a young colt, and he shall destroy (the) chariots from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem (Zech 9.9-10). And all these things Zechariah made clear prophesying after the return of the people from Babylon; (and) he who applies these events to Zerubbabel – for I know that the Jews erroneously bring The writer apparently understands these as two separate beasts, τοὺς δεδομένους. Matt 21.1-7, clearly states that there were two animals. b  B reads καὶ κληθῆναι τὸν λόγον πρὸς τὴν θείαν ἐπίγνωσιν τὰ ἕως Χριστοῦ τὸν ἐπιβάτην λόγον μήπω δεξάμενα. The τὸν λόγον is difficult. In the footnote of ADI, Declerck suggests the possibility that τὸν λόγον is a corruption of the text and might be deleted. In this case τὰ … μήπω δεξάμενα would become the subject of the infinitive κληθῆναι yielding the translation: “and that the things that up to the time of Christ had not yet held the ‘Logos’ (to be) rider be summoned for the divine knowledge.” However, Declerck accepts the text of B, viz., that τὸν λόγον is original and takes it as an accusative of relation meaning “at the level of their (i.e., of the things) reasoning/understanding.” This would produce a word play between the logos of the things and the Logos as rider, i.e., the one who governs everything. This makes good sense and the translation reflects this meaning. c  Declerck refers the reader to Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 27.5. Our author is allegorizing on the acquisition of the animal. λόγος in our text seems not to refer to human reason or thought, but to Jesus Christ. (1) The donkey and the colt, which were tied up, represent humans (Jews and Gentiles; i.e., all humanity?). And (2) just as Jesus, the Logos, rode on the donkey and colt, on which no one had yet ridden, so also man, only after the coming of Jesus, carried the Logos, i.e., they were guided by it. d  i.e., being ridden by that divine knowledge. e  cf. Luke 19.35; Matt 21.7; Mark 11.7. a 

156

8. The Passion

this forwarda – shall be rightly censured by the truth: for neither the period nor the events (of Zerubbabel) would allow them;b for Zerubbabel cannot be shown to have destroyed either chariots from Ephraim, or horses from Jerusalem (Zech 9.10). And to whom anyone shall be able to apply these things (other) than to Christ our Savior, who, in order to demonstrate the humility of his divine poverty, did not, like an earthly king, use royal pomp, but (he) deigned to mount an ass and a colt, and thus he made visible to those who were not seeking as rain upon fleece, and as a drop dropping upon the earth (Ps 71.6) he has come down, not contending and not crying out, never giving out a cry in the broad places;c for indeed a bruised reed he has not broken, nor smoldering flax did he extinguish (Isa 42.3; Matt 12.20), but he was pleased to become a poor and needy man on account of us who have received but not preserved the riches of his divine image?

The Triumphal Entry 52-75 “Then the populace of infants received the king of glory (Ps 23.7, 8, 9, 10),d those (infants) who had not yet partaken of the wickedness and slander of their fathers, and (that populace) with palm branches – the palm tree plant (is) a symbol of victory,e as it is possible for the careful reader of Scriptures to know – sings the triumphal ode, a  Jewish teachers commonly regarded this passage as Messianic. See for example Gen. Rab. 98.9 on Gen 49.11 and b. Sanh. 98a. For Jewish interpretations about Zerubbabel, see Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 6:438, n. 25 and references. Ginzberg points out that Zerubbabel was never considered a candidate for being the Messiah; only Daniel. Thus the Jewish interpretation mentioned here would seem to be a denial of the messianic intent of the passage rather than an identification of Zerubbabel as Messiah. b  τούτων may be either neuter or masculine. If the former, it refers to the time and events, as given in the translation; if the latter, it refers to the Jews, “neither … would allow for them (i.e., the Jews) (this interpretation).” c  ADI seems to draw on several texts; cf. Matt 12.19; Ps 143.14; Isa 42.2. d  cf. Matt 21.15-16. e  This is perhaps a play on terms deriving victory, νίκη, from date (tree), φοῖνιξ, which in the final syllables sounds similar to νίκη as it is declined. However, our author is simply drawing on common usage, the origin of which is not certain. See ADIDiss, p. 141, n. 13, for further discussion.

157

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

70

Blessed (is) the one who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest (Matt 21.9).a You will find this said also in a psalm with the title Alleluia (Ps 117.1); now the (word) Alleluia those experienced in scriptural meaning interpret (as) ‘a praise of God.’ b But if the psalm is entitled ‘A Praise of God,’ and included in the psalm is the (verse), Blessed (is) the one who comes in the name of the Lord; we have blessed youc from the house of the Lord; God (is) the Lord and he has shined on us (Ps 117.26-27), (how) will the passage ever apply to God the Father, so that the Father might be said to come in the name of what lord? Or when did God the Lord shine on us (Ps 117.27), except when God (the) Word having become flesh came in the name of the Father (John 5.43) and appeared to those sitting in the shadow of death (Ps 106.10)? And that he came in the name of the Father (John 5.43), listen to his divine teachings, through which confuting the Jews he said, I came in the name of my father, and you do not receive me (John 5.43). Therefore it has been clearly shown that also these words of the prophecy refer to the Savior, Christ, the Word of God, who became flesh on our account.

Christ, the Stone Rejected 76-109 “For he himself is the stone which builders rejected, and has become the head of the corner (Matt 21.42; Mark 12.10; Luke 20.17; 1 Pet 2.7; Ps 117.22; Acts 4.11), which by itself binds together and reinforces the entire frame of the house of the Lord. For I know that by a certain prophet this stone is set in Zion, through the things he hears from God the Father: Behold I am setting in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence and everyone who believes in him shall not be ashamed (Rom 9.33).d For on what kind of stone shall one believe (and) not be ashamed, or what kind of rock of offence (Rom 9.33) shall one receive (and) be saved? For if (there had been) stumbling over the stone and offence at the rock, (it ought to be the one) who cf. Mark 11.9-10; Luke 19.38; John 12.13. Declerck cites Lagarde, 161, 2; 187, 27. c  Plural. d  cf. Isa 28.16; 8.14; 1 Pet 2.6. a 

b 

158

8. The Passion

does not believe in them † if †a (who) rightly ought to be saved, and not the one who believes in them; but actually (the stone) was an offense and a stumbling for those who (indeed) rejected it, but (it was) a rock gushing forth water of life for those who believed. Wherefore even the venerable Jacob did not reject this stone, but rather he believed in it and prophetically he poured olive oil (Gen 28.18) on it, and he called it “house of God” (Gen 28.17)b and no longer ‘corner,’ since he saw in advance the whole house itself filled with glory.c Also Jesus son of Nun took this stone as a witness in his solemn declarations about God to Israel, when he said that the stone had heard the power of his words, and (that) the (stone) itself would testify at the appropriate time, confuting and condemning those who disbelieve. And the text thus has, And Jesus wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a great stone, and Jesus placed it under the terebinth before the Lord, and Jesus said to the people, ‘Look, this stone shall be a witness to you, because this (stone) has heard all the things said by the Lord, who has spoken to you today; and this (stone) shall be a witness to you during the last days, each time you lie to the Lord our God’ (Josh 24.26-27). In this was thus this stone, the great King of the Ages (Tob 13.7, 11), has advanced toward those who rejected it, by pointing out the voluntary act of his own suffering.

The Betrayal of Judas 110-190 “But since one of those who had been disciples of the Savior, the deceitful Judas, Iscariot, did not hesitate to become a betrayer of (the one who was) at the same time his savior and teacher, but dared to sell this (person) him for thirty (pieces of) silver, let a  Declerck’s edition reads: ὁ μὴ πιστεύων αὐτοῖς † εἰ † καλῶς ὤφειλε σώζεσθαι. With the crosses Declerck suggests that the word εἰ is corrupt, and that one might read instead the homophone ἦ, “truly,” or perhaps εὖ, “well.” He suggests also that it is possible to place εἰ after καλῶς, or even to delete it completely. b  This stele became known as Eben Shetiyah, Foundation Stone. On the numerous speculations about this stone in Jewish literature, see Ginzburg 1:352; 5:292 nn. 141, 142. In most of the traditions, this stone was the center stone around which the earth was formed. On it was carved the Lord’s name, not the Messiah’s. c  cf. Hag 2.7.

159

71

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

72

us examine, whether the prophets left even this untouched. For while the Evangelists say in one accord that Judas, one of the 12, went out saying to the chief priests, ‘What do you wish to give to me, and I will deliver him to you?’ And they weighed out to him (thirty pieces) of silver (Matt 26.14-15) and for these he betrayed him, what did David prophesy about them?a He who eats my bread has exalted a plot against me (Ps 40.10),b and he came to see me; his heart spoke vainly; he collected lawlessness to himself; he went outside and spoke (Ps 40.7). Also through another psalm the Savior speaks reproachfully to him, heading off in advance the deceitfulness of his wickedness, If an enemy had reproached me, I would have endured, and if he who hates me had spoken boastfully to me, I would have hidden from him; but you, like-minded man, my guide and my acquaintance, who in friendship sweetened food for me, we went in one accord to the house of God (Ps 54.13-15).c “After these things had been said more or less in this way and after that the manner of the wickedness of Judah had been indicated in advance, those led by the Spiritd could not have been silent about the amount of silver the absolutely wretched one received from the Jews, could they? On the contrary (they did) not! But Zechariah, one of the Twelve, whom I mentioned before, literally, yes, literallye named (the amount) in advance: The Cananaites who guard my sheep, shall know that it is the word of the Lord, and I will say to them, ‘If it is well in your eyes, give (me) my wage or refuse (it).’ And they weighed out (as) my wage thirty (pieces of) silver. And the Lord said to me, ‘Lower them into the furnace and see if it is approved, according to which manner I was tested for them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them into the house of the Lord, into the furnace’ (Zech 11.11-13). “And Matthew, the first of the Evangelists, brought up a saying equal in meaning to this, after having said it (is) from Jeremiah;f which (saying), as it seems to most, some villainously expunged i.e. the thirty pieces of silver. cf. Mark 14.18; John 13.18; Acts 1.16. c  The point seems to be that Jesus was not surprised by the deceit. d  οἱ τοῦ πνεύματος; i.e., the prophets. e  οὕτω ῥητῶς; lit., “thus literally.” f  cf. Matt 27.9.

a 

b 

160

8. The Passion

from Jeremiah. But others, who were concerned for accuracy, say that after an error had occurred, as is wont to occur, the copyists at an early stage used one name (for another) ***a, and finally later timeb adopted as customary what was written, since no one has dared any more to lay hands on the Gospels for ‘correction.’ There are some who say that some men villainously changed the name of the prophet, thinking thereby to bring a blotch on the Gospels, but no blemish touches the Church of God;c for once having founded it on the Rock God has kept (it) unshaken. But I have read in an apocryphal text of Jeremiah, which has the saying in the same manner that the divine Evangelist brought up.d But notice (first) that both Zechariah and Jeremiah, who were enlightDeclerck suggests something fell out from the text, perhaps ὀνόματι ἀντ᾿ (ὀνόματος), since χράομαι takes the dative case, yielding the sense given in the translation. Eusebius, D. e. 10.4, suggests that a copy error in Matthew would have been both the name of the prophet and the exact wording of the text. The content of the lacuna may have included this same material. b  ὁ χρόνος; lit., “the time(s),” see LSJ, s.v., χρόνος, I.3.c., and II., where it can refer to an age. Our author’s point is that the reading became standard over time (suggested to me by Adam Kamesar). c  Porphyry wrote an extensive work, κατὰ Χριστιανῶν λόγοι, Messages against the Christians, no longer extant, in which he attempts to discredit the Bible and the gospel writers on the basis of factual errors. d  On this Declerck refers to Jerome, Comm. in Matt. 27.9, where Jerome also claims the existence of such a work among the Nazarenes. Such a work is not mentioned in Origen’s discussion of the problem in Comm. ser. in Matt. 117 (GCS 11:249, 16-250, 12). Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxv, n. 11, cites the Doctrina Jacobi, 5.14, 5-8 (p. 205 in the edition by V. Déroche in G. Dagron and V. Déroche), = 5.13; (Bonwetsch, 83, 24), in which the orthodox Jew, Justin, claims that the Matthew quotation is from the apocrypha. The common scholarly belief is that no such document ever existed. Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xxxv, concludes that when many claim to possess a document that apparently never existed, the adoption of the first person in the claim is no guarantee of the veracity of the claim; its only effect is to augment the writer’s credibility. Declerck suggests that this is what the author of ADI did. It is possible that words have dropped out of our text from before the reference to the apocryphal Jeremiah to the effect that someone claimed to have read this. For in context our author seems to be giving explanations, which he neither necessarily advocates nor rejects, all connected by δέ. His conclusion, on the other hand, is introduced by πλήν, “but.” He argues that in spite of these explanations, Zechariah and Jeremiah spoke about the same event in different ways and Matthew essentially conflates them. Compare Origen, Ep. 1.9. a 

161

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

73

ened by one and the same Spirit, (who) were having a common teacher, were also thinking that the things said were common, and (second) that the one prophesying mentioned expressly the thirty (pieces of) silver, the price of the one evaluated (Matt 27.9), that is to say, of the one who gave the messagea to the prophet who had written it, and (third) that it was proper to throw them into the house of the Lord, into the furnace (Zech 11.13). “And you must know that Judas the betrayer being filled with remorse returned the silver, … and having thrown it in the sanctuary he left, and went away and hanged himself (Matt 27.3, 5); and in all likelihood heb called the sanctuary a furnace on account of the fact that all things are tested by God with fire.c Then therefore after Judas pitiably came to his end, the things said about him in the psalm received their fulfillment when his habitation became desolated and, When he was condemned in judgment (Ps 108.7), and, when his days became few and his office of overseer was given to another,e (this is) when Matthias not long after was introduced into the allotment of the apostolate.f “And mentioning Judas by name and his sin, Jeremiah wrote as follows: (The) sin of Judasg has been engraved with an iron stylus, with a point of steel, carved upon the breast of his heart (Jer 17.1). But if anyone would prefer to refer these words of the prophet also to the people of the Jews themselves, no malice will touch their evil judgment.h Therefore let them each take up the first-place prize of The one evaluated is Christ and the expression “of the one who gave the message” seems to be equated with the Spirit, at least in the function of revealing. b  i.e., the prophet, Zechariah. c  cf. 1 Cor 3.13; 1 Pet 1.7. d  cf. Ps 68.26, “Let their habitation be desolate.” Declerck italicizes the text as a quotation. However, since the wording has been altered for smoothness, this translation chose not to italicize. Cf. Acts 1.20 as by our author, Ps 68.26 is quoted of the vacancy of the twelfth seat of the apostles. e  cf. Ps 108.8. Again Declerck italicized the text in ADI, but this translation deems the changes by ADI different enough not to italicize. f  cf. Acts 1.26. g  Our author interprets Ἰούδα not of the Jewish nation, but of Judas. h  i.e., “one cannot possibly say that those who refer the passage to the Jewish people are motivated by malice”; the Jews deserve to have the passage applied to them. a 

162

8. The Passion

the curse: for both ‘Judas’ the traitor and ‘Judas’ the community of the people of the Jews have erred against one and the same God; (the) indelibility of the sina of both of them was made clear by the prophetic word through the (imagery of the) iron stylus and the point of steel, carved on the breast of their heart (Jer 17.1), from which all vice and virtue is accustomed to come forth.

Jesus Condemned by Jews and Gentiles 191-243 “Thereafter the Sanhedrin of evil met, plotting injustice against the Lord its God. For it says, The council of the elders of the people met, both the high priests and scribes, and brought the Lord into their Sanhedrin, saying, ‘If you are the Christ, tell us’ (Luke 22.66-67). But notice what is written about them in the second psalm: Why were the nations insolent and why did the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood by ready for war, and the rulers gathered themselves as one against the Lord and against his Christ (Ps 2.1-2). For if anyone does not understand the words of this psalm in this manner,b when else were peoples and nations and kings gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ (Ps 2.1-2), than when the Sanhedrin of Caiaphas having bound the one who broke the bonds of death, delivered (him) to Pontius Pilate the governor (Matt 27.2), and that one sent him away to Herod under the pretext that he was a Galilean?c For thus the sacred text reads – and I will now mention one of the divine Evangelists, since the rest have written to the same effect –, When it became day, the council of the elders of the people met, (the) high priests and scribes, and brought forth the Lord into their Sanhedrin, saying, ‘Are you the Christ? Tell us’ (Luke 22.66-67).

ὧν is plural referring to both “Judas’,” the betrayer and the Jewish nation. i.e., the Jews and the Gentiles at the various trials of Jesus. Our author is identifying λαός with the Jews and ἔθνος with the Gentiles. c  cf. Luke 23.6-7. Thus our author equates λαός with the Jews, particularly the Sanhedrin, ἔθνη with the Romans, and βασιλεῖς with Herod. a 

b 

163

74

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Jesus in the Hands of the Jews 213-224 “Then after that divine answer and the rending of the garments of Caiaphas, who became very angry as though he had heard blasphemies, they spat on the face (Matt 26.67a) of the one who had created them in his own image and likeness (Gen 1.26). Who is (so) stony and ‘like steel in his soul’ b that he is not filled with shuddering, both now and as often as he might read this? But Christ consented to (this) and was spat on and was slapped; this he was well pleased (to do) and he had it said through the prophet, And I do not refuse to comply nor do I dispute; I have given my back for strikes, and my cheeks for slaps, and my face I did not turn away from shameful spits (Isa 50.5-6).

Jesus in the Hands of the Gentiles 225-235

75

“Then after those outrages and humiliations, the Lord is delivered to Pilate.c And after that one had asked if he was king of the Jews,d and had learned that his kingdom was not from here (John 18.36), he said the following to the Jews: I have not found a single charge against him (John 18.38e). For he knew, even though he was a foreigner and not free from the error of the Gentiles, that the matter in hand was on account of ill will (Matt 27.18; Mark 15.10); and he sent the Lord to Herod (Luke 23.7), thinking that the fact that he was a Galilean was an acceptable pretext. For I think he considered the shedding of the divine blood fearful up to that time, even if later the wretched one drifted away with the Jews.

cf. Mark 14.65. Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.63. c  cf. Matt 27.2; Mark 15.1; Luke 23.1. d  cf. Matt 27.11; Mark 15.2; Luke 23.2; John 18.33. e  cf. Luke 23.4.

a 

b 

164

8. The Passion

Jesus in the Hands of the King 236-243 “Therefore also Herod received the Lord and became a friend of Pilate who had sent hima – for in the time before they were at odds (Luke 23.12) –, and even for them he, who binds together all chasms and brings them together,b became an opportunity of peace. But also Herod mocked the Lord, and sent him back to the sender, having clothed him in a splendid garment (Luke 23.11); for no evil nature, which became so from its own choice, is able to be enlightened by the presence of God.

Jesus’ Suffering and Crucifixion 244-342 “Then the Jews again bark like dogs, and they vote death to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1.29). For David spoke in advance from the standpoint of Christ, Many dogs have surrounded me, fat bulls have beset me (Ps 21.13), and also Isaiah prophesied, They are dumb dogs, not able to bark (Isa 56.10). And he was led as a sheep…, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent so also he does not open his mouth (Isa 53.7). “They also place around the Lord a scarlet robe, and they place a crown of thorns on the head (Matt 27.28-29c) of the Savior. And also this was not kept silent among the men of old; for the one who looks will find in the book of the Song the announcement of what was fulfilled later, for it says, Daughters of Zion, go out and look at king Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his marriage, and on (the) day of (the) gladness of his heart (Song 3.10-11). “Then the Lord receives strokes, (the Lord) who said through Isaiah, I have given by back for strokes, and my cheeks for slaps, and I did not turn my face away from shameful spits; and the Lord became my helper; wherefore I was not ashamed, but I set (my) face as a solid cf. Luke 23.12. cf. Eph 2.14. c  cf. Mark 15.17; John 19.2. a 

b 

165

76

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

77

rock, and I knew that I would in no way be ashamed; for the one who has justified me is near (Isa 50.6-8). “Then (arise) the disorderly voices of the Jews, then (their) unreasonable demands,a then (their) unjust preferences for the murderer.b For indeed Pilate proposing the custom of the feast, did his best to release the Lord; for even if hec were a foreigner and had belonged to the Gentile faction, and even if he had not learned the (verse) innocent and just you shall not slay (Exod 23.7), from Moses as the Jews (learn), but the natural law, and in addition to this (natural law) the law according to which he was governing,d suggested to him the just course of action. But not so those who think they have Moses as their lawgiver and those who once said to the Lord, We are the seed of Abraham (John 8.33), and disciples of Moses (John 9.28). But what did (those) sorry ones demand? Take this one, release to us Barabbas (Luke 23.18). Woe to those who call what is bad good, and what is good bad, say (it) also now Isaiah, those who make darkness light and light darkness (Isa 5.20). For these, yes these, who once requested a king through Samuel and a little later said to the seere – for so Samuel the prophet and priest was calledf –: ‘Pray for us to the Lord, because we sinned when we requested a king and despised God, ’g the ones who heard Isaiah saying, The Lord is our king, the Lord is our ruler (Isa 33.22),h who are now crying in the tribunal, We have no king but Caesar (John 19.15). Alas for the voice, which casts down the worthiness of the kingdom of God and brings on the instability of a temporary kingdom! Oh! Oh! What did you say, O divine Job, about these people when you philosophized in your sufferings? The impious one says to God, ‘Depart from me, I do not want to know your ways’ (Job 21.14). Do you have no king but Caesar (John 19.15), Jew? What are you docf. Matt 27.22; Mark 15.13; Luke 23.21. cf. Matt 27.21; Mark 15.11; Luke 23.18; John 18.40. c  i.e., Pilate. d  i.e., Roman law. e  cf. 1 Kgdms 8.5. f  cf. 1 Kgdms 9.9. g  cf. 1 Kgdms 12.19; 8.7. h  cf. Didascalia Jacobi 2.7 (Bonwetsch, 50, 7). a 

b 

166

8. The Passion

ing, most wretched one? At least say, ‘I have no king after God except Caesar’ (John 19.15). God is king of the whole earth, …a God has ruled over all the nations (Ps 46.8-9), he is king over the gods, and have you no other king but Caesar (John 19.15)? Do not seek death in the straying of your life, and do not bring on destruction by the works of your hands (Wis 1.12), you heard a wise manb say, but you forsook the Lord who has made you, and you departed from God your Savior (Deut 32.15), as Moses, whom you pretend to be yours, said about you, or as the Lord said to Moses in whom you have placed your hope. We have no king, but Caesar (John 19.15), and Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar (John 19.12); he who denies the Lord who has made him and forsakes God his Savior,c does not oppose Caesar! But later you will see what will happen to you by the Romans, when you will see Jerusalem encircled by armies (Luke 21.20), and no stone remaining upon a stone (Matt 24.2; Mark 13.2; Luke 21.6), just as the Lord now condemned by you said in advance, when you will tell the mountains to fall on you and the hills to cover you (Luke 23.30; Hos 10.8), blessing the barren women who did not give birth and breasts which did not nurse (Luke 23.29). “But since these things were (then) otherwise,d the Lord was delivered to be crucified, and carrying the cross he went out to the place called (the) Skull (John 19.17; Luke 23.33e). He carries the cross, on one side showing that this was voluntary and that he willingly went to (his) death, and simultaneously on the other side fulfilling the prophecy which said, whose rule (is) upon his shoulder (Isa 9.6); for the cross of the Lord has really become a sign of victory over death and over the originator of evil himself.f

a  The author omits as superfluous ψάλετε συνετῶς, “Sing praises with understanding.” b  i.e., Solomon. c  cf. Deut 32.15. d  Ἄλλως δὲ τούτων ἐχόντων; i.e., since this did not take place immediately and the Jews remained in control of Jerusalem for some time. e  cf. Matt 27.32-33; Mark 15.21-22; Luke 23.26. f  κατὰ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τῆς κακίας εὑρετοῦ; i.e., Satan. For this same identification see Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 26 (GNO 3, 4:67; PG 45:69C6).

167

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

78

“The Lord was led to the place called Golgotha or Skull. But see also the honor that the place (held) since the beginning. For those who are concerned to know the Scriptures say that Adam, the first-formed man, was buried in this place,a and Abraham also is said according to tradition to have offered up his only begotten son Isaac for a prototype the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God at the same place.b For it was absolutely necessary that the one who was typifyingc that sacrifice which was to be held at that place at the end of the ages, should also point out the very location in advance for those to come. For in that place also David saw the angel of God, when commanded to spare the people and release the sword, when he offered to God as a thanksgiving sacrifice the cattle of Araunah at his threshing-place.d And Josephus, that friend of the truth, is a witness of these things, who in the first and seventh book of his Jewish Antiquities recounted that each of them, both the sacrifice of Isaac and the priestly act of David, took place on that mountain.e

Declerck cites Origen, Comm. ser. in Matt. 126 (GCS 38:265); see also numerous citations in PGL, s.v., Ἀδάμ, G. b  cf. Gen 22.2-12; see also above ch 3, p. 96, and ch 2, pp. 80-89. c  i.e., Isaac. d  cf. 2 Kgdms 24.16-25. e  Josephus, AJ 1.224; 7.333. a 

168

Chapter 9: The Crucifixion

Various Aspects of Crucifixion Predicted 1-36 “The Jews crucify the Lord,a having hanged on a tree (Acts 5.30; 10.39b) the Life of the world, and fulfilled are the words of Moses who said in advance, ‘You will see your life hanged before your eyes, …c and do not believe in your life (Deut 28.66).’ For also Moses was foreseeing the cross of Christ; making a prototype of it by stretching out his hands, he routed Amalek; for as long as Moses was stretching out his hands, Israel prevailed, but each time he brought them back together, Amalek prevailed (Exod 17.11); this cross, typified in advance, brought down all its enemies. Wherefore also Jacob, when in his blessings he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh by the crossing of his hands, pointed out the cross in advance.d “And how shall a man be nailed to a cross, unless the crucifiers pierce (his) hands and feet? Also of this you have David as a most clear herald, when he said as though in the person of Christ, They pierced my hands and my feet (Ps 21.17), something which David did not endure. “And after they crucified him, they divide his garments, and cast lots for his cloak (Matt 27.35; Mark 15.24; Luke 23.34; John 19.23cf. Matt 27.35; Mark 15.24; Luke 23.33; John 19.18. cf. Gal 3.13. c  The author omits as superfluous the intervening words καὶ φοβηθήσῃ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς, “and you shall be afraid day and night.” d  cf. Gen 48.13-14. a 

b 

169

79

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

80

24). But this also this psalm made clear; for it has thusly, They observed and looked upon me; they divided my garments among themselves, and they cast lots for my clothing (Ps 21.18-19). “Then those who wrote the divine gospel said that those who passed by blasphemed him shaking their heads and saying, ‘Ha! The one who destroys the temple’ (Mark 15.29; Matt 27.39-40a). But what did Christ say about this through the psalmist? Everyone who saw me mocked me; they spoke with their lips, they shook their head; he hoped in the Lord, let Him deliver him (Ps 21.8-9). “And they crucify with him two thieves (Mark 15.27b), so that this also might be fulfilled: I was reckoned with lawless ones (Isa 53.12; Mark 15.28; Luke 22.37). “When the Lord was thirsty they gave him vinegar (mixed) with gall,c to the one who said through David, They gave gall for my food and poured vinegar for my drink (Ps 68.22).

Isaiah 53 Treated 37-161 “But tell (me), Isaiah, what you wrote in advance about all these things together: Behold, my servant shall understand and shall be exalted and shall be exceedingly glorified; just as many shall be amazed over you, so your form shall be unconsidered by men and your glory by the sons of men (Isa 52.13-14), and after a few (lines), he had no form nor glory; and we saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his form was unnoteworthy, lesser than the sons of men; being a man with suffering, and knowing how to bear sickness, because his face is turned from us; he was dishonored and not regarded. This one bears sins and he is pained for us …d and he was bruised because of our lawless deeds; the punishment of our peace is upon cf. Luke 23.35. cf. Matt 27.38; Luke 23.33; John 19.18. c  cf. Matt 27.48, 34; Mark 15.36; Luke 23.36; John 19.29. d  ADI does not include the full reading of the LXX: καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν, “and we regarded him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But he was wounded on account of our lawlessness.” a 

b 

170

9. The Crucifixion

him, by his bruises we are healed; …a man has gone astray in his (own) way, and the Lord handed him over for our sins; and he does not open his mouth because of his being afflicted; he is led , and as a lamb before its sheerer; thus silent he does not open his mouth; in humility his judgment was taken away, and who shall describe his generation? For his life is taken from the earth; because of the lawless deeds of my people he was led to death. And I will give the wicked ones for his burial, and the rich for his death, for he did no lawless deed, nor (was) deceit in his mouth; …b and he shall bear their sins; on which account he will inherit many, and he will divide the spoils of the mighty, because his soul was delivered over to death, and he was reckoned among the lawless; and he has born (the) sins of many, and because of their sins he was delivered over (Isa 53.2-12). “Concerning whom do those of circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; et al.) take the prophet to be predicting these things? For that he comes forth speaking these things not about himself but about someone else is clear even to infants who cannot see; for we saw him, and he had no form (Isa 53.2), and because of his being afflicted (Isa 53.7), and he took our lawless deeds (Isa 53.5), and I will give the wicked ones for his burial, and the rich for his death (Isa 53.9); and simply you will find from the beginning to the end of the passage that the prophet composed the message about another person.c “And who is this whom he calls servant (Isa 52.12) of the Lord and arm (Isa 53.1), concerning whom also in another passage he says, It is a great thing for you that you be called my servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the dispersed ones of Israel (Isa 49.6)? If therefore they are able to show that at any timed ADI does not include the LXX: πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν, “we all like sheep went astray”. b  ADI does not include Isa 53.10-11a, “And the Lord desires to cleanse him from the stroke, if you give (an offering) for sin, your soul will see a long-lived seed, and the Lord wants to take away from the toilof his soul, to show him light and to form (it) in his understanding, to justify the just one serving many well.” c  Our author takes first person verbs and pronouns as including the prophet and third person verbs and pronouns as proof that the subject of Isa 53 is someone other than Isaiah. d  ἐξ αἰῶνος; lit., “from the age.” a 

171

81

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

someone else called ‘servant of the Lord’ and ‘Son of God’ has given his back for strokes, and his cheeks for slaps, and his face he did not turn away from shameful spitting (Isa 50.6), and he was exalted and raised up (Isa 52.13) and he took up oura lawless deeds (Isa 53.5) and for us he suffered pain (Isa 53.4), and as a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb before its sheerer (Isa 53.7), by whose bruises we are healed (Isa 53.5), and whatever other things the prophetic predictions put together, then let them say who and when and where such a one has been. But if, as the truth has shown, to those who do not wish to become liars and to concoct personage way (to deny),b (events) shall turn out in such a way (as predicted in Scripture), why are they not ashamed to contend vainly (against that fact), and why do they not simply assent to the truth, even after so long a time? But if, as is reasonable, compelled by the truth, they shall not dare to invent some other personage, but shall admit that these things are said about the son of God, (if) nevertheless they say the expected one has not come up to the present time, and a  Declerck deleted from the text αὐτῶν, in agreement with the quote on p. 120 above and the LXX text. b  οὐ ψεύσασθαι θέλουσιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τρόπον ἀναπλάσασθαι. Declerck (note ad loc. and Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, p. xcviii) says τρόπον is in error and suggests πρόσωπον as below p. 173. τρόπος need not be taken as an error, though. It can be understood adverbially (understanding an object corresponding to ἡ ἀλήθεια, such as prophecy, or even personage). The sense would be, “for those who do not wish to falsify (the truth) and fabricate in a/some way (another personage).” Declerck edits the text from p. 171-172 into four sentences. Actually, our author’s argument changes beginning in the middle of the fourth sentence. So our translation begins a new sentence at Declerck’s line 100. Ignoring rhetorical forms, our author’s argument progresses sentence-by-sentence as follows: (1) the suffering servant of the Lord is the redeemer; (2) if the Jews want to contend that someone else besides the redeemer, who was called by these titles and suffered, then they must identify who he is; (3) if they do not wish to separate the redeemer from the suffering servant, then they ought to accept that the redeemer and the suffering servant are one and the same; (4) if they do agree to this identification but say he is yet future and not Jesus, then Scripture will show that Jesus, whom they crucified, was that expected one and they are in error. Our author skips over proofs that Jesus fulfills those prophecies because he does this elsewhere in the dialog. He instead makes the argument that the Scriptures indeed predict that the Jews will crucify the very one whom they are expecting and that they will be punished for doing so; moreover, their current political situation offers proof that this has all happened just as prophecy said.

172

9. The Crucifixion

that they are waiting for him to come in the future, then first they shall be shamed by countless other passages, which show that this one,a whom they themselves put to death by crucifixion, was the expected Lord. But to skip the arguments that have been made by many people,b I now focus my objection on this one thing, (namely), whether they will (actually) crucify the Son of God, whom they said that they expect that he is coming, and do (to him) all the other things which the prophets have written, or not. For if they will say that they will not crucify him, nor do to the one who is coming all the things as they have done to the Lord, then they should know that the prophecies about the passion are not, as they say, about the one who is to come, but about one who has come (already), and (that) we have rightly understood that everything has already received (its) fulfillment in Christ, who was both crucified and suffered all these things just as the prophets wrote in advance. But if they shall agree that they will in any case crucify also the one who is coming, then they should expect again another destruction as the exact exchange for their brazen deed. And on what account have they suffered such things, with their temple completely laid waste and all of them killed by the Romans, as the Jew Josephus says?c For openly the prophecy brings torment upon those who perform these things against Christ, since it has (the words), I shall give the wicked ones for his burial, and the rich for his death (Isa 53.9). By all means they should expect also another destruction, and another fall of the temple, and dispersal of the whole nation, if ever there should be any left behind by the sword. “And how are they not found to be in conflict also with the truth? For they devise fabulous talesd that the one who is coming will assemble the nation, and that he will rebuild the temple greater and more beautiful than the former, and that he will do everything for them that their deceitful hope has suggested. How, i.e., Jesus. τὰ πολλοῖς εἰρημένα; lit., “the things said by many.” c  cf. Jos. BJ 7.1. d  Our author may well have in mind Jewish stories. For some “fabulous tales” on the Temple of the Messianic age, for example, see Ginzberg, 3:152-3; for identifying miracles done by the Messiah see Ginzberg, 4:234. a 

b 

173

82

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

83

therefore, will they crucify the one who, as they deceive themselves, is thusly going to benefit them and restore them to the ancient statehood? This not even the demons, who are a workcrew of utter wickedness, will be believed to do.a But even the purpose is enough for those of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10); for the miserable ones having crucified the God who has come, hope to crucify also the one whom they expect, so that if perchance it were possible that God became a man many times, then the Jews would have crucified him many times, in so far as it depends upon them; for this is hoped for and zealously pursued by them. For that the coming one has been proclaimed in advance by the prophets to suffer all (these) things, it is clear. Therefore either (the Jews) should accept that they did kill the God who has come, or they should expect that they might also kill the one who is yet to come, in so far as it depends upon them, and purposely carry out two deicides, even if they are not able to receive the one coming with glory (Matt 24.30; Mark 13.26; Luke 21.27), except as one who judges.b And Daniel will persuade them by depicting differentlyc the descent of his second presence, but they, neither knowing nor wishing to learn, do not know to distinguish the difference between his first presence and his second. For about his first coming David and Isaiah wrote in advance, the former saying, As rain upon fleece and as a drop he will come down (Ps 71.6), and the latter saying, we saw him, and he had no form nor beauty, but his form was unnoteworthy, lesser than the sons of men (Isa 53.2-3), and about his second (presence) Daniel and Malachi (wrote in advance), the former saying, I looked …d and behold, one was coming with the clouds of heaven as a son of man (Dan 7.13), and the latter saying, Behold the Lord is coming, …e and who can i.e., the demons would not harm a benefactor. Compare Matt 12.24-27. i.e., the Jews will fail in their purpose to kill the one who is to come, because when he returns, he comes to judge, not to be crucified. c  i.e., his first coming was as a suffering servant, but his second was as a judge; cf. Acts 10.42; 2 Tim 4.1. d  ADI does not include the superfluous intervening words in the LXX: ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς, “in a vision of the night.” e  ADI does not include the superfluous intervening words in the LXX: λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ, “says the Lord Almighty.” a 

b 

174

9. The Crucifixion

endure the day of his approach? (Mal 3.1-2). So although they indeed are wishing to crucify the coming God, and they are eager to do this, it will not happen: for he is coming (in the future) to judge the world with righteousness (Acts 17.31), and not to be judged again as (he) also (was) on the first (occasion).

Prophesies of Jeremiah 162-192 “But since here the words of Isaiah were well said, what then did also ‘Jeremiah, the most compassionate of the prophets’a declare about the Lord’s suffering, when he asked as a prayer to be enlightened with respect to future things, Lord, make known to me and I will know (Jer 11.18)? For he knew, he knew very well that (there was) a need for divine illumination in order to know the meaning of the mystery. And immediately upon having received enlightenment from God who said, While you are yet speaking … I am here (Isa 58.9), boasting over the things (that) he was deemed worthy of knowing, added to the words of his prayer, Then I saw (their b) practices (Jer 11.18). Whose did you see, divine prophet? ‘(The practices) of those who are going to crucify my Lord,’ he says; ‘for the Lord himself said to me, And I, led as an innocent lamb to be slaughtered, did not know; they devised an evil plot against me, saying ‘Come and let us insert wood into his bread, and let us exterminate him from the land of the living, and his name will never again be remembered’ (Jer 11.19).

For of whom else did they insert wood to his bread (Jer 11.19), except of the Living Bread and the one who came down from heaven (John 6.51), when they nailed his body to a piece of wood?c For that it was not into the prophet’s bread they inserted wood (Jer 11.19), it stands obvious to all. But if (for the sake of argument) someone Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 17.1. ADI does not include the pronoun αὐτῶν, perhaps for rhetorical effect. c  i.e., the cross. a 

b 

175

84

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

would concede that they did insert wood into the bread (Jer 11.19) of the prophet, (then) how was the prophet exterminated from the land of the living (Jer 11.19) by the wood, so that even his name would be wiped out? But it is clear whom this passage (is) about, and what the wood is, which they inserted into his bread (Jer 11.19), (that is, ) those who were speaking among themselves, Let us bind the righteous one, because he is burdensome to us (Isa 3.10) and (is) in opposition to our deeds (Wis 2.12), and, Let us condemn him to a shameful death (Wis 2.20). For according to Moses, cursed was everyone hanged on a wood (Deut 21.23), but I have heard a certain sage say, blessed is the wood by which righteousness comes (Wis 14.7).

Amos and Cosmological Phenomena at the Death of Christ 193-217

85

“Next after the Lifea agreed to taste death (e.g., Matt 16.28), and after offering his own soul freely into the paternal hands (Luke 23.46), our Evangelists say that darkness fell and the earth was shaken and the veil of the temple was ripped through (Matt 27.45, 51; Mark 15.33; Luke 23.44b). And did any of the prophets write this in advance, or did they disregard even this as worthless? Certainly not! For hear what Amos prophesied about these things, It shall be in that day, …c the sun shall go down at midday, and the light shall become darkened on the earth by day; and I will turn your feasts into mourning, and your songs into dirges, and I will bring up sackcloth on every loin, and baldness on every head, and I will make him as the mourning over a loved one, and those with him as a day of grief (Amos 8.9-10); and a little before this, The Lord swears by the pride of Jacob; all your deeds shall be accused forever; therefore the earth shall be shaken for these (deeds) and every inhabitant in it shall mourn (Amos 8.7-8). See indeed (that) Amos mentioned the darkness and the earthquake and the feast on (the day) which they i.e., Jesus. cf. Mark 15.38. c  ADI leaves out the words λέγει κύριος, καὶ, “says the Lord, and.” a 

b 

176

9. The Crucifixion

crucified the Lord. Now let them show any other occasion when the sun went down at midday, and the light became darkened by daya at their feast, so that the feast was turned into mourning and the songs of the Jews into dirges (Amos 8.9-10), or when because of the pride of Jacob was the earth shaken, (the pride of Jacob) by which the Lord swears, that their deeds shall be accused forever (Amos 8.7-8)!

Zechariah and the Restoration of the Cosmos 218-253 “And Zechariah the most divine not only mentioned the light that was darkened, but also the rekindling again of the light after the darkness and the cold of that day. For he says, It shall be on that day, there will be no light, and there will be cold and frost for one day; and that day is known to the Lord, and (it will be) neither day nor night, and towards evening there shall be light, and on that day living water shall come forth from Jerusalem (Zech 14.6-8). Well then, that he says that the failing of the light occurred on the feast of Passover, which, as Amos says, the Lord has turned into mourning (Amos 8.10), will be most clearly demonstrated by the (fact that) this is the only feast, I mean that of the Passover,b that occurs at the end of winter, when spring begins. So with respect to the feast which Amos says is turned into mourning and into a dirge (Amos 8.10), Zechariah makes clear that it is the (feast) of Passover, by saying that There will be cold and frost (Zech 14.6) on that day in which the perceptible light will become darkened (but that) then the Light which (is) unapproachable (1 Tim 6.16) shall enlighten everything. And that also our Evangelists write that it was cold on the day of the passion of Christ the Savior, all their readers know. For Peter, in some of the Evangelists, because of the cold, while standing and warming himself (John 18.25), was caught in The author is paraphrasing. The usual word for Passover is πάσχα. Here, however, it is διαβατήρια, a common term of the changing of the seasons and used for Passover by Philo (e.g., Vit. Mos. 2:226) to bring out the significance of passing from a life ruled by the passions to one ruled by virtue. See ADIDiss, 172, n. 79. a 

b 

177

86

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

the snare of the servant girl.a Well then, let the one who seeks the truth take note that every detail depends on another, and nothing is isolated from another. On that (day) living water actually did flow outb from Jerusalem (Zech 14.8); for the whole earth was filled with knowing the Lord from that day, as water covers the seas (Isa 11.9). For blood and water (John 19.34) gushed forth from the side of the Lord, also after his voluntary death, (blood and water) through which salvation is given to those who believe. But lest this matter be left unobserved, hear what Zechariah has written on this: On that day …c I shall pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and mercy, and they shall look toward me whom they stabbed (Zech 12.9-10), as Aquila, dear to the Jews, has rendered.

Jesus’ Legs Not Broken 254-262 “Then the Jews urged Pilate, that the legs of those who had been crucified be broken and that they be taken down and the bodies not remain on the crosses on account of the Sabbath (John 19.31). And after Pilate gave this order, they broke the legs of the two malefactors: for they had not yet died; but they had no ability to break the bones of the one who released his divine soul by his power when he wished,d in order that what (was said) about him, as the true sheep mentioned by Moses, might be fulfilled: not one bone of it shall be broken (Exod 12.10, 46; John 19.36).

cf. Matt 26.69-70; Mark 14.66-70; Luke 22.56-57. The author changes the future ἐξελεύσεται of the prophecy of Zechariah into the past ἐξῆλθεν. c  ADI does not include the superfluous words of the LXX “I will seek to remove all the nations who are coming against Jerusalem.” d  cf. John 19.32-36. a 

b 

178

9. The Crucifixion

The Burial of Jesus 263-274 “Thereafter then, the body of the God who was mortified on account of us is given over to the grave; for an honorable man of the council from Arimathaea – a man by the name of Joseph – became rich in that divine treasure, and having asked Pilate he placed the body in a grave;a and the statement made in the psalms is fulfilled, They placed me in (the) lowest pit, in dark places and in the shadow of death (Ps 87.7), and, I was reckoned with those who go down into (the) pit (Ps 87.5), and, They disowned me, the beloved one,b as a loathed carcass (Isa 14.19), and, I became as a man without help, free among the dead, as the slain … sleeping in a grave, whom you remember no more, and they were thrust away from your hand (Ps 87.5-6).

cf. Matt 27.57-60; Mark 15.42-46; Luke 23.50-53; John 19.38-42. Declerck cites Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 10.50 (Conybeare, 72); cf. Isa 14.19. a 

b 

179

87

88

Chapter 10: The Resurrection

The Resurrection of Christ in Jacob’s Blessing of Judah 1-50 “And while many other things according to the divine Scripture are found which make clear in advance the accomplishment of the suffering and burial of my Lord, the teaching about his life-giving resurrection, which is attracting (me) toward it, urges me to move on to it. ‘But also for me roll away, kind Master,a the stone which was once placed on the door of knowledge, so that also I may view the symbols of your life-giving resurrection, and that I, together with the women and Peter and John,b may proclaim the greatness of your sovereignty.’ But it is necessary to begin the teaching about the resurrection of the Lord at the beginning, with Genesis, which indeed is the most suitable place to begin. For Jacob, when he blesses Judah, says, Judah, might your brothers praise you; your hands (shall be) on the back of your enemies (Gen 49.8), to which he adds, Having couched and you lie as a lion, and as a whelp; who will rouse him? (Gen 49.9). For clearly the patriarch Jacob knew that Christ would come forth from his shoot (Gen 49.9), the one like a lion about to couch in death, which he willingly accepted for us, and like a whelp about to lie down because of his royalty and the fact that he has no master, and (Jacob knew) that he would be

a  b 

i.e., God. cf. Matt 28.8; Mark 16.10-11; Luke 24.9-11; John 20.6-9, 18.

180

10. The Resurrection

raised by none other than himself and his Father.a This is why he also says, Who will rouse him? (Gen 49.9). Clearly not a stranger (will rouse him), but he (will rouse) himself and his Father (will rouse him), of whom he is Son of the same essence; for this is the one who has washed his robe with wine, and his cloak with blood of the grape (Gen 49.11), as Jacob in some degree has stated in his blessings as though pretending they were about Judah.b “It is also fitting to join together to these the things said by Balaam concerning Christ. For also hec in Numbers – and this book is one (of the books) of Mosesd – is recorded for having said this, There shall come forth a man of the seed of Jacob, and he shall be lord over many nations, and his kingdom shall be raised higher than Gog; …e God has led him from Egypt, the glory as it were of the unicorn (is) his: he will consume the nations of his enemies, and he shall drain their marrow, and with his darts he will shoot down the enemy. After lying down he rested as a lion and as a whelp; who will rouse him? Those who bless you, are blessed, and those who curse you, are cursed (Num 24.7-9). And also here there are the (words), After lying down as a lion he rested and as a whelp (Num 24.9), and the (words), Who shall rouse him? (Gen 49.9), are not different than those of Jacob; for there (in Genesis) hef says, Having couched he ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρός. This seems to imply that Jesus had a part in effecting his own resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is most commonly referred to in the passive. In Rom 8.11 the Spirit is said to be the agent of Jesus’ resurrection, and in many passages the Father is the agent (e.g., Rom 6.4, 9; 1 Cor 15.12; Gal 1.1). Christ’s role as agent appears to be as an intermediary in the resurrection of Christians in 1 Th 4.14, where “God,” the Father, is the prime agent. Passages which speak of Christ’s own agency include John 2.19; 10.17-18. The notion that Christ raised himself does not seem to have been a large issue, but the belief seems to show up matter-of-factly in Hippolytus, Antichr. 6 (but cf. the following note), in Novatian, Hippolytus’ contemporary, Trin. 21.3, and Athanasius, Ar. 2.61. b  In ch. 5, p. 131, our author uses Gen 49.8, 10, to show that Jesus is the expectation of the nations. In ch. 12, pp. 206-209, Gen 49.10-11 is used to demonstrate Christ’s present and future dominion. Here our author uses vv 8-11 to demonstrate that Christ is an agent of his own resurrection. c  i.e., Balaam. d  Declerck expunges what is bracketed as an erroneus repetition. e  ADI does not include as superfluous the LXX: καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, “and his kingdom shall be enlarged.” f  i.e., Jacob. a 

181

89

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

lay as a lion, and as a whelp (Gen 49.9), while here it says, After lying down he rested as a lion and as a whelp (Num 24.9); and the (words), Who shall rouse him? (Gen 49.9), said in the same way by both, present the lordship and mighty strength of the Lord. Now since it has been shown by many (arguments) that neither it is possible to attribute these things to Judah, the one who was one of the 12 founders of the tribes, nor that anyone else came forth from the seed of Jacob, about whom these shall be said, except the Lord alone, who rose up from Judah for us, I shall pass on to other things which follow on what has been mentioned.

The Resurrection in the 9th, 15th and 29th Psalms 51-125

90

“Therefore let David, the sacred psalmist, the king, be present,a striking up the lyre of his own spirit, and let him tell what he has learned and made clear about the resurrection of the Lord. The 9th psalm of the first decade he entitled: Concerning the secrets of the Son (Ps 9.1), as the 70 have rendered it, and also Symmachus has rendered this title as Triumph Song concerning the death of the Son;b in fact Aquila has translated this (title) as On the brave deed of the son.c Therefore even the title was sufficient to show the point at issue;d for if you take it according to the 70, Concerning the secrets of the Son (Ps 9.1), the mystery of the death of the Lord was hidden and kept silent; and (if you take it) according to Symmachus, Triumph song concerning the death of the Son, obviously you have clear proof (that it is about the death of the Lord); and if you use the edia  See the discussion by Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, c-ci, n. 14. The translation renders Declerck’s suggestion. b  (1) ἐπινίκιον according to LSJ and PGL is a “victory song.” The Hebrew is ‫(לַ ְמנַצֵּ ַח‬lamenas.s.ēah.), which is usually understood as “to the conductor,” or some such expression (see BDB). (2) ‫‘( עַ ְלמוּת‬almût_) probably originally meant “to (the voice of) young women,” from ‫‘(עַ ְל ָמה‬almâ) (BDB, s.v. √‫ עלם‬II). The Masoretes divided (or perhaps better, preserved the division of) this word into two words: ַ‫‘( ע‬al-mût_), “concerning the death of.” c  ὑπὲρ ἀνδραγαθήματος, i.e., of the suffering Savior. d  τὸν σπουδαζόμενον; PGL says the passive is used of literary works and problems in the sense, to be studied, be composed. The translation understands the context here to indicate the subject of that study in the psalm.

182

10. The Resurrection

tion of Aquila who said, On the brave deed of the Son, you will thus also in any case be compelled to understand (the title as indicating) the victory over death. And therefore that title of the psalm, being Concerning the secrets of the Son, and Triumph concerning the death of the Son, and On the brave deed of the Son (Ps 9.1), shows the mystery of the death of the Son of God and of his resurrection. “But read also some lines of the psalm,a and you will know the divine mystery. For they contain, Have mercy on me, O Lord, look at my humiliation from my enemies, (the one) who lifts me up from the gates of death, so that I may proclaim all your praises at the gates of the daughter of Zion (Ps 9.14-15). Who will be moved to look for something more distinct or clear than this? Concerning the secrets of the Son, and Triumph concerning the death of the Son, and On the brave deed of the Son (Ps 9.1) is the title of the psalm; and the psalm itself, He who lifts me from the gates of death (Ps 9.14), is said from the person of the Son, whose death has been described. Can a man ask for anything that is more clear than this? Then it adds the triumphs, or brave deeds, so that I may proclaim all your praises at the gates of the daughter of Zion (Ps 9.15). For after Christ rose up in all the churches, which he appropriately called, tropologically, the daughters of Zion (Ps 9.15), he taught that God the Fatherb is to be praised, having driven all error from mankind. What brave deed or triumph would be greater and more precious than this? “But also the 15th psalm, because of the magnitude of success of the one who overcame death, is entitled A monument by David (Ps 15.1); now every monumentc is customarily established for some great success; well then, since he saw far in advance the victory over death and spoke as from the person of Christ, (as we see in the verses, ) I saw in advance the Lord always before me, because he is always on my right, so that I might not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue has exulted, but yet also my flesh shall lodge in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, i.e., beyond the mere title, which itself alone is sufficient. τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, lit., “the God and Father”; the translation takes the καὶ as epexegetical. c  στήλη, “monument”; in the psalm title the word is στηλογραφία, “inscription (on a monument).” a 

b 

183

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

91

nor will you let your holy one to see corruption (Ps 15.8-10), David entitled the psalm A monument (Ps 15.1). “But also if you open up the 29th psalm you will find also there the mystery of the resurrection of Christ. For it goes as follows, Lord, you have brought up my soul from Hades, you have saved me from those who descended into the pit (Ps 29.4). But since also this psalm has been entitled for the dedication of the house of David (Ps 29.1), one must ask the one of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10) as to what kind of house David has made the dedication (Ps 29.1), for which he has written this psalm. He heard God who had said to him, (It is not) you who shall not build me a house (3 Kgdms 8.19). So after building what kind of house did David commit this psalm for a dedication? And if they should say that the psalm is entitled prophetically about the dedication of the house which Solomon later has built, one must say to them, ‘And what possible meaning is there for the (verse), Lord, you have brought up my soul from Hades, you have saved me from those who descended into the pit (Ps 29.4) to bear with respect to that dedicationa of the house?’ But it is clear that (it is) ‘the day of the resurrection, ’ b concerning which also the psalm has aptly been titled, that both is and is called dedication of the Lord’s house (Ps 29.1), which is the church of the living God (1 Tim 3.15). But if you take the Lord’s house (Ps 29.1) also as the divine flesh, which he raised up from the dead and dedicated, you would not stray from what is proper.c B: τὸν ἐγκαινισμὸν ἐκεῖνον τοῦ οἴκου. Since this is a bit awkward, Declerck suggests a possible correction to ἐκείνου τοῦ οἴκου. b  i.e., the act performed by Christ accomplished either in the bodily resurrection from the dead of individual Christians at the end of time or in the metaphorical resurrection of the Church now on earth (see PGL, s.v., ἀνάστασις III. A. and IV., respectively). c  The title of Ps 29 is Εἰς τὸ τέλος· ψαλμὸς ᾠδῆς τοῦ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τοῦ οἴκου· τῷ Δαυιδ, “To the end, a psalm of a song for the dedication of the house [i.e., the temple], to David.” Interpreting this title of the Church is not rare. See, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 44.4, and Basil of Caesarea, Holimiae super Psalmos 29.1, 3 (PG 29:308A3-11; 312A7-11); cf. 2 Cor 6.16. However, our author feels the discontinuity of applying the psalm to Christ and the title to the Church. He goes along with the majority understanding of the title, but admits a possible application of the title to the Lord by identifying Christ with the “house.” I have found no one else who does this. The motivation for this seems to be to make both the title and the psalm apply to Christ. a 

184

10. The Resurrection

Other Psalms Predicting the Resurrection 126-186 “However, if we should come to seek and offer for proof from each one of both the psalms and the prophets, through which the teaching of the resurrection of Christ has been proclaimed, then the discussion will be extended for us to a boundless multitude. For now you may find David , Rise up, Lord, help us and deliver us for your name’s sake (Ps 43.27); another (verse), Let God rise up, and let his enemies be scattered (Ps 67.2); again another, Rise up, God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit in all the nations (Ps 81.8); another, Get up; why should you sleep, Lord? Rise up and do not reject forever (Ps 43.24); (and) again another, Rise up, Lord, save me, my God, for you have struck all who were my enemies without cause (Ps 3.8); and again another, Rise up, Lord my God, may your hand be lifted up (Ps 9.33); and one may find countless notices of the resurrection of the Savior in the Psalms and the rest of the divine Scripture. “And if those of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10) should say that they are able to apply these passages just as well to God the Father, on the grounds that the text calls his providential care a ‘rising up, ’a we shall sayb to them that, if this discussion were not aiming, as is fitting, at moderate proportions,c it would be possible to elaborate on the text by more (examples), and to prove it is quite impossible that these passages be understood except with reference to the incarnate word of God only; but also so that I may, carrying out the argument summarily ***d as a reminder for the reader.e What kind of enemies did God the Father have, whom, it is said, he scatters after his rising up? Or “Rising up” may represent the Hebrew hammāqôm, “the Place,” used as an epithet for God in Jewish literature. For further discussion see the Introduction, pp. 29-30, and ADIDiss, 183, n. 32. b  This phrasing is perhaps the strongest framing of the dialogue away from a strict dialogue and towards a manual format. c  τῆς συμμετρίας … κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς; lit., “at equitable symmetry.” d  Declerck notes that after ποιούμενος there is a lacuna, and in correspondence said it is perhaps a complete line, making conjecture completely arbitrary. e  This sentence may be taken as further evidence that this document is a manual on how to evangelize Jews, or at least handle their arguments. a 

185

92

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

93

who are those who hate him, who will flee him when he raises? Or when did God sleep, as though he might be roused from something? And how shall the (verse), Rise up, God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit in all the nations (Ps 81.8) be understood as applying to the Father, since he always lives and is awake and rules the age (Ps 65.7)? If today the Father is expected to begin to inherit the nations, how shall David be truthful while saying, The kingdom is the Lord’s and he is master of the nations (Ps 21.29)? If he is (already) master of the nations (Ps 21.29), how shall he inherit in all the nations (in the future) (Ps 81.8)? If he shall inherit the nations (in the future), how shall he be believed to be their master (already), according to David? But it is clear that all these words of the prophecy were said about the one who humbled himself (Phil 2.8) and who took on the form of a servant (Phil 2.7), and who became obedient to the Father unto death (Phil 2.8): for he endured the cross, having scorned its shame (Heb 12.2), so that he might release us shameful ones from our shame. Wherefore also by another psalm you can find as though said from the person of Christ, The Lord said, ‘I will bring back from Bashan’ (Ps 67.23). Now the word Bashan translated means shame;a for he brought us back from shame, not enduring that we be hidden any longer from his face on account of our nakedness. So this, yes, this is the one who humbled himself (Phil 2.8) and who in the form of a servant (Phil 2.7) completely veiled the greatness of his divinity, this is the one who, having risen from the dead as though from some sleep, raised his right hand and inherited the nations, and who shall judge the world with righteousness, (who) shall judge peoples with straightforwardness (Ps 9.9). Wherefore also one of the Evangelists, the great John, clearly handed down, that The Father shall judge no one, but he has given all judgment to the son, because he is the son of man (John 5.22): for heb has not given (to Christ) the authority to judge in his capacity as divine Word – for indeed he had this (authority already), in the same way as his Father did, because he is of the same substance and of the same glory – but a  b 

Declerck cites Lagarde, 174, 92; 188, 66. cf. Wutz, 1057. i.e., the Father.

186

10. The Resurrection

in his capacity as one who became Son of man for our sake he has given him the authority to judge, after having humbled himself unto death (Phil 2.8) and resurrection.

The Honor Given by God to the First Day Points to the Greatness of Resurrection Day 187-209 “So that you also might acknowledge the honor of the day of the resurrection of the Savior, and (acknowledge) how many privileges that day obtained from eternity, from here on I do the test (on that point). In the beginning after having established this visible world, having begun immediately with the first day, God created only light on that (first day),a (thereby) showing to the people thereafter that from that day everything is going to be illuminated by the light of the resurrection; and he also accurately called that day one (Gen 1.5) and not “first,” because exceptional and honorable in comparison with the other (days). And notice that on the other days there were various things created, but on that day only light shined forth: for on the second day he creates the firmament and separates the waters from each other, and places some over and some under; on the third he collects the water and makes the dry land and names the sea, and by wordb he gives the earth the capacity to produce the productive power of plants and seedsc on the fourth he adorned the earth with sun and moon and stars; on the 5th he orders the waters to bring forth animals, both swimming in the waters and aerial; on the 6th he creates the creatures and last of all man;d but as I said only the first day, or rather day one (Gen 1.5), did he illuminate with light, indicating in adἐν αὐτῇ; i.e., the first day of creation, the first day of the week; cf. Gen 1.3. Adam Kamesar suggested to me that this is a probable allusion to creation by means of the Logos. c  δίδωσι … τοῦ ἐξεγαγεῖν τῶν φυτῶν καὶ σπερμάτων τὴν δύναμιν. The syntax is odd. José Declerck suggested to me that τὴν δύναμιν, “productive power,” is the object of both ἐξεγαγεῖν, “to produce” and δίδωσι, “gives,” which is reflected in the translation. For δύναμις as the natural properties of plants, see LSJ, s.v, II.b. d  cf. Gen 1.6-2.2. a 

b 

187

94

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

vance its greatness by that fact, since ita was going to be brightened up with his resurrection.

Pentecost Points to Resurrection Day 210-281 “And notice how many things also Moses, or rather God through Moses, has made known by giving laws to the people concerning this day, and you will observe, how great is the dignity of this day. In Leviticus – this book is one of the Mosaic books – when he was making arrangements for the feasts, thus he has commanded: Speak to the sons of Israel and you shall say to them (Lev 23.10a), …b ‘In the first month, on the 14th day of the month and between evenings is the Passover to the Lord; and on the 15th day of this month is a feast of the Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat Unleavened Bread; and the first day shall be a holy convocation to you (Lev 23.5-7); …c and when you enter into the land which I am giving to you, and its harvest, you shall also bring sheaves, the firstfruit of your harvest, to the priest; and he shall bring the sheaf before the Lord, acceptable for you; on the day after the first day he shall bring it (Lev 23.10b-11); …d and you shall count from the day viz., the first day of the week, Sunday. The introductory clause in Lev 23.10 differs from 23.2 only in that it uses a different word for “speak” (λάλησον in v. 2 and εἰπέ in v. 10). ADI does not include the superfluous intervening vv. 2b-4, “and you will say to them, ‘The feasts of the Lord, which you will call holy convocations, these are my feasts. Six days you will do works, and on the seventh day (it will be) a sabbath rest, a holy convocation to the Lord, any work you will not do, it is a Sabbath to the Lord in all his settlement.” c  ADI does not include the superfluous intervening vv. 8-10a, “‘And you will bring a whole burnt offering to the Lord for seven days, and the seventh day will be a holy convocation to the Lord, any servile work you will not do.’ And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and you shall say to them.’” d  ADI does not include the superfluous intervening vv. 12-14, “‘And you will make on that day, on which you bring the sheaf, a one-year-old, spotless sheep into a whole burnt offering to the Lord and its sacrifice prepared with two tenth portions of fine flour with olive oil, a sacrifice to the Lord, a pleasing aroma to the Lord, and its drink offering the fourth portion of a hin of wine. And bread and parched new corn you will not eat until this very day, until you bring your gifts to God, an eternal ordinance for your generations in your entire settlement.’” a 

b 

188

10. The Resurrection

after the Sabbath, from the day on which you present the sheaf of the heave offering, 7 full weeks; to the day of the last week you shall count 50 days, and you shall offer a new sacrifice to the Lord; from your dwellings you bring forth two loaves from two tenths of fine flour; it is a feast of first fruits’ (Lev 23.15-17). So the worthiness of the day is clear; but that the text may be more clear, look at the meaning of the passage. On the 15th day of the month is named first day (Lev 23.5-6) of the Unleavened Bread, for by counting from it, they celebrated the seven days of the Unleavened Bread; so they were no longer permitted to calculate also the Pentecost from the 15th, which was the first day of the (feast of) Unleavened Bread, but instead it was on the day after the first (Lev 23.11), which was the 16th day of the first month, that the law commanded them to bear the sheaves to the priest, and to count 7 weeks from that day, and to celebrate the Pentecost, that is to say the Feast of the Firstfruits, on the day after the last day, because the worship in accordance with the law was not able to have its fulfillment without Christ. And they were ignorant of the significance of the rite, but they were constrained from the beginning to reverence and to worship the day of the resurrection of the Savior. If therefore the Passover of the Jews was a prototype of the truth, it would be necessary to count off and to celebrate also the Pentecost from the first day of (the Feast of) the Unleavened Bread;a but now it is not so, rather (it is) from the 16th (day of the month) that also Pentecost received its starting point even among them,b based on the calculation in accordance with which (day) the Lord rose up;c indeed ‘this is the feast of feasts and the festival of festivals’;d and indeed the mystery i.e., the fifteenth day. i.e., the Jews. c  i.e., Sunday. For τῆς συστάσεως, see PGL σύστασις, I. A.1, in the sense of “system of calculation.” d  Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 45.2 because of the similarity of the words. Gregory of Nazianzus calls Passover “the feast of feasts etc.” Yet, Gregory says, the day after is greater since “yesterday’s light was a forerunner of the rising of the Great Light.” Both Gregory of Nazianzus and our author apparently understand that Passover always occurs on the seventh day of the week, or else just the first one and the one, on which occurred the crucifixion of Jesus. Disagreements over calendar and when to celebrate caused no little dispute among both Jews and Christians. a 

b 

189

95

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

of the day of the resurrection was made clear even to Israel, but they did not understand what was being celebrated.a “And that on the 16th (day) of the first month the divine Light of the resurrection has arisen, you may learn most clearly from what follows. On the 14th (day) of the first month the Lord was crucified, on the day on which the ‘typical’ Passover sacrifice was going to be sacrificed; and John the Evangelist sets this forth clearly when he says, They led Jesus away from Caiaphas into the praetorium, and they did not enter into the praetorium so that they might not be defiled, however, so that they might eat the Passover (John 18.28), and again, For it was the great Day of that Sabbath (John 19.31). Therefore on the 14th (day), as it has been said, the Lord was crucified; on the 15th, which was the first day of the Unleavened Bread, he remained lying in the grave; on the 16th, which was the day after the first day of the Unleavened Bread, on which the sheaf is presented, from which day it happens that also by the Jews Pentecost is numbered according to the law ***.b And see that a  It may be helpful to summarize our author’s reasoning to this point. We may list five conclusions he draws from Lev 23. (1) The 15th day of the first month is called the first day of Unleavened Bread (based on Lev 23.5-6); this makes explicit the distinction between Passover and Unleavened Bread. (2) God directed them to calculate Pentecost differently after Israel will enter the promised land from the initiation of these celebrations while Israel was in the desert (based on Lev 23.10b). (3) That change involved counting from “the day after the first,” i.e., the 16th, on which the priest offered the wave offering, instead of from the 15th, the first day of Unleavened Bread, as they had before (based on Lev 23.11). (4) The Jews were then instructed to count seven weeks (hebdomads) from the 16th to celebrate Pentecost on the day after the last day of the seven weeks (based on Lev 23.15). (5) Not stated explicitly, but left implicit, is the fact that Lev 23.15 says they were to count these seven weeks “from the day after the Sabbath”; to our author, then, Pentecost was to be celebrated on the day after a Sabbath, i.e., Sunday. The point of this argument is that Resurrection Day, Sunday, the Lord’s Day, is made special, just as it was in the Psalms, also in the Mosaic Laws for calculating the Day of Pentecost. God’s command to change the manner of calculation of Pentecost so that it is celebrated on the first day of the week demonstrates the distinctive nature of the Resurrection Day, even though the Jews had no idea why the day was special. b  Declerck notes that something can be seen to have dropped out at this point. One can easily supply a reference to the resurrection.

190

10. The Resurrection

according to the obvious sense, the 15th (day) was considered the ‘first’ for the majority and those who read it superficially,a but according to the meaning hidden and understood by only a few, the 16th (day) both was and was believed to be ‘first,’ on which our Savior as God was proclaimed to have broken down the gates of Hades.b So even the Jews themselves were subject to the day of the life-giving resurrection; for even for them, although they were ignorant of what was being accomplished,c the day of the resurrection of the Lord, without which they were not able to offer up the sacrifices of the First-fruits, was to be honored and revered and was the beginning of a feast; nevertheless this (day) was for them a beginning of salvation, since it led by inference to something else (that is) great and honorable. And these things have been examined briefly from the (writings) of Moses.

Resurrection Anticipated in the Psalms and Prophets 282‑318 “And also David in the 117th psalm, of which I introduced aboved the passage which reads, Blessed is the one who comes (Ps 117.26),e in order to show beforehand the magnitude of the day to those afterward, has written thusly: These things have come about from the Lord, and it is amazing in our sight; this is the day of the Lord, let us rejoice and be glad in it; Lord, save now!; Lord, send prosperity now! (Ps 117.23-25).f For when David saw that there was going to

καταφθάνουσιν; the meaning of καταφθάνω given in the translation is not found in the lexica. LSJ: “fall upon unawares; be first, pay in advance”; PGL: “arrive at, reach.” b  The chronology of our author, viz., that Jesus was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, in the grave on the 15th and resurrected on the 16th follows John. c  Or perhaps “celebrated.” d  cf. ch. 8, p. 157. e  This is quoted in the NT of Jesus as Messiah (Matt 23.39; Luke 13.35; 19.38). f  cf. Matt 21.9; Mark 11.9; John 12.13. Our author’s point is that the rejoicing mentioned is over the resurrection, a proof of deity, which appears to be a novel twist. a 

191

96

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

97

be spiritual rejoicing and gladness on the day of the resurrection, he anticipated and proclaimed the power of the day. “Wherefore also Hosea, the first of the 12, as though from the person of God who was crucified and rose on the third day, has made these things plain: And they shall seek my face in their affliction; they will rise early saying to me, ‘Let us go and return to the Lord our God, for he has struck us and he will heal us, he will smite and will bandage us, he will restore our health, after two days on the third day, and we will rise up and we will be alive before him and we will know (him); we shall strive to know the Lord, who is ready as the morning’ (Hos 5.15-6.3). For behold the prophet himself clearly indicated not only the exact hour of the morninga at which the Lord arose according to the divine Evangelists, and also mentioned by name the third day (Hos 6.2-3), on which we rose up and came alive and were made worthy of knowledge of God. “And also the wonderful Zephaniah made mention of the day and hour of the resurrection, when also he wrote as follows, Get ready, rise early; all their produce is spoiled. Therefore wait for me, says the Lord, for the day of my resurrection as a witness (Zeph 3.78). To whom belongs the spoiled produce (Zeph 3.7) if not to the Jews who plotted against our Savior? But you, get ready, he says, to rise early for (the) day of (the) resurrection of (the) Lord as a witness (Zeph 3.7), so that you may be declared to be the herald of the third-day wakeup. These words will apply most of all to the women who brought perfume, who were present on the morning, having first prepared spices, and (who) became the first heralds of (the) testimony of the resurrection of the Lord.b

cf. Luke 24.1; Matt 28.1; Mark 16.9; John 20.1. cf. Mark 16.1-8; Luke 24.1-9; Matt 28.1-8. Though our author is not defining the “spoiled produce,” it must be a reference to the burial spices the women were bringing, but which, as it turned out, were unnecessary. This application of the passage to the first witnesses of the empty tomb, and especially the women, appears to be an innovation by our author; see ADIDiss, loc. cit. a 

b 

192

10. The Resurrection

Prophecies about the Guards of the Tomb 319-329 “And you will find one of the psalms has made mention even of the mortification of the guardians of the tomb. For our Evangelist has written that An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled away the stone (Matt 28.2); and those guarding shook from fear of him and became the dead (Matt 28.4), and the psalm says as follows, All the simple in heart were troubled, all the men of wealth slept their sleep and found nothing in their hands; because of your rebuke, God of Jacob, those who have ridden on horses slumbered; you are fearsome, and who will stand against you? (Ps 75.6-8).

Descent of the Logos to Hades 330-341 And what we learn through the writings of Job about God, the Word, who went down to Hades, we can take up from here on. For God, when addressing Job through whirlwind and clouds (Job 38.1), says to him, ‘And have you also gone to the source of the sea, and did you walk about in the tracks of the abyss? Do the gates of death open up to you in fear? And did the gatekeepers of Hades quake when they saw you? (Job 38.16-17). But they will quake when they see me, and the fearful gates of death will be opened.’ Thisa indeed was also foretold in the Psalms: For I will break (the) bronze gates and I will crush (the) iron bars (Ps 106.16), leading out of darkness and (the) shadow of death (Ps 106.14) the captives of Hades and prisoners of the enemy. And these things the Lord showed to Job in advance.

The Jew Josephus as a Witness for the Resurrection 342-382 But it is necessary to consider that even some of those of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10) have become a 

i.e., the opening of the gates of death.

193

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

witnesses of the resurrection of Christ our God. For Josephus, one of the notables among them in wisdom – and I know that since he testified to the truth, they hate the man – in the eighteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities has born witness explicitly to the divinity and to the cross and to the resurrection of our Savior. For he says, 98

And there was at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is fitting to call him a man; for he was a doer of wondrous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure; and he won overa many Jews and many (people) of Greek origin; he was the Christ; and when Pilate sentenced him to the cross at the charge of the leading men among us, those who had loved him previously did not stop (loving him); for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the divine prophets have said these things and countless other amazing things about him; and to the present day the tribe of the Christians named for him has not disappeared.b

“Who would not be astounded at the force of the truth? Who shall not fear at the mystery of the resurrection of Christ? Who compelled Josephus, being a Jew, to write these things? Was it “flattery toward the Romans,”c which indeed he was offering to them as still ruling at that time? No,d the Romans were paganse and happened to be persecutors at that time. Orf was it honor which he tried to bring to those who believe in the message of the resurrection? (No, ) this mystery was still not preached openly; therefore instead Christians were then beset with countless tortures. For indeed Nero had already raged against us and against the word of faith, and likewise had Domitian, who came after Titus, and it was more necessary that, if in fact he was obedient to those who were in power, Josephus himself should write against B: προσηγάγετο; Josephus: ἐπηγάγετο, “win over.” Josephus, AJ, 18:63-64. See E. Schürer et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed. (Edinburgh, 1973) 1:428-41. c  Declerck compares BJ 1.2, where Josephus defends himself against such charges. d  ἀλλὰ, lit. “but.” e  Ἕλληνες; for the meaning pagan, see PGL, Ἕλλην, 2; cf. ἑλληνίζω, 3. f  ἀλλὰ, lit. “but.” a 

b 

194

10. The Resurrection

the faith, than take a stand so distinctly for the truth. Well then, since the faith at that time still happened to be deprived of liberty, who beguiled Josephus to write these things? But thanks be to you, Christ, the Essential Truth, because in many ways you have shone upon the souls of the people, and have proclaimed the message of your resurrection; for although Death prevailed and swallowed (men) up, …a you took away every tear from every person (Isa 25.8), to speak prophetically, so that through the grace of your resurrection we all may mock at death and cry out, Where, death, is your victory? Where, Hades, is your sting? (1 Cor 15.55; Hos 13.14).

a 

ADI does not include the superfluous words καὶ πάλιν, “and again.”

195

99

Chapter 11: The Ascent of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit

The Ascension of Christ 1-80 “But since those who have written the Gospels of Christ have also proclaimed the ascent of our Savior into heavens,a let us see if any of the writers of old have also mentioned this in writing.b So, immediately, David in the 17th psalm, with a concise phrase makes clear his descent and ascent, where he says, He bowed the heavens and came down, and thick darkness (was) under his feet. And he mounted on cherubs and flew, and he flew on (the) wings of (the) winds, and he made darkness his secret place (Ps 17.10-12a). And in the twenty-third psalm, he introduces the angelic powers,c meeting beforehand with one another, and commanding the raising of the gates, and asking who the one returningd was. For they say, Lift up your gates, princes, and be raised up, eternal gates, and the king of glory shall enter, …e a mighty and powerful Lord, a Lord powerful in war (Ps 23.7-8). For they learned that he had raised up the cross as the victory sign over death; therefore they repeated the words, cf. Mark 16.19; Luke 24.51; Acts 1.9. First in the Psalms, then Isaiah, then Amos, and finally Nahum. c  The mention of cherubs in Ps 17 introduces the angelic identification of the king who shall enter. d  ἀνερχόμενος; or “the one coming up.” e  ADI does not include v 8a, “Who is this king of glory?” since the question is repeated in v 10, and our author makes his point there in the following lines. a 

b 

196

11. The Ascent of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit

Lift up your gates …a and be raised up, eternal gates (Ps 23.9), and in response to the question, Who is this king of glory?, they answered, The Lord of hosts himself is the king of glory (Ps 23.10). “Since also Isaiah had learned this in advance by the Spirit, also he introduces the upper powers as making the same inquiry concerning the ascent of the Savior, and learning the teachings of the divine incarnation, (both) of the suffering and of the resurrection. For also there he says, Who is this who came from Edom, (with) his red garments from Bozrah? (Isa 63.1a). To say it more clearly one might put it as follows, ‘Who is this who came from the earth, his garments red from his flesh?’ For ‘Edom’ means the ‘earthy’ or the ‘flame red, ’ b and ‘Bozrah’ means ‘flesh’ among the Hebrews.c ‘Therefore he says, Who is this who comes from the earth, his garments red from his flesh?’ (Isa 63.1a). He is comely in raiment, with powerful strength (Isa 63.1a). ‘Therefore this is the one,’ it says, ‘who is now more comely in beauty than the sons of men, with powerful strength (Ps 44.3); for with mighty power he put to death death itself, having bound the strong one (Isa 63.1a; Matt 12.29) and having taken away his weapons and fortification, in which he had trusted formerly.’ “Then further the prophet introduces the incarnated God himself, teaching the angelic powersd and presenting the trophies of his victory. For he says, I speak righteousness and judgment of salvation (Isa 63.1b). It is as if he says, ‘In absolutely everything I will say,’ he says, ‘I will speak righteousness, I will speak judgment; for after I came down I enacted a judgment of salvation (Isa 63.1b), the very thing which I speak; for I have condemned the ruler of the world (John 16.11), and I have delivered

a  ADI does not include the superfluous intervening words found in the LXX, “princes.” b  Declerck cites Lagarde, 190, 34: “Edom (means) earthy red or scarlet or eclipse.” See ADIDiss, loc. cit. c  Declerck cites Lagarde, 201, 48; 182, 96; 188, 78. See the same in Wutz, 695, 719, 1037, 1044, 1061 (Theodoret of Cyrrhus), 1076 (Procopius). For the spelling variations Βοσωρ, Βοσορ, Βοσορα, see Wutz, 593f. d  Or “the angelic hosts”; cf. p. 198, n. a.

197

100

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

the souls held by him from eternity from the slavery, in which they were held fast and previously enslaved.’

But though the powersa of the heavens (Isa 34.4; Matt 24.29) heard these things, because they did not yet understand the mystery of the divine incarnation, they extend the question and say, Why are your garments red, and your raiment as (of) one full of trodden (grapes) from a trodden winepress? (Isa 63.2-3). ‘What is the mixing and outpouring,’ they say,b ‘of so much blood on your body and garments, so that you seem to those who see you to come out from a trodden winepress (Isa 63.2)?’

And he answers, ‘I alone have trodden the winepress,c and there is no man among the nations with me (Isa 63.3); for I alone have severely beaten the enemy with my blood, and I have dashed him to pieces with my wrath, … and I have brought down into the earth the blood (Isa 63.4) both of him and of the evil powers with him with the strength of my glory; for the day of recompense has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present (Isa 63.4); for after having exacted judgment from my enemies, I redeemed all those held captive by them.’

And these are the things that, having gone up with his body, God the Word made known to the upper powers.d “And you may also find Amos, who prophesied among the 12, saying these things about the God who was taken up: And Lord is the God Almighty, the one who seizes the land and shakes it …,e Or “the host(s) of the heavens.” This is to be understood as equivalent to “the angelic powers” in line 41. b  B reads the singular φησί, “says,” which hear has the meaning of the plural. Declerck originally altered the text to the plural φασί, “say,” but now recommends keeping the orignial. c  See Göttingen and Field, Hexapla. d  See n. a above. e  ADI does not include the rest of the verse which reads: “and all those who are settled on it shall mourn, and its destruction shall rise up like a river and descend like the river of Egypt.” a 

198

11. The Ascent of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit

the one who constructs his ascent to heaven, and who establishes his promise on the earth (Amos 9.5-6). For when he went up into (the) heavens he promised to send the Holy Spirit, having said to his disciples, Behold I am sending the promise of my father upon you (Luke 24.49). “And also Nahum, who viewed this before, cried out at the beginning of his own prophecy, God is jealous and the Lord is an avenger… with wrath, the Lord is one who avenges his opponents, and cuts off his enemies. The Lord is longsuffering, and great is his strength, and the Lord will surely not find them guiltless. His way is in destruction and in stirring up, and a cloud is the dust of his feet (Nah 1.2-3). And these are the things the prophets (say) concerning the taking up of our Savior.

Christ Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father 81-102 “And concerning his sitting down at the right hand of the father,a David speaking in the psalms said, The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a footstool under your feet’ (Ps 109.1).b And let no one stumble over the word ‘until’ as though it were a temporary interval, but rather have regard for the idioms of the words of Scripture. For so that you may understand the idiom of the Scripture from only one example, how shall the (passage) in Isaiah be understood, (in particular) the (words) ‘I am,’ which is said by God to Israel, And until you grow old, I am (Isa 46.4)? For if Christ sits at the right hand of the father until his enemies have been placed as a footstool under his feet (Ps 109.1) – and the word ‘until’ is (usually) understood as temporal by those ignorant of scriptural usage – and afterward he will no longer be (seated), then only until those of Israel grow old also God… I will cf. Matt 26.64; Mark 14. 62; Luke 22.69; Rom 8.34; Heb 10.12. Matt 22.44; Mark 12.36; Luke 20.42 all record Jesus as giving the coup de grace question on Tuesday of Passion week. Luke also records Peter as using this verse of the ascension of Jesus to God’s right hand in Acts 2.34-35. See also 1 Cor 15.25 and Heb 1.3. a 

b 

199

101

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

keep silent what follows so as to avoid blasphemy.a Let us thus in many passages of Scripture take the word ‘until’ to mean ‘until the end’: for indeed also to Noah the raven did not return until the water was dried up from the earth (Gen 8.7), yet in fact, it never returned at all.b So Christ sits at the right hand of his Father until the creatures be under the creator; and this is believed to be forever; so forever also Christ sits at the right hand of his Father.

The Descent of the Spirit 103-130 102

“But since, as he had promised, Christ sent the Spiritc – this indeed our Gospels report –, notice what things have been exhibited also concerning this by the old writers. For David, from whom Christ is risen up,d has exclaimed these things with respect to the Savior with a prophetic mouth: You shall send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth (Ps 103.30), and, Your goode Spirit shall lead me into the level land (Ps 142.10). And Isaiah as though from the person of Christ, who makes clear that the Father sent forth both him and the Spirit, says these things: The Lord has sent me and his Spirit (Isa 48.16), as if he were saying, ‘Both me and the Spirit the Lord has sent forth.’ For one should not understand the text in this way, that Christ says, ‘The Lord and his Spirit have (both) sent me,’ but that ‘The Out of reverence our author does not wish to utter an expression that God will someday cease to be when Israel has grown old. b  The Hebrew reads, “it went out, going and returning until the drying of the water from the earth.” Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 104, notes that this probably meant that it went flying back and forth. The Greek translators, noticing this, realized that the raven did not return to the ark and rendered the thought by οὐχ ὑπέστρεψεν, “did not return.” Our author’s point is that once again “until” cannot mean that after the waters dried up the raven returned. Rather, the raven never returned to the ark. c  cf. John 14.16; Acts 2.1-4. d  cf. Heb 7.14. e  B: ἀγαθόν with the Rahlfs’ upper Egyptian, Western, Origenian and Lucianic traditions and is chosen in Göttingen LXX; Cambridge LXX: ἅγιον, the lower Egyptian tradition. ἀγαθόν was apparently the reading of the text used by Gregory of Nyssa, e.g., Eun. 2.197, 204 and Gregory of Nazianzus, e.g., Or. 31.29. a 

200

11. The Ascent of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit

Father has sent me his Son as first, and he has sent the Holy Spirit as second.’ “Making this clear in advance, also Joel prophesies as though from the person of the Father or the Son – for both (interpretations) are said –: It will be in the last days, says God: I will pour out from my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy (Acts 2.17; Joel 2.28). “And if anyone accepts also the Wisdom which is called Solomon’s,a he shall find there these things said to God: Hardly can we guess the things on the earth, and only with labor do we find the things at our feet; but as for the things in heaven, who could search them out? Who knows your counsel, unless you have given him wisdom and have sent your Holy Spirit from on high? And thus the footpaths of those on the earth were straightened, and men were taught the things pleasing to you (Wis 9.16-18).

a  On the canonicity of Wisdom of Solomon, see Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 388f, and 427, nn 208, 209. He points out that many influential Christians doubted its canonical status, including Origen.

201

Chapter 12: The Return of Christ

103

Daniel’s Son of Man Predicts the Second Coming 1-50 “Thus the descent and ascent of the Son have been covered and further also the coming of the Holy Spirit has been made clear. But since we also hope for a second presence of the incarnate Word of God – for the heralds of truth taught us to believe also this –, let us also in this matter see the convergence of both Scriptures. For in the Gospels we have learned that Then they shall see the Son of man, and (it is) clearly at the time of the consummation, coming on (the) clouds with power and much glory; and then he shall send his angels, and he shall gather his elect ones from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven (Mark 13.26-27a). And in the book of Daniel these things have been written down clearly: He convened the court and (the) books were opened (Dan 7.10): they were looking…b and behold withc the clouds of heaven he as a Son of man was coming, and reached the Ancient of Days, and he was brought forward before him; and to him were given the honor and the rule and the kingship, and all peoples, tribes, (and) tongues will cf. Matt 24.30-31. ADI does nto include the superfluous intervening words “in a vision of the night.” c  B: μετὰ with Justin Martyr and Mark 14.62 following Theodotion against LXX: ἐπὶ (Göttingen) with Matt 24.30; 26.64. On the preference of the early Church for Theodotion instead of LXX, see Jellicoe, 84-94. a 

b 

202

12. The Return of Christ

serve him; his authority is an eternal authority, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed (Dan 7.13-14).a Therefore it is necessary to ask those of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10), if they do not believe that there are two appearances of the Christ as indeed we do, who is this Son of man (Dan 7.13), whom Daniel predicted is coming after the consummation. For he said he saw (one) as a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven (Dan 7.13), and a court and books and a river of fire and myriads and thousands being multiplied to infinity, worshiping the one who came on the clouds (Dan 7.10, 13).b Let them say who this is. Do they say this son of man (Dan 7.13), whom Daniel predicted to be coming on the clouds, is born of a woman, or not? Thus if they will say he is born of a woman, how can a woman still give birth after the resurrection? And when shall the one then born grow up, so that he shall become a full-grown man and be able to judge?c And if they do not admit that he is born of a woman, how can one who is not born of a woman become a son of man (Dan 7.13), or even be called that?d For clearly the prophet, as he wrote, saw a son of man coming on the clouds (Dan 7.13), about to judge the world. But if they shall say that he will be born before the consummation, and he will be worshiped by everyone as king, it is necessary to say to them that it has been made clear that there is no end to the kingdom of the one who is going to come on the clouds (Dan 7.13),e but every kingdom shall be brought to an end at the consummation. So if the one who is expected by them, who is born before the consummation and who begins to rule as king at that time, shall be brought to an end by the consummation, then this one rules and is born in vain, and no longer will such a

a  For NT quotations of Dan 7.13-14 see Matt 24.30 (= Mark 13.26 =Lk21.27); 26.64 (= Mark 14.62 =Luke 22.69); Rev 1.7. b  Our author understands “judgment seat” to indicate the end of time. c  In these two questions our author understands the Daniel reference to the Son’s coming to the Ancient of Days as necessarily following his incarnation at birth, growth to adulthood, death and resurrection. d  i.e., Son of Man. e  cf. Luke 1.33.

203

104

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

one be able to rule forever; for the one who is put down once and receives an end of his rule shall never be believed to rule forever.a

Distinctions between the First and Second Comings 51-115

105

“But the unlearned must first accept the difference of the second presence of the one and the same Savior. For at the first presence, he had no comeliness or glory, but his form was without honor (Isa 53.2-3), and he sat on an ass,b not contending, nor crying out (Matt 12.19), but saying, Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart (Matt 11.29); but at his second presence, he shall be more comely in beauty than the sons of men (Ps 44.3), and he shall come on the cloudsc with thousand thousands and myriad myriads worshipping (Dan 7.10) at his divine directive, and then he will be seen by those worthy of him with glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1.14). “And who will not laugh, or rather who will not weep over the stubbornness of those of the circumcision (Acts 10.45; 11.2; Gal 2.12; Col 4.11; Tit 1.10)? The fools expect Christ coming as king at the consummation and ruling as king over Israel, refounding the things of Jerusalem with sapphire and emerald and hyacinthd (Tob 13.16), and liberally giving to them wealth and luxury, and being the cause of every temporary pleasure. But they have the words of Malachi the prophete as a clear and unmistakable refutation. For he himself says concerning the presence of the one who is going to come at the consummation – and he speaks from the person of a Our author’s rebuttal to the argument that the birth of the Son of Man (= Messiah) will occur only at the end of the age is that if the Son of Man comes only at the end of the age, then he will have no real reign, since every kingdom discontinues at that time. Therefore it was only a waste to have him be born and to reign for no time at all. b  cf. Matt 21.7; Mark 11.7; Luke 19.35. c  cf. Dan 7.13. d  i.e., “blue” (see Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, ὑάκινθος, regarding tabernacle, and PGL, s.v., ὑάκινθος). e  Μαλαχίου τοῦ θεσπεσίου; lit., “Malachi, the divine.” a 

204

12. The Return of Christ

Lord speaking about another Lord – Behold he is coming, says the Lord Almighty; and who will endure the day of his entrance? Or who shall standa at his appearance? Because he himself is entering as fire of a furnace and as lye of fullers; and he shall sit blazing as a furnace and cleansing as one would silver and gold (Mal 3.1-3).b “Shall it indeed be possible that said about one and the same person, who is going to come only once, as theyc themselves say, is the (passage), Who will endure the day of his entrance? Or who shall stand at his appearance? Because he himself is entering as fire of a furnace (Mal 3.2), spoken by Malachi, and the (passages), He shall come down as rain upon fleece, and as a drop which drops on the earth (Ps 71.6),d and Behold my beloved Son …,e he will not contend nor will he cry out nor will his voice be heard; a …f reed he will not break and … wick he will not extinguish (Matt 12.18-20g), as David and Isaiah have written, or shall both sets of passages be said about the very same one, but with respect to two different appearances of him? I think that nobody will speak in opposition to things that are so clear and unmistakable. “But if those who scarcely have accepted one Son of God shall dare to say the former (words) one person and the latter (words) about someone else, they have no shame now to say there are two Christs.h But if they shall say that the Christ who is B: στήσεται; LXX: ὑποστήσεται, for which Göttingen LXX cites no variant. Of course Mal 3.1 is quoted in Mark 1.2 (= Matt 11.10; Luke 7.27) concerning John the Baptist coming as a herald of the Messiah, so the coming one was assumed to be the Messiah. But in the NT John is a herald of the first coming of Messiah. Our author, who omits John’s part here, applies the passage to the second coming. c  i.e., the Jews. d  cf. ch. 4, p. 106; ch. 8, p. 157; and ch. 9, p. 174, above, where our author applies it to the first coming of Messiah. e  The author does not include the superfluous phrases, ὃν ᾐρέτισα, “whom I chose,” and εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου· θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ, “in whom my soul was pleased; I will set my Spirit upon him, and justice to the nations he will proclaim.” f  B has neither συντετριμμένον, “broken” (Matt 12.20, quoting Isa 42.3) nor τεθλασμένον, “bruised” of Göttingen LXX (see Göttingen LXX for variants on this, none of which = Matt 12.20). g  cf. Isa 42.1-3. h  i.e., since the portraits are so disparate. a 

b 

205

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

106

expected to come is one, and that he will in any case come a second time, once before the consummation, and again a second time after the consummation,a let the disobedient ones know that also this will be refuted in short order. For if this shall occur, in the way they erroneously allege, (then) when shall the gospel about this one who is expected to come be proclaimed, or when will he send many hunters, and will they hunt …b on every mountain and …c hill (Jer 16.16),d and when will he receive (the) nations as his inheritance and the ends of the earth as his possession (Ps 2.8),e or how will the passage, He will be (the) expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10)f be fulfilled? Or how shall God the Father himself – for let it be granted that, as they believe, this is said by the Father alone – be shown to be speaking the truth, when he says through one of the prophets, From the rising of the sun even to its setting my name is praised (Ps 112.3), and, in every nation a sacrifice is offered to me, even a clean sacrifice (Mal 1.11)? When or by whose teaching shall the nations praise God, and offer a clean sacrifice to him, if according to them Christ shall be incarnated at the time of the consummation itself, when, that is to say, there will not be one teaching or one being taught?

a  This is in fact what the author wrote: two appearances of Christ, one as sacrifice and one as judge. The difficulty is that Christians belive this also, and just below, the incorrect view opposed by our author is that the Christ is both sacrifice and judge at the one appearance. Perhaps he misspoke here, and meant to say “at the consummation itself,” or perhaps a line fell out before “once before the consummation,” such as “once at the the consummation, and not.” b  The author does not include αὐτοὺς, “them.” c  The author does not include ἐπάνω παντὸς, “upon every.” d  i.e., preachers of the Gospel; of course, this would require time, which the present view under consideration would not allow. e  See ch. 3, p. 69, above. f  See ch. 5, pp. 131-132 above.

206

12. The Return of Christ

That Christ is the Expected One from Gen 49.10-11 116-188 “And it is possible to show also with many other passages that the Word already incarnated is the one expected from old and the one who is at present expected; but it is not out of place to mention one, and to show that Scripture mentions in advance even the exact time, which indeed received the completion in the descent of the Savior. In the blessings of Judah, Jacob says, A ruler shall not fail from Judah and a leader from his loins, until he should come for whom it is stored up, and he shall be (the) expectation of the nations. Binding his ass to a vine, and to the branch of the vine the foal of his ass, he shall wash his robe in wine and his garment in (the) blood of (the) grape (Gen 49.10-11).a And it is fitting for the intelligent person acquainted with the Scriptures to ask when a ruler failed from Judah, and when did there completely cease being a leader from his loins, and to see who came at that time, and to find out that he is very truly the one for whom it is stored up, and that he is really the expectation of the nations (Gen 49.10).b “For when was Herod, the son of Antipater, a foreigner born of a foreigner, after having put down both Hyrcanus and Aristoboulos,c who up to that time were from the nation of the Jews and were managing the kingdom,d as first entrusted by the Romans with the helm (of government) of the kingdom? Was it not when our Savior was about to be born? Did not both of these things happen at the same time, namely the complete dissolution of rulers and leaders from the loins of Judah and the divine

Compare again ch. 5, pp. 131-132 above. On the basic interpretation of this passage, see notes above in ch. 5, p. 131. c  These two are the end of the Hasmonean line. The first is Hyrcanus II, son of Alexander Jannaeus. Hyrcanus ruled 63-40 BC. His reign ended when he was taken captive by the Parthians; he was then released in 36. The second is Aristobulus II, grandson of Hyrcanus. Herod was forced by Alexandra, Aristobulus’ mother, to place Aristobulus as high priest. Herod had him drowned in 35 BC (Josephus AJ 15.50-61; BJ 1.435-7; see E. Schürer, et al., History of the Jewish People 1.297). d  i.e., the Jews were ruling their country in some fashion up until these last two. a 

b 

207

107

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

descent of our Savior?a For the expectation of the Gentiles, Christ himself for whom it is stored up (Gen 49.10), appeared really then, when the matters of worship according to the Law received their end, and every sacrifice and authority and leader has been rooted out from them and dissolved. For since that time, where is the splendor of their metropolis? Where is the glory and stronghold of the famous temple? And where also are their rulers and leaders now?b Did not all these things receive their end, and did not the nations accept the one whom they were expecting, and is it not the case that today in every nation a clean and unblemished sacrifice is being offered to God (Mal 1.11)? I also know a psalm mentioning this beforehand as from the person of the Lord, I will not eat (the) flesh of bulls nor drink (the) blood of goats, will I? Sacrifice a sacrifice of praise to God and pay to the Highest your prayers (Ps 49.13-14). “And it is worthwhile finally, having mentioned the passage which is in the blessings of Jacob, to investigate what the next verse after, ‘and he shall be (the) expectation of the nations’ means, namely the verse, binding his ass to a vine, and to the branch of the vine the foal of his ass, and the words, he shall wash his robe in wine (Gen 49.10-11). You could find that Israel is called a ‘vine’ in many places in Scripture; indeed, You have transplanted a vine from Egypt (Ps 79.9), and, The vine of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel (Isa 5.7). You have heard the words of David and Isaiah, and you could find many such passages in Scripture, if you will investigate this matter, in which Israel is called ‘vine.’c Well then, Christ, the one born from Judah according to the flesh (Rom 9.5), binds to the vine, (that is) Israel, his ass (Gen 49.11), (that is) the people who are of the Gentiles, (the ass) on which also he sat when he proceeded to his final act of suffering,d and to the branch of the a  Our author understands Gen 49.10 as meaning that the Jews will have a nation to rule “until,” and only until, Messiah comes. b  This has direct reference to the kingship and kingdom. Perhaps there is relationship to the loss of the Jewish patriarchate. c  Our author may be emphasizing this point because of rival interpretations of the vine. d  The reference is doubly interpreted by our author: of Jesus’ triumphal entry and of a people (Jews or Gentiles). Both the ass and the colt represent the Gentiles.

208

12. The Return of Christ

vine, which is the entwining of the letters of the Scripture, (the branch) which sprouted again from the vine, (he binds) the colt of his ass (Gen 49.11), (which is) the church of the Gentiles who was allied with him, so that they may gather in the fruit of the vine, whenever the cluster of knowledge should become ripe. And it became ripe when the Jews have hung this man on wood; for, having washed his robe in wine (Gen 49.11), that is our flesh, which became ‘his robe,’a in his own blood, and his garment also in (the) blood of (the) grape (Gen 49.11) – for he did not deem it unworthy to become a grape, since he had accepted to be born of the vine of Israel, and he washed his garment in his blood –, calling his church a ‘vineyard,’ he has made it extend its branches as far as the sea and the shoots of the faith as far as the rivers (Ps 79.12). But let no boar from the woods lay it waste nor a wild beast devour it (Ps 79.14), Master of all, Lover of souls and God of spirits.b For you founded it well fon the rock, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matt 16.18) forever, as you, the righteous king, have ordained with righteousness.

a  To our author the robe symbolizes believers and the juice of the grape is the blood of Christ. Our author gets the truth of the incarnation instead from that fact that Jesus comes from the vine, which is national Israel (line 179). b  “Master, Lover of souls” is found in Wis 11.26; cf. 6.7; 8.3; Job 5.8; Sir 33.1.

209

108

Gentiles

disciples

Jewish Christians; also Triumphal Entry

Gentile Christians

those who receive redemption through Jesus’ blood

Messiah; first coming

Israel

Gentiles; also Triumphal Entry

letters of Scripture

church of the Gentiles

flesh of believers

expectation of the nations

vine

ass

branch of the vine

foal of his ass

robe

Jesus’ flesh = true humanity

Christ

Messiah; second coming

Herod

failing of leaders

210 fleshly Jesus = his humanity

Jewish Christians

Christ

Messiah; second coming

Herod

ADI

Hippolytus, Antichr. 10-11

Elements

Tertullian, Marc. 4.40.6

Justin Martyr, Dial. 54

flesh = believers

Jews

Law

Gentiles

Lord = Christa

Hippolytus, Fr. in Gen 22-24

Messiah; first coming?

Cyprian, Ep. 67.6

Gentiles believing

Cyprian, Test. 12

flesh; to prove deity of Christ

Novatian Trin. 21.13-14

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

Interpretations of Gen 49.10-11

211

blood of grape

salvific death of Christ

nations = believers

baptism in Jordan = his deity

Hippolytus, Antichr. 10-11

Jesus’ flesh

Gentiles

Holy Spirit and word of truth

Hippolytus, Fr. in Gen 22-24

blood of Jesus = sacrificial death

= blood of grape

Cyprian, Ep. 67.6

Cyprian, Test. 12 passion; to prove human character of Christ

Novatian Trin. 21.13-14

a  The language is a bit confusing here in the fragments. In looking at the chart it appears that he has switched the identifications of Jews and Gentiles. This may not be the case, but based on order and assumed parallelism, the order does seem reversed. Nevertheless, the identifications are the same.

a

= wine

= wine; humanity of Jesus since he comes from the vine

garment

Jesus has blood from the power of God, i.e., virgin birth

= robe

= robe

wine

Jesus’ blood = true humanity

Jesus’ blood

ADI

Jesus’ blood

Elements

Tertullian, Marc. 4.40.6

Justin Martyr, Dial. 54

12. The Return of Christ

109

Chapter 13: A Note to Jews and Christians

Summary of the Argument 1-31 “Now since these teachings have thusa been collected in part, from what has been said scattered in the divine Scripture, with the favor of God incarnate, the beauty of the belief of his holy Church has been shown, and (it has been shown) that whatsoever it (= the Church) received from the inspired apostles, Moses and the Prophets and the patriarchs before them wrote these things in advance from the beginning. For the Church of God believes in one God, but it understands him in three persons;b and it has been shown that the Old Testament writers were the first to believe this, and that they taught us to believe this.c Whether God has a son was the question, and it has been made clear from the divine Scripture that he does.d Whether this son is able to become flesh was (another) question, and the truth did not allow the teaching

a  See Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, cv-cvi, for other examples in ADI of smooth for rough breathing. For other examples in ADI where the smooth breathing is written for the rough, see Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, cv-cvi and n. 40. b  As Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, xl, lxi, n. 36, points out, our author follows the Cappadocian father Gregory of Nazianzus and probably also both Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria. c  Chapter 2. d  Chapter 3.

212

13.  A note to Jews and Christians

to be without testimony.a Whether a virgin ever gives birth without a man was a subject discussed, and Moses together with the prophets demonstrated this as having happened in the case of the god-bearer alone.b The question of whether God incarnate is able to receive baptism came up,c and the prophetic texts demonstrated this to have happened.d With respect to all the miraclese and sufferingsf and the crossg of our Christ and God, it is clear that the Law and the Prophets have written about them in advance. The divine mystery of his resurrection not only did the Old (Testament) writers mention a very long time ago indeed, but also the knowledgeable among the Jews did later.h We learned of his being taken up into heaven from many prophetic voices. Of the descent of the Holy Spirit, which occurred after the ascent of our Christ, the Scriptures have not left in doubt.i The discussion clearly demonstrated the second glorious presence of the Savior, when he is going to judge all things.j For in these matters there was the test of what is said, and these things Christ confirmed through the truth itself.k

A Closing Call for the Jews to Repent 32-60 “So it only remains,” I said to the Jew who was conversing (with me), “for you (Jews), who continue to boast in the Lawl and to dishonor God through your transgression, to throw off even (as late

Chapter 4. Chapter 5. c  ἐπῆλθεν εἰς νοῦν; lit., “came to mind.” d  Chapter 6. e  Chapter 7. f  Chapter 8. g  Chapter 9. h  Chapter 10. i  Chapter 11. j  Chapter 12. k  i.e., Christ, who is the truth. l  this is perhaps an allusion to Rom 15.17. a 

b 

213

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

110

as) now the veila from over your soul and, to draw near to Christ and to be enlightened, as David testified to you, and your faces shall not be shamed.b Well then, Repent and turn back, and be baptized each of you in the name of the Lord (Acts 3.19; 2.38), even now Peter calls out to you as he did previously. ‘Not the act of changing is a disgrace,’ said one of the sages of the Church, ‘but the clinging to evil leads to destruction.’c “And these brief words will be sufficient for putting you to shame, you who have disbelieved. But I think it necessary to call heaven and earth as witnesses for you (Deut 4.26; 31.28), which I know also the ancients did: see, wretched ones, that the light which you are expecting is darkness, and that it pretends to be light. (If) you Jews continue to wait for a light, and darkness shall be found by you; (if) you continue to anticipate midday, and you shall walk in midnightd (Isa 59.9). For the Christ whom you are awaiting is and is called the antichrist; and if indeed you would understand the Scripture correctly, also the teachings about him would not escape your notice: for everything with respect to him has been clearly mentioned in advance. Well then, although it is late, look up and throw off the blinders from your eyes, or rather your blindness. But if instead you choose to remain incurable and do not believe in the truth, Christ will always and often say about you through the divine Isaiah: They shall come out and see the corpses of the men who have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall become a spectacle for all flesh (Isa 66.24).e a  this phrase may refer to the sin of unbelief through ignorance of a proper understanding of OT passages. cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Virg. 12.2 (SC 119:408; PG 46:372C4) “the earthly veil (i.e., sin) being removed, the beauty of the soul will again be visible.” b  cf. Ps 33.6 c  Declerck cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 42.27. d  ἀωρίᾳ; LSJ suggests “darkness” for Isa 59.9; “midnight” in other contexts. The translation given contrasts with “midday” and distinguishes from the more common “darkness” (τὸ σκότος). e  Gregentius, Disp. (PG 86:701D) applies this to the eternal punishment of the Jews for their disbelief in Christ as Messiah. Didascalia Jacobi 5.5 (74, 10) applies this to all who do not believe (cf. 5.3 [73.5]). This latter application is also found in Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 52.

214

13.  A note to Jews and Christians

A Warning to Christians about Conduct 61-89 “But you, our Savior, who redeemed us with your own blood and did not deem us as unworthy to be called by your name, keep us in the precepts of truth, in correct thought, in the respect of your divine commandments, so that, by saying the very things you taught, and practicing the very things you demonstrated, we might fortify our conducta by our faith, and so that we might not shame the faith by our conduct. May you not be able to say also about us, Benevolent Master, that My name is blasphemed among the nations because of you (Isa 52.5). For merely being called Christians will not be enough to result in our salvation; rather there is fear that this alone will be enough to result in our condemnation,b if we do not live in a manner worthy of our promise. For if from him who is entrusted with much, much will be required,c and if everyone who has known your will and has not done it will be thrashed many times (Luke 12.47), what shall we, who are eager to be called by your great and pious name, which is (to be called) after Christ,d do if we trample you underfoot, you the son of God and treat as common the blood of the covenant by which we have been sanctified, and insult the holy spirit (Heb 10.29)? For even if some say to you, the impartial judge, ‘We both ate with you, and drank and you taught in our streets (Luke 13.26), and We cast out demons by your name’ (Matt 7.22), a fearful answer is given to those who hear: ‘Truly I say to you, ‘I do not know you; depart from me all you who work lawlessness’ (Matt 25.12; 7.23). Therefore let us men be fearful of vexatione and let us flee condemnation; for painfully nothing is more distressful than that a reasonable soul is condemned to

τὸν βίον is used in a variety of ways, but the sense here seems to be manner of life, conduct; see PGL, βίος A.4. b  Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, cxli, understands this as the Day of Judgment. c  cf. Luke 12.48. d  i.e., to be called “Christian.” e  i.e., “let us be afraid to make God angry.” a 

215

111

An Anonymous Dialog with a Jew

the ignorance;a from (this ignorance) which Christ our God, who does not desire our death but awaits our repentance (Ezek 33.11), will free us.

a  The construction is difficult and unclear. Declerck, Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis, cxli, takes this as meaning that there would be nothing worse than for an intelligent person to be condemned for his lack of knowledge of God (“Pour une âme douée de raison, rien n’est pire d’être condamnée à la non-connaissance de Dieu”). In correspondence, Declerck suggested the translation “was condemned for his ignorance,” either as an accusative of respect or perhaps διά should be restored to the text. He further suggests that the ignorance may be that of the real sense of Scripture and applied to Jews. An alternative, suggested to me by Adam Kamesar, is that λογικός be taken as “believing” (cf., PGL, s.v., λογικός C.2.a., “spiritual”). Then in turn the “ignorance” would be an ignorance of sin, i.e., acting in a manner unworthy of the gospel. This fits the context, going back to the sentence on p. 215, “For if to him who is entrusted with much, much will be required…”

216

Indices

Index of scriptures

Genesis 1.5 1.26  2.18 2.24 3.1 3.4-5 3.5 4.12 4.14 7.4 8.7 11.1 11.7 12.1 16.7-8 16.8 16.9 16.11 16.13 17.5 18 18.1-5 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4-5 18.4 18.6 18.10 18.27 19.24

19.26 22.2-12 22.11-12 22.11 22.12 28.11 28.16 28.17 28.18 28.19 28.20 28.21-22 28.22 31.11-13 48.3 48.7 48.15-16 49.8-11 49.8 49.9-10 49.9 49.10-11  49.10  49.11 

187 41, 81, 82, 84, 164 150 81 75, 107 107 107 75 76 80, 81 200 80 81, 82, 84 88 97 97 98 98 99, 101 81 44 86, 87 86 86 42, 87 87 88 88, 89 88 86, 87, 92 102

Exodus 2.1 3.3 3.5 3.6

219

89 89, 168 97 97 97, 99 76 76 77, 159 159 77 77 77 77 103 140 140 103 40, 181 131, 180, 181 43 180, 181, 182 38, 181, 207, 208 131, 132, 181, 206, 207, 208 34, 39, 40, 157, 181, 208, 209 81 117 117 90

Index of scriptures

4.10 4.22 4.23 12.10 12.46 15.1 15.6 15.21 17.11 23.5 23.7 23.20-21 23.20 23.21 25.9 32.12 38.2

90, 92, 93 83 83 178 178 80, 81 118 81, 119 169 108 166 135, 138 137, 138 136 120 67 120

Leviticus 11.7 12 12.1-2 12.2 12.5 23 23.5-6 23.5-7 23.10-11 23.10 23.11 23.15-17 23.15

95 44 112, 113 114, 115 112, 113, 114 190 189, 190 188 188 188, 190 189, 190 189 190

Numbers 8.7 13.18 19 19.2-3 19.3 19.5 19.9-10 22-24 24.5-8 24.7-9 24.8 24.9

147 136 44 118 118, 119 118 118 38 132 181 145 181, 182

220

Deuteronomy 4.26 6.4 6.6-7 21.8 21.23 27.18 28.66 31.28 32.15 32.29 32.39 32.43

214 40, 80, 90 67 67 176 108 39, 40, 169 214 167 40 80 83

Joshua 15.21 15.59 24.26-27

140 140 159

Judges 6.11 6.22-3 6.22-23 13.8 13.9 13.11 13.15 13.16 13.18 13.21 13.22 19.1-9

102 102 29 99 99 99 99, 100 100 100 100 29, 100, 102 122

2 Kingdoms 22.12

91

3 Kingdoms 8.19

184

4 Kingdoms 4.1 16.2 18.2 18.16 19.1

81 123 123 123 124

Index of scriptures

Job

1.1 9.8 21.14 22.14 38.1 38.16-17 40.19 40.25

81 153 166 91 193 193 148 148

Psalms 2.1-2 2.7-8 2.7 2.8 3.8 9.1 9.9 9.14 9.15 9.33 15.1 15.8-10 17 17.10-12 17.12 21 21.8-9 21.13 21.17 21.18-19 21.21 21.29 22.2-3 23.7-8 23.7 23.8 23.9 23.10 28.3 29 29.1 29.4 32.6  40.7 40.10

163 26, 42 95, 96, 104 96, 206 185 182, 183 186 183 183 185 183, 184 184 196 196 91 44 170 165 36, 37, 169 36, 37, 170 44, 45, 152 131, 186 132 196 157 157 157, 197 157, 197 147, 148 184 184 184 41, 85, 95, 101, 104 160 160

43.4 43.24 43.27 44.3 44.14 46.8-9 49.2-3 49.13-14 54.13-15 63.7b-8a 65.6 65.7 67.2 67.23 67.32 68.22 68.26 71.6  71.8 73.12-14 73.14 75.6-8 76.11-12 76.11 76.12 76.20 78.1 79.2 79.3 79.8 79.9 79.12 79.14 80.11 81.6 81.8 84.8 87.5 87.7 88.26 88.27-28 88.27 88.28 93.10 103.4 103.15

221

118 185 185 197, 204 77, 144 167 106 208 160 71 142 186 185 186 147 170 162 106, 157, 174, 205 96 147 147 193 151 151 151 153 142 105 105 105 208 209 209 112 83 186 106 38, 179 179 44 44, 84 44 44 68 85 89, 149, 151

Index of scriptures

103.30 106.10 106.14 106.16 106.20 108.7 108.8 109.1 117.1 117.22 117.23-25 117.26-27 117.26 117.27 118.22 131.5 142.10 143.5 144.14 Proverbs 8.1 sqq

104

Song of Songs 2.1 3.10-11

146 165

Isaiah 1.2 1.22 3.10 4.4 5.7 5.20 6.1-4 6.3 6.5 6.9-10 6.9 7.9 7.10-11 7.10-16 7.11 7.13 7.14  7.16

8.1-2 8.1 8.3-4 8.3 8.4  9.1-2 9.6   9.7 10.33 11.1-2 11.1-6 11.1 11.3-5 11.6-7 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 12.2 12.3 14.19 19.1 25.6-7 25.7 25.8 33.22 34.4 35.1-2 35.2 35.3-6 37.1 40.3 40.4-5 40.4 40.5 40.10 41.15? 42.3 42.6-7 44.6 46.4 48.16 49.6

200 158 193 193 95 162 162 199 158 158 192 37, 158 191 158 154 139, 140 200 105 153

83 151 38, 176 153 208 166 91 91, 92 92, 93 93 98 124 124 36, 121 124 124, 134 29, 121, 122, 123, 144 123

222

135 126, 135 126, 127 27, 126, 135 43, 121, 123, 127 125, 145 44, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 105, 125, 126, 128, 167 128, 129 129 130, 146 130 130 130 132 130 130 131, 132 178 131 149 149 38, 39, 179 143, 144 149 149 195 166 198 147 148 152 124 146 148 148 148 106 77 157, 205 154 40, 80 199 200 171

Index of scriptures

49.8 49.9 50.4-5 50.5-6 50.6-8 50.6 52.5 52.12 52.13-14 52.13 53 53.1 53.2-3 53.2-12 53.2 53.4 53.5 53.7 53.9 53.10-11a 53.12 55.1 56.10 58.9 59.9 59.20 61.1 63.1 63.2-3 63.2 63.3 63.4 66.24 Jeremiah 11.18 11.19 16.16 17.1 Lamentations 4.20 Ezekiel 1.5 sqq. 2.8-9 7.3

7.7 33.11

154 154 73 36, 164 166 172 215 171 170 29, 170, 172 37, 171 171 204 171 171, 174 172 171, 172 165, 171, 172 171, 173 171 29, 170 149 165 175 214 106 151 197 198 198 198 198 214

Daniel 2.34 3.57 3.59 3.91-92 3.92 7.10 7.13-14 7.13 10.5 10.16-17

77 85 85 101 101 202, 203, 204 203 174, 203 101 101

Hosea 5.14 5.15-6.3 6.2-3 10.8 11.1 13.7 13.8 13.14

77 192 192 167 145 77 77 195

Joel

2.28

Amos 7.2 8.7-8 8.9-10 8.10 9.5-6

175 38, 175, 176 206 162, 163

Micah 1.1 5.2 5.4 Nahum 1.2-3

42, 106

Habakkuk 2.3 3.13

77 112 77

223

77 216

201 67 176, 177 36, 176, 177 26, 38, 177 199 141 140, 141, 142 140, 142 199 106 137, 148

Index of scriptures

Zephaniah 3.7-8 3.7 Zechariah 1.20 6.12 9.9-10 9.10 11.11-13 11.13 12.9-10 14.6-7 14.6-8 14.6 14.8 Malachi 1.11 3.1-2 3.1-3 3.1  3.2 Susanna 35 4 Maccabees 6.28

9.4 9.10 9.15-16 9.16-18 10.21 11.16 11.20 11.26 14.7

192 192 77 106 30, 156 157 160 162 178 26 38, 177 177 178

Matthew 1.20-23 1.23 2.1 2.6 2.15 2.20 2.23 2.29 3.1-2 3.1 3.3 3.16-17 4.13 4.15-16 5.3 7.22 7.23 8.2 11.10 11.29 12.10 12.18-20 12.19 12.20 12.29 15.31 16.18 16.28 20.17 21.1-2 21.1-7 21.9 21.42 22.44 24.2 24.29

206, 208 175 205 106, 137, 138, 205 205 155 67

Sirach 5.12

131

Tobit 13.7 13.11 13.16

159 159 204

Wisdom 1.12 1.14 2.12 2.20 7.15 7.26 9.1-2

167 73 176 176 68 95 67

224

68 106 75 201 73 108 113 209 176 137 121, 137 138 141 104, 143 145 145 124 146 146 146 147 145 145 151 215 215 154 137, 138, 205 70, 204 152 205 204 157, 205 197 152 209 176 155 156 156 158, 192 158 199 167 198

Index of scriptures

24.30 25.12 26.14-15 26.64 26.67 27.2 27.3 27.5 27.9 27.11 27.18 27.21 27.28-29 27.34 27.35 27.39-40 27.45 27.48 27.51 27.57-60 28.1-8 28.2 28.4 28.8

174, 202, 203 215 160 199, 202, 203 164 163 162 162 162 164 164 166 165 170 37, 169 37, 170 36, 176 170 176 179 192 193 193 180

Mark 1.2 1.4 1.10-11 1.40 8.17 10.32 11.1-2 11.9 12.10 12.24 12.36 13.2 13.26-27 13.26 14.62 15.10 15.24 15.27 15.28 15.29 15.33

137, 205 146 147 154 68 155 156 192 158 124 199 167 202 174, 203 199, 202 164 37, 169 170 170 170 176

225

15.42-46 16.1-8 16.10-11

179 192 180

Luke 1.2 1.26-28 1.31 1.34-35 1.48-49 1.48 1.52-53 3.3 3.4 3.22 4.18 5.12 6.29 7.21 7.27 12.47 13.26 16.29 18.32-33 19.29-30 20.17 20.42 21.6 21.20 21.27 22.37 22.66-67 23.6-7 23.7 23.11 23.12 23.18 23.24 23.29 23.30 23.33 23.34 23.35 23.44 23.46 24.1-9 24.1

133 134 136 134 135 135 135 146 146 147 151, 152 154 70 152 137, 205 215 215 68 155 156 158 199 167 167 174, 203 170 163 163 164 165 165 166 37 167 167 167 169 37 176 176 192 192

Index of scriptures

24.49 John 1.1 1.9 1.14 1.20 1.29 2.7-9 2.11 2.19 3.13 5.22 5.43 6.48 6.51 6.58 7.42 8.33 9.1 9.28 10.9 10.17-18 11.25 11.44 12.13 16.11 18.25 18.28 18.36 18.38 19.12 19.15 19.17 19.23-24 19.31 19.34 19.36 21.25 Acts 1.20 2.17 2.38 3.19 4.11 5.30

199 95, 104 104 204 71 165 150 151 181 120 186 158 100 89, 120, 175 89 129 166 152 166 93 181 104 154 192 197 177 190 164 164 167 166, 167 167 169 178, 190 178 178 77, 155 162 201 214 214 158 169

226

7.3 7.51 10.39 10.45  11.2  14.27 17.28 17.31

88 77 169 171, 174, 184, 185, 193, 203, 204 171, 174, 184, 185, 193, 203, 204 91, 93 67 175

Romans 1.3 1.25 6.4 8.5 8.11 9.5 9.33 14.13

129 99, 101 181 102, 120 181 208 158 108

1 Corinthians 1.18 1.22 1.24 2.6-7 2.6 2.8 15.12 15.55

71 71 95, 104 71 128 128 181 195

2 Corinthians 3.6 3.15 6.2 6.16

74 74 154 184

Galatians 1.1 2.12  3.27 4.24 6.7

181 174, 184, 185, 193, 203, 204 71 68 124

Ephesians 1.23

143, 153

Index of scriptures

6.19

73, 108

Philippians 2.7 2.8

186 186, 187

Colossians 1.15 1.17 4.11 

104 82 174, 184, 185, 193, 203, 204

1 Timothy 3.15 6.16

184 177

2 Timothy 2.8

129

Titus 1.10  Hebrews 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.14 2.14 9.13-14 10.29 10.37 11.27 12.2 13.4 1 Peter 2.7 2.23 3.15

227

174, 184, 185, 193, 203, 204 144 95, 104 85 99 107 118 215 106 89 186 150 158 70 30

Index of Non-Scriptural Sources Quoted in Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis Index of Non-Scriptural Sources

Basil of Caesarea Liturgia (Liturgy) 313

73

Cyril of Alexandria Adversus Anthropormorphitas 26

117

Dialogus Timothei et ­AQuilae 10.50 (Conybeare, 72)

179

Gregory of Nazianzus Epistula 101 31 Oratio 2 63 Oratio 3 8 Oratio 16 5 Oratio 17 1 Oratio 23 10 Oratio 23 11 Oratio 24 7 Oratio 27 5

Oratio 29 1 Oratio 29 12 Oratio 29 13 Oratio 31 21 Oratio 32 15 Oratio 38 4 Oratio 42 13 Oratio 42 27 Oratio 43 29 Oratio 43 57 Oratio 45 2

90 164 123 143 175

132 109 136 77, 144 144 108 70 214 70 150 189

Gregory of Nyssa Oratio catechetica magna 15 104 Oratio in diem natalem Christi 1136B 117

92 92 150 156

228

Index of Non-Scriptural Sources

Jerome Commentarii in Evangelium ­Matthaei 29.9 Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 1.224 7.333 18.63-64 Bellum judaicum 7.1 Maximus the Confessor Ambiguorum liber 1300D Onomastica sacra, Lagarde 161, 2 162, 31 167, 32 170, 88 170, 90 173, 59 173, 71 174, 3 174, 87 174, 92 175, 16 175, 24-25 175, 24 177, 77-78 177, 78 179, 17 181, 82 182.96 183, 19 183, 41-42 186, 9 186, 100 187, 27

188, 66 188, 78 190, 22-23 190, 34 192, 94 193, 5 193, 6 196, 89 198, 54 201, 48 202, 65 203, 91-92 203, 92 203, 94

161

168 168 194 173

Onomastica sacra, Wutz 110-111 123 201 377 491 593-594 695 705, 24 719 977 1037 1044 1057 1061

116 158 118 102 98 90 98 92 116 137 186 137 146 146 89, 98 102 116 90 197 137 146 98 116 158

186 197 127 197 102 89, 98 98 146 92 197 127 102 90 116 92 92 92 146 92 197 197 92 197 146 197 197 186 197

Origen Commentarii series in Matthaeum 126 168 Sozomen Symbolum Nicaenum 1-2

73

Symbolum Constantinopolitanae 7-8 127

229

Index of subjects* Index of subjects

ADI Abraham at the Oak of Mamre, 89 Adoptive sonship implies natural sonship, 84 Amos’ prophecies treated, 177 Ascension of Christ predicted, 200 Authorship and Date, 24 Author’s possible knowledge of Hebrew tradition, 30 Baptism of Jesus predicted, 149 Betrayal by Judas predicted, 163 Birthplace of Jesus predicted, 143 Burial of Jesus, 179 Call for the Jews to repent, 214 Case for Palestinian or Syrian provinence, 30 Case of Egyptian provenance, 27 Christ as the rejected stone predicted, 159 Concerning the guards at the tomb predicted, 193 Condemnation of Jesus predicted, 165 Descent of the Logos to Hades predicted, 193

Descent of the Spirit predicted, 201 Divergence as indication of independence, 40 Divergence from dialogs generally, 47 Evidence for the Trinity, 93 First and second comings distinguished, 206 Flight to Egypt predicted, 145 God and natural Son of the same essence, 85 Hermeneutical methods, 78 Incarnation, necessity of, 108 Incarnation, OT prayers asking for, 106 Incarnation, required to be a son, 110 Isaiah 53 treated, 175 Jeremiah’s prophecies treated, 176 Jesus in the hands of King Herod, 165 Jesus in the hands of the Gentiles, 164 Jesus in the hands of the Jews, 164 Jesus’ legs not broken, 178 Jesus predicts his suffering, 155

*  Ancient sources quoted in the introduction or in the notes have been included in this index.

230

Index of subjects

Theophanes as appearances of the “Angel” identical to God’s essence, 103 The seraphim in Isaiah’s vision, 92 Trinity, 83 Triumphal entry predicted, 158 Various aspects of crucifixion predicted, 170 Virgin conception, identity of child in Isaiah, 132 Virgin conception predicted, 135 Virgin conception taught in law of Moses, 120 Warning to Christians about conduct toward Jews, 216 Zechariah’s prophecies treated, 178 Adversus Judaeos disputationes 13, 23, 35, 39 Angel Created being, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 136, 143, 145, 193, 202 Gabriel, 134, 135, 136 Used of preincarnate Christ, 31, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 104 Anonymous dialogus cum Iudaeis Tone and Style, 22 Arabic, 16 Armenian, 20, 22, 146 Athanasius, Orationes tres adversus Arianos, 181 Basil of Caesarea, Holimiae super Psalmos, 184 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 153 Cyprian, Ad Quirinium (Testimonium), 210 Cyprian, Epistula septuagisima, 210

Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion predicted, 168 Lacking in historical details, 23 Life in Nazareth predicted, 146 Lucianic text type, 29 Ministry of John the Baptist predicted, 146 Miracles of Jesus predicted, 154 Moses at the bramble bush, 90 Name of Virgin-born son predicted, 138 Proof the Jesus is the one expected in Genesis 49.1011, 209 Prophecy of riding on the donkey and the colt explained, 157 Resurrection attested by Josephus the Jew, 195 Resurrection day referred to by first dayof creation, 188 Resurrection day referred to by Pentecost, 191 Resurrection of Christ in Jacob’s blessing of Judah, 182 Resurrection of Christ in other psalms, 187 Resurrection of Christ in Psalms 9, 15, and 29, 184 Resurrection predicted in Psalms and Prophets, 193 Second Coming predicted by Daniel, 204 Similarities with Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, 42 Similarities with other dialogs against Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, 43 Summary of Contents, 21 Summary of the argument, 213 Text and Versions, 20 That God has a son, 80 That Scripture refers to a partner of God in essence as “Son” and “Angel”, 96

Dialog, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35 Authenticity, 12, 19 Avoiding, 33 Connections between, 35

231

Index of subjects

Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 153

Dating, 15 Evangelistic motive, 12, 34 General, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 General Similarity, 37 In Christian-Jewish conflict, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 Marks of evangelistic motive, 31 Special similarity, juxtaposition of Scripture, 39 Dialogus Athanasii et Zacchaei, 15, 16, 26, 36, 39, 40, 43, 47 Dialogus cum Tryphone, 18, 19, 21 Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 125 Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, 47 Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati, 16, 18, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 153

Jerome, Commentariorum in Esaiam, 123 Jerome of Jerusalem, Dialogus de Trinitate, 16 Jewish-Christian relations, 11 Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, 207 Josephus, Bellum judaicum, 207 Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 14, 36, 38, 43, 47, 210 ‫( ְכּ ָת ִרים‬kethārim), 112 ‫( ְליֵשַׁ ע‬leyēša‘), 28 ‫( ַה ָמּ‬maqôm), 29, 139 Mosaic Law, 32, 190 Novatian, De Trinitate, 88, 210 ‫( נון‬Nun), 136

Ethiopic, 16 Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentarii in Isaiam, 88 Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio evangelica, 92, 161 Evangelium Pseudo-matthae, 143

Origen, Commentarii series in Matthaeum, 161 Origen, Contra Celsum, 14 Origen, De principiis, 153 Origen, Epistula ad Iulium Africanum, 161 Origen, In Numeros homileticae xxviii, 145 Origen, Libri x in Canticum Canticorum, 146

Gen 49.10-11, various interpretations of, 211 Georgian, 20, 22, 23, 109 Greco-Roman world, 11 Gregentius Tapharensis, Disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo, 15, 23, 26, 36, 37, 38, 47 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 42, 16, 108 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 44, 184 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio, 200 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunominium libri, 200 4.3, 83

Papisci et Philonis Iudaeorum cum monacho colloquium, 16, 22, 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 47 ‫( ְפּאַ ת ר ֹאשׁ‬pe’at rō’š), 70 Power Used of preincarnate Christ, 95 Ps.-Anastasius Sinaita, Adversus Judaeos disputationes, 23, 36, 37, 38, 40, 47

Hexapla, 27, 28, 29, 137, 148 Hippolytus, Demonstratio de Christo et antichristo, 181 ‫( הושע‬Hoshea), 136

232

Index of subjects

‫( קום‬qûm), 29

‫( תגין‬tagin), 112

Regula pastoralis, 150 Roman Empire, 31, 32 Roman law, 166

Terullian, Adversus Marcionem, 210 Terullian, Adversus Praxean, 109 Theodoret, Eranistes 1-3 (Dialogus), 72 Trophaea Damasci, 16, 26, 30, 37, 40, 47

Septuagint (=LXX), 24, 27, 28, 29, 43, 44, 108, 117, 122, 128, 131, 132, 136, 145, 148, 170, 171, 174, 178, 181, 200, 202, 205 Slavonic, 16 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 144 Sylvester I, Adversus Judaeos disputationes, 15 Syriac, 16

Wisdom Used of preincarnate Christ, 95 Wonderful Used of preincarnate Christ, 100

233

Index of names

Bardy, Gustav, 30 Baron, Salo Wittmayer, 17, 18 Bartimaeus, 152 Bashan, 186 BDB (=Brown, Driver, and Briggs), 182 Beckwith, Roger, 201 Benjamin, 139 Berthold, George C., 116 Bethany, 156 Bethlehemite, 139 Bethlehem, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 Bozrah, 197

Aaron, 117, 118 Abel, 75 Abishag, 122 Abraham, 68, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 166, 168 Adam, 76, 107, 150, 168 Additional Law (Ἐπινομίς, see also Deuteronomy), 83 ADIDiss. See Fields, Lee M. Ahaz, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 141 Alexandria, 27 Amelek, 169 Amon, 129 Amos, 176, 177, 196, 198 Antioch, 28 Antipater, 207 Aquila, 29, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 145, 178, 182, 183 Araunah, 168 Arimathaea, 179 Aristobulus, 207 Aristotelian, 71 Aristotle, 71, 107 Assyrian, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128 Athanasius, 127 Ausis, 81

Caesarea, 27, 28, 122 Caesar, 166, 167 Caiaphas, 163, 164, 190 Cain, 75, 76 Cameron, Averil, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 31, 46 Canaanite, 45, 152 Carmel, 147, 148 Celsus, 75 Christian (adjective), 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 68, 69, 72, 74, 88, 98, 119, 136, 146, 153 Christianity (noun), 14, 17, 23, 31, 32, 68, 75, 76, 125 Christianity, to practice (verb), 69 Christian (noun), 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 69, 70, 71, 73, 79, 80, 82, 85, 95,

Babylonian, 100, 129 Babylon, 100, 156 Balaam, 131, 145, 181 Balak, 131, 145 Barabbas, 166

234

Index of names

98, 106, 108, 111, 113, 114, 122, 125, 126, 138, 181, 184, 194, 201, 206, 210, 215 Christ, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 83, 88, 95, 103, 106, 108, 118, 119, 128, 131, 133, 138, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 173, 177, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215 Conybeare, Frederick C., 25, 40, 125 Conzelmann, Hans, 128 Cox, Claude, 27 Cyril of Alexandria, 24, 25, 117

Egyptian, 97, 119, 126, 129, 143, 200 Egypt, 83, 116, 132, 143, 145, 181, 208 Eisfeldt, Otto, 27 Eleazar, 117, 118, 119 Elisha, 81 Ephiphanius, 122 Ephraim, 103, 156, 157, 169 Ephratha, 139, 140 Epiphanius, 25 Etam, 140 Ethiopian, 147 Ethiopia, 147 Eusebius of Caesarea, 122 Evagrius, 15 Eve, 74, 75, 76, 107 Exodus, 135, 137, 138

Damascus, 26, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128 Daniel, 101, 157, 174, 202, 203 David, 83, 84, 121, 123, 128, 129, 131, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 152, 154, 160, 165, 168, 169, 170, 174, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 205, 208, 214 Declerck, José, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 39, 40, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 86, 89, 90, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 115, 116, 117, 119, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 136, 137, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 168, 172, 175, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 194, 197, 198, 212, 214, 215, 216 Delling, Gerhard, 128 Déroche, Vincent, 13, 15, 16, 19, 26, 46, 161 Deuteronomy, 67, 83, 90, 182 Deuteronomy (Ἐπινομίς), 83 Domitian, 194

Falwell, Jerry, 11 Fee, Gordon D., 128 Fields, Lee M. (=ADIDiss), 12, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35, 40, 44, 46, 47, 109, 115 Gabriel, 101, 134 Galilean, 163, 164 Galilee, 125, 145, 151, 155 Genesis, 139, 180 Gennadius, 15 Gideon, 102 Ginzberg, Louis, 157, 173 Gog, 132, 181 Golgotha, 168 Grabbe, Lester L., 89 Greek (adjective 1), 121, 146 Greek (adjective 2), 71, 194 Greek (noun), 71 Gregentius, 18, 21, 38, 40, 214 Gregory of Nazianzus, 108, 109, 116, 144, 189, 212 Gregory of Nyssa, 24, 25, 39, 104, 117, 119, 167, 214 Gregory the Great, 150 Gumbel, Bryant, 11

Eder, 140 Edessa, 28 Edom, 197

Habakkuk, 137 Hackforth, Reginald, 13

235

Index of names

Jellicoe, Sidney, 27, 28, 202 Jeremiah, 129, 160, 161, 162, 175 Jerome, 15, 16, 27, 28, 144, 161 Jerome of Jerusalem, 16 Jerusalem, 124, 129, 132, 139, 141, 142, 150, 155, 156, 157, 167, 177, 178, 204 Jesse, 120, 129, 130, 131, 146 Jesus (Christ), 77, 89, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 156, 160, 163, 172, 181, 189, 190, 191, 194, 199, 208, 209, 210, 211 Jesus, 23 Jesus (simple name), 136, 137, 138, 148 Jesus (son of Nun), 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142, 159 Jethro, 116 Jewish (adjective), 69 Jewish Antiquities, 168, 194 Jewish, 11, 68, 82, 128, 157, 159, 162, 173, 185, 210 Jew (noun), 11 Jew, 17, 23, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 94, 95, 98, 101, 106, 108, 111, 112, 118, 121, 122, 125, 126, 128, 140, 141, 142, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 185, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 216 Job, 81, 148, 153, 166, 193 Joel, 201 John Chrysostom, 21 John (the apostle), 71, 77, 180, 186, 190 John (the Baptist), 21, 71, 137, 138, 146, 205 Jordan, 125, 147, 148, 211 Joseph (husband of Mary), 134, 136, 138, 144 Joseph (of Arimathea), 179 Joseph (son of Jacob), 102, 139 Josephus, 34, 46, 168, 173, 194, 195 Joseph (wife of Mary), 143, 145

Hagar, 97, 98, 99, 101 Hananiah, 100 Harl, Marguerite, 88 Hatch, Edwin, 204 Hebrew (adjective 1), 122, 123 Hebrew (adjective 2), 116, 118, 145, 148 Hebrew (adverb), 139 Hebrew (noun), 136, 197 Hermopolis, 143, 144 Herod (Antipas), 163, 164, 165, 207, 210 Herodotus, 13 Herod (the Great), 138, 140, 142, 143, 145 Hezekiah, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 141 Hilary of Poitiers, 109 Hippolytus, 181, 210 Horeb, 115, 116 Hosea, 145, 192 Hulen, Amos B., 17, 18, 23 Hyrcanus, 207 Immanuel, 121, 123, 127, 134, 136, 137 Isaac, 24, 89, 90, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 168 Isaiah, 83, 91, 93, 97, 120, 121, 123, 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 165, 166, 170, 174, 175, 196, 197, 199, 200, 205, 208, 214 Iscariot, 159 Ishmael, 24, 97, 98 Israelite, 67, 90 Israel, 83, 84, 89, 90, 93, 98, 102, 103, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 153, 159, 169, 171, 188, 190, 199, 204, 208, 209 Jacob, 76, 77, 90, 102, 103, 106, 131, 132, 139, 159, 169, 171, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 193, 207, 208 Jagur, 140 Jairus, 152

236

Index of names

Matthias, 162 Mesopotamia, 76, 103, 139 Metzger, Bruce M., 28 Micah, 140, 141, 142 Midianite, 102 Midian, 102 Mosaic, 72, 76, 188 Moses (Μωσῆς and Μωϋσῆς), 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 90, 93, 99, 102, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 134, 135, 136, 138, 145, 147, 155, 166, 167, 169, 176, 178, 181, 188, 191, 212, 213

Joshua (book of), 140 Joshua (son of Nun); see also Jesus (son of Nun), 136, 138 Josiah, 129 Jotham (=Joatham), 141 Judah (son of Jacob), 128, 129, 131, 139, 140, 141, 160, 163, 180, 181, 182, 207, 208 Judaism (noun), 75, 122, 125 Judaism (to practice, verb), 69, 72, 84 Judas (Iscariot), 159, 160, 162, 163 Judea, 138, 140, 146 Jugie, M., 115 Julian, 75 Juster, Jean, 14, 16 Justinian I, 24, 25, 31 Justin Martyr, 14, 103, 131, 202

Nahum, 199 Naphtali, 125, 145 Nazarene, 145, 161 Nazareth, 145 Nero, 194 Noah, 200 Norris, Frederick W., 15 Novatian, 181 Numbers, 181 Nun, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 159 Nun (Ναυσής), 136

Kamesar, Adam, 29, 75, 83, 101, 108, 140, 144, 148, 187, 216 Kata Bieel (=Kabzeel), 140 King, Larry, 11 Kings, 123 Külzer, Andreas, 21, 29, 39 Laban, 103 Lampe, G. W. L. (= PGL), 71, 86, 90, 95, 100, 105, 109, 127, 129, 139, 144, 145, 182, 184, 189, 216 Lazarus, 68, 154 Lebanon, 129, 147, 148 Leutsch, E. L., 107 Levi, 81 Leviticus, 112, 188 Lewy, Hans, 150 Linder, Amnon, 24 Lucian the Martyr, 28 Luke, 134, 138

Olster, David M., 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Origen, 28, 43, 107, 148, 201 Pagan (noun, Ἕλλην), 72, 125, 194 Pagan (verb, ἑλληνίζω), 71 Parker, D. C., 27 Parkes, James, 13, 18 Passover (διαβατήρια), 177 Passover (διαβατήριον), 177 Passover (πάσχα), 177, 188, 189, 190 Paul), 91 Paul, 68, 70, 74 Pentecost), 189, 190, 191 Perez, 131 Peter, 177, 180, 199, 214 PGL. See  Lampe, G. W. H.; See  Lampe, G. W. H. Phagor, 140 Pharaoh, 83, 116

Malachi, 137, 138, 174, 204, 205 Mamre, Oak of, 86, 93 Manasseh (king of Judah), 129 Manasseh (son of Joseph), 103, 169 Manoah, 99, 100, 101 Mary (God bearer), 119, 134 Mary (sister of Moses), 119 Matthew, 137, 138, 141, 161

237

Index of names

Simon, Marcel, 13, 17, 19, 35, 68 Skull, 167, 168 Sodom, 102 Solomon, 75, 139, 146, 165, 184, 201 Song of Songs, 78, 146, 165 Sozomen, 26, 27, 144 Stephen, 70 Swete, Henry Barclay, 27, 83, 125 Sylvester, 16 Symmachus, 27, 29, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 182 Syrian, 26 Syria, 16, 28, 30, 140

Philip, 147 Pilate (see also Pontius Pilate), 164, 165, 166, 178, 179, 194 Platonic, 33, 71 Plato, 13, 71 Pontius Pilate (see also Pilate), 163 Pope, Marvin H., 146 Porphyry, 75, 161 Principe, Walter H., 109 Procopius of Gaza, 146, 197 Proteus, 126 Quasten, Johannes, 14, 25

Taphar, 23 Tekoa, 140 Terullian, 128 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 197 Theodotion, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 202 Thucydides, 13 Tischendorf, Constantinus de, 143 Titus, 194

Rabekkeh, 122 Rabshakeh, 124 Rachel, 139, 140 Redpath, Henry A., 204 Robertson, Archibald, 128 Robertson, Robert Gerald, 15 Rokeah, David, 17, 18 Roman, 18, 32, 75, 128, 138, 163, 167, 173, 194, 207 Rome, 16, 17, 31 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 16, 17, 18

Uzziah, 91 Wevers, John William, 117, 132, 136, 145, 200 Wilken, Robert L., 19 Williams, A. Lukyn, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 35, 131 Wisdom of Solomon, 201

Sabaoth, 91, 92, 129, 149, 208 Salvesen, Alison, 122 Samaria, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128 Samson, 99 Samuel, 166 Sarah, 93, 97, 98 Schneidewig, F. G., 107 Schreckenberg, Heinz, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26 Schürer, Emil, 194, 207 Setzer, Claudia, 13 Seventy, 83, 122, 145

Zebulon, 125, 145 Zechariah, 156, 160, 161, 177, 178 Zephaniah, 192 Zerubbabel, 156, 157 Zion, 106, 153, 156, 158, 165, 183

238