What were the political, social and intellectual relations of various religious groups in the Hellenistic and Roman worl
114 79
English Pages 193 [230] Year 1981
Table of contents :
Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict
Contents
Preface*
Introduction
Chapter One— The Jewish Factor in the Polemic
Chapter Two— Recognition of God, Revelation, and Religious Myth
Chapter Three— Divine Providence, the Daemons, and the Election of Israel
Chapter Four— Culture and Enslavement: The Religious Inference of Human History
Summary and Conclusions
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z
Page 1
Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict
Page 2
STUDIA POSTBIBLICA INSTITUTA A P.A.H. DE BOER ADIUVANTIBUS L. R. A. VAN ROMPAY et J. SMIT SIBINGA EDIDIT J. C. H. LEBRAM VOLUMEN TRICESIMUM TRIVIUM
LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1982
Page 3
Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict By David Rokeah
Page 4
ISBN 90 04 06560 1 Copyright 1982 by The Magnes Press The Hebrew University, Jerusalem All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher. Printed in Israel at ZurOt Press, Jerusalem
Page 5
To the Living Memory of Professor Alexander Fuks and Professor Haim Hillel BenSasson
Page 7
Contents Preface
9
Introduction
11
Chapter One: The Jewish Factor in the Polemic
40
Chapter Two: Recognition of God, Revelation and Religious Myth
84
Chapter Three: Divine Providence, the Daemons and the Election of Israel
133
Chapter Four: Culture and Enslavement: the Religious Inference of Human History
168
Summary and Conclusions
209
Index
219
Page 9
Preface* In order to clarify my basic hypothesis, it is necessary first of all to distinguish between "polemic" and "dispute" or ''debate," terms interchanged casually nowadays. "Polemic," because of its original Greek meaning, war (polemos), is used to indicate a campaign or conflict haveing the aim of changing an opponent's views or his religion. A religious polemic can be conducted independently or in conjunction with other coercive means, police or political. The essential and decisive criterion is the interest it arouses in the participants in the polemic. It goes without saying that a polemic is at the same time also apologetics, that is, a justifying of oneself in the face of an opponent's attack. A "dispute" or "debate" on the other hand is an interchange of words aiming at the clarification of various matters. It may be accompanied by empty bickering, and the disputants participate while fully aware that the outcome will not entail any crucial change in their future attitudes, behaviour or fate. This distinction is needed to establish the status of the Jews in the interreligious conflict in the Roman Empire; we need to know whether they are to be regarded as a party of equal standing with the pagans and Christians, or rather as being no more than a group of lesser figures caught up in the maelstrom, although of crucial importance for the other parties to the polemic. Careful reading of the pagan, Christian and Jewish sources relating to the polemic led me to the conclusion that the Jews were no party to it. However, without the Jews' existence *
I would like to express my gratitude to my wife, Zefira Entin Rokeah *, for editing my English and making this book readable.
Page 10
and independent attitude towards Christians and pagans alike, and without their holy scriptures and the writings of Hellenistic Jewry, the paganChristian polemic could not have taken the course and shape it did. Both Christians and pagans made extensive use of all facets of Judaism, and were conscious of the fact that arguments based upon Judaism were more telling because of their ostensibly impartial nature: the Jews were not suspect as favouring either the Christians or the pagans, and therefore their evidence and arguments pertaining to them were seen as reliable and unbiased by the polemicists.1 In keeping with the distinctions made above, I suggest that the antagonism between the pagans and Christians falls into the category of polemic, whereas the Jewish Christian and the Jewishpagan confrontation was no more than a dispute. This is of course valid only for the period under discussion, that is, the second to the fifth century C. E. Our main difficulty lies in attaining a correct understanding and a nonbiased explication of the various relevant writings and fragments. In order to place each source in its proper place and context, one should view it as part of the general polemic that began during the Hellenistic period and ended in the late Roman Empire. Knowledge of the character and inclinations of the writers who set the tone of the polemic, which we will now explore, may contribute to a better and more balanced understanding of the texts and their contexts. 1
Eusebius, in his Praeparatio Evangelica, 9,10:11, quotes Porphyry's words about the antiquity of the Jews, and finds it expedient to emphasize, without any textual justification, that Porphyry regards the Jews with the same extreme enmity as that with which he approaches Christianity. So too Augustine and Cyril habitually, when quoting Porphyry, prefaced his words by saying that he was a convinced enemy of Christianity so as to lend greater weight to his words in favour of the Church (see also Praep. Evang. 5.5:5–6).
Page 11
Introduction In this introduction, I propose to differentiate among those involved in the polemic on the basis of their explicit statements concerning the state and religion, as well as their treatment of sacrifices and the daemons. I will show that the pagans' religiosity was centered upon their politicalsocial needs, whereas that of the Christians gave preference to the demands of their creed. In addition, I will point out mutual influences which can be traced in unexpected declarations borrowed from an opponent for tactical reasons. These extraordinary expressions emphasize all the more the lines of thought which were customary for the polemicists. The number of persons who took part in the polemic was quite large. This was especially true of the Christian apologists, whose number reached a few dozen. I do not intend to deal with all of them, but rather to concentrate on the traits of some of them, traits interwined with the themes of the polemic. Furthermore, I propose to delineate the chronological and actual connections between the men of both parties, and to assess the effect on the basic character of each of their being implicated in a polemic. As for the pagans, on the whole, they were politically minded, while the Christians, primarily men of devotion and belief, were religiously minded. But if at this point there was a basic, sharp antagonism between them, when we enter the field of theological and philosophical opinions it nonetheless becomes clear that the differences were fading away. The reason is to be sought in their common intellectual tradition. Almost all the pagans were adherents of Plato, and his teachings formed the basis of their contemporary outlook. The Christians too, had ab
Page 12
sorbed his doctrines, whether during a pagan youth or as part of the HellenisticJewish tradition which was presented to them along with systems of interpretation of the Bible. Furthermore, there existed the phenomenon of "philosophical syncretism" or a zeitgeist, working recognizably among pagans and Christians alike in the fourth century and, to a certain degree, in the third. These questions will be dealt with in the coming chapters. Here I propose to discuss in a general way the problem of state and religion as it appears in the work of our writers. Let us open our discussion with A.D. Nock's description of the spiritualreligious climate in the Roman Empire: "From the fifth century B.C. to the end of the first century A.D. Greek and Roman thinkers had for the most part maintained a cool respect towards religious tradition, regarding it as something which was to be retained but was in need of interpretation, sometimes drastic interpretation. . . . This now changed, not of course abruptly or completely, but yet visibly." As causes of the change Nock suggests: despair concerning the ability of reason to solve the problem of the world and its nature; and the rise of Rome, which put emphasis on practical talents and on the administration of things as they exist, without inquiring into their meaning and significance. He also noted, "As the scope of philosophy narrowed till it became almost entirely ethical, it naturally tended to use religious sanctions and, though the range of its influence increased, it became less and less purely intellectual and more and more often shallow."1 But Nock omitted something important: in his efforts to identify the factors that favoured the emergence of the power of religion and cult in place of pure philosophical speculations, he ignored the influence of Christianity, which was in a state of constant growth from the end of the first century onwards. And indeed when Tertullian, after mentioning the day of judgement and the resurrection of the dead, declared ''we too in our day laughed as this. We are from among yourselves. Christians are made, not born!" (Apologeticum, 18:4), he gave us grounds to conclude that the missionary activity of the Christians was still very considerable; such activity naturally implies strong religious propaganda.2 This propaganda, in 1
Conversion (Oxford, 1933), pp.120–121. (My italics.)
2
Cf. K.J. Neumann, Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diocletian (Leipzig. 1890). p.100. on the nature of the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
Page 13
both its popular and its philosophic aspects (as, for example in Origen), emphasized belief, illumination from above embodying the truth, as contrasted with the poverty, and lack of understanding, of the human mind. Because of this the Christians were belittled (see chapter one below), and from this came the derogatory title pistoi (= credulous) which was flung at them. Let us begin our chronologicalbiographical sketches with Justin Martyr. He was among the first Christian apologists (midsecond century C.E.) to contend with the pagans, and one of the last antiJewish polemicists. In his Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo Justin tells of his desire to know god, a desire which led him through various schools of philosophy; however, he found peace of mind only in Christianity. In his Apologia II, 42 he explains that Platonic philosophy, his last waystation before adopting Christianity, brought him much delight, but when he witnessed the fearless stand of the Christian martyrs in the face of death and of other frightening things, he concluded that such men could not become corrupt or be voluptuaries. Justin, like Aristides and Athenagoras, wished to refute the imputations of immoral behaviour attributed to the Christians by the masses as well as by the authorities.3 Justin's standpoint was religious; relying on it, he rejected pagan libels of Christianity as impossible and unreasonable. He emphasized that the Christians made every effort to pay their taxes to the state as required and that this they did in accordance with Jesus's teaching (Matt., 22:21), "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."4 3
See the correspondence on this subject between Pliny and the emperor Trajan in Pliny's Epistulae, book X, nos. 96, 97.
4
Justin, Apologia I,17, transl. M. Dods ("AnteNicene Christian Library," vol. II;Edinburgh, 1867): "And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you [i.e., by the emperors] the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him." Tatian (see below, chapter four) too was prepared to pay taxes and to serve the Emperor, but this only as a master rather than as a god. That is also the view of Speratus, one of the martyrs of 180 C.E. in Scilli (Africa, see below) : "' . . . on any purchase I pay the tax, for I acknowledge my lord who is the emperor of kings and of all nations.'" Translated by H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), p.87. See Neumann, op. cit., pp. 41,73. (For the attitude of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, see ibid., pp. 115,118.)
Page 14
A little later in the second century C.E., we reach Tatian. Like Justin, he had once been a pagan and had had an average education. Tatian's sharp phrases were most inconsiderate of the needs of the state: "I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; . . . I am not impelled by an insatiated love of gain to go to sea; I do not contend for chaplets. . . . " Further on, Tatian adds a sentence stressing that the Christians, although they are not enthusiastic about the offices, activities and honours of political, economic and social life, are not a subversive element either, and offer no danger to the sociopolitical fabric; "Am I a slave, I endure servitude. Am I free, I do not make a vaunt of my good birth."5 I will anticipate the more detailed discussions below by quoting the passage from Tatian's apology which embodies two polemical motifs used against the Christians (and formerly used against the Jews): first that they are innovators, i.e. revolutionaries, and second, that they adopted barbarian doctrines. Tatian and most other Christian apologists try to defend Christianity against false charges. The pagan phrases cited defiantly by Tatian are these: "Tatian aspiring to be above the Greeks, above the infinite number of philosophic inquirers, has struck out a new path [kainotomei], and embraced the doctrines of Barbarians." (Oratio ad Graecos, 35, 138.) The pagan polemicist Celsus, who flourished at the end of Marcus Aurelius's reign, revealed his interest explicitly. His call to the Christians to participate in affairs of state and state problems was perhaps a reaction to such antipolitical pronouncements as that of Tatian quoted above, which were common in Christian circles. Even the wording of the address reminds one of Tatian's words: "Then Celsus exhorts us to help the emperor with all our power, and cooperate with him in what is right, and fight for him, and be fellowsoldiers if he presses for this, and fellowgenerals with him." (Origen, Contra Celsum, 8:7.) A little earlier, Origen had noted another of Celsus's sayings, apparently in fragmentary form and therefore not absolutely clear; it still testified to the political character of Celsus's essential concerns. "After this he [scil. Celsus] utters a sort of wish: Would that it were possible to unite 5
Oratio ad Graecos, 11, transl. B.P. Pratten ("AnteNicene Christian Library," vol. III; Edinburgh, 1867).
Page 15 6
under one law the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, both Greeks and barbarians even at the furthest limits."
We are able to deduce Celsus's attitude towards worship from another passage. The pagan religion was, from its beginnings, closely connected with the state. This is why, although pagan religion was losing its vitality in the course of time, its ritual remained intact. During the Empire it even attained special importance as it turned into a symbol of political loyalty, especially because of its emperor worship.7 A good early example of such political loyalty is the Stoic Cornutus, a freedman of the Seneca family. In his Theologiae Graecae Compendium, he offers etymologicalallegorical interpretations of the names of the gods and of the myth connected with them in manner reminiscent of that of the Talmudic Midrashim. Nock says of him (p. 120): "Few books are more unemotional than the Summary of Greek Theology by Cornutus: for him the gods are simply natural forces, and their qualities and attributes explicable either thence or as a disease of language. Yet Cornutus states his purpose thus (chap. 35): 'Concerning these things and the service of the gods and all that is fitly done in their honour in accordance with ancestral custom you will receive the perfect explanation. It is only so that the young are led to piety [eusebein] and not to superstition and are taught to sacrifice and pray and swear correctly at the right times and in the suitable order.'" (My italics.) This combination of sacrifices, piety and the state appears clearly in Legatio ad Graecos of Athenagoras: "But, as most of those who charge us with atheism, and that because they have not even the dreamiest conception of what God is . . . , and such as measure piety [eusebeia] by the rule of sacrifices, charge us with not acknowledging the same gods as the cities."8 6
In Origen: Contra Celsum, 8:73,72. Transl. by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, England, 1965), pp. 509, 507. All extant fragments of Celsus's Alêthês Logos are embodied in Origen's Contra Celsum; they may be found in the passages of Contra Celsum having the same numbers. 7
See E.E. Urbach, "The Laws of Idolatry in the Light of Historical and Archeological Facts in the Third Century," in Eretz Israel: Archeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, V (1958), pp. 199–200 (Hebrew); cf. Nock, op. cit., p. 130. 8
Transl. B.P. Pratten ("AnteNicene Christian Library," vol. II; Edinburgh, 1867).
Page 16
The reply of Athenagoras is thus: "Be pleased to attend to the following considerations, O emperors, on both points. And first, as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odour of burntofferings, . . . etc." (My italics.) This answer explains why the god does not need sacrifices, but it does not clarify why it is forbidden to participate in sacrificial ceremonies. The Christians answer this with their assumption that the wicked and corrupted daemons are in need of these sacrifices and that the daemons therefore instigate people to offer them sacrifices. Nock discusses Celsus, once in connection with Lucian and once with Porphyry; his characterization is perhaps not quite exact enough. Here are Nock's words: "The mood of the time is represented by the two works of Aelian mentioned above . . . : belief in the gods is in them demonstrated by miracles and not least by malignant defamation of Epicurus and Epicureans and by legends relating how heaven's hand had fallen heavily on them. Lucian and Celsus raised their voices on the other side, and uttered their contempt of mythology and foreign gods and rite and miracle, but there is in their works a very clear note of loneliness. The majority, even of philosophers, had chosen to walk by the light of unreason." (pp. 127–128). Nock notes further: "Celsus thus far puts Christianity on a level with popular mysteries and immigrant Oriental cults in general. He is not a rationalist and his theism is not purely theoretical. But like most serious thinkers of antiquity he objects to what he regards as the piety of the ignorant and gullible, and he has a genuine moral indignation against ideas which seem incompatible with his high concept of the supernatural. "Yet to Celsus there is a vital distinction between Christianity and these parallel phenomena. To him and his like Christianity is primarily a mass movement of falling away from tradition. . . . " (pp. 206–207; compare pp. 204–205). A little later he adds: "Both the Christians and their opponents came to think of themselves as a new people: and it is clear in the work of Celsus that his real aim was to persuade Christians not to forget loyalty to the State in their devotion to this new state within the State. Other Oriental incomers were to Celsus mildly contemptible: this was a social phenomenon fraught with danger." (p. 207).9 "Celsus, Porphyry, and other writers tell us that daimones10 9
My italics.
10
Nock's italics.
Page 17
induce us to believe that bloody sacrifices and incense offerings are necessary, their motive being a selfish desire to feed on them. . . . For all these men the ideal is the sacrifice by reason. . . . One and all if challenged by a magistrate would have performed the ordinary sacrifices as a thing without inherent value but to them indifferent." (p. 224.)11 I will discuss below the extraordinary attitude of Porphyry concerning sacrifices and daemons. But from Celsus's importuning language about sacrifices, language very similar to that of Julian, it is clear that a sharp distinction is to be made between him and Porphyry on this point. Here are Celsus's words: "God is surely common to all men. He is both good and in need of nothing, and without envy. What, then, prevents people particularly devoted to them from partaking of the public feasts?" and: "If these idols are nothing, why is it terrible to take part in the high festival? And if they are daemons of some sort, obviously these too belong to God, and we ought to believe them and sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be kindly disposed."12 A comparison of Celsus and Lucian is of value, but one difference must be kept in mind: Lucian's point of departure in his criticism of the various religious phenomena is religious scepticism, whereas that of Celsus is political "utilitarianism."13 Celsus's ends caused him to pay attention to the religious enthusiasms of Christian circles; in order to win their confidence he had, he thinks, to prove his devotion to god, and he did so in a literary style so widespread among them that it is difficult to distinguish between it and that used by his antagonist, Origen. If we do not posit the existence of the opposition's influence here, it will be difficult for us to explain Celsus's outburst which is in contrast to his usual polemical method of stressing the logic (logos) inherent in his approach: "But we ought never to forsake God at all, neither by day nor by night, neither in public nor in private. In every word and deed, and in fact, both with them and 11
My italics. Hereafter, all italics are mine, unless otherwise noted.
12
Alêthês Logos, 8:21; 8:24. Contra Celsum, pp. 467, 469.
13
Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, 1:16: "Again, when he [scil. Celsus] makes a list of ancient and wise men who were of service to their contemporaries and to posterity by their writings, he rejects Moses from the list of wise men."
Page 18
without them [i.e. the daemons], let the soul be continually directed towards God." (Alêthês Logos, 8:63). This is perhaps the occasion to clarify one thing that emerges in the polemic between Origen and Celsus. In book 4:75, Origen claims that Celsus's words are evidence that he is an adherent of Epicurus. Modern scholars, especially Keim and Harnack, have found it difficult to explain this accusation, and some of them have accepted it literally, believing that Origen really thought that Celsus was Epicurean in his views.14 This assumption is not borne out by the paragraph we have just quoted, and it is very probable that Origen viewed Celsus as an adherent of Plato. "For in many points he [scil. Celsus] likes to follow Plato . . . " (ibid. 4:83), and of course Plato's teaching was not suspect of impiety. Probably the difference between Origen and Celsus was similar to the difference between the Biblical concept of man, which viewed him as the chosen one of creation, and the Platonic concept which saw him, at most, as the crown of creation. In book four, Celsus argues that man is part of creation, of the cosmos, of the whole, and that all other creatures were not created because of him and for him. In book 4:99, Celsus says: "And God takes care of the universe, and providence never abandons it . . . " (Compare 4:23.) In book 4:76–77 (and compare 4:86) Origen answers Celsus's claim that the world and all in it were not created for the benefit of man alone, but for that of all creatures — for insects and reptiles that benefit from the sun, for the trees and the grass — by saying that all this was created for man, and that only because of him do the other irrational creatures enjoy the gifts of nature. This means that god's providence is directed first and foremost to man. Origen also adds, in relation to the examples brought by Celsus from the life of insects (see 4:74 ff.), that even when animals act as if they were human beings it is not the same, since irrational animals act instinctively (physei), whereas man acts with reason (meta logismou). (See 4:74.) It emerges clearly from the above that Origen, who knew Celsus well, could not have believed that he was an Epicurean.15 Only one explanation seems possible: since pious 14
See Chadwick's introduction to his translation of Contra Celsum, pp. xxiv–xxv.
15
There can be no doubt that, had there been additional indications of Epicureanism in Celsus's treatise, Origen would have cited them (and thus preserved them for us).
Page 19
Christians and pagans both waged war against Epicureanism, it was a skillful stratagem on the part of Origen to defame Celsus by branding him an Epicurean, thereby creating a prejudice against him in the hearts of his readers.16 Origen's Contra Celsum was written in about the middle of the third century C.E., some seventy years ofter Celsus had issued his pamphlet. Celsus and Origen were wholly different in character: the one a politicallyminded man, sober and scholarly, whereas the other doubted not for a moment the superiority of belief over reason, and had manifest inclinations towards mysticism. Origen was not very concerned about the social and political forms embodied in the state, about whose preservation Celsus was very troubled. In Origen's opinion, it was the Christian church, the fatherlandpolity [systema patridos], to which every Christian must devote himself and his energies. This is why it sometimes happens that Origen's polemic is not on the same level as his opponent's, even as far as understanding is concerned. This can be seen with regard to the term stasis, which is used repeatedly by Celsus, and concerning which Origen's answer is not always relevant. Celsus's demand of the Christians that they enter the service of the state, in the army and administration (see above, p. 14), elicited a response typical of Origen and of the Christians in general: the Christians were prepared to pray for the peace, success and prosperity of the Empire, and believed their prayers to be of great help.17 Let us turn to some Latin apologists. Minucius Felix, a Christian of the first half of the third century C.E., wrote a work, Octavius, whose title is the name of his Christian hero. In this work, the pagan pole 16
See Chadwick, op. cit., Introduction p. xxvi. Chadwick adds here: "As Dr. W.R. Inge has observed, '"Epicurean" was then a term of abuse, like Fascist or Bolshevik now.'"
17
Compare, for example, Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 4:36, transl. by H. Bryce and H. Campbell ("AnteNicene Christian Library," vol. XIX; Edinburgh, 1871), p. 218: "For why, indeed, have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? Our meetings to be cruelly broken up, in which prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies. . . . . " For Celsus's influence on Origen in politicaltheological matters, see E. Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Theologie im Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1935). pp. 68, 71.
Page 20
micist Caecilius is depicted as the Christian's friend, and the words attributed to him probably reflect the image of the Christian in the eyes of the pagan of average aducation. The polemical motifs dealt with in Caecilius's and Octavius's arguments will be discussed below. Let us examine the character of Caecilius to decide whether he was a man of the state or one concerned more with religion. We can do this by comparing his words with those of Cotta, one of the disputants in Cicero's De natura deorum. Caecilius and Cotta are sceptics; they do not believe that they can know the truth about the godhead, nor can they find convincing logical proofs of the existence of a divine providence, whether private or universal. But in contrast to the Epicureans, who reached antitheistic conclusions because of this, these men embraced the cult and national traditions, because only in these did they find a certain measure of security. Like Cicero, who emphasized the utilitarian and political nature of religion in his preface to the De natura deorum,18 Caecilius recommended the continuance of ancestral traditions and customs for political reasons, contrasting this with the association of the Christians which damages the power of the state. Caecilius says "'Seeing then that either chance is certain,19 or nature uncertain, how much more reverent and better it is to accept the teaching of our elders as the priest of truth;20 to maintain the religions 18
De natura deorum 1, 2:3, transl. H. Rackham ("Loeb Classical Library," London, 1933): "But if on the contrary the gods have neither the power nor the will to aid us, if they pay no heed to us at all and take no notice of our actions, if they can exert no possible influence upon the life of men, what ground have we for rendering any sort of worship, honour or prayer to the immortal gods?" Cf. Julian, Contra Galilaeos, 138 C–D. Philo (Legatio ad Gaium, 242, transl. F.H. Colson ["Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1962]) puts in the mouth of the Jewish embassy that presented itself before Petronius and asked him to delay the execution of the Emperor's order the following clever statement: "'Wait till we have sent our embassy before you cut away their hopes for better things from all these myriads whose zeal is for their religion [or "piety" — eusebeia] and not for gain. And yet we err when we say this, for what more profitable gain can men have than holiness?'" 19
Rendall remarks that the "MS reads certa, but caeca 'blind' is more probably correct." This reading was adopted by C. Halor in his edition of Minucius Felix (in 1867). H. Boenig (in 1903) suggested incerta as in the continuation of the text. 20
Reading antistitem instead of the MS's antistites. But perhaps the suggestion of Usener, ancipites, "vacillating as to the truth," is better.
Page 21
handed down to us; to adore the gods, whom from the cradle you were taught to fear rather than to know familiarly; not to dogmatize about divinities, but to believe our forefathers. . . . Thus it is that their power [i.e. the Romans'] and authority has embraced the circuit of the whole world, and has advanced the bounds of empire beyond the paths of the sun, and the confines of ocean; while they practice in the field godfearing valour, make strong their city with awe of sacred rites, with chaste virgins, with many a priestly dignity and title; . . . Thus it is that they adopt the sacred rites of all nations, and withal have earned dominion.'"21 In his debate with Balbus the Stoic, Cotta expressed quite similar views: " . . . I am considerably influenced by your authority, Balbus, and by the plea that you put forward at the conclusion of your discourse, when you exhorted me to remember that I am both a Cotta and a pontiff. This no doubt means that I ought to uphold the beliefs about the immortal gods which have come down to us from our ancestors, and the rites and ceremonies and duties of religion. For my part I always shall uphold them and always have done so. . . . The religion of the Roman people comprises ritual, auspices. . . . I have always thought that none of these departments of religion was to be despised, and I have held the conviction that Romulus by his auspices and Numa by his establishment of our ritual laid the foundations of our state, which assuredly could never have been as great as it is had not the fullest measure of divine favour been obtained for it. There, Balbus, is the opinion of a Cotta and a pontiff. . . . You are a philosopher, and I ought to receive from you a proof of your religion, whereas I must believe the word of our ancestors even without proof.'" (De natura deorum, 3, 2:5–6). Thereafter, Cotta expressed his doubts about the existence of providence in the world, mentioning names of "good" men such as the Scipiones, Marcellus, Aemilius Paulus, and Socrates who, in his opinion, fell at the hands of "wicked" men (3, 33:82) and, on the other hand, wicked men such as Marius, Cinna and Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, who flourished (ibid., 3, 32:79–80). As Cotta put it: "The day would be too short if I desired to recount the good men visited by misfortune; 21
Octavius, 6:1–3, transl. G.H. Rendall ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1931).
Page 22
and equally so were I to mention the wicked who have prospered exceedingly . . . '' (ibid., 3, 32:81). Compare with these the words of Caecilius: "But if the world were governed by divine providence and the authority of some deity, Phalaris and Dionysius would never have deserved a throne, Rutilius and Camillus exile, or Socrates the hemlock." (Octavius, 5:12.) At about the same time that Minucius Felix, Octavius, and Caecilius lived in Rome, the Church Father Tertullian flourished in the province of Africa. On the basis of his Apologeticum, scholars have reached the conclusion that he was a lawyer or at least was acquainted with matters of law and justice. Tertullian is also well known for the sharpness of his style and the harshness of his demands of Christians and Christian converts concerning anything that smacked of idolatry. This is why his ambivalent attitude towards the state and its needs is astonishing. In his Apologeticum, in answer to a pagan complaint: "But there is another charge of wrongdoing upon the sheet against us. We are said to be unprofitable in business." Tertullian says: "We sail ships, we as well as you, and along with you; we go to the wars, to the country, to market with you. Our arts and yours work together: our labour is openly at your service. How we can seem unprofitable to your business, when we live with you and our living depends on you, I do not know."22 In contrast with the soft, appeasing tone here, Tertullian strongly opposed, in a pamphlet intended for the Christian public, the employment of Christians as teachers, and also forbade them to work for the government or to serve in the army.23 Tertullian was similar to Tatian both in his audacity and in his unbridled tongue with regard to the pagans. However, Tertullian was impressed by the pagan's reiterated patriotic appeals, and it was this, apparently, which led him to make contradictory statements on these matters. Similar ambivalences are found in the Acta Martyrum. Even if we accept the most extreme view, which claims that there is nothing authentic in the Acta, and that the Acta are mere compilations by ecclesiastical writers designed to encourage the Christians, still they are valuable indications of contemporary views.24 22
Apologeticum, 42:1–3, transl. T.R. Glover ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1960).
23
De Idololatria, 10, 17–19, Cf. Urbach, "The Laws of Idolatry," pp. 202–204.
24
Cf. Musurillo's Introduction to the Acts (see n. 4 above).
Page 23
Some quotations of the period we are studying may add to our understanding of Christianity's views on the pagan state and its institutions, and illustrate the realistic background of paganChristian relations and of their mutual polemic. For example, how should a Christian, required to take part in the emperorcult, answer the request? "Saturninus the proconsul said: 'We too are a religious people, and our religion is a simple one: we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor and we offer prayers for his health — as you also ought to do.'" The model Christian responds: "Speratus: 'I do not recognize the empire of this world. Rather, I serve that God whom no man has seen, nor can see, with these eyes.'25 In the Acta Cypriani, (of the late fifties of the third century C.E.), the proconsul notified Cyprian that the emperors Valerian and Gallienus "order all those who do not practice Roman beliefs [religio] to acknowledge the Roman rites. . . . " Cyprian, in rejecting the demand, noted that Christians prayed for the welfare of the emperors. He added: "'I am a Christian, and a bishop. I recognize no other gods but the one true God who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.26 This is the God to whom we Christians pay homage; night and day we supplicate him for you and for all mankind, as well as for the health of the emperors.'"27 In the Acta Marcelli (late third century C.E.) we have an example of a Christian centurian who, at the time of the festivities in honour of the emperor's birthday, threw away his weapon and declared: "'I am a soldier of Jesus Christ, the eternal king. From now I cease to serve your emperors and I despise the worship of your gods of wood and stone, for they are deaf and dumb images.'"28 The most instructive of our sources is the Acta Maximiliani of the end of the third century C.E. The Acta indicate that the attitude of the Christians towards military service was not an absolute and decisive but rather a vacillating one. This indeed is the ambivalence we encountered in Tertullian's work. Here is a dialogue between a young Christian recruit and the proconsul: "The proconsul Dion said: 'What 25
Passio Sanctorum Scillitanorum, 3:6, in The Acts . . . , transl. Musurillo, p. 87.
26
Acts 4:24.
27
The Acts . . . , transl. Musurillo, p. 169:1.
28
The Acts . . . , p.251:1.
Page 24
is your name?' Maximilian replied: 'But why do you wish to know my name? I cannot serve [militare] because I am a Christian.' The proconsul Dion said: 'Get him ready.' While he was being made ready, Maximilian replied: 'I cannot serve. I cannot commit a sin. I am a Christian'. . . . 'Serve or you will die', said Dion. 'I shall not serve', said Maximilian. 'You may cut off my head, I will not serve this world, but only my God. . . . ' The proconsul Dion said: 'In the sacred bodyguard of our lords Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and Maximus, there are soldiers who are Christian, and they serve'. Maximilian replied: 'They know what is best for them. But I am a Christian and I cannot do wrong.'"29 Arnobius, who lived about a hundred years after Tertullian, resembled him in being a native of Africa, a former pagan and a teacher of rhetoric. His work Adversus nationes cites lengthy public complaints by educated pagans against the Christians. Arnobius is unusual, since he makes no mention of Jewish holy writings; further, he does not deal with pagan motifs referring explicitly to Jews. As far as the other motifs are concerned, his omission of all that is connected with Jews impoverishes his whole work, as we shall see hereafter. In the last two books (six and seven) of his treatise, Arnobius rejects pagan complaints that the Christians do not erect temples, altars and statues, and that they do not participate in ritual ceremonies and worship of the gods. This was thought by the pagans to be a crime of impiety on the part of the Christians (ibid., 6:1), and because of it the Christians were called atheists (6:27). Arnobius's seventh book is devoted wholly to the question of sacrifices. It cites (7:1) the words of Varro to the effect that true gods neither want nor demand sacrifices. Arnobius uses such arguments to counter the pagan view that sacrifices propitiate the gods and attract their favour in return (7:10); or that the aim of sacrifices is to honour and exalt the gods (7:13, 27, 30); or even to influence evil gods to abstain from causing harm to mankind (7:23). Arnobius does not state specifically that the persecution of the Christians results from their refusal to participate in emperor worship. However, it is clear from his work that the pagans believe that the Christians undermine by their apostasy the welfare of the state, which is bound up with the worship of the gods. 29
The Acts . . . , pp. 245, 247.
Page 25
Arnobius defends himself against the pagan charge (similarly noted by Tertullian and Augustine) that the Christians are to be blamed for the evils that befall the world, such evils emanating from the gods' anger at the existence of this loathed sect which undermines their cult (ibid, 1:1–13). Apart from his attempt to refute this charge by analogies and logical demonstrations, Arnobius presents a motif reflecting pagan emphasis on the importance of the state. He argues that Jesus brought much benefit to the world in that wars, and their accompanying destruction, became fewer in number after his appearance (1:6). This motif was stressed before Arnobius's time by Origen and after it by Eusebius.30 Eusebius pointed out that Jesus's appearance on earth coincided with Augustus's unification and stabilization of Roman rule, and with the establishment of the Pax Romana. The Christians saw the hand of God in the expansion of the Empire, because it meant the expansion of the oikoumenê, that is the settled or civilized world within which they were active, and where they had good conditions for their missionary activities. In the second half of the fourth century C.E. we find the polemic concerning the altar of the goddess of Victory. This and the following comments appear here in order to complete our survey of the polemicists active before the polemic lost its vitality. I have limited myself to the principal themes of the polemic: attitudes towards religion and the state, since they are the key to our subject. A. H. M. Jones, in his article "The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Christianity,"31 clarified the forces which led the senators to oppose Christianity, and which turned the Roman Senate into the last fortress of paganism. He also delineated (as did H. Bloch, in his article "The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century")32 the real, political character of the senatorial struggle. Symmachus, in his Relatio, is not interested in debating the validity of polytheism or Christianity, but confines himself to the assertion that "it is impossible to arrive at such a great secret in one way only." (ibid., 10). Instead 30
On the connection between utility and religion, see Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of JewishHellenistic Literature (Jerusalem, 1963), II, 124 (Hebrew).
31
In A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), pp. 17–37.
32
In: The Conflict . . . , pp. 193–218.
Page 26 33
Rome is presented as imploring that she be allowed to preserve her rites and traditions, thanks to which she has attained her present position.
The Church Father Ambrose rejected, of course, the argument based upon Rome's successes, and preferred to enumerate Rome's defeats.34 If the gods were responsible for Rome's victories, then they were also responsible for its reverses. The exchange recalls Cotta's arguments against a belief in providence, especially that attributed to Diagoras.35 In the beginning of the fifth century C.E., Orosius compiled his Historia contra paganos, at the order of Augustine of Hippo. In this work, Orosius presented all the stories about misfortunes and disasters that had befallen Rome from its early days onwards, as a rebuttal of the pagans' assertion that the Christians were to be blamed for Rome's falling into barbarian hands. In his treatise De civitate dei, Augustine reexamined (in an account similar to Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica) all the beliefs and opinions, customs and rites of polytheism. In his De civitate dei, Augustine also offered Biblical allegorical interpretation, and dealt with a literarypolitical problem: Cicero's definition of a commonwealth (res publica) in his De re publica, which Augustine tried to undermine in the nineteenth book of his De civitate dei by a reductio ad absurdum.36 33
Ibid., 9: "Let me use the rites of my forefathers, for I have no reason to repent. Let me live in my own way, for I am free. This cult brought the whole world under the sway of my laws, these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from my walls and the Senones from the Capitol." 34
Epist. 18, par. 4 ff.
35
Cicero, De natura deorum, 3,36–37:88–89: "Accordingly the prosperity and good fortune of the wicked, as Diogenes used to say, disprove the might and power of the gods entirely. 'But sometimes good men come to good ends.' Yes, and we seize upon these cases and impute them with no reason to the immortal gods. Diagoras, named the Atheist, once came to Samothrace, and a certain friend said to him, 'You who think that the gods disregard men's affairs, do you not remark all the votive pictures that prove how many persons have escaped the violence of the storm, and come safe to port, by dint of vows to the gods?' 'that is so,' replied Diagoras; 'it is because there are nowhere any pictures of those who have been shipwrecked and drowned at sea'." 36
See Ch. Wirszubski, "Cicero and Augustine: The Problem of Justice in the State," Eshcolot, III (1959), pp. 145–155 (Hebrew).
Page 27
Let us retrace our steps to a Greek trio: Porphyry, Eusebius and Julian. The three not only form a chronological continuum — Porphyry lived in the second half of the third century C.E., Eusebius in the first half and Julian in the second half of the fourth — but there is also a relationship among them in the substantial content of their work. Some of the extant portions of Porphyry's treatise, Contra Christianos, consist of the fragments quoted by Eusebius from him in order to argue against his views. A rise in the level of the polemic and the addition of new subjects for it were the outcome of Porphyry's broad critical approach. Eusebius broadened the field even more by quoting many writers and historians, and by adding a comprehensive discussion of Plato's teachings (he considered him the most important representative of philosophy), comparing them with Jewish and Christian sacred writings. Julian's treatise, Contra Galilaeos, is an amalgam of the views of Celsus and Porphyry. Eusebius is one of the few contemporaries whom Julian mentioned by name (he called him a scoundrel — mochtheros). The fact that Julian's two main subjects in Contra Galilaeos were the problem of human civilization, and a comparison of Plato and Moses, proves that it was essentially Eusebius with whom he contended in his polemical work (a detailed discussion of which appears below). Porphyry is an example of a polemicist whose interest lay not in politics but in philosophy, religion and ethics. J. Bidez, Porphyry's biographer, noted the similarities in the work of Porphyry and of his great teacher, Plotinus.37 According to Bidez, Plotinus was not interested in politics, diverting the attention of his pupils from everyday life; the idea of doing service to the deteriorating state and world situation was alien to him. Similarly we may not, in Bidez's opinion (ibid. pp. 67–68), assume that the publication of Porphyry's treatise Contra Christianos had anything whatever to do with contemporary actions of the authorities against the Christians. Bidez concludes: "He [scil. Porphyry] does not profess a political ideal. He is a theoretician moved by his profoundly religious nature to occupy himself above all with what 37
Vie de Porphyre (Ghent, 1913), p. 48, and n. 1. Cf. Olympiodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, par. 143: "These men gave precedence to philosophy, as did Porphyry and Plotinus. . . . " (quoted by Bidez, p. 96, n. 2). See in general; A.B. Hulen, Porphyry's Work against the Christians: an interpretation ("Yale Studies in Religion," no. 1, 1933).
Page 28
concerns the soul and God." And again Bidez stresses (ibid., p. 78): "He [scil. Porphyry] speaks as a man profoundly religious." (My italics.) Since this was Porphyry's true nature, we must not allow ourselves to be misled by certain of his expressions and polemical motifs, which have a political character, into thinking that these may serve to delineate his character. It is much more probable that, in these cases, we are dealing with his borrowings from the treasury of polemical motifs. An example of this may be found in the following formulation of Porphyry: "Ammonius [the teacher of Plotinus] was a Christian, brought up in Christian doctrine by his parents; yet when he began to think and study philosophy, he immediately adapted his way of life to the polity which conforms to the laws."38 Bidez errs when he fails to distinguish between the words of Celsus, about Christian apostasy and Christian seditiousness towards the state and the ancestral tradition, pagan and Jewish alike, and these rebukes as adopted by Porphyry. Bidez says: "Like Celsus his forerunner, Porphyry is especially shocked to see revolutionaries among the Christians who do away with all that came to them from their forefathers, even with the prescriptions of the Old Testament, and who menace the established order; he regards them as 'barbarians.'" (Ibid., p. 76.) On the other hand, Bidez is right when he adds further on, although too cautiously: "He seems nevertheless less occupied than Celsus with defending the Roman State." (Ibid., p. 77.) I believe that the key to understanding Porphyry is his position on the question of sacrifices and daemons. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, 4:18, Eusebius cites the following from Porphyry's De abstinentia (2:43): "Wherefore a wise and prudent man will guard against using sacrifices such as these, whereby he will draw down daemons of this kind [that is, evil daemons] to himself, but will be careful to purify his soul in every way; for they never attack a pure soul, because of its being unlike themselves. But if it is necessary for States to propitiate these daemons also, that is nothing to us, for States regard wealth and externals and things for the body as good, and the contrary as ill; but there are in them very few who care for the soul."39 38
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 6, 19:7. I have adapted the translation by J.E.L. Oulton ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1932), II, p. 59.
39
Compare Eusebius, ibid., 4,19:1, which corresponds to De abstinentia, 2:52
Page 29
It is clear from his words that political necessity for worship does not interest him. In his treatise De regressu animae, Porphyry asserts that the value of sacrifice is in connection with the world to come, that is, to ensure the rise of the soul to divine spheres after its deliverance from the body. In accordance with this concept, the daemons have no worldly power or influence. Therefore, there is no need to propitiate them or seek their favour. Celsus and Julian, on the other hand, think that the daemons directly affect the lives of men and their destinies, and even the Church Fathers speak frequently of the daemons' power to cause trouble in this world. From this point of view, Porphyry was more remote from the affairs of this world than those who placed religion at the centre of their lives. Eunapius in his Vitae philosophorum et sophistarum said of Porphyry: "It seems that he attained a very advanced age. At any rate, he left behind him many speculations that conflicted with the works that he had published previously; with regard to which we can only suppose that he changed his opinions as he grew older."40 Modern scholars too have made a distinction between the works of Porphyry's youth and those of his old age in order to explain his having made favourable statements about Christianity (especially about Jesus; on the other hand, he was strongly inimical to Paul).41 In the light of our assumption that Porphyry was and remained essentially religious, it is understandable that he was not afraid to provide his opponents with words of praise that might be used tellingly by them — something unimaginable in a political polemicist. Porphyry also objected to the whole practice of sacrifice, upon which pagan polytheism rests,42 though he could imagine that the Christians would 40
Translated by W.C. Wright ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1922), p. 361.
41
See Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, ed. A. Harnack (Berlin, 1916), p. 60, no. 32. (Hereafter referred to as Contra Christianos.)
42
In his treatise De abstinentia. See, e.g., 2:11: "Theophrastus reasonably forbids those who wish to be truly pious to sacrifice animals [em psycha; literally, those who possess a Living soul]." The "Letter to Anebo" too is permeated with potential antipagan arguments. Porphyry asks (Iamblichus, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, 5:1) what is the power and the utility of sacrifices, considering both those who receive them (the gods) and those who make them. From a long series of discussions of all aspects of sacrifices, it emerges that Iamblichus is only too happy to discuss this subject and
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 30
seize upon his words as a great prize (as indeed did Eusebius, Augustine and Cyril). Assuming that there was indeed a strong spiritual affinity between Porphyry and his opponents (see his lettertreatise to his wife, Marcella), we can understand why the Christians treated him with special gravity, and why he is the only one mentioned by name among those whose writings were to be burned in keeping with the law. Eusebius took up Porphyry's challenge and dealt with it very thoroughly. In his Historia Ecclesiastica as in his two polemical writings, the Praeparatio Evangelica and the Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius presented himself as a kind guide and interpreter of the numerous quotations he cited. Characteristically, he explained them and drew con (footnote continued from previous page) show off his expertise. While doing this Iamblichus reveals his theurgic inclinations, ascribing major importance to the correct performance of ritual ceremonies such as sacrifices and prayers. These rites lead, in his opinion, to the exaltation of man's soul, and to its approach to and assimilation to the gods (ibid., 5:11–12). Iamblichus found a solution for the need for sacrifice (ibid., 5:9–10). He is familiar with all the usual justifications of sacrifice, but these present new and embarrassing difficulties and do not solve the problem in any unambiguous way (ibid., 5:5). Iamblichus therefore sought and found a clever solution that does not contradict previous answers, but rather disposes of their difficulties. He explains: "It is better, therefore, to assign as the cause of the efficacy of sacrifices friendship and familiarity, and a habitude which binds . . . generators to the things generated" (ibid., 5:9; transl. T. Taylor [3rd ed.; London, 1968]). Further on, he adds that this activating of the gods through the power of "sympathy" (sympatheia) has palpable results in the life of the individual and the public (ibid., 5:10). It is interesting that Augustine finds himself obliged to defend the offering of sacrifices in opposition to Porphyry (Epist. 102, in Harnack, op. cit., p. 94, no. 79). Whereas Porphyry suggests that it emerges from the sacred rites that the gods have need of sacrifices, Augustine, citing Abel's offering, notes that sacrifices are ancient in character and that, while the god has no need of them, they are of great benefit to men. This kind of apology was, of course, widely accepted by the pagans — by Julian, for example. Porphyry also attributes a positive meaning to sacrifices, apart from the needs of state mentioned above, in a fragment preserved by Makarius Magnes, 4:21 (= Hamack, op. cit., p. 92, no. 76): "The sacrifices offered to the gods should not be considered so much for the honour rendered them [this is the usual justification of sacrifices; see below], but rather as an example of the worshippers' inclinations and as an indication that we are not ungrateful towards them."
Page 31 43
clusions suiting his taste and needs. Arnaldo Momigliano has discussed the essential features of his documentary history. One should stress, however, Eusebius's similarity to and, most probably, dependence upon, Josephus in this field. Since Eusebius makes ample use of the Contra Apionem, as well as of Josephus's other works, and since the same pagan arguments that had been directed against the Jews now confronted him, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that Josephus served Eusebius as a most successful and impressive model, imitated both in his method of writing history and in his polemical or apologetic writings. The conversion of Constantine the Great, and the changes and hopefulness that followed in the Christian world, are well attested in the confident language of Eusebius and in his belief in the future of the Church. Although he was close to the imperial court and was prepared to forgive the Emperor's crimes because of his support for Christianity, Eusebius's style was no less fervently religious than that of the earlier Church Fathers, who had no contact with the secular government. This is perhaps due to the establishment of a special style, and its adoption by various church writers; their writings are replete with verses from Scripture, as a matter of fashion and of habit. In his treatise, Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius dealt with the question of why the Christians refrained from sacrificing animals, although this was done by the men of old (from Abel onward) and specifically by the Hebrew nation which was their model. Eusebius explains that there was a difference between the attitude of the pagans in early days and that of the Hebrews (ibid., 1,10:1–2). The former did not at the beginning sacrifice animals, but only the fruit of the earth, and it was only later that the pagans turned to animal sacrifice, while, according to the Pentateuch, even the earliest men had honoured their god with animals as is told of Abel (ibid., 1.10:3–4). The reason Eusebius offers for this is not dissimilar to that offered by Julian, in his Contra Galilaeos, as we shall see presently. Eusebius says with regard to Cain and Abel: "Here you will understand that he who sacrificed an animal is said to have been accepted by God more than he 43
See his article, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century AD." in The Conflict . . . , pp. 79–99.
Page 32 44
who brought an offering of the fruits of the earth.'' Why did the forefathers prefer such sacrifices? "For when they saw, since they were holy . . . that there was need of great stress on the cleansing of the sins of men, they thought that a ransom was due to the source of life and soul in return for their own salvation. . . . " (ibid., 1,10:6) And further: "And then as they had nothing better or more valuable than their own life to sacrifice, they brought a sacrifice in place of it by means of the unreasoning beasts, providing another life instead of their own life. . . . " (ibid., 1,10:7). If this be so, why then do the Christians not offer up animal sacrifices? After we examine the background, the explanation is extremely simple. Since the animal is a kind of substitute for the human soul, the sacrifice of Jesus is more valid then the sacrificing of animals. As Isaiah said (53:7), "As a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before her shearers." The conclusion is therefore obvious: this (Jesus's) sacrifice absolved the Christians of the need to sacrifice animals as prescribed by the Law of Moses, and even prohibited them from sacrificing (ibid., 1,10:15–18). We end our survey with the emperorpolemicist, Julian. It is not easy to decide whether religion or the state was more important to Julian. He had received a Christian education in his childhood, but was converted to polytheism in his youth (this is why he is called "the Apostate" by Christians); his life would have been in danger if the authorities had discovered his conversion, but this was no deterrent to him. His writings and letters reveal (notwithstanding the pompous rhetorical style of his times) the sincerity of his belief in the pagan gods, and his fervent devotion to them. On the other hand, Julian was an emperor for whom the interests and needs of the state were of supreme importance, and it is reasonable to assume that this factor influenced his attitude towards paganism and Christianity. Christian theology was abominable to him, not only because of its false doctrine and logically untenable opinions, but also because of its antipolitical and antisocial aspects. This may be gathered from Julian's reaction to one of Jesus's sermons: "Listen to a fine statesmanlike piece of advice: 'Sell that ye have and give to the poor. . . . ' (Luke, 12:33). Can anyone quote a more statesmanlike ordinance than this? For if all men were to obey 44
Dem. Evang., 1,10:5. Translated by W.J. Ferrar (Macmillan, 1920).
Page 33 45
you who would there be to buy? Can anyone praise this teaching when, if it be carried out, no city, no nation, not a single family will hold together?"
Julian, as is well known, sacrificed superabundantly to the gods and it was painful for him to realize that the worship of the gods was dwindling.46 As we have noted, such worship was also a symbol of the worshipper's political loyalty. It is for this reason that Julian importuned the Christians and attempted to persuade them that their stubbornness and rebelliousness in this sphere were mistaken. For he says: "If the reading of your own scriptures is sufficient for you, why do you nibble at the learning of the Hellenes? And yet it were better to keep them away from that learning than from the eating of sacrificial meat. For by that, as even Paul says (1 Corinthians 8:7– 13), he who eats thereof is not harmed. . . . But this learning of ours has caused every noble being that nature has produced among you to abandon impiety (atheotês). . . . It were therefore better for you to keep men from learning rather than from sacrificial meats" (Contra Galilaeos, 229 C–D). Julian also forestalls the Christians' possible objections on the ground that "'The Jews too do not sacrifice'." He retorts: "that the Jews do sacrifice in their own houses, and even to this day everything that they eat is consecrated; and they pray before sacrificing, and give the right shoulder to the priests as the first fruits; but since they have been deprived of their temple, or, as they are accustomed to call it, their holy place, they are prevented from offering the first fruits of the sacrifice to God. But why do you not sacrifice, since you have invented your new kind of sacrifice and do not need Jerusalem at all?" (ibid., 305D–306A). And, in another place: "But you, though you practise that which God from the first abhorred, as he showed through Moses and the prophets, have refused nevertheless to offer victims at the altar, and to sacrifice. 'Yes', say the Galilaeans, 'because fire will not descend to consume the sacrifices as in the case of Moses.' Only once, I answer, did this happen in the case of Moses (Leviticus, 9:24); and again after 45
Fragment 5, in The Works of the Emperor Julian, transl. by W.C. Wright ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1923), III, p. 431.
46
See Ammianus Marcellinus, 25,4:17.
Page 34
many years in the case of Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings, 18:38). For I will prove in a few words that Moses himself thought that it was necessary to bring fire from outside for the sacrifice, and even before him, Abraham the patriarch as well . . . ". (ibid., 343 C–D.) And Julian comments concerning Jerusalem: "However, for your indolence in this matter there remains for you one single excuse, namely, that you are not permitted to sacrifice if you are outside Jerusalem, though for that matter Elijah sacrificed on Mount Carmel, and not in the holy city." (1 Kings, 18:19; 351D, 324C,D.) Julian was delighted to find detailed laws of sacrifices and a positive attitude towards them in Leviticus, and he made use of these against the Christians. After citing the words of the Torah about the two scapegoats, he added: "Accordingly it is evident from what has been said, that Moses knew the various methods of sacrifice. And to show that he did not think them impure as you do, listen again to his own words. 'But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peaceofferings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people' (Leviticus, 7:20; 305B)." Such a state of mind induced Julian to put forward an original interpretation for a difficult scriptural verse, to answer why God accepted the offering of Abel and rejected that of Cain. Julian suggested that "'since of things on the earth some have life and others are lifeless, and those that have life are more precious than those that are lifeless to the living God who is also the cause of life, inasmuch as they also have a share of life and have a soul more akin to his — for this reason God was more graciously inclined to him who offered a perfect sacrifice.'" (ibid., 347C.) In the preChristian period, the views of the Epicureans constituted a problem for orthodox devotees of paganism, but they posed a "family" problem of no great importance and an intensive war against them did not ensue. This may be concluded from the attitude towards Epicurus and his doctrines expressed in Cicero's treatises, De natura deorum and De finibus bonorum et malorum. In the first book of De natura deorum, after Velleius the Epicurean had presented his views and had also attacked and rejected all other philosophical systems, Cotta the ScepticAcademician attempted to undermine the scientific basis of Epicureanism (the atoms, space and so on) and questioned both the Epicurean description of the gods and the Epicureans' assumption of their existence
Page 35
(ibid., 1:21). Cotta recalled the mythological image of the gods and compared it with what was customary among the Egyptians (animal worship). He addressed Velleius in this fashion: "Well then, if the gods do not possess the appearance of men, as I have proved, nor some such form as that of the heavenly bodies, as you are convinced, why do you hesitate to deny their existence? You do not dare to. Well, that is no doubt wise . . . although in this matter it is not the public that you fear, but the gods themselves: I personally am acquainted with Epicureans who worship every paltry image, albeit I am aware that according to some people's view Epicurus really abolished the gods, but nominally retained them in order not to offend the people of Athens." (ibid., 1,30:85) Cotta made similar remarks about Epicurus in 1,34 and in 3,1:3. Cicero and his associates dealt with the Epicureans in a mocking but elegant way, and reproached them not for denying divine providence but rather for not being strong enough Epicureans, that is, for not denying wholly the existence of the gods. Cicero himself, although a politician and not a religious personality, revered the religious tradition and supported the cult, possibly because of its importance to the Republic. He therefore found it necessary to show a favourable attitude towards Balbus the Stoic, a defender of religion. However, his words may be simple lipservice, to compensate for the liberal, sometimes offensive, tone of other remarks about the gods in his treatise. He said: "Here the conversation ended, and we parted, Velleius thinking Cotta's discourse to be truer, while I felt that that of Balbus approximated more nearly to a semblance of the truth." (3,40:95) The unrestrained liberal approach is even more obvious in the De finibus. The first book introduces the Epicurean doctrine about the Supreme Good (voluptas=hêdonê), which Cicero refutes in the second book. The following paragraphs exemplify the atmosphere. Torquatus the Epicurean addresses Cicero: " . . . I am resolved to hear the reason why you regard my master Epicurus, not indeed with hatred, as do most of those who do not share his views, but at all events with disapproval. I myself consider him as the one person who has discerned the truth, and who has delivered men from the gravest errors. . . . " (ibid., 1,5:14.) Further on in the discussion, Cicero says to Triarius: "when one disagrees with a man, it is essential to say what it is that one objects to in his views. What should prevent me from being an Epicurean if I accepted the doctrines of Epicurus? Especially as the system is an
Page 36 47
exceedingly easy one to master. You must not find fault with members of opposing schools for criticizing each other's opinions; though I always feel that insult and abuse, or illtempered wrangling and bitter, obstinate controversy are beneath the dignity of philosophy." (Ibid., 1,8:27.) And finally, the attitude of Cicero to Epicurus as an individual is noted: " . . . Who, pray, denies that Epicurus was a good man, and a kind and humane man? In these discussions it is his intellect and not his character that is in question."48 When Cicero wrote these and similar things, he could not have imagined that they were destined to fall into the hands of deadly enemies of the pagans, who would exploit them in their war against the gods. But this use made these writings offensive to orthodox polytheists: Arnobius tells us that some pagans suggested passing a decree in the senate ordering that they be destroyed. Such a law was indeed enacted by the Christians against antiChristian pagan writings. It is worth noting that Arnobius thought that a decree of this type would not be in the interest of the Christians; he argued that this was no fit way to silence an opponent, but that one must rather convince him of the justice and truth of one's opinion.49 Julian too acted according to the spirit of the times when he condemned a large part of Greek literature and philosophy, which he believed to be offensive to the gods and to religious belief. As he explained it: " . . .Let no one who has been consecrated a priest read either 47
I.e., the teaching of Epicurus is not distinguished by acute or profound thought.
48
2,25:80. Cf. 2,25:81; 2,31:102.
49
Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 3:7: " . . . . And when I hear others muttering angrily, and saying that the senate should decree the destruction of these writings by which the Christian religion is maintained, and the weight [auctoritas] of antiquity overborne. But, indeed, if you are convinced that anything you say regarding your gods is beyond doubt, point out Cicero's error, refute, rebut his rash and impious words, (and) show (that they are so). For when you would carry off writings, and suppress a book given forth to the public, you are not defending the gods, but dreading the evidence of the truth." About one hundred and fifty years after Arnobius. Proclus sought, from motives similar to those of the pagans in the time of Arnobius, to eliminate the pagan writings entirely, apart from the Oracula Chaldaica and the Timaeus of Plato. See H. Levy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Le Caire, 1956), p. 70.
Page 37
Archilochus or Hipponax or anyone else who writes such poems as theirs. And in Old Comedy let him avoid everything of that type — for it is better so — and indeed on all accounts philosophy alone will be appropriate for us priests: and of philosophers only those who chose the gods as guides of their mental discipline, like Pythagoras and Plato and Aristotle, and the school of Chrysippus and Zeno. For we ought not to give heed to them all nor to the doctrines of all, but only to those philosophers and those of their doctrines that make men godfearing [or "implant piety" — eusebeia]. . . . . " (Fragmentum Epistulae, 300D–301A.) In complete contrast to Cicero's polite and fair treatment of his sworn opponent, Julian used, as did the Christians, abusive language towards his opponents, especially towards the founders of Christianity. He termed Eusebius a "wretch" (Contra Gal., 222A); Paul, one "who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time" (ibid., 100A); and John the Evangelist, "rascally and deceitful'' (ibid., 33C). It is worth mentioning that many more vituperative statements about Jesus and the Apostles were omitted by Cyril, who could not bring himself to copy them. Intolerance towards an opponent and his views was a salient feature of Julian's character. Although such behaviour was quite common in that period and reflected the interreligious conflicts, the Christians were largely responsible for cultivating this attitude; perhaps Julian's Christian education influenced the formation of this attitude of his. The beginning of his treatise, Ad Heracleium Cynicum reflects his views: " . . . by invitation we [scil. Julian] attended the lecture of a Cynic whose barking [a jibe at the etymology of Cynic,=doglike] was neither distinct nor noble; but he was crooning myths as nurses do, and even these he did not compose in any profitable [or "healthy"] fashion. For a moment my impulse was to rise and break up the meeting. . . . " (204A.) I have tried to show, in a few lines, the images of those prominent in the polemic of the second to the fifth centuries C.E., as well as to indicate their uncharacteristic statements in addition to the more usual comments and ways of thinking of each of these men; the most reasonable explanation of the exceptional comments might be to see them as the fruit of the influence and pressure exerted by their opponents. J. Geffcken attempted to establish criteria for the evaluation of the various personalities on the Christian side of the polemic. He regarded
Page 38 50
the works of Aristides, Justin and Tatian as unripe fruit of early Christian apologetic literature. All three, he said, have no talent for writing and do not know how to construct their thought systematically and logically. Aristides lacked education, whereas Justin and Tatian were only halfeducated. According to Geffcken, their works show that they had read almost nothing of Greek mythology or philosophy themselves but had, instead, drawn their knowledge of them from various extant collections (as did Josephus, most probably), and these compilations served them in lieu of a thorough Greek education. Athenagoras, on the other hand, did a more thorough job. Geffcken noted (p. 308) that one of his principal aims was to demonstrate how an extraordinarily strong tradition reigns, and how Christians and pagans alike did not succumb to it. The Christians had a stronger will to win, and a personal force that was missing in the ranks of the pagans. The importance of the pagans was in the polemic, which they developed to the level of a science: NeoPlatonism and their profound and thorough Biblical criticism were the last glorious peaks of Hellenism. These pagans had become, in effect, professors of theology. Geffcken notes that history was never made from academic chairs, and indicates that the Christians could smile, with some justification, at the theological constructions of Porphyry and of Julian.51 Geffcken goes on to remark that Eusebius and Augustine did not bother to refute their enemies verse by verse, but nonetheless succeeded, in their highly individual works, in guiding Christian apologetics to victory. Geffcken's observations are correct, on the whole, but incomplete. There is no doubt that the Christian apologists of the third to fifth centuries C.E. surpassed by far their colleagues of the second century in the breadth of their Greek education, now become the possession of all educated men, Christian and pagan alike. Yet the fact that Arnobius and Cyril had most probably read literature and philosophy for themselves did not endow them with the status of great apologists. On the other hand, the fact that Origen refuted Celsus's words verse by verse did not lower him to the category of the lesser apologists. It seems to me that, in order to differentiate between greater and lesser apologists and at the same time also evaluate the pagan polemicists, one must add 50
Zwei griechische Apologeten, (Leipzig and Berlin. 1907), p. 113.
51
I doubt very much whether the Christians did, indeed, treat them in this way.
Page 39
another comment. The lesser apologists characteristically criticized fiercely, and made sharp attacks on, pagan mythology and concentrated on its manifestly weak points. Very frequently, their response to pagan arguments was to raise counterarguments, as if to say "you raise questions and so do we; just as we cannot answer them, so are you unable to do so, and hence the honours are even!"52 The greater apologists, on the other hand, were not satisfied as a rule with rejecting the arguments of their opponents or with supplying negative answers; they endeavoured to present a positive thesis of their own. This contending with fundamental questions, and the desire to attain an independent understanding of them that was not dictated solely by the needs of the polemic, were characteristic of the great personalities involved in the polemic. 52
A good example of this method of dispute is found in Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 2:74: And why, (my opponent) says, did God, the ruler and lord (of the universe), determine that a Saviour, Christ, should be sent to you from the heights of heaven a few hours ago, as it is said? We ask you too, on the other hand,. . . . Nay, this we rather ask, why, if it were fitting that Hercules should be born, Aesculapius, Mercury, Liber, and some others, that they might be both added to the assemblies of the gods, and might do men some service, — why they were produced so late by Jupiter, that only later ages should know them . . . ? You will say that there was some reason. There was then some reason here also that the Saviour of our race came not lately but today."
Page 40
Chapter One— The Jewish Factor in the Polemic Marcel Simon's admirable work, Verus Israel,1 abounds in comprehensive summaries of the literature relevant to this subject. Simon adheres to accepted concepts, endeavouring to confirm them. He regards the period from the BarCochba revolt to the abolition of the Patriarchate of the Jews (135–425 C.E.) as being characterized by the polemic between the Jews and Christians. In these centuries, argues Simon, Judaism was not yet the recluse of later years, and its proselytizing activity was as thorns in the eyes of Christianity (pp. 15–16). On the other hand, there was an obvious alteration in the pagan attitude towards the Jews caused by the disturbing strength and expansion of the Church. The tension and crises of the years 70–135 C.E. were replaced gradually by a positive attitude and even by real favour nurtured by a common hatred of a common foe, as well as by the realization that Judaism and paganism were in the same conservative ideological front against innovating and revolutionary Christianity (pp. 61–62. Cf. p. 436). Simon mentions Celsus's use of a Jew in his work alongside his harsh criticism of the Jewish religion, in whose favour he notes only the antiquity of its tradition. Phrases in praise of Judaism appeared frequently in the work of Porphyry and, of course, in that of Julian. The Roman authorities recognized the Jewish nation, and tolerated its religion; the threat of subversive Christianity led, in Simon's view,2 to a state wherein 1
Étude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'empire Romain (135–425), (Paris, 1948).
2
Ibid., pp. 143–144. Judaism too was threatened directly by Christian preaching. Julian sought to weaken the belief of the Christians by rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem; he was unable to return them, as he wished, to the
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 41
a conversion to Judaism, even that of a pagan, seemed to the pagans to be a lesser evil than his conversion to Christianity, whereas the conversion of a Christian to Judaism was regarded as a positive gain. There are grounds to believe that, in the critical situation created by the intervention of Christianity, the pagans allowed the Jews to expand as much as they could, providing that their proselytic activities were carried out at the expense of Christianity. (Simon deduces this from the Jewish propaganda permitted among the Martyrs.) There is reason to believe, adds Simon, that in certain circumstances the Roman authorities used the Jews against the Church; this would explain the fact that an antiJewish treatise of the polemic could charge the Synagogue with being "sustained by the Roman sceptre and legions."3 What is a reasonable hypothesis concerning the third century C.E. becomes a reliable fact with regard to the emperor Julian.4 Concerning relations between Jews and Christians, Simon says that, if the Jews' existence were justified theoretically in various ways (e.g., the Jews are witnesses to the truthfulness of Christianity), their existence was still fraught with practical dangers. When pointing to the fall of Israel, the Church Fathers and the apologists were concerned no less with the Christians than with the pagans and Jews. They sought to counter the Jewish power of attraction (footnote continued from previous page) polytheistic religion of their forefathers but hoped to lead them to what he saw as a lesser evil than Christianity, Jewish worship. He strengthened both Judaism and Hellenism, hoping that by returning the Christians to the religious tradition of Judaism, he would put an end to their existence as a separate people (tertium genus). 3
PseudoAugustinus, Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae (Migne, Patrologia Latina), 43:1131.
4
For all this, see Simon, pp. 138–139. The conclusion to be drawn from Simon's words is then that not only are there no grounds for speaking of a paganJewish polemic but that, rather, the Jews and pagans became united in opposition to Christianity. However, even if the pagans viewed the Jews as allies, this does not prove that the attitude was mutual. On his point, the question of the extent of Jewish activity in the persecution of the Christians by the pagans, it seems that Simon objects generally to the views of Allard and Harnack, who accept almost uncritically the opinion that the Jews played a considerable part in them. He approves of the findings of Parkes on this subject, though he thinks that Parkes's philoSemitism was excessive (see pp. 144–155, especially pp. 149, 152, 155; and cf. pp. 237–238).
Page 42 5
and propaganda, and to prevent Christians from "Judaizing" (Ioudaizein, Iudaizare).
As regards the quality of the JewishChristian debate, decisive importance attaches to the question of whether the Jews conducted active, proselytic propaganda.6 Simon exerts himself to show that this was indeed the case, but admits that the Jewish sources are not decisive on this point. The Christian sources, on the other hand, may be interpreted as representing an attempt to counter the attractiveness of Judaism, without necessarily implying any propaganda by the Jews: the eight stern sermons of John Chrysostom against the Jews would seem to suggest this. The excessive reliance of Simon on W.G. Braude's work, Jewish Proselytism in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era7 is undermined by Gedaliahu Alon, who noted inter alia, that "The controversy between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania * and Rabbi Eliezer, about a proselyte (ger) who was circumcised, is not to be taken according to the version of the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamot, 47a. The tradition of The Jerusalem Talmud, of Kiddushin C.3, 64d and of the tractate Gerim, forces the rejection of the formulation in the Babylonian Talmud and the sustaining of the tradition of Eretz Israel, according to which Rabbi Yehoshua never said that (lack of) circumcision does not hinder" [one's becoming a Jew].8 Obviously, the relaxation of halachic regulations concerning the acceptance of proselytes would have served to testify much more about tendencies to proselytize than mere phrases in favour of such inclinations, when such phrases were counterbalanced by others censorious of such activities. But even at the end of the first century C.E. and the beginning of the second, when Jewish and pagan sources9 speak of proselytes such as Yehuda the Ammonite (BT Berachot, 28a), or Ketia Bar Shalom (BT Avodah Zarah, 10B), there was no 5
Pp. 118–120. Cf. on the problem of the "Judaizers" pp. 356, 368, 382–383, and 432. One can draw, however, a slightly different conclusion from these words of Simon: that the dispute with the Jews was defensive on the part of Christianity, since Judaism forced the dispute on the Church by its very existence, without any need for either polemic or proselytism. 6
See Simon, p. 315.
7
Brown University Studies," vol. VI; Providence, 1940.
8
Studies in Jewish History in the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishna the Talmud (TelAviv, 1958), II, 282–283 (Hebrew).
9
Juvenal and Tacitus. for example. Compare Josephus Flavius, Contra Apionem, 2:123.
Page 43
readiness on the part of the Sages to relax any regulations in order to promote proselytism, and certainly no such readiness afterwards. The silence of the pagan sources for the period after 150 C.E. is telling.10 Simon must have expected some palpable support for his thesis concerning the extent of proselytism from Jewish epigraphy (burial inscriptions), but did not find it among the Jewish inscriptions of the Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum edited by Frey, only nine of whose seven hundred inscriptions were those of proselytes and only four of "godfearers" (metuentes). That is why Simon had to present various reasons to explain away the uncomfortable fact that so much evidence contradicted his thesis: that in epigraphy not much weight is attributed to an argument based on the absence of evidence (argumentum e silentio); that the inscriptions found were random and that new discoveries might change the picture; that almost all the inscriptions known are from Rome, and the authorities there probably were active concerning 10
See for the above Simon, pp. 315–325. From Dio Cassius's words that those of other nations too who keep the injunctions of the Jewish religion are called Jews (37, 16–17), Simon deduces that even in this period there was active Jewish proselytism. Simon also mentions the words of Justin referring to Trypho, "and to those who wish to become proselytes" (Dialogus, 23). Another indication presented by Simon depends on the fact that Tertullian, at the beginning of his Adversus Iudaeos, seemingly reports a debate that he heard between a Jewish proselyte of pagan origin and a Christian. Origen remarked that proselytism was still very active in his times (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 16, Patrologia Graeca, XIII, 621). Simon argues that what is true of the time of the compilation of the Gospel when, after the destruction of the Temple, Pharisaism and Judaism were virtually identical (Matt. 23:15; cf. 23:13) is also true of the centuries that followed; "The evidence of Origen, for whom the Evangelical invective is always actual, is believable." (Simon, op. cit., pp. 328–330.)>I must say that Simon's deductions are questionable. Simon's inference from Dio Cassius does not necessarily follow, and Justin's words can be taken either as an insignificant utterance or, at most, as part of a treatise which may be regarded as the last polemical pamphlet. Tertullian himself remarked that he presented a Jewish proselyte who was formerly a pagan in order to strike at the Jewish claim of election; that is, that the character presented was fictional and deliberately designed to suit his purpose. Origen's dependence on the Gospel's sayings rather detracts from the trust one may put in his words, since it was in this way that the "theological" antiSemitism of the Church was created. For Origen, see J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (Cleveland, 1961 [1934]), p. 148.
Page 44
the prohibited proselytizing activity; that it is also possible that the proselytes were not indicated as being such on their tombstones in order to avoid unpleasantness or hardship for their relatives, and so on.11 At the end of his explanations, Simon draws the surprising conclusion that, in the light of Juvenal's words, one should be careful in interpreting epigraphical evidence.12 It seems to me that the opposite approach is the correct one: a satire is not more reliable as historical evidence than unbiased inscriptions, and therefore the satire must be interpreted in their light. Finally, Simon attempts to confirm his view that the Sages were active in converting the pagans by pointing out the sources dealing with their attitude towards "Greek wisdom," such as the translation of the Torah into Greek, the art of the synagogues, and so on. Simon offers a somewhat involved explanation: the liberal attitude of the Sages in accomodating pagan culture emanates from their concern for successful proselytism, and it aims at influencing the pagan world which must first be understood before it can be converted.13 It is much simpler and truer to say that the attitude of the Sages reflects their being aware of material needs, and their recognition that idolatrous influences did not constitute a real danger to the Jews any longer.14 Parkes, though he points out the paucity of the references to Christianity in the Talmudic literature of the second and third centuries C.E., a paucity which creates the impression that the Jews disregarded Christianity when it became the accepted religion of the nations, nonetheless stresses that the most weighty reason for the polemic between the two 11
I find it difficult to imagine that the authorities kept such close watch on suspected proselytes that they even examined their grave inscriptions.
12
Simon, op. cit., p. 330. He summarizes: "Nothing authorises us to draw conclusions from the penury of the explicit epitaphs as to the poverty of proselytic recruitment." Cf. p. 335.
13
Pp. 347–348: "There is more in these liberal dispositions than opportunism or snobbism. They no doubt reflect a proselytic mind: to act upon the pagan world one has to know and understand it." Saul Lieberman's words (Greek in Jewish Palestine [New York, 1942], p. 51) are quite similar. See the criticism of Gedaliahu Alon, in Studies . . . , II, 264. 14
Cf. E.E. Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts," Israel Exploration Journal, IX (1959), pp. 151–156; 234–237. (Hereafter, = IEJ.)
Page 45 15
religions was rooted in the proselytic activity of the Jews, who vied with the Christians for the conversion of the pagan world.
Joseph Vogt, on the other hand, does not accept the conclusions drawn by Parkes from his study of the Acta martyrum. Vogt believes that Parkes's conclusions need critical examination, and argues that the Christian menace promoted the creation of a paganJewish coalition; as he formulates it in his picturesque language, "it was an alliance of unequal powers with a common feeling of impotence in the face of the creative force of Christianity; the joining together of the blind and the lame."16 Two scholars, A. Lukyn Williams17 and Bernhard Blumenkranz.18 contribute indirectly to our problem by surveying Christian literature attacking the Jews. Simon (p. 167) states that Williams believes that these writings reflect real conflicts faithfully. But it seems that both Blumenkranz and Williams are rather vacillating. Williams (Introduction, p. xvii) says that the impression one gets from reading these pamphlets is one of "sameness," but that a second reading reveals something special in each of them. Further on (p. 43), he says that Tertullian was doubly motivated to compile his Adversus Iudaeos: he wished to defend the Christians from the Jews, who lived in great numbers in North Africa, and he wished, as did many Christians, to convert the Jews and believed that such a compilation might be of use to this end. The missionary goal that Williams ascribes to the abovementioned and similar treatises is difficult to accept, since the language of these writings proves that their authors despaired of converting the Jews. On the contrary, they were afraid of the influence of the Jews, and sought to separate the Christians from the Jews and prevent them from imitating their Jewish neighbours' keeping of the Sabbath and holidays and their observing of other customs. Williams ascribes this very aim to Aphraates, and he asserts that "Chrysostom's sermons [i.e. Adversus 15
Op. cit., pp. 106–107, 120. Parkes relies in this question on the articles of I. Levy (Revue des études Juives, L (1905), pp. 1–9; LI (1906), pp. 1–31). See my remarks in: "On the Attitude of the Sages towards Gentiles and Proselytes" in Mahalachim, no. 5 (1971), pp. 68–74 (Hebrew). 16
Kaiser Julian und das Judentum, (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 6–9, 32.
17
Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, England, 1935).
18
Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basel, 1946).
Page 46 19
Iudaeos] were intended almost entirely for his Christian listeners, and only exceptionally for Jews."
Blumenkranz posits at the outset that a great many of these pamphlets, especially those from the end of the third century C.E. onwards, were intended to fight other enemies of the Church, such as pagans, heretics and schismatics, as well as the Jews, and that they also served inner Christian catechetical needs. Since the hope of converting the Jews had disappeared, it was not this hope which formed the basis of these works, but rather the need of material for the Christians in their ongoing dispute with the Jews or in their campaign against the influence of the Jews over actual or prospective Christians. Blumenkranz notes that treatises whose sole end was to carry on the polemic with pagans and heretics even included an open apology for the Jews in the period that preceded Jesus: Augustine's statements about the temporary and relative validity of Jewish ceremonial law, on the other hand, were intended not only against the Jews but also against "Judaizers."20 Blumenkranz asserts that, so long as there existed multitudes of pagans who were potential converts for the Jews and the Christians, these two religions had to contend in frequent disputes (p. 85). He notes that many Jewish and Christian literary testimonies to the existence of such disputes have been preserved. On the other hand, we are informed that, until the destruction of the Temple, there was Jewish missionary activity on a large scale, and that proselytes were embraced wholeheartedly; after the destruction, especially in the first centuries of Christianity, there was a certain contraction or withdrawal of Judaism into itself, which naturally made it more difficult for it to absorb new elements (p. 165). Blumenkranz does not discuss the causes of this phenomenon, but rather notes his impression that Judaism abandoned its missionary initiative and left the field of conscription to the Christians. Adolf Harnack adopted a diametrically opposed position on this question.21 His argument is, in contrast to that of Williams, that these writings must not be considered as an actual answer to actual arguments formulated by the Jews. The Jewish adversary in the Dialogues and the 19
See also ibid., pp. 96, 133.
20
Ibid., pp. 2 and n. 6, 3–4, 133, 145, 151, 153, 155. Cf. also pp. 204, 210–211.
21
"Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani nebst Untersuchungen über die antijüdische Polemik in der alten Kirche," in Texte und Untersuchungen . . . (Leipzig, 1883) I, 3, pp. 75 ff.
Page 47
anonymous adversary in the doctrinal treatises is, he suggests, a purely conventional figure. His horizons do not differ from those of his fellowdisputant; he is a Jew not as a Jew was in reality but as conceived by the imagination. Harnack states that what purports to be a polemic is nothing but apologetics for the internal use of the Church. It refutes the reservations of the Christians themselves, or such as might be mentioned by a pagan who was impressed by the Gospels but yet did not embrace Christianity. The aim of the demonstration was to establish, with the aid of proofs from Scripture, the truthfulness of Christianity for the pagans. The anti Jewish address is a fictional device. One must not expect that these works will shed any light on the actual relations between the two religions. To these conclusions, reached through his analysis of the pertinent writings, Harnack adds an external argument, perhaps the most important of all. In his opinion, what might have constituted real Jewish argumentation was unknown to the Christians since, from the time of the Emperor Domitian, the ties between Hellenistic Christianity and Judaism had become negligible. Rabbinic literature does mention disputes in the second century but, apart from what refers to EretzIsrael and Syria, these mentions are, to a large extent, out of the ordinary. Actually, Judaism did not worry the Christians; it was not interested in them and it did not interest them. The two religions disregarded each other, and did not confront each other in an active polemic. Although I am prepared to agree in general with Harnack's presentation of the case, I think that perhaps he goes too far when he claims (pp. 77–8) that even Justin Martyr's Dialogus is wholly, or at least mainly, directed towards the Greek public and not towards the Jews. In my opinion this work should be regarded both chronologically and materially as the last work intended primarily for the Jews. This view is not necessarily incompatible with Harnack's correct observation that the Jew in the Dialogus is allowed to say only what is useful for Justin's line of thought and argumentation. Some corroboration of Harnack's (and also my) hypothesis may be adduced from A.B. Hulen's article.22 Hulen divides the treatises against the Jews into three groups: ''1) expository, addressed in large measure 22
"The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity," Journal of Biblical Literature, LI (1932), pp. 58–70.
Page 48
to the seed of Abraham, aiming at their conversion, and designed to prove to them the truth of Christianity out of the Old Testament — finished examples of this type being Cyprian's 'Three Books of Testimonies' and Eusebius' 'Demonstration of the Gospel;' 2) argumentative, dealing largely with Jewish objections to the new religion, represented by Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho the Jew;' and 3) denunciatory, based on the assumption that the Jews were a people abandoned of God, whose con version was hopeless, works like Chrysostom's 'Eight Orations against the Jews.' As years went by, the redemption of Israel was lost sight of, the apologies having for their main object the strengthening of the faith of believers." (My italics.) This classification seems to me acceptable in so far as it reduces the bulk of alleged anti Jewish polemical treatises. But it is hard to believe that, as late as the third or fourth century C.E., the Church still entertained hopes of converting the Jews. As I indicate below (see pp. 74–76), Eusebius's Demonstratio Evangelica and his Praeparatio Evangelica are to be seen as pieces of propaganda composed no less for the persuasion of the pagans than for that of the Jews. Harnack's statements contradict the views of Simon and of many Christian scholars. Simon criticizes Harnack's views (op. cit., pp. 168–176), or attempts to neutralize them while admitting the validity of some of his hypotheses. I will reexamine these matters below, in the light of the sources. May I note meanwhile that, while the treatises Adversus Iudaeos seem at first glance to contradict my hypothesis concerning the nature of the relations between Jews and Christians, the researches and conclusions of Williams and Blumenkranz offer palpable support for my theory, and Harnack's approach to this question complements their words in this regard. Let us complete our survey with an examination of the approach suggested by Yitzhak * Baer.23 Baer's intention is clear: to prove that the Jews were a party of equal weight in the polemic within the pagan empire. His thesis is expressed in the first sentence of his article: "During its first three hundred years of existence the Christian Church 23
"Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire from the Time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A.D. 313," in Studies in History, ed. by A. Fuks and I. Halpern ("Scripta Hierosolymitana," vol. VII, Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 79–149.
Page 49
appears as the rival of the Jewish religious community competing with it even while simultaneously engaged in a common struggle against the pagan Roman Empire."24 And a little further on, Baer complains that "standard history books dealing with the epoch which is the subject of this article, describe the Christian Church as standing singlehanded in its holy struggle against paganism and the kingdom of evil [i.e. Rome], while the Jewish religious community's part in the political and intellectual reality of this world is forgotten." And below (p. 102), in relation to the words of Rabbi Yitzhak * in Canticles Rabba to Canticles chap. 1:5–6: "The Christian Church appears on the side of the congregation of Israel as her rival of the near past and has still to prove the achievements and credits due to her at Israel's side in the great historic struggle against paganism, a struggle which doubtless demands its victims from Israel no less than from her young rival." (Compare p. 114; my italics.) Baer's attempt to put the Jews on the same level as the Christians, as being subject to religious persecutions, on the basis of his interpretation of Talmudic, Christian and Roman sources is not convincing, just as there is no basis for the contradictory theory which regards the Jews as collaborators with the Roman authorities against the Christians.25 Not only is there no evidence that the Jews suffered from the persecutions instigated by the emperors Decius and Diocletian but, on the contrary, we have an explicit source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah, chap. 5,44d end), informing us that the Jews were distinguished from the other peoples of the empire when emperor worship was enforced by Diocletian ("All the nations must offer libations, apart 24
P. 79. The assertion of Basil, with a change of one word, accords well with Baer's thesis: "Judaism fights Christianity, and both of them (fight) Hellenism." (Contra Sabell., Hom. 34:1). 25
For example, he cites the words of Rabbi Yohanan* to Bar Drossai (Jerusalem Talmud, Abodah Zarah, chap. 4, 43d end) as evidence of the persecution of the Jews as well, in the time of Diocletian, but was prepared to renounce his view when Saul Lieberman remarked that, according to the tradition recorded in the "Letter of Ray Sherira Gaon," Rabbi Yohanan died in 279 C.E., five years before Diocletian came to the throne. Cf. E.E. Urbach's criticism, in IEJ, IX (1959), p. 234, n. 80. See the Hebrew version of E.E. Urbach's article in EretzIsrael V (1958), p. 202, n. 116. See also M. Simon's "PostScriptum." (The Jerusalem Talmud is referred to hereafter as JT.)
Page 50 26
from the Jews"). Baer does his best to explain away this edict; it is also difficult for him to explain the favour and esteem revealed by Porphyry towards the Jews, so he notes: " . . . nor can Porphyry himself actually be reckoned among the friends of Israel" (p. 117). In the light of his statement that with regard to the struggle against paganism Judaism does not differ from Christianity, the wholly different way in which Julian treats the Jews and the Christians raises unsurmountable difficulties for Baer. Even if we accept Saul Lieberman's argument for a negative attitude on the part of the Sages towards Julian and his plan for rebuilding the Temple ("the disgrace of Israel"),27 we must ask why the pagan polemicists, especially the NeoPlatonists, showed such friendliness towards the Jews, showering them and their Law with approving phrases, if indeed, as Baer argues, the Jews were fighting them no less vigorously than the Christians. Our survey has indicated that the relations between the Jews and the pagan world must be examined in the light of reality, before one tries to determine whether the Jews were and remained a party to the literary polemic. The second problem that must be looked into is that of the relations of the Jews with the Christians; in both cases one must study carefully the nature of the literary sources and ascertain to what extent they reflect politicalsocial relations. To these matters, I shall now turn.
The Hellenistic kings, as the Persian kings, viewed the Jews as a useful and trustworthy element because they were an alien minority in their places of residence, despite the fact that they did not conform to the local polytheism. It was due to this trustworthiness that Ptolemy I established Jewish military garrisons on the borders of Egypt and of Cyrene, and that Antiochus III settled many Jewish families in Lydia 26
Cf. also, for an earlier age, the words of Justin Martyr to the Jews, which may be regarded as supplying evidence unintentionally: "But if you [scil. Jews] remain hard hearted . . . . on account of death, which is the lot of the Christians, and are unwilling to assent to the truth, you shall appear as the authors of your own evils." (Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo, 44.) 27
"The Martyrs of Caesarea," in the Jewish Quarterly Review, xxxvi (1945–1946), pp. 239–253. Cf. the criticism of I. Sonne, ibid., vol. xxxvii, (1946–1947), pp. 307–328, and Lieberman's "Rejoinder," ibid., pp. 329–336.
Page 51 28
and Phrygia. The Jews in the Hellenistic kingdoms, especially in Egypt, were active in military service, in all the ranks and probably in separate units, as we learn from literary and papyrological evidence.29 We are aware of a clear change in the situation following the Maccabean rising. The Jews now constituted a political factor in the state system of the Hellenistic kingdoms, and even had a hand in the disruption of the Seleucid kingdom; at the same time, serious collisions occurred between the Jews and the SyrianGreek cities of Eretz Israel. Rome's domination of the East entailed a serious deterioration in the relations between Jews and Greeks in Egypt. The underlying causes of the conflict were the intensified attempts of the local Greeks (compared with those of Ptolemaic times) to limit the political and economic rights granted to the Jews by the central authorities, which had placed the Jewish community (politeuma) on an almost equal footing with the Greek polis as far as privileges were concerned.30 The Jews of Eretz Israel, on the other hand, expected an improvement in their condition under the direct rule of Rome, as one may deduce from the words spoken in Pompey's ears in Damascus in 63 B.C.E., and from the repeated efforts to bring about the ousting of Herod and his sons.31 But, in spite of the remissions and privileges granted the Jews by Julius Caesar, they were disappointed quickly by the rule of the procurators. In Eretz Israel and Egypt, rebellions and riots broke out in the first half of the first century C.E., and reached their peak in the Great Revolt of 66 C.E. Some Jewish leaders preached moderation, such as Rabbi Hanina * the Prefect of the Priests: "Pray for the peace of the ruling power, since but for fear of it men would have swallowed up each other alive."32 There were also Sages, such as Rabban Yohanan* ben Zakkai, who were opposed to the revolt against Rome, but their actual importance was nil in the light of the activistic attitude towards the Roman government which was expressed in the Great Revolt, in the rebellions 28
Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1:44; Antiquitates, 12:147–153.
29
See for the latter vol. I of the Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (Jerusalem, 1957).
30
This new interpretation is delineated clearly in the recent book of Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (TelAviv, 1978) (Hebrew).
31
See Josephus, Antiquitates, 14:41.
32
Aboth, 3:2, transl. H. Danby, in The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933).
Page 52 33
of the time of Trajan, and in the war of BarCochba. In these wars, particularly in the rebellions of Trajan's period, the pagan inhabitants of the various provinces suffered at the hands of the Jews, but the primary target of the rebellions was the Roman government. This government, apart from being the patron and defender of the pagans who were its subjects and who were involved in the rebellions (such as Syrians, Egyptians and Greeks), was also recognized by Jews, Christians and pagans alike as the symbol and embodiment of the power of polytheism (or idolatry) in the world. In this respect, the year 135 C.E. constitutes the end of an epoch. The next Jewish rebellion broke out only when a Christian served as Roman emperor (the rebellion of Gallus's time, 351 C.E.), and it no longer reflected the attitude of the Jews towards the pagan authorities. After Julius Caesar, the JulioClaudian emperors (other than Caligula) did not depart from the traditional approach to the Jews. The Flavian emperors, who were more attached personally to Jewish leaders (Agrippa II, Berenice, Josephus), nonetheless imposed the "Jewish tax" after the destruction of the Temple, a tax that was a grave religious insult as well as an additional economic burden. The picture did not change much in the days of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, whereas, from the time of Antoninus Pius onwards, a modus vivendi was established gradually. Pagan and, especially, Christian sources stressed the favourable attitude shown by the Severan emperors towards the Jews.34 The 33
See Midrash Rabba, Lamentations, to chap. 1, 4, and especially Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, version A, chap. 4, ed. by Schechter (corrected ed.; New York, 1967), p. 22 ff. See also G. Allon, "Rabban Johanan B. Zakkai's Removal to Jabneh" and "The Patriarchate of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai" in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, transl. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 216–313 and 314–343 respectively. Cf. the words of R. Yosé ben Kisma (Babylonian Talmud, 'Abodah Zarah, 18a transl. A. Cohen, in the Soncino Press edition [London, 1935]): " . . . . Brother Hanina *, knowest thou not that it is Heaven [= God] that has ordained this [Roman] nation to reign? For though she laid waste His House, burnt His Temple, slew His pious ones and caused His best ones to perish, still is she firmly established. . . . " (All references hereafter to the Babylonian Talmud will be preceded by the letters BT, while all to Midrash Rabba will be preceded by MR. It should be noted that these appear in Soncino Press editions.) 34
This attitude did not prevent Septimius Severus from prohibiting conversion to Judaism. See the discussion of this problem in my "Comments on the
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 53
troubles within the Empire of the third century C.E. caused an unbridled struggle for supreme power on the one hand, and the undermining of security in the provinces on the other; their impact was felt by the Jews in Eretz Israel, but the Jews were not discriminated against as compared to other provincial inhabitants: religious persecutions were the lot of the Christians alone. The emperor Decius, instigator of fierce persecutions against the Christians, is not even mentioned in Jewish sources, while Diocletian absolved the Jews from participating in emperorworship, as noted earlier.35
In order to avert criticism, and to confirm my hypothesis that the Jews were not an active party to the polemic, I will now present some indications of the atmosphere in the Jewish community then, as it is reflected in the Talmudic sources. I will also examine whether or not one may perceive the beginning of a change in thinking in the second century C.E., a change that became more solidly based in the third and fourth centuries. In order to do this, I will now present some explicit sayings in Talmudic literature which convey the dilemma posed by the existence of the Roman Empire, of which Judaea was one of the smaller provinces and subject to its jurisdiction and good will. These sayings indicated the position taken by the Sages towards the government and its methods. The famous baraita in the BT (Shabbath, 33b) betrays the esteem felt by R. Yehuda ben Ilai for Rome's colonizing activity: "How fine are the works of this people [= the Romans]!. They have made streets [for 'marketplaces'], they have built bridges, they have erected baths," as well as the denigration expressed by R. Simeon ben Yohai *: "All what they made they made for themselves. They built marketplaces to (footnote continued from previous page) Revolt of BarCochba," in Tarbiz, XXXV (1965), pp. 127–129 (Hebrew). 35
This is confirmed by the other traditions, which are favourable to Diocletian as a rule, though one of them alleges that he was a swineherd before his enthronement. (JT Terumot, chap. 8, 46 end of b; MR Genesis, 63). JT Berachoth, chap. 3, 6 end of a, tells of the honour accorded to him by the Amora Rabbi Hiyya* bar Abba: "When king (=Emperor) Diocletian came here, Rabbi Hiyya* bar Abba was seen to step onto the tombs of Tyre in order to see him." As a priest, he was forbidden to defile himself in this way.
Page 54 36
set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges to levy tolls for them." Similarly the opinions of Resh Lakish (= Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish) and Rabbi Simon were divided about the character of the law and justice instituted by Rome in the world: "R. Simeon b. Lakish said: 'Behold, it was very good,' [this refers] to the earthly kingdom [=Rome]. Is then the earthly kingdom very good? How strange! (It earns that title) because it exacts justice [=dikiot=dikai] for men. . . . "37 And on the other hand: "R. Pinehas and R. Hilkia *, in the name of R. Simon. . . . Why is it [i.e. Edom or Rome] compared to a 'hazir' (swine or boar)? — To tell you this: Just as the swine when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am clean, so too does the empire of Edom [Rome] boast as it commits violence and robbery, under the guise of establishing a judicial tribunal" [=bêma].38 The opposition and hostility to Rome, oppressor of the nation and destroyer of the Temple, probably brought about a stricter attitude towards idolatrous objects that had any connection with emperorworship: " . . . only that is forbidden which bears in its hand a staff or a bird or a sphere."39 The same held true for collaboration in any form 36
Transl. H. Freedman, Soncino Press. If we do not look for an exact parallel in the reaction of R. Simeon ben Yohai*, then the more correct translation of the beginning of the baraita will be: "They have constructed roads. . . . " 37
MR Genesis 9:12; transl. H. Freedman (London, 1939).
38
MR Leviticus, 13:5, transl. J. Israelstam (London, 1939). See also the midrash in MR Exodus, 15:12. transl. S.M. Lehrman (London, 1939): "It is as a king said to his sons: 'Know ye that I judge persons on capital charges and condemn them; offer therefore presents [= dôron] to me, so that in case you are brought before my tribunal [= bêma] I may commute your sentences [= elogin = elogion = elogium] for something else. So God said to Israel. . . . '" seems to me to refer to the habits of Roman judges, rather than to be a tale connected with the persecutions of the Christians by Diocletian. The version dôron is a lectio difficilior as compared with korban, and it is more reasonable to assume that korban was inserted as a glossa to dôron and not vice versa, as S. Lieberman suggests (JQR, xxxv (1944–1945), p. 31 n. 195). Moreover, the parable according to the version adopted by Lieberman does not tally at all with its counterpart. Cf. too MR Leviticus, 29:7. Incidentally, Josephus translated the Hebrew word korban by the Greek dôron (Contra Apionem, I, 167; Antiquitates, 4, 73. Cf. Matt., 15:1–6), but in these cases korban signifies oath, vows, and does not bear the meaning ascribed by Lieberman to this word in MR Exodus. Cf. also E.E. Urbach, in Zion, XVI (1951), pp. 1–8. 39
Mishnah, 'Abodah Zarah, 3:1, transl. H. Danby; BT ibid., 40b; JT, ibid.,
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 55 40
with the authorities. The Sages viewed it unfavourably, chastized and even initiated sanctions against those subservient to the Romans. This animosity found its passive expression in the hope that "Rome is designed to fall into the hands of Persia."41 But the dominant voices advocated moderation towards the authorities and objected to uprisings and sedition. Thus, for example, R. Yehuda the Patriarch ordered his sons in his testament: " . . . And do not seek to evade toll tax. . . . " (BT Pesahim 112b)42 contrary to the position of his predecessors R. Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael (BT Baba Kama, 113a; JT Nedarim, chap. 3, 38b). Other Sages of the second to fourth centuries C.E. spoke unequivocally: "What does it mean 'Turn you northward' (Deut., 2:3)? R. Hiyya * said: He said unto them: if you see that it wishes to provoke you, do not stand up against it but hide yourselves from it until the time of its rule will pass" (MR Deuteronomy. 1:17); "But the bird divided he not (Gen., 15:10). R. Abba b. Kahana said in R. Levi's name: The Holy One, Blessed be He, intimated to him that he who attempts to resist the wave is swept away by it" (MR Genesis, 44:15); " . . . That text is required for (an exposition) like that of R. Yosé son of R. Hanina* who said: 'What was the purpose of those three adjurations? [Song of Songs, 2:7; 3:5; 5:8] — One, that Israel shall not go up (all together as if surrounded) by a wall; the second, that whereby the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured idolaters [v.1. "The nations of the world''] that they shall not oppress Israel too much'" (BT Ketuboth, 111a),43 and, finally "R. Helbo* said: (footnote continued from previous page) chap. 3, 42c. See E.E. Urbach, "The Rabbinic Laws . . . " in IEJ, IX (1959), pp. 239–241. 40
Tosefta, Demai, 3:4: "A fellow (haver*) who became a taxcollector is ejected from the fellowship." Pesikta de Rav Kahana, ed. B. Mandelbaum (New York, 1962) I, 135 (=BT Baba Mezi'a 83b–84a): "R. Eleazar beRabbi Shimeon was appointed as archiliporine . . . " etc. See for this term G. Alon. Studies . . . , II, 88–91. and Y. Gutman, in Zion, XVIII (1953), pp. 1–5. Cf. JT, Terumoth, chap. 8. 46b, dealing with the Ulla Bar Koshav affair 41
BT Yoma, 10a. transl. L. Jung (London, 1938). The tradition is presented in the name of Sages regarded as being rather moderate: "Rabba Bar Bar Hana* in the name of R. Yohanan*, on the authority of R. Yehuda b. Ilai, said . . . " and "R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Rabbi [=R. Yehuda the Patriarch] said. . . . " 42
Transl. H. Freedman (London, 1938).
43
Transl. W. Slotki (London, 1936).
Page 56
Four adjurations are mentioned here. [=Song of Songs, 2:7; 3:5; 5:8; 8:4] God adjured Israel that they should not rebel against the Governments, that they should not seek to hasten the end, that they should not reveal their mysteries [=mysteirin=mystêria] to the other nations and that they should not attempt to go up from the diaspora as a wall . . . R. Onia said: He addressed to them four adjurations corresponding to the four generations who tried to hasten the end and came to grief, namely, once in the days of Amram, once in the days of Dinai, once in the days of Ben Coziba, and once in the days of Shuthelah the son of Ephraim."44 The Sages wished to prevent rash and dangerous acts, and tended to attempt to allay tension in the relations of the Jews with the government; a similar tendency was conspicuous in the attitude of the Roman authorities towards the Jews after the BarCochba revolt. It is reasonable to expect that signs of this change may be found in pagan literature, too, which I will now examine.
I do not intend to deal at length with Hellenistic and Roman literature of the period before the middle of the second century C.E. The image of the Jews in the eyes of Hellenistic writers of the third century B.C.E., such as Hecataeus, Theophrastus, Megasthenes and Clearchus, 44
MR Song of Songs. 2:7, transl. M. Simon (London, 1939). In these last two sources (BT Kethuboth and MR Song of Songs) the negative attitude towards past rebellions indicated opposition to their repetition in the present. The expression "that Israel shall not go up (all together as if surrounded) by a wall" or "that they should not attempt to go up from the diaspora as a wall" appears in both. In their context, these words mean that mass immigration to EretzIsrael from the lands of the exile would be equivalent to rebellion against the Roman regime. A comparison of this phrase with a similar one featuring a diametrically opposite demand, made by Resh Lakish to Rabba Bar Bar Hana * the Babylonian (BT Yoma 9b) and by an Am Haaretz to R. Zeira the Babylonian (MR Song of Songs, 8:9) suggests the hypothesis that this is not only an unfavourable comment on the Babylonians' remaining in exile in the time of Ezra, but also that Resh Lakish's words express a more extreme attitude towards Rome than that of the moderates R. Yosé Ben Hanina* and R. Helbo*. Criticism of a failure to act in the past in a rebellious manner, action opposed by the moderate Sages, may be construed to be a positive attitude towards rebellion or at least towards extremist steps against Rome in the present. Cf. E.E. Urbach in Molad, XIX (1961), p. 372 (Hebrew).
Page 57 45
can be described as "favourable misunderstanding." On the other hand the attitude of writers from the middle of the second century B.C.E. onwards, such as Lysimachus, Apollonius Molon and Poseidonius, seems to be one of "hostile misunderstanding." An antiSemitic literature along the line of the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs and the invectives of Apion emerged gradually against the backdrop of the struggle between the Jews and the Greeks in Egypt for privileges and social and political status in the first centuries of Roman rule.46 As for Cicero and Tacitus, one may perhaps include their views in the category of "hostile misunderstanding."47 As Johanan Levy demonstrated in his essays, political motives influenced these two writers.48 This is especially obvious in the case of Tacitus, who combined his description of the history of the Jews with his narrative of the fall of Jerusa 45
See Johanan H. Levy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, (Jerusalem, 1960) pp. 15–60 (Hebrew); Yehoshua Gutman, The Beginnings of JewishHellenistic Literature, (Jerusalem, 1963) II, chap. 1 (Hebrew). 46
Side by side with the political and socioeconomic motives that influenced the pagan polemicists, one may add by way of analogy with the paganChristian polemic the danger of proselytism due to the propaganda of Alexandrian Judaism, aiming at the exaltation of the Torah and the belittling of pagan beliefs. One can understand more readily therefore, the fact that this polemic was centered around motifs of the Jewish religious and ritual sphere. 47
This definition is valid perhaps also for the curious words of Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. I, chap. XV, p. 392 and n. 28 (in the Modern Library edition). Gibbon adopts — with manifest pleasure — Tacitus's words attacking the Jews but denies his statement that the Jews reveal compassion and fidelity among themselves. In Gibbon's opinion, "Surely Tacitus had seen the Jews with too favourable an eye. The perusal of Josephus must have destroyed the antithesis" included in the Historiae, V. 5. 48
See "Cicero's Comments on the Jews in his Oration in Defense of Flaccus," and "The Comments of Tacitus on the Antiquity of the Jews and their Ethics", in Levy's Studies . . . , pp. 79–197. Cf. Heinemann's words in PaulyWissowa, RE, s.v. Antisemitismus, col. 18: ''If we now survey the political developments among the Jews and their environment in antiquity, we realize that, in the main, they were not wars of religion but powerstruggles." For an exhaustive and authoritative treatment of all pagan authors, see now Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. I: From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974); vol. II (Jerusalem, 1980).
Page 58
lem (Historiae, 5:2 ff.). Tacitus reproached the Jews for the injunctions they give proselytes and, being a pagan writer at the close of the paganJewish polemic, he emphasized that the Jews are enemies of mankind (Hist., 5:5); while chastising Christianity, he remembered to indicate that Judaea is the source of this evil (Annales, 15:44). After Tacitus, no pagan work appeared dealing with the Jews as such, and it is possible to sense a change in the atmosphere concerning them. At the end of the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, Celsus wrote his antiChristian pamphlet, The True Doctrine (Alêtês Logos). Celsus used a clever technique; first, the Jew he introduced assailed Christianity and afterwards, Celsus pronounced his verdict that the quarrel between the two sides was like the quarrel about the "donkey's shadow."49 Origen noted that the words Celsus put in the mouth of his Jewish protagonist were not always in character — especially when he relied on Greek mythology and quoted the words of Dionysus from the Bacchae of Euripides.50 So, too, his complaint that the Christians, now mostly of pagan origin, had abandoned the religion of their fathers, was inappropriate for a Jew.51 Hence it is difficult to assume that what we have here are the words of a real Jew disputing with a Christian, a dispute that Celsus attended and recorded; we also have no proof that Celsus made use of written Jewish sources and adjusted them to the needs of his pagan readers.52 It is simpler to assume that the personality of Celsus's Jew is his own invention. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that, apart from arguments formulated in Jewish circles in the first century C.E. and directed against the JewishChristians (see below), Celsus puts pagan arguments in the mouth of his Jew, later redirected against the Christians by Celsus himself. The attacks of Celsus on the Jews are not to be taken at their face value, however; he was forced to make them since the ultimate origins of the Christian religion were in the Law of Moses.53 Because of this, Celsus heaped 49
Origen, Contra Celsum, 3:1.
50
Ibid., 1:67; 2:34.
51
Ibid., 2:1; 2:4.
52
This is the opinion of M. Lods, "Étude sur les sources juives de la polémique de Celse contre les chrétiens," in Revue d'hist. et de phil., XXI (1941), pp. 1–33.
53
Dogma. Ibid., 5:65. This is why Celsus said that Moses and no other was for the Christians the "founder of their ancestral laws" (5:33).
Page 59
contempt on the fables of the Jewish holy writings, the rebellious Jewish spirit (which had been passed on to Christianity), and labelled Moses, as Jesus, a sorcerer.54 Praising the Jews who conserved their tradition, Celsus said that they were an "individual nation" (ibid., 5:25), condemning Christianity for being "the Church assembled from among the nations."55 In the writings of Porphyry, we come across a similar phenomenon. One must not seek ulterior motives in the fact that Porphyry copied, in his De abstinentia, Josephus's description of the life and manners of the Essenes, since Porphyry was only too glad to find supporting material for his opposition to the sacrifice of animals. But his treatise De philosophia ex oraculis was directed against the Christians, and his praising the Jews and classifying them with the ancient and wise nations was intended to emphasize their difference from the Christians.56 In his great polemical work, Contra Christianos, Porphyry attacked the Christians for adopting the barbarian doctrines of the Jews, the enemies of mankind, and, in the same breath, he reproved the Christians for deserting the God and the precepts of the Jews.57 Since this duality of attitude towards the Jews was also found in Celsus and Julian, I can see no reason to suspect Eusebius of taking words out of their context or of distorting them intentionally. This phenomenon requires explanation: I think that it can be explained satisfactorily on the basis of the exceptional status of the Jews in the polemic, that is, in keeping with my hypothesis. The ambivalent attitude towards the Jews appears even more prominently in the treatise of the last great pagan polemicist — the emperor Julian. It is clear that this was no accident. In order to deal with the 54
Goés, Ibid., 5:41; 2:32. Cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2:145. See also p. 62 and note 64 below.
55
Other accusations and reproaches made formerly by the pagans with regard to the Jews and later applied to the Christians included, for example, atheism, and a charge concerning the worship of a donkey's head (Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2:80; Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9:3; 28:7. Cf. Tertullian, Apologeticum, 16:1–4). 56
See Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 11, 10:1–3; cf. Augustine, De civitate dei, 13:23.
57
Eusebius, op. cit., 1:2 ff.; cf. Porphyry's words on the Jewish myths and their allegorization in: Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 6, 19:4.
Page 60
innate contradiction, we must have recourse to the assumption that Julian's words were not intended for the Jews and not meant to disclose his real feelings towards them, but only to amplify with their help the momentum of his attack on the hated and dangerous Christians. The complaint which sounds queer in the mouth of a pagan — why did the Christians apostasize from Judaism after deserting paganism — reappears in Julian's pamphlet Contra Galilaeos (43A, and 238A–B). It is followed by a series of comparisons aiming to demonstrate the superiority of pagan opinions and doctrines (Plato, Homer) as regards the deity and its action on the world over the Jewish scriptures. The same technique was applied also to such other questions as culture, wisdom, power and empire.58 Since Christian theology relies on Jewish writings and traditions concerning most of these subjects, Julian was obliged to undermine this foundation. Julian also praised the Jews for their strict observation of those injunctions of the Law which were rejected by the Christians.59 In contrast to Porphyry, Julian was delighted to find that the Law of Moses abounds with sacrifices — which the Jews are prevented from offering because of the destruction of the Temple — whereas the Christians oppose sacrifices of any kind whatsoever. Julian's desire to draw Judaism and paganism together as much as possible so as to whittle away Christianity's base is conspicuous in his statement that all but two of the Ten Commandments are perfectly acceptable to pagans: "Thou shalt not bow down to other gods" and "Remember the Sabbath day." (152 D.) Julian also attempted to lessen or obviate the gravity of Israelite monotheism by explaining that Moses was speaking of a national god or daemon, under whose protection and rule the Jews live, just as other nations live under the aegis of other gods. The supreme god, on the other hand, is common to all, and Julian accordingly revered the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Julian's attempt to weave Judaism into the fabric of polytheistic religions and their theology, as well as his decision to clear the Temple of its debris and rebuild it could not have resulted from an honest persuasion that such indeed was Judaism and such indeed its attitude 58
These and other motifs will be discussed separately and in detail in the following chapters.
59
Contra Galilaeos, 238C. Cf. 305D, 314C.
Page 61 60
towards the religious world of the pagans. Had Julian wished to lessen the differences — which were not deeprooted — between Christianity and paganism, he had at his disposal the Christian doctrines of the logos and the trinity, which would have been adapted far more easily to pagan doctrines than the concept of the one, all creating god of judaism. But political rather than theological needs dictated the lines of Julian's polemic, to which theology had to adapt itself, as we shall see in later chapters; this explains his "fondness" for Jewish beliefs and traditions, and his aversion to and vigorous battle against the Christian Church. We must examine the relations between the Jews and Christians from the beginning to the days of Julian, and also scrutinize their reflection in various Christian writings and in Talmudic literature, in order to complete our picture.
We learn from the Acts of the Apostles about widespread missionary activity initiated by the Christian Apostles in the period between the death of Jesus and the Jewish revolt of 66–70 C.E. The bases of these missionary operations in the Diaspora, and their sources of converts were the Jewish communities and their synagogues. In Eretz Israel too Christian missionaries provoked considerable unrest, and it is understandable therefore that the leading bodies in Jerusalem were unable to sit idly by.61 Instead, they sought to suppress them as best they could. At the time of the siege of Jerusalem, in the days of the Great Revolt, the Jewish Christians deserted the City and went to Pella in TransJordan.62 This was the first obvious sign of separation. After the destruction of the Temple, the duty of fighting unorthodox views within Judaism fell upon the Pharisees, under the leadership of the Patriarchate and the Sanhedrin. The JewishChristians were strengthened in their belief in Jesus as the messiah when the prophecies ascribed to him about the destruction of the Temple were fulfilled. Since the Jewish 60
See the Hebrew articles of Johanan H. Levy, "The Emperor Julian and the Building of the Temple", in Studies . . . , pp. 221–254, and of Mordechai Hak, "Is Julian's Proclamation a Forgery?" in Yavne, II (1940), pp. 118–139 61
First and foremost the High Priest and his council (synhedrion). See E. Bickermann, "The Sanhedrin," in Zion, III (1938), pp. 356–9 (in Hebrew).
62
See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3:5.
Page 62
Christians observed Jewish religious injunctions as did all other Jews, and since they mingled with other Jews in the houses of prayer while simultaneously disseminating propaganda for their creed, the Sages felt it essential to counterattack in two ways. The first of these was the refutation of the belief in Jesus's divine power and inspiration; they argued that Jesus's mother had committed adultery and that his father was really a soldier named Pantera.63 They also raised the argument that Jesus's power was derived from the art of magic or witchcraft which he learned from the Egyptians during his sojourn in Egypt.64 Their other technique was the prevention of contact between JewishChristians and Jews in order to avoid the former's dangerous influence. That there must have been a specific interdiction of dealings with Christians may be deduced from Avot deRabbi Nathan, version B, chap. 3: "Another explanation: 'Remove thy way etc.' (Proverbs, 5:8). R. Yehoshua ben Korha says: this is no other than the manner of minuth (heresy). You tell a man not to approach the minim (heretics) and not to hearken to their words so that he will not fall into their ways. He replies to them: though I approach them, I will not listen to their words and will not fall into their ways. They say unto him: though you are sure, yet you should not go; for this reason, it is said 'Remove thy way far from her', and (Proverbs, 7:26) 'For she hath cast down many dead'." The existence of such a warning is confirmed by Justin Martyr, the younger Christian contemporary of R. Yehoshua ben Korha. In his Dialogus, Justin makes the Jew Trypho say: "O man, it would have been good for us to pay heed to our teachers [i.e. the Sages], who ruled that we should not associate with any of you, and that we might not take part in these discussions with you."65 An example of the risk 63
See e.g. Tosefta, Hulin, 2:24; Origen, Contra Celsum, 1:28,32. But cf. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, "Jesus in the Talmud," in Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 473 ff. For a detailed discussion of the subject, see my article "Ben Stara is Ben Pantera — Towards the Clarification of a PhilologicalHistorical Problem," in Tarbiz, XXXIX (1969), pp. 9–18 (Hebrew). Cf. Ernest L. Abel, ''The Virgin Birth — Was it a Christian Apologetic?" in Revue des études juives, VIII (CXXVIII) (1969), pp. 395–399. 64
See BT Shabbath, 104b; Origen, loc. cit.; Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 1:43; Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 3,6:28. And see my article referred to in note 63.
65
Chapter XXXVIII. This translation and all the following translations unless otherwise noted, are my own.
Page 63
involved in such communications is furnished by the fate of another contemporary: "Hanina *, nephew of R. Yehoshua, went to Kfar Nahum* and the minim did something to him and mounted him on a donkey to ride on the Sabbath. His uncle Yehoshua went to him and put ointment on him and he was cured. He said to him: since the donkey of that wicked man cleaved unto you [that is, took hold of you], you cannot stay in the land of Israel. He departed from there and went to Babylonia, and died there peacefuly" (Kohelet Rabba, 1:24). An extremely important measure introduced to sever the JewishChristians from the Jewish communities was the institution at Yavneh (Jamnia) of the bircat haminim, "the curse of the heretics," in the order of prayer.66 The cumulative effect of these steps was, most probably, the building of a barrier between the Jews and the Christians. From this point forward, the "Ebionite" sects constituted a perennial problem to the Christian"pagan" Church. A further separation resulted from dispensations granted by the Apostles to pagans who wished to join the Christian Church, allowing them considerable freedom from the yoke of the Halacha (the Oral Law). The pagan element in the Church became ever more powerful as a result, naturally endeavouring to differentiate between its views and those of Judaism. The JewishChristians were persecuted by the Jews for the last time when the former refused to participate in the BarCochba revolt.67 After those events, Christianity turned 66
BTBerachot, 28b; transl. M. Simon (London, 1958); Justin Martyr, Dialogus, 16 passim; Epiphanius, Haereses, 29:9. Cf. the version of the bircat haminim in the Cairo Geniza published by Jacob Mann in the Hebrew Union College Annual, II (1925), p. 306. 67
According to Justin (Apologia I,31), BarCochba ordered severe punishments to be inflicted on the Christians if they would not deny Jesus and blaspheme him. Another and more reasonable reason for BarCochba's attitude is found in the Chronicon of Eusebius, for the 2149th year following Abraham: "Cochba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, inflicted various punishments on many people among the Christians because they refused to join him in the battle against the Romans." In a letter of BarCochba found in the Judaean desert (P. Benoit. J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, II: Les grottes de Murabba'at [Oxford, 1960], no. 43, pp. 159–161) certain "Galilaeans" ( ) (Glelaim) are mentioned. In his commentary ad loc., Milik withdraws his original hypothesis, of the preliminary publication, which suggested that "Galilaeans" referred to the JewishChristians. His most recent suggestion is that these people were refugees from Galilee who sojourned in the southern
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 64
to its distinct path within the Empire. Its development was accompanied by conflict with the Roman government, and by persecutions on a larger scale from time to time. This process was no longer of interest to the Sages and the Jews in the Diaspora, since they had nothing to fear from it.68 The more privileged condition of the Jews under pagan rule, in comparison to that of the Christians, was replaced by an inferior and degrading status, while the endeavour of the Church Fathers to establish the validity of Christian theology by decrees and ordinances of the secular arm contributed to the deepening of the separation of the two groups. (footnote continued from previous page) towns of Judaea. It is difficult to accept this interpretation, since it is highly unlikely that refugees would swarm from a peaceful region into an area of considerable military activity. The usual migration pattern would be exactly the opposite. Indeed, the national leadership moved from Yavneh in Judaea to Usha, in the Galilee. It seems to me that Milik's first suggestion was the more reasonable one, and that we have here a name for Christians invented in Jewish circles. If this be so, this document and the literary sources cited above may refer to the same thing. As for the name "Galilaeans," it is possible that, at the beginning, it was no more than a reference to the geographic origins of the Jewish Christians but that when it was applied later by pagans, it took on shadings of disparagement and contempt. Similarly, the pagans revealed their contempt for the smallness of the Land of Israel, that negligible corner of the earth, whose inhabitants had pretentious claims as to their knowledge of god, his true revelation, his election and care of them through the sending of prophets and lawgivers, and so on. Epictetus, who flourished at about the time of the BarCochba revolt, used the name "Galilaeans" for Christians (Arrian, Dissertationes, 4,7:6), whereas the emperor Julian not only called them by this name regularly but also, according to Gregory Nazianzus (Oratio IV), he even issued a special edict requiring that the Christians be called "Galilaeans." Cf. too Justin, Dialogus, 108 and 17: "You [scil. Jews] have appointed selected men and sent them all over the inhabited world to announce that an unlawful and atheistic sect [=hairesis=heresy] had risen from a certain Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver. . . . " Cf. John Chrysostom, De sancto Babyla, par. 22. 68
The minim's power of witchcraft is revealed by what they did to Hanania * (above, p. 63). But this did not stop people in Eretz Israel from turning to the minim for treatment, despite the opposition of the Sages. After the case of Ben Dama (BT 'Abodah Zarah, 27b), we hear of the case of the son of R. Yehoshua Ben Levi (MR Ecclesiastes, 10:7). The Christians, on the other hand, boasted frequently of their power to drive out daemons; see, for example, Eusebius, Dem. Evang., 3,6:35: "Who does not know that by pronouncing the name of Jesus and purest prayers we are wont to cast out all the work of the daemons?" Cf. ibid., 3,6:36.
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 65 69
From the point of view of the Jewish leadership of that time there was a positive element in this antiJewish legislation.
As noted above, no special inclination or effort can be discerned on the part of Judaism to absorb new ethnic elements through largescale proselytism in the two hundred years between the BarCochba revolt and the establishment of the rule of Constantine. Christian literature seems to contradict this statement, but this contradiction is only an apparent one. In my opinion, the Adversus Iudaeos treatises and the Acta martyrum do not reflect an actual ChristianJewish polemic. If indeed they did, my hypothesis about the "neutral" position of the Jews would be invalid. I believe one may speak only of a ChristianJewish dispute and of no more. I indicated above (pp. 44–48) the support for this position in the works of Harnack, Hulen, Williams, Blumenkranz and Parkes; here I propose to analyse the Acta martyrum, the Adversus Iudaeos treatises, and Christian polemical writings against the pagans in order to see in what way their attitude towards Jews and Judaism contributes to the clarification of our problem and its solution.
(footnote continued from previous page) Concerning the conversion of the Jews, it is perhaps possible to deduct from Eusebius's words in the Dem. Evang. 2,3:43 that the results of the Christian "mission" to the Jews were negligible, even though his statement dealt with the past: " . . . Very few of them [i.e. the Jews] have believed in our Saviour and lord. . . . . " 69
Our survey of the relations between Jews and Christians, according to which the period before the BarCochba revolt was a period of polemic, followed by a decisive change which inaugurated the era of debate, is supported indirectly by A. Büchler's "The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third Centuries," in Studies in Jewish History: The Büchler Memorial Volume, ed. by I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz (Oxford, 1956), pp. 245–274. This limited study was directed towards another purpose, but its conclusions are not incompatible with my hypothesis. In his summary (p. 271), Büchler states that in no Talmudic passage of those he discussed (which refer to the second and third centuries C.E.) does the term min fit a JewishChristian, and one cannot find in them a clear reference to Christianity or to Jesus. In most cases pagans and antinomian Gnostics were intended and, in a few, Christians of pagan origin. Büchler adds (p. 272): "This is not to deny that in a whole series of passages in the Talmud 'Min' is used also of Jews with heretical views; but all these statements refer to opinions and conditions before 135 and in Judaea. . . . "
Page 66
The stories in the socalled Acta martyrum Christianorum are not objective accounts, but seek rather to glorify the courage of the martyrs and to serve as propaganda materials to strengthen the hearts of the Christians, who might one day have to face such trials. We are entitled in this case to ascribe great importance to the silence of the sources: it is of crucial importance that in the Acta, from the second century C.E. onwards, there is not even one explicit charge that the Jews collaborated with the Roman authorities in the betrayal or capture of the martyrs. The comparison of the martyrdom of Polycarp (of the middle of the second century C.E.) and that of Pionius (of the middle of the third) is also instructive. Both martyrdoms occurred in Smyrna. In the first case, the Jews are described as active participants in the collection of wood for the burning of Polycarp, and they also guard his body and prevent the Christians from taking it for burial. The Jews' enthusiasm is not weaker, and is perhaps even stronger, than that of the pagans.70 In the second case, the Jews are reported to have crowded into the marketplace only because they were free from work (it being the "great Sabbath"). They went therefore to watch the peculiar event of the martyrs' trial, and to laugh unsympathetically at the Christians' misfortunes.71 It may seem unlikely, but the attitude of the Jews at the time of Polycarp's execution is perfectly understandable in the light of the rather friendly tone of Justin's missionary approach to Trypho and to the Jews in general.72 For this reason, I classify Justin's Dialogus as the last Christian treatise which, like the Synoptic Gospels, attempted to persuade the Jews to put an end to their stubbornness and to admit the divinity of Jesus.73 To put it in a nutshell: it was in the middle of the second century C.E. that the last missionary activities among the Jews were carried out; Polycarp was, very probably, one of the architects of this Christian policy of conversion, which might explain the strong animosity shown by the Jews towards him. Once the Christians had despaired of converting the Jews and were content to leave them 70
Martyrium Polycarpi, chaps. 13,17; " . . . the Jews, as was their habit, lent their help in this very vigorously. . . . "
71
Acta Pionii, 3:6; 4:8.
72
Cf. G. Alon's criticism of S. Lieberman in his Studies . . . II, pp. 266–268 and p. 267 n. 31 (Hebrew).
73
Cf. Dialogus, 23 and 28: "A short time is left you [ = Jews] to become proselytes [i.e. to become Christians]."
Page 67
alone, the Jews treated the Christians with equanimity, as is shown by the Acta of Pionius.
74
Justin's Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo can, in fact, be regarded as the precursor of the Adversus Iudaeos treatises. Such works as the Dialogus, the Adversus Iudaeos treatises of Tertullian and Augustine, and the various Altercationes of the second to fourth centuries C.E. had a basically simple formula: Jesus and the Torah precepts. That is why the identical verses which, according to the Christians, refer to Jesus, the time of his appearance, his divine origin, the attitude of the Jews towards him and so on, appear repeatedly in them. The Christians were also compelled to explain why they rejected the precepts concerning circumcision, the Sabbath, permitted and forbidden foods, and the laws of purity and those of impurity, among others. The personality of Jesus, as was to be expected, served as a target for the attacks of the pagan polemicists since he was, to use Celsus's words (Contra Celsum, 8:14) the "founder of the faction" (stasis). Porphyry and Julian made frequent use of Biblical exposition in order to refute the Christian interpretation. As we have seen, the Christian annulment of the Torah injunctions too, while relying on a radical, 74
Origen (Contra Celsum, 6:27) accuses the Jews of having spread libels of Christianity in earlier times. Surprisingly, Origen does not count the charges levelled by the Sages at Jesus, his birth and his deeds, but does mention the pagan accusations concerning ritual murder and incest raised against the Christians. There is little doubt that Origen's accusations were baseless, for otherwise such apologists as Aristides. Athenagoras, Justin and Tertullian, who busily defended the Christians against such widespread. popular accusations, would not have refrained from emphasizing their Jewish origin. Immoral practices of this sort were ascribed to the Christians by the common people as well as by the authorities; the Christians were an illegal religious sect, and it was natural for others to suppose that crimes were committed in the Christians' clandestine gatherings. This may be deduced from Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan (X:96), and is also conspicuous in the Acts of the Martyrs of Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul of 177 C.E. No mention is made of the Jews in the whole account, and the accusations of incest ("Oedipean intercourses") and of cannibalism ("Thyestean feasts") were obtained from the pagan servants of the Christians (ibid., par. 14). It is clear that, apart from the abovenoted argumentum e silentio, Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with charges of this kind. See, on the charges of Christian cannibalism and incest, Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9:5–7, and compare Tertullian, Apologeticum, 2:5; 7:1.
Page 68
allegorical interpretation abounding with contradictions, appeared again and again as a pagan polemical motif. It was therefore a matter of convenience and, perhaps, also of necessity for the Christians to direct their defensive missiles against the Jews, whose very existence and unshakable opposition to the Christians' system and claims so enhanced the "Jewish arguments" presented by the pagans. The Jews also constituted a serious obstacle to the Christians, who had hoped to convince the pagans to join the Church. Since the Christians used, in their polemic against heretics and schismatics, the same arguments found in the Adversus Iudaeos treatises (see above pp. 44–48), and since we are aware of their catechetic role and of their value in the struggle against the "Judaizers", their antiJewish weight is diminished ipso facto and their title must not mislead us.75 One may say then, that all these Adversus Iudaeos treatises were directed against the Jews too. On the other hand, the picture of Judaism that emerged from Christian polemical writings against the pagans was quite clear. Tatian was famous for his candid, sharp, and audacious utterances.76 Like Justin, he sought to create the impression that he was familiar with all aspects of Greek culture: philosophy, poetry, history, and so forth, and that his preference for the Law of Moses followed upon his having pondered and compared the value and truth of all of these. Apart from the last chapters (36 ff.), in which Tatian attempted to prove the antiquity of Moses and of his Law as against that of Homer and of his precursors, such as Orpheus and Musaeus, his words make evident the vast importance attached to the Biblical narrative by people of limited education, who were offended by mythological tales.77 The simplicity and authority with which the Torah disposed of the most complicated of problems were grasped readily by pagans of this intellectual type and convinced them of its validity.78 75
It is interesting that among the writings of Clement of Alexandria (late second century C.E.), Eusebius mentions a book "entitled Ecclesiastical Canon or Against the Judaizers" (Historia Ecclesiastica, 6,13:3). 76
See p. 14 above.
77
It should be noted that as regards the question of antiquity the Christian apologists, almost without exception, echo he words of Josephus Flavius in his Contra Apionem.
78
See I. Heinemann, "The Attitude of the Ancients toward Judaism," in Zion, IV (1939), pp. 271–73 (in Hebrew). Heinemann compares Tatian's statements on the creation of the world according to Genesis as being a factor
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 69
Tertullian's stinging invective on the subject of the pagans and heretics is notorious, but his attitude towards the Jews as exemplified in the Apologeticum was completely different. He refuted Tacitus's words about their worship of the head of an ass, and branded him "the most loquacious among the liars." It is not difficult to guess why Tertullian came forward to the defence of the Jews, for he stated openly: "And so, I think, it was assumed that we too [that is, the Christians], being close to the Jewish religion, are introduced to the worship of the same effigy" [of an ass] (ibid., 16:3). Tertullian did not, indeed, deny that there were points of disagreement and even outright contradiction between Jews and Christians. He noted that the Christians do not abstain from forbidden foods, celebrate the Jewish festivals, or practice circumcision (ibid., 21:2), and indicated the most serious controversy, that concerning the coming of the Messiah, whom the Jews still await, whereas the Christians claim that he has already come (ibid., 21:15). But, he said, Jewish Law is true and divine, and Jewish prophets are true ones, and it was under the aegis of the Jewish faith, a very prominent religion, that Christianity grew and flourished.79 Tertullian reiterates the story of the Septuagint translation (18:5), and expatiates on the antiquity and trustworthiness of the Law of Moses, stressing that it is worthy of credibility because of the fulfillment of its prophecies.80 Origen's lengthy treatise Contra Celsum was designed to dispel the (footnote continued from previous page) in his conversion with the account in Talmudic sources of the factors which led Aquila to embrace Judaism. 79
Apologeticum, 18:2; 18:5–6; 21:1.
80
See ibid., 19:1. Tertullian's saying: "The synagogues of the Jews are the sources of persecutions," (Scorpiace, 10) should be approached with the same reservations as Origen's insinuations. At the foundation of these accusations lie not the actual situation and behaviour of the Jews, but the image necessary to Christian theology. This image was created from materials in the New Testament as well as from an allegorical interpretation of Biblical figures represented as being the wicked and sinful Israel persecuting the good and true Israel, that is, Christianity. See W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), pp. 258–259 and n. 148, and Fergus Millar's review of Frend in the Journal of Roman Studies, LVI (1966), pp. 231–236. See also Frend's rejoinder, "A Note on Tertullian and the Jews," in Studia Patristica, X (1970) ["Texte und Untersuchungen," vol. 107], pp. 291–296. Compare my "The Church Fathers and the Jews, in Writings for External and Internal Use," in Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. S. Almog (Jerusalem, 1980), esp. pp. 71–73 (Hebrew).
Page 70
influence of Celsus's arguments on pagans inclined to Christianity, as well as to provide Christians with replies to the criticism and invective supplied by Celsus to anti Christian pagans. Apart from his making the usual use of Philo and Josephus, Origen spared no effort to defend Judaism and glorify it.81 He made it clear that Christians and Jews share the belief that the Bible was written by a divine spirit, in spite of the fact that the Christians do not observe the injunctions of the Law and are divided concerning its interpretation (ibid., 5:60). This fact does not prevent Origen from praising the Jewish constitution (politeia) which, he said, is based in general on useful precepts such as that prohibiting prostitution or those concerning Jewish slaves; in the socioethical sphere, in contrast to the ritual, the Christians continued to view the precepts of the Law as being a regulative and obligatory code for themselves. Origen then remarked that the wisdom of the Jews surpasses not only that of the pagan multitudes but also that of the philosophers (ibid., 5:42). The latter, despite all their wisdom, fell into the trap of idol and daemon worship, whereas even the least of the Jews worships only the god of the universe, in reply to Celsus's argument that it is unreasonable to say that the Jews should be especially beloved of the god, and that only to the Jews does the god send messengers,82 since their condition and the quality of their land testified to the contrary, Origen said that the Jews had always retained God's favour, and that, though few in number, still they were guarded by the power of God (ibid., 5:50). It is possible to present additional examples and also to show that Origen attacked the Jews, in this treatise, only when he was forced to do so. But it will suffice perhaps to discuss one specific paragraph in order to present his mood properly. In the beginning of his treatise, Celsus presented a Jew fiercely disputing with Jesus and the Christians. One might have expected that this would provoke Origen, and lead him to indulge in a detailed and acrimonious debate with Judaism; to our surprise, Origen exibited great restraint and curtailed his exchange of words with the Jew by saying: "It is not now on the agenda to explain the rationale of circumcision, which was begun by Abraham and forbidden by Jesus, who did not wish that his disciples should practice the same. For the present time is not fit to discuss his 81
For Origen's use of Scripture see, e.g., Contra Celsum, 6:18.
82
=angeloi=angels; the Hebrew malach has both connotations as well.
Page 71
teaching; rather, there is a struggle to squash the accusations levelled by Celsus against the doctrine [=logos] of the Jews, thinking that he would be able easily to present Christianity as being fraudulent . . . if he were to expose its source which lies in the writings of the Jews."83 We shall now turn to Eusebius, who passed in his lifetime from a pagan to a Christian regimen. Eusebius wrote against Porphyry in particular and, for this task, read widely in philosophical, historical and literary pagan writings. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius widened immensely the range of the polemic, as Augustine was to do in the sphere of Latin culture with his De civitate dei. When he wrote the Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius had to consult all the early Christian material. His work was compiled for Christians, but was also intended to present the pagans with a picture of the Church, its development, and its relations with the communities in whose midst it grew. One paragraph in the Historia Ecclesiastica (2,18:1) may be called "Philo's encomium". The reason is obvious — Christian allegorical interpretation is based on the work of Philo. Eusebius stated that Clement of Alexandria used, in preparing his Stromateis, the Sapientia Solomonis, Siracides, Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, Demetrius and Eupolemus among others (op. cit., 6,13:6–7). Eusebius did the same for his Praeparatio Evangelica. Reading the Historia Ecclesiastica reveals that the central conflict and polemic between Jews and Christians were those of the period that preceded the revolt of 66– 70 C.E. Afterwards, the Historia Ecclesiastica included almost no comments on the Jews, whereas citations from the addresses of Christian apologists to the Roman emperors and also quotations taken from the Acta of the martyrs abounded. Even a superficial glance at the contents of the work shows that the Church was troubled from its beginnings by an unceasing polemic with the various heretic and Gnostic sects that emerged and spread within it; the silence about the Jews is very significant. The fact that not even one Jewish antiChristian polemical treatise has been preserved (in contrast to the antiJewish pamphlets), and that the existence of such a work was not even mentioned in contemporary Christian literature, is very telling.84 For 83
Ibid., 1:22.
84
In the Proceedings of The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, II, no. 13 (1966), Shlomo Pines put forward the theory that one polemical
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 72
it is difficult to imagine, had there indeed existed a work similar to the arguments of the Jew presented by Celsus, that Origen, Eusebius or someone else would not have mentioned it when discussing the attacks of the Jews on Christianity. The argument from silence in this case, which conforms to the conclusion derived from the Historia Ecclesiastica, may be seen as clearcut evidence of the character of the JewishChristian dispute. From the Jews' point of view, the limits of a debate were not exceeded, and the Jews therefore saw no need to compile polemical treatises against the Christians. Immediately after his short preface to the Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius noted Porphyry's accusations against the Christians (1,2:1–4). Further on, he presented some arguments which were, possibly, of Jewish provenance (1,2:5–8), and went on to explain (1,3:12–13) that he had plenty of evidence from the writings of the Hebrews concerning these matters, but preferred to defer their treatment to a special treatise, the future Demonstratio Evangelica. After this comment, Eusebius gave the reasons for the Christians' apostasy from the god of their fathers, widening the field of discussion to include all varieties of pagan theology in the East and in the West. Eusebius used a method favourable to Christians: he quoted from preChristian writers; from those postChristian writerscompilers who were far removed from the paganChristian polemic (such as Plutarch) and because of this were not on their guard; and also from pagans who fought the accepted pagan concepts (such as the Cynics). Useful citations from an opponent's writings (such as those of Porphyry) were, of course, never missing, while contradicting paragraphs from one writer's work were presented in order to lessen the authority of their author, as, for example, that of Plato. Alongside writings of this sort, considerable use was made by Eusebius of Jewish Hellenistic works such as those of Philo, Josephus, and other (footnote continued from previous page) work of a JewishChristian sect, directed against the official Church, was included in AbdalJabbar's treatise against Christianity. His theory was convincingly rejected by S.M. Stern, first in Encounter, in April 1967, and later in the Journal of Theological Studies, XIX, part 1 (April, 1968). But even if one accept Pines's theory, nothing in it contradicts my argument, since this work emanates from the heretics (minim) rather than from orthodox Jewish circles; its evidence might even confirm my argument that, from the second century onwards, the JewishChristians became a problem for the Church, while Judaism was relieved of the burden of their agitation.
Page 73 85
writers, fragments of whose work have been preserved only due to their having been quoted by Eusebius. Again and again (see, e.g., 4,21:3), there was emphasis placed on the idea that, in contrast to all the nations who had been led astray and had become enslaved to corrupt and corrupting daemons, only the Jews had succeeded in receiving the true words of God, whereas Moses and the other prophets of Israel were presented as men who were taken into the confidence of God. They were almost habitually called theologians and philosophers by Eusebius.86 He quoted the praises bestowed by Apollo (according to Porphyry) on the wisdom of the Hebrew nation, which he included among the wise nations of the East (Praep. Evang., 9, 10:1–3). Eusebius, who needed support for his rejection of ancestral customs and of polytheistic views as well as for his adoption of Jewish theology, presented all possible materials from various writers dealing with Moses, the Jews, and the inferiority of the Greeks to ''the barbarians" of the East.87 In the eleventh book of his Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius turned to a thorough analysis of Plato's teachings. Comparing the theological views of Plato and Moses was very popular among the Christians, and even pagan polemicists did not refrain from doing so, although, as was to be expected, they drew rather different conclusions with regard to which of the two was to be regarded as the plagiarist, and whose work was preferable.88 It is possible to cite many more examples of the dependence 85
Philo was introduced thus: " . . . A Hebrew man . . . who perfected his proper studies from his father and learned the dogma from teachers . . . " (Praep. Evang., 7,12:14). And, a little further on, Aristobulus thus: " . . . Another wise man of the Hebrews. . . . who mastered the dogma as an ancestral legacy . . . " (7,13:7). Josephus's Contra Apionem was quoted, e.g. in 8,7:21 ff.; The letter of Aristeas, in 8,9:1 ff.; Ezekiel the playwrite, in 9,28:1 ff.; and so on. 86
See, e.g., 7,7:1. Cf. 8,21:20; 10,14:18.
87
The "barbarians" in this case included the Jews. The writers he cited included Josephus, Diodorus of Sicily, and Porphyry, among others. His preface to a quotation from Josephus is very instructive: "But since, before our time, the present subject was dealt with intensively by the children of the Hebrews themselves, it might be good to take a look at their writings. I shall use, then, in preference to all others, the statements of Flavius Josephus. . . . (Praep. Evang. 10,12:31). The various motifs mentioned will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. 88
Eusebius's words in the Praep. Evang. revealed his psychological conflict, which verged on schizophrenia: "Why should I speak lengthily and bring
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 74
of Eusebius on the Jews and their holy scriptures, as well as on HellenisticJewish literature, since the value and usefulness of the New Testament in itself was minimal as a counterweight to pagan philosophy. There is, however, no need to elaborate this; the picture is quite clear. Near the end of the treatise (Praep. Evang., 15, 1:8) Eusebius promised that he would connect his next treatise, the Demonstratio Evangelica, to the Praeparatio Evangelica by dealing in it with what was left of the accusations against the Christians. As he puts it, "for this we were blamed: that, though we preferred the oracles of the Hebrews to those of our forefathers, we did not choose to emulate a way of life similar to that of the Jews; this challenge I shall try to meet, with God's help, after completing the present treatise" (15,1:9). Let us, then, pay some attention now to the promised treatise, and see what it can contribute to our discussion. Eusebius's Demonstratio Evangelica is, structurally, a sort of expanded edition of the treatises Adversus Iudaeos, just as the Praeparatio Evangelica may be viewed as an enlarged edition of the various short Apologiae. Whereas in the Praeparatio Evangelica Eusebius frequently cited pagan historians, writers, poets, and philosophers in order to belittle the value and truthfulness of pagan theology — and thereby free the Christians of the charge of apostasy — verses from the Bible have the upper hand in the Demonstratio Evangelica. However, these were valid concerning the Jews and the pagans alike, as the concentration of Porphyry and, to a certain degree, of Julian on criticizing the Christians' Biblical interpretations shows. In other words, the fact that the pagans did not reject a priori arguments based on Biblical verses but attempted to refute them by means of Biblical criticism proves that such citations were seen by the pagans as having validity. Apart from this, even if the Christians had so desired, they were unable to find positive sources of evidence other than the Bible, on which their Testament relied. We can understand Eusebius, therefore, when he said that the content "might (footnote continued from previous page) to light other things of Plato? . . . For I was not led to say these things for the sake of libel, since I myself admire the man very much and I think of him more fondly than of all the Greeks and honour him; on the whole, he held thoughts favourable and akin to mine, though not identical. But I pointed out the deficiency of his thinking in comparison to that of Moses and the prophets of the Hebrews" (13,18:17).
Page 75 89
fit the children of the Greeks too, if they would show good will." Further on, Eusebius indicated that his treatise was also directed against those who vilified Christianity by arguing that it was only a belief (pistis) and lacked proof.90 This argument of illogical credulity (alogos pistis) probably originated in pagan circles. When Celsus made this accusation, it still had some justification, because the social classes from which Christianity drew its adherents were the lowest ones. This intellectualaristocratic attitude of Celsus was most offensive to Origen, and called forth sharp retorts, especially since, in the seventy years that elapsed between the publication of Celsus's views and that of Origen's reply, the situation in the Church had changed. Origen himself had contributed to this alteration in no small measure. Porphyry and Julian continued to repeat this charge, but it was without foundation, for Christians and pagans alike were now possessed of a general education and a certain status. This is shown by the great outcry raised by the Christians when the Emperor Julian ordered their teachers of rhetoric to desist from teaching Greek literature in the schools. Eusebius noted that his treatise might be useful not only against the abovementioned libel, but also in order to refute the false and blasphemous words of the atheistic sects against the divine prophets. This was to be achieved by presenting the harmony (=symphonia) between ancient and new things (1,1:13). Finally Eusebius explained that he dealt separately with various charges against Christianity: the Praeparatio Evangelica was written in 89
Dem. Evang., 1,1:12; Cf. 1,1:11: "I treated this scripture not, as one would say, as being against the Jews [ = kata Ioudaiôn = Adversus Iudaeos] — far from it —, but rather as being for them, if they would show good will." It is difficult to assume that the quotation from Porphyry (ibid., 3,7:1–2), which praises Jesus, was intended for Jewish ears, but it was very appropriate for the persuasion of pagans. 90
See 1,1:12. Cf. J.H. Levy, "Jewish Paupers in Ancient Rome," in his Studies . . . , p. 199 n. 8 (Hebrew). As for Christian and pagan mentality, it is interesting to note terminological distinctions which might indicate different ways of thinking. For example, the pagans generally spoke of thrêskeia, a word denoting the material side of worship, as signifying "religion," while the Christians used this term very little, preferring the terms eusebeia or theosebeia, emphasizing the spiritual aspect of worship. (See for this Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 9,9a:1–3; 9,10:8–10; cf. 9,10:11.) Christian writers also distinguished, for obvious reasons, between the eusebeia of the patriarchs who antedated Moses and the thrêskeia which Moses gave Israel.
Page 76
response to the pagans' asking why the Christians had forsaken the Greek ancestral tradition and substituted the barbarian Hebrew doctrines for it. The Jews, on the other hand, reproached the Christians who, having assimilated the Jewish sacred writings, nonetheless led a dissimilar life (Dem. Evang., 1, 1:15–16). At first sight, this seems to be an example of a typically Jewish complaint, such as had been presented emphatically by Trypho in Justin's Dialogus; Justin had already devoted considerable effort to answering it. But, as a matter of fact, this complaint was no less a pagan one, repeated by Celsus, Porphyry and Julian.91 The aim of the pagans was to show that the Christians were men of apostasy and sedition by nature, just as their spiritual fathers had been. Given this aim, the Demonstratio Evangelica was, at the least, a defensive tract to counter pagan charges, such as those of Eusebius's adversary Porphyry (it should be remembered that Eusebius did not name any Jewish polemicist), rather than a polemic against Jewish accusations.92 Thus, we see that what emerges from the writings of Eusebius is not different essentially from the approach of his predecessors. In order to complete our survey, we have to examine the Jewish sources dealing with this subject. The Talmudic sources which speak explicitly of debates with the minim confirm the impression drawn from our survey of Christian sources. It is difficult indeed in many cases to establish the identity of the min involved, to reveal whether he was a JewishChristian, a Christian of pagan origin, a Gnostic, or a pagan. But even if most of these minim were Christians, that would not undermine my hypothesis concerning the character of the relations between the two groups in the postBar Cochba period. In the preBarCochba period, there were sharp statements testifying to the intense quality of the polemic, such as that of Rabbi Tarphon: " . . . . . if a man pursue a man in order to kill him and a snake chase him in order to bite him, he should enter a 91
See Origen, Contra Celsum, 2:1,4; cf. 3:5; Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 1,2:4; Julian, Contra Galilaeos, 238A–B.
92
In the Dem. Evang. 3,5:110, Eusebius declared that he intended to answer the charge that Jesus had practiced sorcery (goêteia) with the aim of leading people astray. The origin of this accusation was Jewish, as I have shown elsewhere (see Tarbiz, XXXIX [1969], pp. 9–18); it became a permanent motif of the pagan polemic, and it seems reasonable to assume that Eusebius was confronting a pagan, not a Jewish, polemicist. Cf. Dem. Evang., 3,6:28.
Page 77
house of idolatry and not enter the houses of these people, because the latter know and deny [God] and the former do not know and deny [Him], and of them Scripture says: 'And behind the doors and the posts thou hast set up thy symbol'" (Isaiah, 57:8).93 In the later period, the purely disputative character of the exchanges was prominent. This may be shown from a few examples. In Kohelet Rabba, 1:25, we read about Rabbi Yehuda ben Nakossa (flourished in the beginning of the third century C.E.): " . . . the minim had been dealing with him: they were asking him questions and he answered them, asking him and he answered. He said to them: your retorts are useless; come, let us agree among us that each man who will achieve victory over his competitor will strike his competitor on the head with a mallet. And he defeated them and wounded their heads till they were full of wounds. When he returned, his disciples said to him: Rabbi, you were helped by heaven and you were victorious. He said to them: and was it for nothing? Go and pray for that man and for that bag which was full of precious stones and pearls, but now is full of coals."94 From the story of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nakossa, one realizes that he was thoroughly tired of the unproductive character of the dispute with the minim and, in order to bring about its intensification, he made his drastic suggestion. However, when it was over, he was very upset by the result. It might be argued that this tradition should not be accepted as something that really happened, but rather that it was invented to prove that the Jewish Sages had the upper hand in their debate with the minim. Such a conclusion would not endanger my deductions, since I am interested in the atmosphere of general indifference, before its artificial intensification by Rabbi Yehuda, which is revealed in this story. The Church Fathers were accustomed to turn to Jewish Sages with questions of Biblical interpretation.95 In many cases, these were embarrassing questions whose aim was not solely information but which were designed to establish the Christian interpretation. The story of Rabbi Abbahu (flourished late thirdearly fourth century C.E.) and the 93
BT Shabbath, 116a.
94
Cf. JT Berachoth, chap. 9, 12d (end): "The minim asked Rabbi Simlai [flourished in the second half of the third century C.E.] . . . they asked again . . . they asked again . . . and so on. 95
See, e.g., Origen, op. cit., 1:55; cf. the parallel (even chronologically) in BT Pesahim, 87b. See also M. Simon, op. cit., pp. 200–22.
Page 78
minim may serve as an illustration: "Rabbi Abbahu praised Rav Safra before the minim, saying that he was a great man; they absolved him of thirteen years' tax. One day they met him. They said to him: it is written 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit all your iniquities upon you' (Amos, 3:2) — if one is in a bad humour, will he vent it upon his friend? He was silent and said nothing to them. They threw a scarf around his [Rav Safra's] neck and started to afflict him. Rabbi Abbahu appeared and found them. He said to them: why do you trouble him? They said to him: did you not tell us that he is a great man? He said to them: what I told you was with reference to Tannaitic studies; did I tell you about Bible studies? They said to him: What difference does it make to you that you do know [scriptural matters]? He said to them: we, since we frequently meet you, [= minim], must take it upon ourselves to study [=the Bible]; they [=the Babylonians] do not study . . . " (BT Avodah Zarah, 4a). This tradition also shows that the disputes between the minim and the Jews (and it is worth noting that the initiative is always reported as coming from the side of the minim; see BT Avodah Zarah, 16b–17a) were characteristically both childish and barren. I have tried to show that, following the middle of the second century C.E., there was a radical change in the relations among Jews, pagans, and Christians. The polemic which had dealt with problems of existence and conflict was now replaced by a barren, colourless dispute. The main argument of the scholars who insist on the continuance of the polemic during the two hundred years after the BarCochba revolt is based on the existence of Jewish religious propaganda directed towards pagans and Christians as potential converts to Judaism. This assumption must be rejected because of the lack of sufficient and decisive proof; with this assumption there also falls the designation of the Jews as an autonomous party to the polemic.96 The Adversus Iudaeos literature too can be interpreted plausibly as not contradicting the hypothesis that the Jews were a sort of "middlemen" in the polemic between the pagans and the Christians. Other sources — pagan and Christian alike — confirm this hypothesis. 96
From BT Yebamoth, 46a, it appears that, in the third century C.E., the Sages were very strict even as regards the ritual immersion of proselytes. Cf. JT Kiddushin, chap. 3,64d (beginning).
Page 79
If this view be accepted, another question will confront us: what is the meaning of the midrashim (homilies) which contain reactions to arguments or attacks coming from "the nations of the world"? Are we entitled to say that the Sages meant the Christian church whose members were drawn from among the nations? And if they did refer to the Christians in this way, why was this title bestowed on the Christians rather than the usual expression minim which includes, most probably, Christians of pagan origin as well. There is no reasonable ground for the substitution of an expression favourable to the Christians for the term minim. I think that we must assume that the expression "the nations of the world" refers to the pagan kingdoms, unless the texts themselves make it clear that this is not the case.97 When we meet a similar charge against the Jews, made by both pagans and Christians, I think that the Talmudic sources were answering the pagans. It is clear that pagan invective was not directed against the Jews but rather sought to use the Jews to increase the force of the blows it bestowed upon the Christians. The Christians sensed this, and defended themselves by both supporting the Jews and disavowing them. However, the Jews were unable to disregard these polemics intended for the Christians, and had to answer them from the Jewish point of view, especially since there were among the polemical motifs such as constituted a pithy, internal theological problem for the Jews. For the time being I will content myself with only two concrete examples, in order to clarify my words. The Contra Galilaeos included a dispute between Julian and Paul. Julian argued that the Jews are the elected people, the "portion" of the god of Israel, to whom alone all his devotion is given (ibid., 106A–B). He, therefore, repudiated the Pauline attempt to seduce the pagans, by saying that he is the god not only of the Jews but of the Gentiles as well (Romans, 3:29; Galatians, 3:28). Julian said that if this be so, "it is justified to ask Paul . . . why was it to the Jews that he sent the grace of prophecy in abundance, and Moses, and the anointing, and the prophets, and the Law? . . . Finally, he sent unto them Jesus too, while unto us (he sent) no prophet, no anointing, no teacher, no messenger to tell of the future love [=philantrôpia] which 97 For example, the Midrash in MR Song of Songs, 1:41 (to Song of Songs, 1:6) refers to the pagans, while Tanhuma, Ki Tissah, 34, might have the Christians in mind.
Page 80
should, one day, albeit delayed, emanate from him and reach us too. Furthermore he even disregarded for myriads or, if you wish, thousands of years, people, from where the sun rises to where it sets and from North to South (all) worshipping idols, as you call them, in utter ignorance, except one tiny tribe which not even two thousand years before had settled in one part of Palestine. If indeed he be the god of all of us and the creator of all alike, why did he disregard us?"98 Further on (176A–B), Julian made it clear that, in his opinion, it was really the other way round: that god's care and providence were granted to all the other nations no less and even more than to the Jews. In the light of these words his earlier question seems to be rhetorical, even ironical (compare 138C–D). But the question itself, apart from its context, was a serious one and required an answer. The Christians offered various answers: that human beings (with the exception of the Jews) were incapable at the beginning of accepting God and His Law; or that the divine logos, which was revealed to the ancestors of the Hebrew nation as well as to Moses and the prophets, conferred its inspiration also upon such great men among the Gentiles as Socrates and Plato.99 The Jews too were forced to explain the curious fact that all God's attention and benefactions had been concentrated on them, although the Church was 98
Ibid., 106C–D. Cf. the similar criticisms of Celsus and Origen's response (Contra Celsum, 5:50,58)
99
A typical response of the former kind may be found in the Hist. Eccl. of Eusebius (1,2:17). Justin notes the latter response in passing, as Karl Andresen noted (Logos und Nomos, die Polemik des Kelsos wieder das Christentum [Berlin, 1955], p. 245 ff., esp. 270–272), in his attempt to develop a complete theory about the connection between Celsus and Justin. He suggested that Celsus had a direct thematic and stylistic relationship to Justin. Andresen suggests that Justin attempted to explain the incarnation of Jesus — the logos as having the purpose of redeeming the nations of the world by disseminating the truth among them; previously, even the philosophers and great lawgivers of the nations had been unable to perceive the divine truth in a clear, precise manner (only the prophets of Israel had been capable of it). This attempt alarmed Celsus, and moved him to argue that Greek philosophy and its ancient logos, which he said was the true logos, had been corrupted and distorted by the Law of Moses and by the words of Jesus. E. Stein, "De Celso Platonico Philonis Alexandrini Imitatore," in Eos, XXXIV (1932–1933), pp. 205–216, believes that Celsus, as an Alexandrian, was familiar with and used Philo's work, especially that dealing with problems raised by Biblical texts (as is evidenced by similar phrasing
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 81
the true target of the pagans' barbs. This background sheds new light on some Talmudic sources. The sons of the nations of the world said to God: "'Master of the world, did you give (it to) us [=the Law] and did we not accept it? . . . ' Rabbi Yohanan * [midthird century C.E.] said: it proves that the Holy One Blessed be He went with it [=the Torah] to every nation and language group and they did not accept it, until he came to Israel and they accepted it."100 There is an interesting parallel between Julian's complaint and the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. "Rabbi Abbahu said: it was revealed and known to Him who said 'and (let) the world come into being' that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Why, then, did He do them justice? Because such are the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He: He does not punish until He has done justice to his creatures; only afterwards does He drive them from the world; for the Holy One Blessed be He does not behave tyrannically [=trunia=tyrannia] with his creatures. . . . " (Pesikta de Rav Kahana, ed. Buber, p. 220a). The second example deals with an expression of reproach. In Shemot Rabba, 42:9, we read: "Rabbi Avin [of the fourth century C.E.] said until now Israel has been called abroad the nation of the stiffnecked." Such adjectives as stiffnecked (=sklêrotrachêlos) and hardhearted (=sklêrokardios) were applied to Jews and Judaism by Christian literature from its early days onwards, and served various purposes. These adjectives stressed the stubbornness of the Jews in repudiating Jesus, and their perseverance in sin, as well as their ancient character, because of which God was forced to put a yoke on their necks in the form of injunctions which were now obsolete.101 Of course, these phrases were (footnote continued from previous page) in Celsus's and Philo's work). However, Celsus refused to resolve difficulties allegorically, as did Philo, and apparently referred to Philo when saying that reasonable Jews and Christians tried unsuccessfully to do so (Alêthês? Logos, 4:48). 100
BT 'Abodah Zarah, 2b. Compare the words of E.E. Urbach, "Homilies of the Rabbis on the Prophets of the Nations and the Balaam Stories," in Tarbiz, XXV (1956), p. 273 (Hebrew).
101
To show that the injunctions were not necessary, it was argued that, although the ancestors of the Hebrew nation did not carry out the injunctions of the Law, no one disputed the fact that they were righteous in the eyes of God ("And he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness," Genesis, 15:6), and their redemption was guaranteed. It is possible that the Sages' anachronistic attribution to the patriarchs of the observation of injunc
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 82 102
instrumental in the creation of the current theological image of the Jews, an expression of ecclesiastical antiSemitism. Pagan polemicists also made use of this vocabularly while arguing against the Christians. In Julian's pamphlet we read: "But when he became man [=Jesusthe logos] what good did he cause his own kinfolk? But they refused to obey Jesus, they [=the Christians] reply. What of it? How was it then that this hardhearted and stonenecked103 people obeyed Moses, whereas Jesus, who commanded the spirits, walked on the waters, and cast out the daemons, and — as you yourselves assert — created the heavens and the earth . . . was unable to change the attitude of his own friends and kin in order to bring about their salvation?!"104 We see then that the description of the Jews here must not be interpreted as a reproach to them (although that is the simple meaning of the Biblical text) but that it was instead a praising of the Jews who accepted the Law of Moses and its injunctions despite their difficult nature. By this, Julian wished to deprive the Christians of the ability to assert that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews was a result of their innate character and that therefore one must not be surprised by the Jews' action or doubt Jesus's divinity for this reason. Rabbi Avin's saying is not absolutely clear; we do not know why it was only "abroad" that the Jews were called stiffnecked. But I think that we must conclude that it was the pagans who named them in this manner, in the course of their polemic with the Christians. In the following chapters, we shall come across more Talmudic sources of this kind, in which it is not always clear to whom they refer. It seems (footnote continued from previous page) tions given on Mount Sinai was not only a casting backwards of the imagination but also the expression of a reaction to arguments of this short raised by the Christians. 102
Cf. Simon, op. cit., pp. 254–55
103
=lithotrachêlos, Julian uses this expression to avoid repeating sklero in two consecutive words, apparently for stylistic reasons.
104
Contra Galilaeos, 213B–C. Most scholars (cf. Geffcken, op. cit., pp. 304–306) agree that this treatise was an epitome of polemical writings that appeared before Julian's time, such as those of Celsus and Porphyry. Julian's contribution was mainly in his lively, effervescent formulation, in his way of linking and representing things, and in his presentation of some facts relating to the behaviour and actions of contemporary Christians (and Jews). This compendious quality allows us to assign to an earlier time the arguments extant only in Julian's work.
Page 83
to me that they will be most readily understood against the backdrop of the paganChristian polemic and the place of the Jews in it on the one hand, and the inner problems and agitation of the Jews themselves on the other. This method of interpretation will reveal what measure of importance and actual significance these motifs carried for the Jews who, one might say, were almost ''neutral" in the paganChristian conflict which they witnessed for about two hundred years in the Roman Empire.
Page 84
Chapter Two— Recognition of God, Revelation, and Religious Myth In his book, The Ways of the Agada, Isaac Heinemann says: "The question commonly posed by the Greeks, how did man arrive at the idea of a godhead, was of no interest to the Sages: did not God Himself speak with Adam?! But they did ask how people came to recognize the error of idolatry, and answered with the famous tale referring to Abraham: he realized that the earth is not a goddess because it needs rain; the sun is not a god, since it retreats before the moon and the stars, and they (in their turn) retreat before the sun. From this, he concluded that all of these have no independence but are dependent on an invisible leader."1 Heinemann's interpretation does not reflect all that the Midrash was intended to say. For we read therein: " . . . When he [=Abraham] was three years old and went out of the cave, he thought in his heart: who created heaven and earth and me?"2 The problem, then, which occupied Abraham was the problem of the recognition of God; this recognition he achieved through contemplating the motion of the heavenly bodies, and concluding that they are not gods.3 This double recognition or conclusion is also to be found in Philo's work. I shall illustrate it by a paragraph from his treatise De specialibus legibus (1:13–15): 1
(2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1954), p. 15 (Hebrew).
2
"The Tale of [Our Father] Abraham," in A. Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch (2nd Jerusalem, 1938), II, p. 118 (Hebrew).
3
Cf. the words of the Stoic Balbus in Cicero's De natura deorum, 2,2:4: " . . . For what can be more clear and manifest, when we observe the heavens and contemplate the heavenly bodies, than that there exists some divinity of supreme intelligence by whom these are governed?"
Page 85 Some have supposed that the sun and the moon and other stars were gods possessing absolute powers and attributed to them the causes of all that comes into being. But Moses thought that the cosmos was both created and, like an enormous polis, encompassing rulers and subjects: the rulers were all the stars in heaven, whether wandering [= planets] or fixed, while the subjects were the creatures in space, around the earth, and beneath the moon. The said rulers had no independent authority, but were subordinates of the one Father of All; and it was by imitating His government that they realized, in keeping with law and justice, their control over each of the created beings. But those who do not perceive the Charioteer mounted above attach to the harnessed the causes of what takes place in the universe, as though they were independent agents. Our most holy lawgiver changes their ignorance into knowledge by saying: "When thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the order of the universe, do not be drawn astray and worship them." (Deut. 4:19.)4
Philo assumes the same basic attitude towards the heavenly luminaries as the Sages, but his terminology sometimes approaches that of the pagans. The pagans sought to derive from the order of the universe both the recognition of the existence of a supreme god, and the divinity of the heavenly bodies. So, for example, argued Julian in his Contra Galilaeos: It is worthwhile to recall briefly when and how a conception of God first came to us; . . . Now let the common yearning of all men, whether private or public, individual or ethnic, first of all serve us as evidence that the knowledge of God by men comes not through teaching but by nature. For all of us, without being taught, believe in some sort of divinity about whom it is not easy for all to recognize the exact truth, nor is it possible for those who recognize it to divulge it to all . . . To this common conception of all men, another one is to be added. For indeed we all are so attached naturally to heaven and the visible gods therein, that even if someone conceives of another god besides these, he nonetheless allots him the heavens as his abode; he does not thereby cut him off the earth, but seats the King of All as though in this most honourable place. being of the opinion that, from there, he watches affairs here. What need have I to call Hellenes and Hebrews as witnesses of this? There is no one who does not lift up his hands to heaven in prayer and, when he swears by a god or gods, if he possesses any concept at all of the divine, he turns in that direction. And it is not unreasonable that people should feel this way. For, seeing that none of the bodies around heaven increases nor decreases or changes or suffers 4
Cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 13,18:11–12.
Page 86 something irregular, but that its motion is harmonious and its arrangement orderly, that the illuminations of the moon are fixed and that the risings and settings of the sun are fixed in everdefined cycles — they reasonably drew the conclusion that it is a god and the throne of a god . . . .5
The title "worshippers of stars and constellations," which the Sages attached to the pagans, disproportionally emphasized one trend of polytheism. In the eyes of a pagan like Celsus, the Jews appeared to be "heavenworshippers," and he charged them with inconsistency in not worshipping the sun, the moon and the stars as well.6 Origen denied the validity of these assertions for the Jews as well as for the Christians. The Christians were prepared to praise the sun as a creation of God, but not as a godhead in and of itself.7 But he utterly rejects all reverence towards Athena, who is a mythological concoction contradicting truth.8 The view that recognition of god is innate in man (as Julian suggested), that man is endowed with instinctive religious inclinations, was put forward by Iamblichus in a formulation even more acute than that of Julian. According to Iamblichus, recognition of the existence of the gods is implanted in us as part of our very existence, it is more powerful than any judgement or decision might be and it is prior to any logic or proof; in fact, it is because of this recognition that we are what we are.9 Since the Christians were believers, their feelings concerning this matter were, naturally, close to those of the pagans. Arnobius, so different in temperament from Julian and Iamblichus, wished to appear as a rationalist even in his religious thinking, but nonetheless expressed 5
Contra Galilaeos, 42E; 52B–69C.
6
Contra Celsum, 1:24: " . . . whether Most High or Adonai, or the Heavenly One or Sabaoth . . . they [=the Jews] called the universe . . . Compare this: "First, one may be astonished at the Jews for, though worshipping the heavens and the angels in them, yet they reject the heavens' most august and powerful parts. the sun, the moon, and the other stars, both fixed and planetary." (Ibid., 5:6.) 7
Ibid., 8:66. Cf. his words in 8:52, which warn against the error caused by the order of the cosmos, and its benefit offered especially to mankind; worship of these powers is displeasing to the Creator and entails punishment. 8
Ibid., 8:66.
9
De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, 1:3.
Page 87
himself in language that echoed that of Julian and Iamblichus — whose thought and language were imbued with religious mysticism. Here are his words: "What person is there . . . in whom it has not been implanted by nature, nor impressed, nor stamped almost in his mother's womb, in whom it is not an innate instinct, that He is the King and master, the controller of all that exists?"10 And, elsewhere: "Perhaps you doubt whether he is that ruler of whom we speak, and believe, rather, that he be Apollo, Diana, Mercury, or Mars. Give a true judgment; surveying all these visible things, one will rather doubt whether the others are gods than hesitate with regard to God, whose existence we all know naturally, whether when we cry out, O God, . . . and raise our face to heaven as though he saw us."11 We have seen that there was a partial consensus at least among Jews, pagans and Christians, with regard to the recognition of god. Whether this recognition is innate in man and it influences him unconsciously or whether he arrives at it as a result of contemplating the working of the cosmos, this recognition informs the feelings and determines the religious behaviour of the individual. Individual religion as such does not require any kind of revelation which presupposes the imposition of ritual laws and obligatory norms. The situation is different when organized religion is concerned, such as Judaism, Christianity or paganism. Each of these claims the crown of truth, exclusively, for itself and its adherents only. But all admit that revelation is the channel by which the thoughts of the divinity reach human beings. So, for example, says Julian in a passage dealing with prophecy: " . . . For the spirit that comes from the gods to men is rare and found in few; it is not easy for every man to share in it nor at all times. In this way the prophetic spirit among the Hebrews failed, and even the Egyptians failed to preserve it down to the present. It is obvious that the native oracles [of Greece] too have become silent, succumbing to the cycles of time . . . "12 The Bible, according to the Jews, incorporates in each of its letters and signs the religious revelation of the God of Israel. This revelation includes an "informative" aspect, such as the story of the creation of 10
Adversus nationes, 1:33.
11
Ibid., 2:2.
12
Contra Galilaeos, 198B,C.
Page 88
the world and of man, or the recounting of all the deeds and words from which we can learn about the character and ways of God; it also has a "normative" aspect, of ritual and secular laws in which God "hath told thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee."13 For Christianity all of these are valid, other than the ritual injunctions; however, to these scriptures, the Christians added the "New Testament" as part and parcel of the general revelation. By comparison with the concentrated nature of the JewishChristian writings, what might be called the pagan revelation was composed of traditions scattered and diversified both topically and chronologically. Homer, Hesiod and later poets and philosophers presented mainly the "informative" aspect as we defined it above, while the "normative'' aspect, rituals and regulations, was generally the offspring of tradition and custom. Pagan stateconstitutions were drawn up by various lawgivers, such as Solon and Lycurgus, who were guided and assisted by the advice of the oracles and of their priests. This last facet of pagan revelation will be considered below as part of the cultural motif of the polemic. Here, we will examine the other features of revelation which occupy a central place in the polemic. All of these are encompassed in the subject of "religious myth", to which we will now turn. Gershom G. Scholem distinguishes three periods, the mythic, the classic and the mystic in the historical development of religion in all nations. Of the first period he has said: "The first stage represents the world as being full of gods whom man encounters at every step and whose presence can be experienced without recourse to ecstatic meditation. . . . That, however, is the case only while the childhood of mankind, its mythical epoch, lasts."14 At the time with which we are concerned, it is clear that the Jews, Christians and pagans were already in the last stage of their religious development. However, the documents or writings which determined their religious allegiances derived from a period whose theological conceptions and religious mentality were wholly different. No wonder, then, that later generations looked back with uneasiness and even with anger upon certain aspects of these writings. Some of the Jews, for example, used euphemisms for salacious phrases or were even 13
Micah, 6:8. Cf. G.F. Moore, Judaism . . . (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), I, 247–248.
14
Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed.; New York, 1961), p. 7.
Page 89 15
prepared to "uproot" whole portions of the Torah. The Bible's translators had particular problems of spiritual identification with their work. These "textual" difficulties weighed heavily on the Christians, and they caused the Christians even more distress than they had the Jews since, as the Christians approached Greek philosophy, they were influenced by it. Hellenistic Jewry, too, was more aware of and troubled by such "textual" problems than the Jews of Eretz Israel and of Babylonia — for similar reasons. The same was true of the New Testament writings which, because of the time of their compilation, should have been exempt from all ''mythical" flaws; however, the intellectual level of their authors brought fierce pagan criticism down upon their works. The pagans themselves were not only ready to admit that their own myths were nonsense, but some of them even went so far as to totally invalidate them, as did Plato. The Hebrews and the Greeks had both passed through the mythical stage of their religious development. Nonetheless, there were very considerable differences in the characters of the Biblical and Homeric myths: the Torah reflected, as is well known, an opposition to the mythos, expressed by omitting parts of mythical accounts or by transmitting them in such a way as to reject myth and deprive it of its essence as, for example, in the case of thehom (=the deep; see Genesis 1:2) for the mythical creature thihamath, or that of the sons of God. Homer, on the contrary, enjoyed telling fantastic stories to win the heart or at least the ears of his listeners. Furthermore, although frequent and immediate contact between God and man was expressed in the Bible, Jewish monotheism created a gap between the human and the divine. In Greek polytheism, on the other hand, this contrast was blurred because of the variety of powers or of creatures assigned a divine character, and also because the social classification of the Greek world blended the world of the gods and the world of men into one unit whose members were distinguished from one another only by their standing in the hierarchical ladder. This must be taken into account when one examines the ways in which the parties to the polemic coped with this problem. The literary 15
These matters were discussed at length by Abraham Geiger in his Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel . . . (2nd ed. Frankfurt a.M., 1928). The last section of Geiger's book. p. 231 ff., deals with "The Causes and Reasons for VersionAlterations in the Bible."
Page 90
legacy of each side prescribed the lines of its defence or attack, while the common goals remained attacking one's opponent, defending oneself against him and keeping one's camp whole while drawing new believers to it. One of the important reasons that the pagans and Christians did not reject the mythos was the aura of antiquity that surrounded it. The view that ancient beliefs were superior was based on the assumption that error disappears easily with the passage of time, whereas the core of truth remains. It was thought also that ancient men were closer to god, and therefore knew his ways and thoughts.16 But the full acceptance of the myth was made possible only when allegory was combined with it as a sine qua non. If a pagan— Plato for example — refused to accept allegory, he had to renounce mythos simultaneously. This was true also of Christians and of our period. The Church embraced from the beginning the principle that the Bible must be interpreted allegorically, both for texts presenting difficulties and for those easily understood. This being the case, the Church had at its disposal raw material in the shape of the Bible, which it could adapt to its theological needs, as well as the pioneering work of Hellenistic Judaism in this field, which it used extensively. Because of this decision in principle of the Church, there was so much importance for the polemic in the Jewish Scriptures and the interpretations of Hellenistic Jewry. On the other hand, the attitude of the Gnostic sects to the Bible was much weaker (and more negative), since they rejected allegory. So, for example, Marcion stated categorically: "Scripture must not be interpreted allegorically," with reference to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament alike.17 Marcion's starting point was the epistles of Paul and the contrast found there between the Law and the New Testament. Whereas Paul had stopped at a certain point, since he neither contemplated nor wished a severance of the link between them, and since there were not in the contemporary Church devoted advocates of the system of extreme dualism (apart from the 16
See I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung . . . (Breslau, 1932), pp. 473–74 and the notes there.
17
See A. Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; . . . (Leipzig, 1921), p. 62. Cf. H. Lietzmann, History of the Early Church (Cleveland, 1961), I, 249ff.
Page 91
author of the Gospel of John), Marcion did not flinch from the continuation of his line of thought to a drastic conclusion. Marcion purged even Paul's epistles, in addition to other Christian writings, of alleged additions and falsifications introduced by the adherents of Judaism and the Bible among the early Christians. Marcion's dislike in principle of allegory (he was forced exceptionally and unwillingly into symbolic interpretations of the parables in the Gospels), and his literal acceptance of the Scriptures put him in a paradoxical position. He exerted himself in his work Antitheses to widen the conceptual gap between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in order to separate them entirely, and to prove his argument that there is no relation whatsoever between the god of the Bible and the god of the New Testament;18 on the other hand, he agreed with the Jewish interpretation of various parts of the Bible, thus challenging the Church's allegorical and Christological interpretation. This situation forced "Catholic" Christianity to defend the god of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the Jews against their Gnostic denouncers and, at the same time, to refute the interpretation of prophecies and of the most important Biblical texts that was common to the Gnostics and the Jews. But it was not in vain that the Christians clung to the Bible. Apart from its being inseparably interwoven into their writings, there were five ways in which the Bible served the Church as a source of religious recognition, according to Harnack: 1. for the development of a monotheistic cosmology; 2. for the presentation of proof from prophecy (the latter and cosmology together form the "theology") of the validity and antiquity of Christianity; 3. for the foundations of all the conceptions, ritual ceremonies and regulations which were needed by the Church; 4. for a deepening of the life of the faith (chapters from Psalms and from various Prophets); 5. for the refutation of Jewry as a nation, that it, for the proof that this nation had been rejected by God, whether by the argument that it had never had a covenant with Him (Barnabas) or that it had been only a covenant of anger, or that the Jews had forfeited the covenant; also, to prove that the Jewish nation did not understand the Bible at all and 18
See Harnack, Marcion . . . , p. 68 ff.
Page 92 19
therefore was deprived of it, if indeed it had ever had possession of it.
So much for the Church's need for the Bible and its general usefulness for internal and external purposes. Further on, we will discuss in more detail the external uses of the Bible, in the polemic against the pagans. Here, we will consider why the Christians used the Bible in their polemical arguments against the pagans, and why they were forced into compiling expository treatises and commentaries on a considerable part of it. The main reasons seem to be as follows: Antiquity: Without linking itself to Judaism, Christianity would appear to the pagans as one of the new religions that spread in the HellenisticRoman period and which were centered on a certain divinity or personality, local or universal, such as emperor worship, for example. But, even in this sense, Christianity was exceptional, since the other religions were absorbed by polytheism while Christianity strove to undermine its foundations. The connection of Christianity with the Jewish religion and its sacred writings, whose antiquity no one could question, enabled the Christians to defend themselves against the accusations of novelty and sedition made against them by the pagans. Moreover, using this link, the Christians could contend that their ways were correct and call upon the pagans to follow in their footsteps. They argued that, since the Bible was older than the writings of the Greek poets and philosophers (an argument presented originally by Hellenistic Jewry), it was therefore also more original and truthful and should be preferred to writings which imitated it. The Christians based their claim to the legacy of Judaism on the argument that they were the "true Israel", verus Israel. Authority and Reknown: The simple and authoritative style of the Bible were decisive in the conversion of several Church Fathers of average education, such as Justin, Tatian and Theophilus, according to their own testimony. The highly educated Augustine, on the contrary, needed interpretations in order to overcome his aversion for the language and content of the JudaeoChristian Scriptures. This being so, it was reasonable that they should exploit an instrument which had proved itself very effective in their own cases while spreading missionary propaganda among their former fellowpagans. In point of fact, the Bible 19
Dogmengeschichte (6th ed.; Tübingen, 1922), p. 49.
Page 93
was indispensible for potential converts, since it embodied the origins of Christianity. The Bible won reknown in the HellenisticRoman world because its translation into Greek was ascribed by Hellenistic Jewry to Ptolemy Philadelphus; the New Testament was compiled hundreds of years later, and was known to only a few. Therefore, almost all Christian apologists emphasized that the Septuagint had been prepared at Ptolemy's request and, at the same time, stressed the authority and sacredness that had accrued to it because of its method of preparation.20 Theological Needs: The Christians had pagan preChristian arguments at their disposal in their polemic against polytheism, just as they found support in the Stoic theories of the logos and of providence. Some of them even put forward examples from mythology in order to make their Christology comprehensible to the pagans. In the pagan world, however, theories of the adherents as well as of the opponents of polytheism were plentiful; had the Christians decided to borrow what was fit for their theologicalapologetic ends, they would have been exposed in turn to the counterarguments forged in the same preChristian, pagan philosophical schools; this fact would have entitled them, at best, to the status of an eclectic philosophical school and to that only. Only by using the Bible, which expressed a decisive and uncompromising monotheistic and antipolytheistic attitude, did they strengthen their position and win absolute independence of the pagan tradition. This indispensability of the Bible was true in the case of the humiliation and crucifixion of Jesus as well. Even the Christians admitted that these events were of such a character as to be inconceivable in connection with a messiah and a god, had they not been foreseen by the prophets. But the use Christianity made of the Bible for its theological needs and for the establishment of its general position forced the Christians into extreme allegorical interpretations of the Hebrew Bible in order to prove the inner connection between it and the New Testament as well as to explain away the many tales and expressions in it which were incompatible with generally accepted philosophical assumptions, and which failed to fit lofty theological concepts about the divinity and its relation to men. It was because of this, and because historical Judaism and its Law were the foundations of the Christian religion, that the 20
Cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 8,1:7.
Page 94
pagan polemicists resorted to attacks on the Jews, presented Biblical criticism, and even devoted time and energy to the historical criticism of certain Biblical prophecies and to the philological interpretation of other paragraphs. Before turning to a detailed discussion of the role of the "Religious Myth" motif in the paganChristian polemic of the second, third and fourth centuries C.E., we must consider — albeit briefly — preChristian developments, since the earlier pagan writers served the polemicists as points of departure and of reference in addition to Philo and Josephus. The Stoics had already, in the preChristian period, devoted themselves to the allegorical interpretation of Greek mythology. Their interpretation was devoted to achieving two ends: the rehabilitation of those myths, and the confirmation from ancient sources of their philosophical system. In Cicero's treatise De natura deorum, this method was attacked by Velleius the Epicurean. First, Velleius questioned the symbolical interpretations suggested by Zeno for the Theogonia of Hesiod.21 Then he mentioned the identifications of the gods and the powers of nature proposed by Chrysippus: " . . . this is found in the first book [of Chrysippus] about the nature of the gods. In the second book, he wishes to reconcile the fables of Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer with the theories that he expressed in the first book about the immortal gods. In this way the most ancient of poets, who were not even aware of this, will appear to have been Stoics."22 Velleius enumerated all the absurd things that the poets recounted of the gods: quarrels, wars, lamentations, adulteries, and so forth.23 The principal counterargument of Balbus the Stoic was that a theory of nature was embodied in those absurd and impious fables; this being so, the etymologicalallegorical interpretations of the Stoa did no more than restore the original versions of true and useful physical theories which had been invested with an anthropomorphic character and then distorted by the poets.24 Cotta the Academic ( = Sceptic) questioned the correctness of the Stoics who, instead of refuting ancient mythologies lest they disturb religion, confirmed the myths by interpretation.25 The method of the Stoic philosophers was in 21
Cicero, ibid., 1:14.
22
Ibid., 1:15.
23
Ibid., 1:16.
24
Ibid., 2:23 ff.
25
Ibid., 3:23.
Page 95 26
Cotta's opinion, dangerous. Zeno, Cleanthês and Chrysippus went to a great deal of trouble in order to make sense of false fables which were both unnecessary and of no value since "by doing so you admit the fact that reality is quite different from the opinion harboured by men; for those who are called gods are physical powers of nature and not figures of the gods."27 Stoic tendencies were prominent in many of Cornutus's etymologicalallegorical interpretations of the names of the gods and of their mythologies. At the end of his treatise, Cornutus explained that the aim of his undertaking was to show "that the ancients were not casual persons, but were capable of comprehending the nature of the universe and inclined to philosophize about it through symbols and riddles. . . . "28 The controversy in the pagan world before the rise of Christianity concerning religious myth and allegory found its way to the parties in the polemic. The Neo Platonists continued to build on Stoic foundations; as we shall see further on, the "physical" allegory came to be one of the common ways of explicating myths. The Christians on the other hand made much use of the views of the Epicureans, the Sceptics and the Cynics in order to undermine mythology, which was the theological basis of paganism. Another important and helpful source for the Christians with regard to mythos and allegory was Jewish Hellenistic literature, especially the work of Philo Judaeus. Philo thought that the term mythos was itself unworthy. That is why he stated that other lawgivers "have deceived the masses, hiding the truth under mythical fabrications, whereas Moses refrained from fabricating myths himself or accepting those created by others."29 Nonetheless, the story of Adam's rib being turned into a woman seemed to Philo to be "mythical" (mythôdes), that is, in need of homiletic interpretation.30 In similar language, and with the same amount of dislike, Julian defined the description in the Torah of the garden of Eden and of the creation of Adam and Eve: "This is wholly mythical" (mythôdes).31 A little earlier, Julian had admitted that the Hellenes 26
Ibid., 3:24.
27
Ibid.
28
Theologiae Graecae Compendium, chap. 35.
29
De opificio mundi, 1:1–2.
30
Legum allegoriae, 2:19.
31
Contra Galilaeos, 75B.
Page 96 32
"fabricated myths about the gods, incredible and monstrous ones."
But despite Philo's approval in principle of allegorical exposition, he believed that the precepts of the Torah should be observed according to the letter of the Law. "Sabbath and circumcision have their inner meaning, but the actual rites are to that inner meaning as body to soul, and the body demands our care as the dwelling of the soul."33 Heinemann stresses Philo's disagreement with the radical allegorists, who deduced from their symbolic perception of the laws of the Torah that it was not necessary to observe them literally.34 Heinemann remarks in this connection that such a rejection of the laws existed among the Jews, whereas the Greek allegorists touched only upon the myths. The Greeks also differed from the Jews in that, to the Greek, custom was the source of law, while the written law was of secondary importance only; to the Jew, on the other hand, the Torah was the beginning and the legitimization of customs, and the words of the Torah might be interpreted. How dangerous for the literal meaning of the laws the application of allegory to them could be, and basically had to be, was demonstrated by its application by the Church: allegory served Christianity to justify its stand against keeping the laws of the Torah. Philo emphasized that the Essenes devoted their studies to ethics and theology and dealt especially with the allegorical meaning of the Holy Scriptures. Such support for his system was, of course, valuable to Philo and, for obvious reasons, also to Eusebius. One must not forget that the Essenes were honoured and esteemed even by Porphyry, the enemy of Christianity. Eusebius prefaced his quotation from Philo about the Essenes (in the Praeparatio Evangelica) by saying that the Jewish people was divided into two parts: the multitude whom Moses intended to be guided by the plain sense of Scripture, and the philosophers, who were capable of rising above the literal meaning to reach a higher one. As an example of the second group, Eusebius presented Philo's descriptions of the Essenes, one of which derived from Quod omnis probus liber sit, and the other from the Hypothetica or the Apologia pro Iudaeis.35 32
Ibid., 44A.
33
See F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker's "General Introduction" in Philo ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1929 [1962]), I, p. xiv. Cf. Heinemann, Philons . . . , p. 467.
34
Philons . . . , pp. 454–455.
35
See Philo ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1941 [1960]), IX, 436, note a.
Page 97
Philo had twofold importance for the Christians: as an aid against the Jews (for their abrogation of the injunctions of the Torah and their adaptation of the logos theory) and against the pagans (defence of the Biblical mythos as well as the demonstration of the philosophical character of the Bible). If we compare the contributions of Philo and Josephus on this point, we see that Philo's contribution was a positive one, while that of Josephus was a more negative one. Philo gave the Christians the allegorical method of interpretation, while Josephus served them in his fierce attacks on pagan mythology.36 After enumerating the disgraceful things attributed by Greek poets and lawgivers to the gods,37 Josephus repudiated their allegorization, since the true philosophers among the Greeks also rejected it although they were aware of it.38 Josephus referred, as was to be expected, to the "excommunication" of the poets — and especially of Homer — by Plato. In the writings of the Christian apologists of the second century C.E., the mythosmotif appears in a quite schematic way. Let us examine the slight distinctions between the apologists, and also note some arguments which will reappear in the polemic of the third and fourth centuries. Aristides argued that the Greek wise men were even more gullible than the Chaldeans, who had attributed divinity to the heavenly bodies, because the Greeks represented the gods as "being adulterers and murderers, (as being) wrathful and envious and passionate . . . " (8:2). In chapters 9–11, Aristides considered the various gods and the myths ascribed to them, on which men relied when performing their own licentious and impious acts (11:7). In his opinion, the Egyptians erred more than all other nations in turning "irrational animals" into gods. (12:1). Aristides then concluded that: "If, then, the stories about them are mythical, [the gods] are nothing more than mere words; if they are physical, they are no more gods than those who did and suffered these things; if they are allegorical, then they are myths and nothing else" (13:7). Like Aristides, Athenagoras dealt at length with the shame 36
For the influence of the Sages on Origen, see E.E. Urbach, "Rabbinic Exegesis and Origines' Commentaries on the Song of Songs and Jewish Christian Polemics," in Tarbiz, XXX (1961), p. 151 ff. (Hebrew). 37
See Contra Apionem, 2, chaps. 33–35.
38
Ibid., 2,36: pars. 255–256.
Page 98 39
ful deeds attributed to the gods in Greek mythology. He made it clear that the stories which told of the passions, anger, or pain of the gods were not compatible with our concepts of the nature of a true divinity. As for the possible explanation that this was but a "poetic aberration" and that there was a "physical rationale" explaining the names of the gods etymologically and functionally, as for example by saying that "Dionysus" was equivalent to "the vine'' or "the wine", or Rhea to "the earth," Hera to "aer" or air, Kronos to "chronos" or time, and Zeus to "the living essence," Athenagoras retorted that such methods of explaining away the myths simply confirmed what had been said about the gods.40 Athenagoras asked what have Europa and the bull or Leda and the swan to do with the earth and air, enabling one to say that the abominable intercourse of Zeus with them is the intercourse of the earth and air? Athenagoras's query did not challenge the allegorical method as such but rather suggested that there are matters which cannot be solved by it. Athenagoras later turned to a different argument, saying that whether the myths about the gods are based on a lie or are true, the conclusion that emerges from them in any event is that the gods do not exist.41 The myth concerning Jesus's being born as a result of the union of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost caused the Christians a great deal of trouble. In order to show the pagans that such a virgin birth was possible and to make it comprehensible to them, the Christians had to revert to Greek mythology, although they denied in principle the divinity of mythological figures. Athenagoras cited the beginning of the Gospel of John and other Biblical verses when discussing the son of God, but also emphasized that "we do not think about the God and Father or about the Son as the poets compose their myths, showing the gods as no better than men."42 Justin thought that all the adulteries and murders attributed to Zeus and his offspring were performed by evil daemons,43 since all agree that the gods should be imitated, and it is inconceivable that the creator 39
Legatio, 20–21.
40
Ibid., 22.
41
Ibid., 30.
42
Ibid., 10.
43
Apologia I,21.
Page 99 44
of the world and its leader should misbehave in such ways. in the Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo (chap. 67), Trypho took issue with the Septuagint translation, saying that Scripture did not say "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" but rather, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive. . . . " The entire prophecy referred, according to Trypho. to King Hezekiah. In Greek mythology, on the other hand, it was related that Perseus was born of the virgin Danaë, with whom Zeus had intercourse (in the shape of a stream of gold). Hence Trypho was surprised that the Christians were not ashamed to tell tales about Jesus which were identical to those told by the Greeks. In his opinion, they should have said that Jesus was a man born of man, and demonstrate from the Holy Scriptures that he was the Messiah who was worthy of being annointed because he lived in accordance with the injunctions of the Law and in a state of moral perfection: instead they went astray in the same way as had the Hellenes. The Jew of Celsus also challenged Jesus with an argument derived from Greek mythology, saying: "The ancient myths which ascribed a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus, and Minos, though we do not believe them, still presented their deeds as magnificent and aweinspiring, as truly exceeding the ability of man, so that they might not appear untrustworthy. But as for you, what have you performed in deed or word that is seemly or wonderful? You have showed nothing to us, although we called upon you in the Temple to give some manifest proof that you are the son of God." (John 10:23–4).45 The Jew also asked how the Christian claim of virgin birth differed from the myths about Danaë, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.46 These examples of a JewishChristian polemic about the divinity of Jesus are of similar date, and they denote the end of the JewishChristian polemic. Although it is impossible to say with certainty that the Jews expressed themselves in this specific way, it is reasonable to assume that the Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora did not refrain from using Greek mythology in order to inveigh against the Christians who, as former pagans, had once accepted such myths and now appeared to be dissociating themselves from them. 44
Cf. Apologia I, 25; Apologia II.12. And see below, Chap. Three.
45
Contra Celsum, 1:67.
46
Ibid., 1:37.
Page 100 47
Clement of Alexandria, like his forerunners, enumerated "the paradoxes of intemperate mythology." But, unlike Aristides, he preferred the animalworship of the Egyptians to the Hellenes' worship of adulterous and licentious gods who were the slaves of their senses.48 Clement denounced the early philosophers as atheists, because they worshipped matter,49 and praised the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes, who "sets forth no poetic [i.e. mythical] theology, but a true theology."50 He quoted Cleanthes's description of the characteristics of the supreme god who, apart from being just and useful, is also gentle, griefless and selfdisciplined.51 The views of Tertullian were similar to those we have just discussed. He too spoke of the adulterous and murderous deeds of the gods;52 of the struggles among the gods because of the Trojans and Achaeans;53 and of other disgraceful things ascribed to the gods by Pindar54 and the tragic and comic poets." Tertullian declared that "if true, these events ought not to be recorded; if false, they ought not be invented, by the extremely religious."56 The condemnation of Socrates because of his destructive attitude towards the gods led Tertullian to generalize that "the truth has always been hated.''57 In subsequent chapters, whose task it was to introduce Christianity to the pagans, Tertullian assigned, as might be expected, a central role to Jesus's virgin birth and to his becoming the Christ.58 Tertullian admitted that this tale was similar to 47
Protrepticus, 2:25 ff.
48
Ibid., 2:33,35.
49
Ibid., 5:56.
50
Ibid., 6:62.
51
Cf. Clement's words in Stromateis, 5 :24.
52
Apologeticum, 11:12.
53
Ibid., 14:2.
54
Such as the avarice of Asculapius. See ibid., 14:5; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, 2 :25.
55
Apologeticum, 14:6. It is interesting that in his opinion the ritual derived from the myth and not vice versa: "I hear the fables and understand the rituals from the fables" (ibid., 12:1). Cf. the discussion concerning Arnobius, below, pp. 104–105. 56
Ibid., 14:5.
57
Ibid., 14:7.
58
Ibid., 21:14.
Page 101 59
pagan myths, but claimed that the latter had been fabricated in order to rival the Christian myth and to destroy the truth. Tertullian was even prepared to compare Jesus with Moses and with pagan personalities, although the position held by Jesus in Christianity was quite different from theirs. It may be that he wished to use this as a kind of defence, or perhaps he sought to draw Christianity nearer to the concepts of the pagans. In any case, we find Tertullian stating that no matter how much they might be tortured, the Christians would continue to proclaim that they worship God through Christ; even if the pagans consider Jesus to be a man, God wished to be worshipped through him nonetheless.60 Tertullian pointed out to the Jews that they had learned to worship God through Moses — who was a man — while, he noted, men like Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus and Trophonius had contributed initiation ceremonies to the Greeks, and Numa Pompilius, also human, had been the author of some elaborate religious rites of the Romans. Arnobius was one of the more prolific and active participants in the polemic. A comparison of his work with the works of other polemicists illuminates the polemic in general, and emphasizes its central and important points. Arnobius was exceptional in his attitude towards Judaism, and his attitude is instructive about the one generally accepted. The Church Fathers, whose comments on our subject we have discussed above, were outspoken critics of pagan mythology, but paid much less attention to their own weak points, such as Biblical myth. Arnobius was even more guilty of this failing. Since he had no interest in the Bible as such and did not use it for his polemical ends concerning this or other subjects, it never occurred to him to spring to the defence of the Bible or to explicate its difficulties. Arnobius habitually cited anonymous pagan polemicists and argued against them. Although the first books of his treatise dealt with our subject in a sporadic and routine manner, the fifth book presents a more thorough and exhaustive discussion. Let us examine each of his arguments. Arnobius countered the pagan's claim that they too had a supreme god, Iupiter Optimus Maximus,61 by saying that a god who is the source of all things and the creator of eras and times can not be born at a 59
Ibid.
60
Ibid., 21:28–29.
61
Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 1:34.
Page 102 62
specific point in time; "Yet Iupiter, as you relate, has a father and mother. . . . and was just recently conceived in his mother's womb. . . . " In this connection, he presented additional tales concerning the various gods,63 and stated that those to whom such disgraceful activities were ascribed were not gods but mortals,64 as had been proved by men like Euhemerus, Diagoras and others.65 Arnobius wondered how the pagans dared to characterize as "atheists," "irreligious," or ''sacrilegious" those who denied or doubted the existence of the gods or who argued that they were human beings who had become gods because of their fine deeds — while they themselves in their rituals saddled the gods with much worse qualities.66 The disputants reached deadlock over the question of the credibility of the various religious traditions, since each side believed in its own writings: "You do not believe our writings, and we do not believe your writings. (You say that) we devise false things about Christ, and (we say that) you put forward empty and false things concerning your gods. . . . "67 The pagans tried to break this deadlock by stressing the antiquity of their writings: "But, you say, ours are more ancient and therefore abound in the believable and the true."68 The Christians had two answers to this argument. They said that not everything that was ancient was good. On the contrary! The ancients were backward and more primitive in all fields, including that of religion; we must free ourselves of their errors and digressions. Among those Who used this argument were Justin (Martyr) and Ambrose, although Ambrose's words were meant to refute the reliance of Symmachus on the antiquity of Rome. However, the Christians usually depended on Josephus's On the Antiquity of the Jews (=Contra Apionem) in order to prove that the sacred writings of the Jews antedated those of the pagans. Since the Christians claimed that they were the true Israel, these writings of more ancient date and of greater veracity than those of the pagans belonged to them. It hardly needs saying that one would not expect to find the latter argument in a writer like Arnobius, 62
Ibid.
63
Ibid., 1:36,41.
64
Ibid., 4:28.
65
Ibid., 4:29.
66
Ibid., 5:30.
67
Ibid., 1:57.
68
Ibid.
Page 103
who expressed no attitude towards Judaism. Indeed, Arnobius rejected the pagan argument by questioning the assumption that antiquity was a guarantee of truthfulness.69 In his fifth book, Arnobius presented a new line of argument about our subject. The pagans had argued that all the myths were no more than poetical amusements, and did not reflect the polytheistic creed.70 Arnobius, admitting this for the sake of argument, introduced a new element into the discussion: the mysteries. He asked: "What? Is all contained in grave, serious and diligent histories and which you transmit in secret mysteries no more than lascivious inventions of the poets?" Arnobius's anonymous pagan dissociated himself from part of these rituals, saying: "But these are not the rites of our state."71 To this Arnobius replied by asking: "Who is it that says this? A Roman, Gaul, Spaniard, African, German or Sicilian? And what does it avail your cause if those are not your [rites], since those who perform them are of your party?"72 For the sake of the polemic, Arnobius viewed all the polytheistic nations as members of one group, all of whose members were responsible for each other's deeds.73 But, Arnobius continued, even if we accept your reservations, it will make no difference at all, since in your camp, too, one can find rites which are no less disgraceful, such as those connected with the festival of the Thesmophoria in Attica.74 While expressing his consciousness of and even admiration for the high level of Greek secular culture, Arnobius strongly deplored the religious conceptions of the Greeks (and Romans), which he believed were derogatory to the gods. Other Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, following Hellenistic Judaism, extolled the abilities and contributions of the Jews (and of the "barbarians'' in general) in the secular fields of science and philosophy.75 69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., 5:1.
71
Ibid., 5:24.
72
Ibid.
73
A similar argument, with a different conclusion, was used by Julian against Eusebius, when he strove to prove that (human) civilization originated in polytheistic religion and not in monotheistic Judaism. See below, Chap. Four, p. 194 ff. 74
Adversus nationes, 5:24.
75
See Chap. Four below.
Page 104
Finally, the pagan disputant put forward his last argument to defend the mythological tales, saying: "You are mistaken . . . for all these stories, which seem disgraceful to you and leading to the dishonour of the divine, contain holy mysteries, wonderful and elevated thoughts . . . that which is written is not made known nor said, rather, all of these things are understood in their allegorical senses. . . . "76 The allegorical meanings suggested by the pagans were of the "physical" kind, in keeping with one existing system of interpretation77 which had already been employed by the Stoics.78 Jupiter symbolized the rain, and Ceres the earth; when it was related that Jupiter slept with his mother, no incest was meant, but only that the rain falls and waters the soil, and so forth. Arnobius mobilized every reason and argument for a wordby word refutation of the allegorical interpretations, and also rejected this method, which he named "allegorical blindness."79 Only someone who disregarded the need of allegory in Biblical studies, and who ignored the extensive use made of allegory by the Church Fathers could reject it so completely. Arnobius's opening statement indicated that it made no difference whether or not mythological writings had other meanings, since the gods were represented in them "nefariously and impiously," that is, denigration of the gods was expressed explicitly in them and not in any hidden way.80 Further on Arnobius asked: how do you know that these things were written in an allegorical way or that they should be understood in such a way? Did the authors admit you into their secrets or are you capable of knowing what is in the hidingplaces of their hearts? Such questions were of course pertinent to Christian allegory too, but Arnobius paid no attention to this. Another of his arguments against allegory was that there can be no limit to the interpretations one can offer of the same thing, in keeping with the unlimited possibilities that may come to mind, each of which may be offered as the true explanation.81 This being the case, "how can you distinguish the certain things from the doubtful ones, and attach one meaning to an expression which 76
Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 5: 32.
77
As classified by Sallust; see below.
78
See p. 94 ff. above.
79
Adversus nationes, 5:41.
80
Ibid., 5:33.
81
Ibid., 5:34.
Page 105
you see may be interpreted in innumerable ways with a variety of explanations?" The fact that there was no one authorized interpretation invalidated the entire method for Arnobius. This argument reminds one of the scornful words of Rabbi Zeira (a contemporary of Arnobius) about the Agadists, who offered varied explications of every Biblical verse: "It [the Agada] turns and is turned [in all directions] — we can learn nothing from it."82 Origen, in his Contra Celsum,83 as well as in his expositions (of the Song of Songs, for example), praised Biblical verses for their double meaning, for having both a clear and simple narrative meaning (historice), and an allegoricalmystical meaning for those who possess the ability to understand it. The questions put forward by Arnobius against the pagans in this connection can thus be addressed equally to Origen. For, Arnobius asked: "Do you think that all these tales, that is, each single one, have been written throughout with a double meaning and tongue . . . . or, that some parts of them convey nothing ambiguous at all, whereas others are much divided and enveloped in the veil of allegory which has been cast around them?"84 Arnobius further challenged the supposition that all mythological tales have an allegorical meaning. For, if we say that Ceres means earth, how does one explain the anger ascribed to her? He posed similar questions about other myths. Arnobius demanded that the explanation given to a certain name be applicable whenever that name appeared, and that every act ascribed to its possessor would have a reasonable meaning in conformity with this basic explanation. Since, in his opinion, the pagans were incapable of acting in this way, he proceeded to consider a second possibility. He suggested that the pagans might say: "These allegories are not in the whole body of the tale; rather, some parts were written in the ordinary sense, while others possess a double meaning and are veiled in ambiguity."85 This supposition, argued Arnobius, was a "refined subtlety," which aimed at easing the work of interpretation for the pagans. But even if one were to accept this, there remained the unanswerable question: by what sign of recognition or criterion can the pagans establish 82
JT Mäasrot, chap. 3,51a.
83
See below.
84
Adversus nationes, 5:35.
85
Ibid., 5:36.
Page 106
which text was written in the simple way and which one allegorically? Might they not confuse the two? Arnobius's next chapter was devoted to examining this last with the help of concrete examples derived from mythology.86 Arnobius's conclusion was that either all had been written in an allegorical way — a claim the pagans had yet to prove — or nothing had been written in this way, for it was not reasonable to suppose that things were written partly in this way and partly in the other.87 Arnobius rejected immediately the idea that everything was written allegorically. Why? "For neither can that be undone which has been done, nor can the nature of an action be changed into a different one." Can one transform the Trojan War into the condemnation of Socrates, or the battle of Cannae into the proscriptions of Sulla? What proof was there that these tales reflected events that had actually taken place? Arnobius replied: "From the solemn rites and mysteries of initiation. . . . For it is not to be believed that these have not their origins, that they are practised without any reason or basis, and have no causes connected with their first institution."88 Or, more simply, there is no smoke without a fire to feed it. The same idea guided Jane Harrison throughout her Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion.89 Arnobius, unlike Harrison, did not distinguish between a mythos, a belief or religious opinion which preceded a certain rite and caused its creation, and an etiological mythos, which interpreted rituals of time immemorial and whose meaning had been lost with the passing of the years. These rituals had been embued with the concepts of the generations that had sought their meaning and which had lent them the meaning they thought to be most reasonable. Arnobius then gave some illustrations of his hypothesis: the pine tree in the worship of the Mother of the Gods (=Cybele) symbolizes the tree under which Attis emasculated himself; the wondering of Ceres in her search for her daughter is symbolized in the mysteries of Eleusis, and so on. It made no difference at all whether there was another reason for these ceremonies: what was important was the impossibility that the people of Attica went mad and instituted ceremonies with no causes whatsoever. 86
Ibid., 5:37.
87
Ibid., 5:38.
88
Ibid., 5:39.
89
(Cambridge. Eng., 1903; [3rd ed.] New York, 1955).
Page 107
Even if we were to grant, Arnobius continued, that these tales have a different, allegorical meaning, could there be a graver insult to the gods than the use of their names or of their shameful deeds to signify actions or things in nature and agriculture?90 But perhaps you will say, in the last resort, that the gods do not wish their secrets (mysteria) to be known to men and that these tales were written therefore in ambiguous and allegorical language.91 This explanation too was rejected by Arnobius, who asked: who allowed you to divulge these secrets against the will of the gods? How do you know them, and why do you trouble to expound them by means of an allegorical interpretation? If the gods do not wish that decent and honourable things will be told of them, will they condescend to the relating of the reprehensible and disgraceful ones? But, said the pagan, when we name Attis, we mean the sun. If that be so, retorted Arnobius, who is the Attis who, according to your writtings, was born in Phrygia suffered and did certain things which we see represented in theatrical performances and yearly religious ceremonies? In the following chapters, Arnobius continued to discuss mythological matters.92 Our survey of his polemical method will help us understand the problems that faced pagan polemicists, and the ways in which they tried to solve them. As for Attis, it is worth noting that both Julian and Sallust offered the allegorization of his mythos as an example of the way in which such myths should be expounded and understood. This was also true of the question recurring in Arnobius: why do the myths contain such abhorrent things, offending one's religious conscience? Arnobius was not far from the truth when he explained why the pagans were in need of allegory. He said it was, "because such writers and histories make you feel ashamed, and you realize that it is impossible to destroy those things which have once been committed repulsively to writing, you exert yourselves to make shameful things respectable . . . "93
Let us now return to the polemic (in Greek) where we left it, at the end of the second century C.E. 90
Adversus nationes, 5:40.
91
Ibid., 5:42.
92
Ibid., 5:43–45.
93
Ibid., 5:43.
Page 108
We noted earlier (p. 99) that Celsus employed a clever device by having a Jew voice comparisons between Greek mythology and the stories about Jesus, while Celsus himself attacked vigorously the Biblical myths shared by Jews and Christians. Elsewhere, the Jew challenged the Christians who thought that such stories as the descent to Hades and return therefrom of Orpheus, Protesilaus, Heracles and Theseus "are and appear to be myths," yet were convinced of the validity of their own story about the earthquake and darkness at the time of Jesus's crucifixion.94 Origen here, as elsewhere, evaded arguing with the Jew by contending that all these questions about Jesus could also be raised about Moses; just as one must believe in the divine power of Moses and in the wonderful, supernatural stories of the Bible, one must adopt such an attitude towards Jesus.95 Celsus criticized not only the "history" of Moses but also those who interpreted it allegorically.96 According to him, the Jews who lived in some desolate corner of Palestine were totally uneducated, and had no idea of what Hesiod and many other inspired people had said.97 They therefore composed most unconvincing and unrefined stories about a man formed by the hands of God, a woman created from his rib, a serpent violating the ordinances of God — "a mythos which they expounded to old women." Such things are not only oldwives' tales but even very impious, if we say that God was so helpless even at the outset that he was incapable of persuading even one man, whom he himself had created, to obey his orders. The same was true of the story of Noah and his allencompassing ark, as well as of the story of the dove and the crow, which he argued was no more than a debased version of the story of Deucalion, recounting the myth for tiny children.98 Because of this, the more reasonable Jews and Christians attempted to interpret them allegorically but, in Celsus's opinion, they were unsuitable for allegory since they clearly and very foolishly had been given mythical form.99 The attempts to allegorize them were even more disgraceful than the myths themselves, he said, since they attempted to harmonize 94
Origen, Contra Celsum 2:55.
95
Ibid., 2:55,58.
96
Ibid., 1:17.
97
Ibid., 4:36.
98
Ibid., 4:41.
99
Ibid., 4:50.
Page 109 100
things which could by no means be made to conform with each other. It is worth noting here that Celsus did not distinguish between GraecoRoman mythology and Egyptian animal worship.101 If one indulge in explaining the myths allegorically, there is no reason to discriminate against the Egyptians' approach and no reason not to explicate them symbolically. Iamblichus agreed with Celsus in this respect.102 Porphyry and Julian, on the other hand, devoted their energies to expounding the "Hellenic" tradition, which seemed to them to be the essence of polytheism, and displayed a reserved attitude towards Egyptian mythology. Julian's friend Sallust noted the Egyptian mythos as an example of a "material" and degraded one, which the Egyptians had adopted because of their lack of education.103 Origen's reactions were varied. He described Greek mythology in the usual way, stressing the fact that pagan poets and philosophers recorded the misfortunes that befell the gods, their indulging in immoral sexual relations, the battles of sons against their fathers, their emasculations, and so forth.104 By contrast, Moses did not relate things which were far less offensive about human beings and angels, let alone about God. Nevertheless, Celsus prided himself on these deeds while yet thinking that those who received the laws of Moses were deceived by them and led astray. The objection of Celsus to the allegorical exposition of the Bible was, according to Origen, much the same as the behaviour of Thrasymachus (in the Res publica of Plato), who would not permit Socrates to answer a question about the definition of justice as he wished. In book four, chapter sixteen of his work, Origen gave the story of the transfigurations of Jesus on the mountain (Matt., 17:2 and parallels) a meaning quite different from its literal one. He then asked whether this narrative, especially when understood properly, were not much more imposing than the story of Dionysus, who was torn in pieces by the Titans and then put together again before he went up to heaven.105 "Or is it permissible to the Greeks to refer such things to the account about the soul and allegorize them, while for us the door 100
Ibid., 4:51.
101
Ibid., 3:17,19.
102
See De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, 7:1.
103
De diis et mundo, 4:3.
104
Contra Celsum, 1:17.
105
Ibid., 4:17.
Page 110
of a consistent explanation . . . has been closed?" It is worthy of note that Origen emphasized the "psychic" allegory, which served as a basis for the exposition of Philo and of the pagan NeoPlatonist polemicists. He also stressed the total "consistency" of Philo's interpretation. Origen's reaction to the comparison with Hesiod and other pagan writers, and to disdain for Biblical myth was as follows:106 1) Moses preceded Hesiod and the others, and the scorn of Celsus must therefore fall on their writings; 2) Celsus did not understand Scripture; 3) allegorical interpretation is necessary, and Celsus cannot forbid the Jews and Christians what he allows himself about Hesiod; 4) are Hesiod's words about the woman, which were expressed "in the form of a mythos," allegorical, whereas the Biblical story about the creation of woman from Adam's rib "seems to you [i.e. Celsus] to have been related without any deeper and hidden meaning?" He then adds that Plato's words in the Symposium about the birth of Eros were ridiculous if not interpreted allegorically; Plato wished to hide from the multitude great doctrines . . . . in the form of a mythos." Also, Plato's mythos was like the Biblical one, and he may have borrowed Jewish ideas of which he learned during his visit to Egypt.107 What is the difference between the JewishChristian and the Hellenic myths? Reacting to Celsus's argument that the former are not fit for allegorical exposition because they were composed in a very foolish manner, Origen says: "On the contrary, it is the myths of the Greeks which were not only most foolishly but even most impiously composed. For ours had in mind the mass of the artless too, a consideration to which those who created the fabricated tales of the Greeks paid no attention." That, and not animosity, is why Plato removed these myths and works from his state.108 Elsewhere, Origen argued that a comparison of Linus, Musaeus, Orpheus, and Pherecydes with Moses proves the 106
Ibid., 4:36–39.
107
In a spontaneous" retort to Celsus's saying that the allegorization of the Biblical myths is even more disgraceful and absurd than the myths themselves, Origen says (ibid., 4:51): "He seems to be saying this about the works of Philo or even about still earlier works, such as the writings of Aristobulus." Then Origen ventured the guess that Celsus had not even read these books: as for Origen himself, we may deduce that he had read and reread these works himself. 108
Ibid., 4:50.
Page 111 109
superiority of Moses in the field of history and ethics. Further on he explained the source of Moses's superiority which lies, in Origen's view, in his successful use of double meaning throughout his work, while the Greek writers wrote only for those who were capable of understanding and interpreting their words allegorically. Because of Moses's skill, the multitude of the Jews were not harmed morally by the simple sense of Scripture, while the few wise men among the Jews could find therein a source for deeper theories. Origen found confirmation of his argument in the fact that the writings of pagan poets were not preserved (he means of course until his own times), and suggested that this was because the readers did not derive any benefit from them. The works of Moses, on the other hand, moved many — including even pagans — to believe that God the creator of the world had compiled them and handed it over to Moses. One may see Origen's words in the seventh book (chapter ten) as completing the abovenoted theory. Origen offered there an explanation of the ambiguous language of Biblical parables, an explanation not dissimilar to that offered by Julian for the strange content of pagan myths. Origen stated that the prophets, in keeping with the will of God, expressed without any obscurity that which was useful for the moral reformation of their hearers; they expressed in riddles,110 allegories, and parables whatever was beyond the understanding of the multitude, so that only those prepared to toil might reach the mysterious truth buried in them.111 Before we begin to discuss Porphyry. Eusebius, and Julian, it should be noted that our discussion here centres on one aspect of Jewish Law (Torah), that is, on Biblical myth and the problem of allegory. The Torah was viewed in the polemic as part of the Jews' contribution to civilization and, as such, was compared with pagan contributions, both barbarian and Hellenic. This will be discussed in detail below (in chapter four) when we deal with the polemical themes of "Culture and Enslavement." Porphyry was dissatisfied with the Greek ritual and with its animal sacrifices. However, he believed that the mythos might be adjusted, and 109
Ibid., 1:18.
110
Cf. Proverbs, 1:6.
111
And cf. the words of Clement of Alexandria, Strom., 5,24:1.
Page 112
that it embodied deep spiritualreligious theories. In some of Porphyry's treatises, preserved wholly or in part, such as De antro Nympharum, De simulacris, and De philosophia ex oraculis, we encounter allegorical explications of Homeric myths as well as the rehabilitation (through exposition) of oracles ascribed to the gods. In contrast to his flexibility concerning Greek mythology, Porphyry vehemently attacked the Holy Scriptures and their commentators (especially Origen), as noted by Eusebius.112 According to Porphyry Origen went astray when he became a Christian, and applied the theories concerning holy and profane matters which he had learned from the Greeks to the foreign ( =barbarian) myths of the Jews.113 Porphyry argued that one must flee the corruption of the Jewish writings instead of attempting to explain them away, as some commentators did, by offering explanations which were inappropriate to and incompatible with these scriptures. Where things were said explicitly by Moses, these men (Origen is specifically mentioned here) stated that they are riddles, divine oracles full of hidden mysteries; thus, they blunted the readers' critical sense with regard to their interpretations.114 We have seen that for Origen, Christian explication was consistent and wholly appropriate,115 and that the Bible contained hidden mysteries expressed in riddles.116 Although Eusebius did not innovate much concerning our subject, he presented many quotations from pagan literature, endeavouring to prove his case with them. After citing from Phoenician mythology, as compiled by Sanchuniathon (apparently an ancient Phoenician writer, translated into Greek by Philo of Byblus), Eusebius stated emphatically that these were not myths and creations of ancient, wise poets and theologians embodying a hidden theory allegorically.117 According to the evidence and admissions of the pagan writers and theologians, he said, "the ancients as well as early authors writing about the gods did not resort to 'physical' allegorical interpretations: neither did they allegorize 112
Historia Ecclesiastica, 6,19:2 ff. Here, and in what follows, Eusebius both summarizes and quotes verbatim Porphyry's words in the third book of Contra Christianos.
113
Hist. Eccles. 6,19:7–8.
114
Ibid., 6,19:4.
115
Contra Celsum, 4:17. See above, p. 111.
116
Ibid., 7:10; cf. 1:18.
117
Praeparatio Evangelica, 2, Preface: 2.
Page 113 118
the myths about the gods, but retained only the literal sense of the stories.'' The reason for his objection to the proposition that the myths should not be taken literally but should rather be expounded homiletically is quite understandable: the homiletic approach would mean that precious polemical material would be lost to the Christians in their struggle with contemporary pagans. Eusebius therefore was not prepared to allow pagans of his time (such as Porphyry) to interpret the ancient myths allegorically, although he accepted as a matter of course the allegorical expositions of Philo and the Church Fathers with regard to the much less troublesome stories of the Bible. The young pagan philosophers, argued Eusebius, boast of their logical attitude, yet are prepared neither to depart from the blasphemies of their ancestors nor to maintain them in their pristine form.119 Therefore, "they transformed the myths into 'physical' stories and theories."120 Exactly the same arguments, and even the same words, were used by Porphyry (above, p. 112) against the holy scriptures of the Jews.121 Further on, Eusebius added some details from the pagan "physical" interpretation of the myths and rejected them, saying: "They introduced a forced and untrue embellishment of the myths."122 There is no point to lengthening this work by presenting repetitive quotations. I will therefore mention only the words of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, presented by Eusebius. Dionysius suggests that only a few of the Greek myths are of benefit to man, and even this benefit is restricted to knowledgeable men; the multitudes, lacking philosophical learning, stumble over the myths.123 Origen (above, p. 111) ascribed to their lack of usefulness the nonpreservation of the mythological writings. 118
Ibid. Further on (2,2:52 ff.; 2,8:10 ff.), he adduced passages from Diodorus Siculus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus in support of his statements. The denunciations of Greek mythology by Plato were copied by almost all Christian writers. 119
Ibid., 2,6:16.
120
Ibid., 2,6:17; cf. 2,6:19. And cf. the quotation from Plutarch and its rejection ibid., 3,1:1; 3,2:1.
121
Cf. also Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 3,6:7.
122
Ibid., 2,6:18. Cf. the discussion by J. Sirinelli, Les vues historiques d'Eusèbe de Césarée (Paris, 1961), p. 164 ff.
123
Praep. Evang., 2,8–11.
Page 114 124
The testimony of the Jewish scriptures, admitted Eusebius, is important evidence for the veracity of Christian claims with regard to Jesus. But how should one understand them? For this purpose Eusebius went back to the Hebrews who preceded Moses.125 These men, as their name (ivrim) testifies, passed (avru) over to the right path of virtue with the help of "physical" considerations and unwritten laws, and were beyond (me'ever) the pleasures of the flesh. But when they multiplied in Egypt, he said, they neglected their forefathers' ways of piety and adopted the way of life of the Egyptians, until it seemed that they differed from them in nothing.126 Then the god of their ancestors sent Moses to them, and he, after presenting his signs and portents, gave them laws and rules which were congruous with their morals.127 The Law of Moses was given them since, because of their foolishness, they had ceased to follow the ways of their forefathers.128 People sick in their souls, they received a constitution which was appropriate to them, a constitution which was, in Eusebius's opinion, of this character: "On the one hand Moses ordered them openly in part as to what they had to do; on the other hand he also hinted covertly to them through allegories, ordering them to follow and observe the symbols and reflections, and not the bare truth itself."
In his article, "The Emperor Julian and the Building of the Temple" Johanan Hans Levy says: "He [Julian] places revelation against revelation. The prophetic utterances of the Chaldaeans are more valid than the utterances of the Bible . . . "129 This is perhaps true from Julian's private point of view: but his publicpolemic stand is different. In the following pages, we shall try to interpret it in the light of the guidelines and objects of the polemic as reviewed above. Julian's attitude towards the mythos is twofold: he doubts its reliability, and ascribes its unreliability to the additions of poets to the 124
Ibid., 1,3:10.
125
Ibid., 7,8:20.
126
Ibid., 7,8:37.
127
Ibid., 7,8:38.
128
Ibid., 7,8:39.
129
Studies . . . , p. 242.
Page 115
original mythos; he also strives, as Wright states, by expounding the mythos "to provide the Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion of Christianity."130 In his earlier treatise, Julian skipped over ancient tales referring to Eusebia's native country, since they were not far removed from the myths, that is, from unfounded legends.131 Then he added that he had deleted this material because "it is more appropriate to a mythos than to my oration" (=logos). In his fourth oration, "To King Hêlios,'' Julian took the liberty of disagreeing with Hesiod and Homer and, while praising them, sounding nonetheless a note of reservation and criticism. For example, in 136AC of "To King Hêlios," after explaining that Zeus, Hadês, Hêlios and Sarapis are one and the same, and that the task of Hadês is to elevate to the intelligible world the souls of righteous people, Julian added that no one should think that HadêsSarapis is the same god "before whom the myths persuade us to tremble, but rather one tender [or civilized=praos] and placable." He adds immediately, as if apologizing: "From the following it will become clear that this doctrine [=doxa] is not at all new, but that the eldest poets, Homer and Hesiod, entertained it earlier, whether they conceived it so in their minds or whether, by divine design, as in the case of the seers, they were inspired by the god with the truth." When Hesiod said that this god was the son of Hyperiôn and Theia, he meant [ainittomenos] that he was a true child of He who is above all [tou pantôn hyperechontos], for this is the meaning of Hyperiôn; the same applies to Theia. But, Julian added, one should not accept the tales about the union and marriage of Hyperiôn and Theia, which are "incredible, and paradoxical delights of the poetic Muse." After several attempts to explain the words of Homer and Hesiod, Julian stated: "But let us say farewell to the creations of the poets; for they contain along with what is divine much that is human." (Ibid., 137C.) Elsewhere in the same treatise (149B), Julian took issue with the mythos which states that Athênê was born from the head of Zeus: in his opinion, she was born from the whole of Zeus. On the other hand, he stressed his agreement with the ancient report (phêmê) concerning the identity of Zeus and Hêlios: and with calling Athênê Pronoia (=Providence), "there is no innovation on my part" (ou kainotomoumen). 130
W.C. Wright (transl.), The Works of the Emperior Julian ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1913 [1954]), I, p. 351.
131
Oration III, "To Eusebia," 106 B–C.
Page 116
In his later works, whose writing coincided with his endeavours as emperor against the Church and in favour of polytheism, Julian was clearly less liberal in his attitude towards the mythos, and more conspicuously apologetic. In his fifth oration, "To the Mother of the Gods," Julian dealt at length with the details of the mythos of Attis; the love for Attis of Cybelê, mother of the gods; his love for the Nymph; and his castration and return to Cybelê. Julian then declared that he did not mean to say that such things had ever happened, but rather that the ancients always looked for the causes of being and, when they had discovered them, concealed them in paradoxical myths in order that these illogical myths might lead capable men to search for the truth.132 Thus, their reward would be greater, since they would attain the truth through their own intellectual efforts and not by believing others' suppositions. In the seventh oration he pressed this theory yet further, saying that the more manifest the paradoxical element in a myth, the more certain it is that its riddle and its hidden truth will be revealed.133 In Gershom G. Scholem's book on Jewish mysticism, we encounter the following statement: "The philosophers, who had passed through the school of Aristotle, never felt at home in the world of Midrash. But the more extravagant and paradoxical these Aggadahs appeared to them, the more were the Kabbalists convinced that they were one of the keys to the mystical realm."134 We have, then, a phenomenon common among mystics. Since Julian had, as is well known, a strong predisposition to mystics and theurgy, one can not dismiss the possibility that his motives for the aforementioned suggestion lie in this sphere and not in the apologetic one. (Origen the mystic had suggested a closely related idea about the Holy Scriptures, as noted above.) The nearly absolute identity between Julian's words and those of Sallust in the latter's treatise designed to provide pagans with defence material against the attacks of the Christians as well as an explanation of the mythos of Attis indicates that this solution of the problem of the mythos was devised in the emperor's circle, among his close friends.135 If, therefore, Julian took part 132
Oration V, 170 A–C. Cf. Oration VII, "To the Cynic Hêracleios," 216 C–D.
133
"To the Cynic Hêracleios," 217 C–D; cf. 216 C–D.
134
Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 32. My italics.
135
Sallust's version of this is very short indeed, but its formulation shows it to be the skeleton of the Julianic treatise. See De diis et mundo, 4:7 ff.
Page 117
in the preparation of a treatise universally described as an apologetic rather than a mystic one, and this treatise of Sallust included allegorical interpretations, we are entitled to assume that these allegoricalmystical interpretations had an apologetic aim. Sallust offered explanations of the fact that the ancients made use of myths to express their views about the gods and their nature: the usefulness which emerges from the search after the truth, a search which the myths drive men to undertake by their very absurdity (atopia); the language of the myths is appropriate to both the ignorant and the intelligent, and so on.136 Almost all of the Christian polemicists repeat a question concerning the mythos which, in their view, refutes its allegorization: if we admit, they say, that Zeus symbolizes the rain and Hêra the earth, how does this assumption conform to the actions ascribed to these godsymbols in other myths? In order to answer this question, Sallust prepared a guide to the various myths. In the fourth chapter of his treatise, he stated that they are not identical but that rather, "of the myths some are theological, some physical, others psychological and material, and still others mixtures of these."137 In the continuation of this chapter, he gave examples from mythology of these five types. Hereafter, there would be no opportunity for confusion: every pagan would be able to answer embarrassing questions put to him on this subject; he need only establish of what type the mythos in question is an example. This general solution to the problem of the mythos was not mentioned at all in Julian's main polemical treatise, Against the Galilaeans, although Julian did touch on this problem in the fragments of his work preserved by Cyril. We can only guess at possible reasons for this: the solution suggested by Julian and Sallust might be good in principle but, as yet, it was not applied in practice to the whole of mythology; it was applied only to those aspects of mythology currently under Christian crossfire. Since allegorization of the mythos was not complete, Julian refrained from getting involved in complicated arguments in this work, which was intended to influence people of average education through forceful, clear, and convincing analysis. Apart from this, an extensive discussion of the mythos would place the pagans in a defensive position, 136
Ibid., 3.
137
Ibid., 4:1.
Page 118
while Julian's treatise was aggressive and designed to force his opponents into a defensive, even an apologetic, stance. Julian's method may be explained in this way: first he disables his opponents by saying: "Indeed, the Hellenes forged incredible and monstrous myths about the gods. For they said that Kronos swallowed his children and then spewed them forth again; and they told of illicit copulations: for Zeus had intercourse with his mother. . . . Such are the things related in the myths of the Hellenes."138 The turn of the Biblical mythos follows: "Compare these with what is taught by the Jews: the garden planted by God, Adam formed by Him, and the woman created for him . . . These things are wholly mythical."139 Julian then mentions the story of Eve and the serpent, and asks: ''In what way do such things differ from the myths forged by the Hellenes?"140 The same question is posed by Julian after he relates the story of the Tower of Babel: "Now you think that we should believe these things whereas you yourselves disbelieve the things related by Homer about the Aloadae, namely that they conceived the idea of setting three mountains one atop the other, 'so that heaven might be reached.'141 Indeed, I myself say that this tale is almost as mythical as the other. But why, in the name of the gods, do you, who accept the former, reject the mythos of Homer?"142 Julian then abandons this stalemate comparison of Moses and Homer. Near his discussion of the serpent and the tree of life and knowledge, Julian indicates that, in his opinion, these things must not be understood literally:: "Every one of these, unless it be a mythos incorporating some secret theory, as I myself believe, is full of blasphemous statements about God."143 It is clear that this generalization applies to the Hellenic mythos as well (although Julian does not say so specifically in the fragments preserved for us by Cyril), but Julian refrains, as noted above, from considering allegorical interpretation. Julian turns his attention from these findings of equality to a confrontation of Biblical and Platonic cosmogony. Here his conclusion is clear: Plato surpasses Moses, and the manner of his discussion is 138
Contra Galilaeos, 44 A–B.
139
Ibid., 75 A–B.
140
Ibid., 86A.
141
Odyssey, 11:316.
142
Contra Galilaeos, 135 A–B.
143
Ibid., 94 A.
Page 119
worthier of the god. Julian disregards the chronological defects of his comparison, but indicates that Plato compensates for his lack of antiquity by formulating his mythos in theologicalphilosophical language very different from that of Moses, although Plato's words too need to be interpreted (and are) in order to reveal fully their deeper meaning. As we have suggested, Julian prefers to attack, rather than to defend his position. His offensive is threefold. First, he undermines the allegorical interpretations by means of which the Christians negated the obligation to observe the injunctions of the Torah. Then, he discredits theological principles of the Church by showing that they contradicted Scripture. Finally, he shows the weak points of Biblical theology and ethics. Paul had made no distinction between ceremonial and ethical law. However, Biblical ethics were binding on the Church. Julian exploited this fact in order to assail Christianity.144 The questions put by Julian to the Christians included some considered by the Jewish Sages, whose point of departure was different. The pagans and the Christians examined the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy; the attitudes prevalent among the Jews in the Biblical period had altered, possibly because of environmental influence, and the Jews therefore felt it incumbent upon them to explicate certain Biblical sayings and deeds so that they would not contradict the spirit and concepts of their own age. In the following pages, we will examine some comments by Julian, and remark here and there on the treatment of these problems in writings before his time; we will not exhaust the subject but rather illustrate the general statements above, in order to show clearly what place and importance in the polemic should be assigned to the "Biblical mythos." On the injunctions (mitzvoth) in general: And why is it that you do not abide even by the Hebrew sayings or embrace the law which God has given to them? . . . For the Hebrews have precise regulations [nomima] concerning religious worship, and innumerable prohibitions [sebasmata] and injunctions [phylagmata] which make the living of a holy life obligatory.145
Prohibited foods; Pork: Here, Julian notes: Indeed it is from the innovations [kainotomia] of the Hebrews that you have appropriated the blasphemy of the gods who are honoured by 144
See Lietzmann, op. cit., I, 129.
145
Contra Galilaeos, 238 A–C.
Page 120 us; but you have abandoned the reverence for every superior nature characteristic of our cult as well as our affection for ancestral tradition, and have acquired only the eating of all things 'as the green herb' [Genesis, 9:3]. . . .
and adds: Why are you not as pure as the Jews in your daily fare (diaita), and why do you contend that we ought to eat everything 'as the green herb', trusting Peter who said, according to them [the Christians], 'What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common?' [Acts, 10:15.] What evidence is there that long ago God regarded certain things as abominable, but now has made them clean? For Moses, when he indicates the distinguishing marks of fourfooted beasts, states that 'whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted and cheweth the cud' [Leviticus, 11:3] is clean, but that lacking these qualities is unclean. If, then, following the vision of Peter, the pig has commenced chewing the cud, let us accept his words . . . But if he lied about seeing that apocalypse, to use your own terminology, in the house of the tanner, why should we believe him so willingly in matters of such import? For what difficulty did Moses impose on you if he forbade you to eat, in addition to the flesh of swine, winged things and sea food, taking the position that as well as the flesh of swine, these too had been rejected by God and regarded as unclean?146
Circumcision, and unleavened bread during Passover: On these matters, Julian notes: Now I must consider this other question and ask them, for what reason do you not circumcise yourselves? They reply that Paul declared that circumcision of the heart but not of the flesh was bestowed upon Abraham because he believed.147 He said nothing more about the circumcision of the flesh, and we should accept the not impious words proclaimed by him and Peter. Conversely, note once more that God is said to have bestowed circumcision of the flesh upon Abraham as a covenant and token: 'This is My covenant which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you and between Me and thy seed . . . '148 Therefore when he [i.e. Jesus] has unquestionably affirmed that it is fitting to observe the law, and provided punishments 146
Ibid., 238D; 314 C–E.
147
Neumann suggests that the allusion is to Romans, 4:11–12, and 2:29. Neumann, Juliani Imp. librorum contra Christianos . . . (Leipzig, 1880), ad locum.
148
A paraphrase of Genesis, 17:10–12.
Page 121 for those who transgress a commandment, you, who have transgressed each and every one, what kind of rationalization will you contrive? . . . Moses says: 'The circumcision shall be of thy flesh.'149 They [i.e. The Galilaeans] however listened carelessly to him, and say: 'We circumcise our hearts . . . ' They say: 'We cannot heed the rule concerning unleavened bread nor execute the Passover; since for us Christ was sacrificed once and for all.' All well and good! But did he forbid your eating unleavened bread?150
The eternity of the Torah: On this subject, Julian comments as follows: But why do I expatiate on these teachings of theirs [i.e. of the Galilaeans], when it is possible to examine their potency? For they declare that over the earlier law, God established the second one. For the former was created for a specific occasion and was circumscribed by fixed periods of time, but the latter was revealed and proclaimed because the law of Moses was limited by time and place. That they err in this I will clearly prove from the books of Moses, by offering not merely ten but ten thousand testimonies, wherein be says that the law is eternal. Listen then now to [passages from] Exodus: 'And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Howbeit from the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses'151 [Neumann notes here that Julian quoted similar verses from the Bible, but that they are missing]. . . . Although many more such passages remain from which it emerges that the law of Moses is eternal, I forgo citing them because of their quantity. But show me where there is stated [by Moses] what was later audaciously proclaimed by Paul, that 'Christ is the end of the law.'152 Where does God promulgate for the Hebrews another law alongside that which had been laid down? It is not to be found anywhere, nor is a revision of the extant law. Listen again to [the words of] Moses . . .153
The status of Jesus: Julian comments on this at length: Now as they [i.e. the Galilaeans] claim that, though they differ from presentday Jews, they are nonetheless and in the strict sense of the word genuine Israelites according to their prophets, and that they obey Moses primarily as well as the prophets who succeeded him in Judaea, let us see in what they are in essential agreement with them. Let us start with the words of Moses, who, as they assert, also proclaimed the forth 149
See Genesis, 17:13.
150
Contra Galilaeos, 351A–354B.
151
Exodus, 12:14–15.
152
Romans, 10:4.
153
Contra Galilaeos, 319D–320B.
Page 122 coming birth of Jesus. Now then, Moses says not one or two or three times, but rather very frequently that men should worship only one God, whom he even calls Supreme, but nowhere does he declare that they ought to worship any other god. He mentions angels, lords and even many gods, but of these he designates the first and does not contemplate another's being second, either similar to or unlike him, such as you have created in addition. Should you have somewhere at your disposal a single relevant utterance of Moses, you are entitled to produce it.
Julian then quotes the Biblical verses upon which the Christians rely, refutes the Christian interpretation, and summarizes, saying: "It is quite clear that not one of these sayings is appropriate to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. . . . " And again, after citing and refuting another verse, he notes: If then you try to draw conclusions from these writings, prove them by presenting a single saying from the source from which I have drawn so many. Moses says in Deuteronomy [4:35] that in his eyes God is one God, and there is none else beside Him . . . '. And again: 'Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord' [Deut., 6:4]. And again: 'See that I am and there is no God save me'. [Deut., 32:39] Such, then, are the words of Moses when insisting that there is only one God. But they [i.e. the Galilaeans] may respond: 'We too do not claim that there are two or three.' But I will show that they claim this as well, calling for testimony upon John, who says: 'In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. [John, 1:1] Do you see that the Word is said to be with God? . . . How then do these conform to the sayings of Moses?
After rejecting the Christian reliance on Isaiah 7:14 ('Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son'), Julian adds: "But now listen to the statements to which I draw your attention from the very same prophets, one after the other: 'O Lord our God, have dominion over us, we know no other beside thee,'154 And King Hezekiah has been represented by them as praying: 'O Lord, God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubim. Thou art the God, even Thou alone'. [Isaiah 37:16.] Does he leave any room for the second god?"155 It is rather interesting to note that an Amora who was a contemporary of Julian uttered negative words about the divinity of Jesus 154
This is Isaiah 26:13 paraphrased.
155
Contra Galilaeos, 253A–276E. Cf. 290E–291A.
Page 123
which were linguistically similar to the language used by Julian: "Rabbi Aha * said: the Holy One Blessed be He was angry with Solomon when he pronounced this verse.156 He said unto him: dost thou express a thing which concerns the sanctification of My name by a brief allusion [=notarikon]? 'And meddle not with them that are given to change?' [=shonim, which also means "given to seconding"]. Immediately he [i.e. Solomon] explicated the matter once again: 'There is one that is alone, and he hath not a second [=sheni]; yea, he hath neither son nor brother.' [Ecclesiastes, 4:8] He hath neither son nor brother, but 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'"157 A comparison with Celsus is very instructive as regards the use of Biblical verses. Celsus put into the mouth of "his Jew" the argument that the prophecies applied by the Christians to Jesus could be applied more plausibly to thousands of others.158 Celsus himself was familiar with the Bible, but preferred to argue against Jesus within the framework of his comparisons of the religious ceremonies and mythologies of the pagan religions with those of Christianity. In his opinion, the mystical ceremonies of Christianity were inferior to the pagan mysteries. By worshipping Jesus, who was apprehended and executed, Celsus said, the Christians behave precisely in the manner of the Getae who adore Zamolxis, the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, the Acarnanians [who revere] Amphilochus," and so forth.159 Therefore, he concluded, since the Christians "are eager to innovate [kainotomêsai], it would have been better for them to direct their energies to some personality who died in a noble way and became legendary." Celsus then enumerated persons more worthy of this than Jesus, such as Heracles, Asclepius, Epictetus, Daniel and Jonah, among others. A man excellent and appropriate in all respects would have been Orpheus, who was endowed with the holy spirit and who also died a violent death.160 The Creation, and the Tower of Babel: Rather than noting everything 156
The reference is to Proverbs 24:21: "My son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change [= shonim]."
157
Deut., 6:4. The passage is from MR Deuteronomy, 2, near the end; = MR Ecclesiastes to chap. 4, verse 8.
158
Origen, Contra Celsum, 2:28.
159
See Alêtês Logos, 3:34.
160
Ibid., 7:53.
Page 124
that Julian has to say on these subjects, we will note only a few points of comparison with his predecessors, in order to show the continuity of the polemic. Julian quoted, with certain omissions, the verses of chapter one of Genesis which describe the creation of the world161 and of man.162 The verses are accompanied by interpretation, which stressed their deficiencies by comparison with the lucidity and perfection of Plato's Timaeus as Julian saw it. As for the Tower of Babel,163 Julian ridiculed, inter alia, the fact that, in order to confuse the languages, God "descended from heaven, because He could not, it appears, do it from on high without descending to earth."164 He also deduced, from the language of the verse, that in his descent, God had companions whose status was almost equal to his.165 Concerning this, it is worth noting that Porphyry argued that the angels who serve before God, because they are free of emotions and are incorruptible by nature, are called gods by the pagans, since they are close to him in their divinity.166 We have indicated above (p. 27) the connections between the polemical treatises of Eusebius and Julian. Eusebius cited all the abovementioned verses about the creation of the world and of man, and added explanations drawn mainly, according to his explicit admission, from Philo.167 Eusebius pointed out that "such is the theology of the Hebrews," which is formulated "not by syllogistic reasoning nor by plausible arguments, but rather in a more dogmatic and didactic manner."168 In the course of quoting, Eusebius again and again emphasized the fact that the evidence which he presented and the things he wished to prove were intended to explain why the Christians deserted the traditions of their forefathers and based their theology on the Law of 161
Contra Galilaeos, 49B ff.
162
Ibid., 58A ff.
163
Ibid., 134D ff.
164
Ibid., 138A.
165
Ibid., 146 A–B.
166
Contra Christianos, ed. Harnack, p. 92, no. 76.
167
See Praep. Evang., 7,11:1–3; 17:3–4 ff.; cf. 11, 14:10; 11,23:12 ff; 11,27:1. The paragraph ("Gods of gods," etc.) from Timaeus 41, too, which Julian quotes and expounds at length, is brought by Eusebius (ibid., 11,32:4) in the course of his comparison of Plato and Moses. 168
Ibid., 7,11:1; 7,11:4; cf. 1,7:16.
169
E.g., 7,17:2; 7,18:11.
Page 125 169
170
Moses. It is interesting that, in his belittling Biblical cosmogony, Celsus exceeded even Julian.
The Christians borrowed their weapons from Philo and Josephus (see above, pp. 95–97). From Philo they drew the technique of allegorical interpretation and viewed it as perfectly reasonable. For example, Eusebius stated in regard to the expression "And God said" (Genesis, 1:3 et passim): "It is not necessary to suppose that He spoke with a voice and syllables."171 Clement of Alexandria, when telling the pagans of the chain of events involving Adam and God in Paradise, remarked matter of factly that "the serpent is an allegory for pleasure."172 Origen too asserted without any hesitation: ''If the prophetic utterances speak of God as descending, we take this in a symbolical sense".173 This is because the prophets spoke "according to common usage." One may compare with this the explanation offered by several Sages: "The Torah spoke according to the common parlance."174 In reply to a general argument of Celsus that Moses, in compiling the story of the Tower of Babel and of the confusion of languages, corrupted the narrative of Homer about the Aloadae, Origen says, relying on the arguments of Josephus in the Contra Apionem, that Moses wrote not only before Homer but even before the invention of the Greek script and that, therefore, one must draw the opposite conclusion.175 The Sages were troubled by the possibility that the expressions "Let us make man" (Genesis, 1:26), and "Let us go down and let us there confound their language" (ibid., 11:7), might be interpreted by "heretics" (minim) as evidence for the existence of two or more authorities.176 The Sages thought that the Septuagint precluded this possibility, and it was therefore praised by them (BT, Megilla, 9a): 170
See Alêtês Logos, 6:50; 6:60–61. In 6:50, we read: "Moses and the prophets . . . put together utter trash" (lêron). Eusebius (Praep. Evang. 7,5:2), on the other hand, argued that the writings of the Greeks were fables (mythoi) and trash (lêroi). On the attitude of Celsus to Biblical mythos in general and to its allegorization, see above, p. 108. 171
Praep. Evang., 7,11:2.
172
Protrepticus, 11:1.
173
Contra Celsum, 4:12.
174
See e.g., BT Berachoth, 31b:
175
Origen, Contra Celsum, 4:21.
176
In the light of Julian's words above, it seems to me that the vague term minim may fit the pagans too and not only the Gnostics or the Christians.
Page 126 It was taught: it happened that King Ptolemy brought together seventytwo elders . . . and told them write down for me the Torah of your master Moses. The Holy One Blessed beHe instilled advice in the heart of each of them, and they all agreed on one finding and recorded for him . . . "I will make man in an image and in a likeness . . . " "let me go down and let me there confound their language . . . "
Another source puts the question in the mouth of Moses and the answer in the mouth of God. However, this answer is valid for the Christians and the Gnostics, but does not reject the interpretation with which the pagans saddled such utterances. MR Genesis, 8:8 noted: R. Shmuel Bar Nahman in the name of R. Yonathan: when Moses was writing the Torah he set down the events of each day in succession. When he reached the verse stating "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," he said unto Him: Lord of the world, why do you provide a point of attack for the "heretics" [minim]?! He said: Record, and whoever wishes to go astray will do so. The Holy One BlessedbeHe said unto him: Moses, this man whom I have created, do I not bring forth from him greater and lesser ones? So that if the greater one will come to ask permission of his inferior, saying: Why do I have to ask permission of my inferior? And they reply to him: Learn from your Creator, Who created the superior and the inferior creatures; when He came to create man, He consulted the ministering angels.177
"A jealous and vindictive God." In the opening of his treatise De diis et mundo (1:1), Sallust illustrates theologicalphilosophical opinions accepted by all: "That every god is good, that he is free of passion (apathês), that he is unchangeable." Commenting on this, Gabriel Rochefort, his editor, translator and commentator says: "To the goodness of god. . . . Sallustius joins Stoic apathy, which excludes divine jealousy and passion."178 And, indeed, Julian, Porphyry and Celsus do not miss an opportunity to sharply criticize the Christians concerning the passions attributed to God in the Bible, emotions both morally base and theologically flawed in being mentioned at all in this way. With regard to the altars which King Solomon erected under the 177
Ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Jerusalem, 1965) p. 61. Cf. the words of R. Simlai, ibid., 8:9 (= p. 62) (Hebrew).
178
Saloustios, Des dieux et du monde, ed. and transl. G. Rochefort (Paris, 1960), ad locum.
Page 127 179
influence of his wives, Julian noted: " . . . Then if he were misled by a woman, do not call this man wise. But if you believe that he was wise, then do not believe that he was led astray by a woman, but that he worshipped other gods too, as a result of his being convinced by his own judgement and knowledge and by the teaching revealed to him by the god. For envy and jealousy do not even draw near the most virtuous of men; they are all the more remote from angels and gods."180 Because of this Julian deplores the second commandment, saying: "But the commandment 'Thou shalt not bow down unto other gods' is accompanied by a severe libel upon God. 'For He is a jealous God,' he says [Exodus, 20:5], and in another place again, 'Our God is a devouring fire' [Deuteronomy, 4:24]. If then, a jealous and illwilled man seems to you worthy of reproach, do you turn this quality into a divine one if God is said to be jealous?"181 Julian was especially angry about the "act of Phinehas *" and its implications. His words expressed the spirit of tolerance characteristic of polytheism: Nowhere does God appear to be angry, resentful, or furious, . . . . as Moses declares to have happened in the case of Phinehas*. If any of you has read the Book of Numbers, he is aware of what I mean. When Phinehas had seized in his own hands and killed the man who had joined himself unto Baalpeor, together with the woman who had persuaded him to do so, striking the woman with a shameful and extremely painful wound through her womb, as Moses tells us, God is made to say: "Phinehas*, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath 179
I Kings, 11:4 ff.; cf. Josephus, Antiquitates, 8:190–195.
180
Contra Galilaeos, 224D–E. Cf. Midrash Tanhuma, ed. S. Buber (New York, 1946), Vaëre 2:13 (=II,18): "Another interpretation: 'Surely oppression turneth a wise man into a fool' (Ecclesiastes, 7:7), etc. Needless concerns with which Solomon was occupied led him astray, as it is written: 'For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods' (I Kings, 11:4). R. Hiyya* Bar Abba said: it would have been better for him if he had been a sewageworker than that this verse should have been written about him." Cf. MR Leviticus, 9:9 (ed. M. Margulies [Jerusalem, 1953], p. 189): "Bar Kappara said: peace is great. For if the superior ones, who do not harbour jealousy nor hatred nor rivalry nor strife nor enmity nor ill will are in need of peace, 'He maketh peace in His high places' [Job, 25:2], how much the more are the inferior ones, who harbour all these attributes?" 181
Contra Galilaeos, 155 C–D; cf. 152 C, 106 D,E.
Page 128 turned My wrath away from the Children of Israel, in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy" [Numbers, 25:11]. What more trivial reason could there be for God to have been wrongly presented as raging with fury by the author of this passage? What might be more unreasonable than that ten or fifteen people, or even one hundred, for surely they would not state that there were a thousand, nonetheless, let us concede that that many persons presumed to violate one of the laws fixed by God; was it necessary that because of this thousand, six hundred thousand should be utterly exterminated? In my opinion, it would be better in every way to preserve one wicked man along with a thousand most excellent men than to exterminate the thousand together with that one. . . . But note too from the following how our teachings are far superior to theirs. The philosophers exhort us to imitate the gods as much as we can, saying this imitation is achieved by contemplating realities.182 That this thing is remote from passion and is based on freedom from passion [=apatheia], is, I suppose, obvious, even without my noting it. In as much then as we become free from passion, having assigned ourselves to contemplating realities, to that extent do we become like God. But what kind of imitation of God is panegyrized among the Hebrews? Fury and wrath and savage jealousy. For He says: "Phinehas * hath turned away My wrath from the Children of Israel, in that he was jealous with My jealously among them." For it seems that God, on finding one who shared his resentment and grief, put away his resentment. Moses is made to utter these and similar words about God not infrequently in Scripture.183
Porphyry argues that an attitude of respect towards the gods of the pagans is expressed in the Torah, in the text "Thou shalt not revile gods."184 Therefore Porphyry concludes that the Christians "are very much mistaken when they believe that God is angered if someone else is called god and thereby acquires His appellation, whereas even rulers do not begrudge their subjects', or masters their slaves', having the same name; it is, then, forbidden [ou themiton] as regards religion to suppose that God is more pettyminded than men."185 182
Cf. Sifra to Leviticus 19:2 (ed. I. Weiss [Vienna, 1862], 86 C) : "'Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy.' Abba Saul says: an entourage [=famalia=familia] of a king, what should it be? Imitating the king." Cf. also Sifre on Deuteronomy, paragraph 49. 183
Ibid., 160 D–161 A, 171 D–172 A.
184
Exodus, 22:27, according to the Septuagint version; the Masoretic version is "God" (=Elohim). Cf. Julian, Contra Galilaeos, 238C.
185
Contra Christianos, ed. Harnack, p. 93, no. 78.
Page 129
Celsus too decries such attitudes, declaring: "The Jews and Christians attribute human passions to God, holding impious opinions about him when they ascribe anger and threats to him; they go astray when presenting their narratives concerning Him."186 There is no need to demonstrate that the "conventions" about the gods' freedom from passion were valid in the eyes of the Christians. We will note only that even apologists like Aristides and Athenagoras reproved the Greek writers for ascribing such human traits to the gods.187 For this reason, they also explicated scriptural statements about the anger and jealousy of God by saying that their language had been adapted to man's limited comprehension.188 The Jewish Sages were not particularly sensitive to philosophical assumptions. Although it was asserted that the deed of Phinehas * was performed "not according to the wishes of the Sages," the dissatisfaction of the Sages did not stem from the causes reproved by Julian.189 Even in the disputes of Rabban Gamaliel with a "philosophos" and with "Agrippas the military commander," the problem of God's jealousy was not the subject, but rather the difficulty which rises from the assumption of God's jealousy on the one hand and of His forgiveness of idolatry on the other.190 For we read there: A philosophos asked Rabban Gamaliel: it is written in your Torah "For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God" [Deuteronomy, 4:24]; why then is He jealous of its worshippers and not jealous of it [idolatry]? . . . He said unto them: if they were worshipping something of which the world was in no need, He would eliminate it; but they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations, the beds of rivers and the valleys: shall He destroy his world because of fools?
But the matter cannot not be dismissed so readily. Even in the Sages' circles, there were some who found it inappropriate to ascribe such traits to God: 186
Alêtês Logos, 4:71,72; cf. 73 (according to Glöckner's reconstruction in his edition [Bonn, 1924]).
187
See above, p. 97 ff.; and cf. Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 4:37; Geffcken, op. cit., commentary on the Apologia of Aristides, p. 40.
188
E.g., Origen, Contra Celsum, 4:71–2; Cyril, Adversus Iulianum, 4:173.
189
JT, Sanhedrin, end of chap. 9.
190
BT 'Abodah Zarah, 54b–55a.
Page 130 Rabbi [i.e. R. Yehuda the Patriarch] and R. Yonathan say: a mortal is overcome by fury, but The Holy One Blessed be He subdues wrath, for it is written [Nahum *, 1:2] "The Lord avengeth and dominates wrath" [=baal heima, literally, "full of wrath," "possessor of wrath"]. R. Yonathan says: a mortal is subdued by jealousy but The Holy One Blessed be He subdues jealousy, for it is written [ibid.]: "God is the lord (master) of jealousy and vengeance." [Literally= ''The Lord is a jealous and avenging God."]191
Our final example is one in which there is no negative criticism of the Bible but, on the contrary, a positive interpretation wherein Julian joined forces with Judaism against Christianity. Julian exerts himself to minimize the differences between the Jews and the pagans with 191
MR Genesis 49:8 (ed. TheodorAlbeck, p. 508); in Midrash Tehillim, psalm 94 (ed. S. Buber [Vilna, 1891], p. 417), the sayings are ascribed to Rabbi and R. Nathan. Cf. Mechilta D'Rabbi Ismael, Tractate Bahodesh Jethro 6 (ed. H. Horovitz and T.A. Rabin [Jerusalem, 1960], p. 226; ed. J. Lauterbach [Philadelphia, 1949], II, 244): "'For I the Lord Thy God am a jealous God.' Rabbi says: A God over jealousy. I rule over jealousy, but jealousy has no power over Me. I rule over slumber, but slumber has no power over Me. And thus it says: 'Behold, He that keepeth Israel doth neither slumber nor sleep' [Psalms, 121 :4] . . . Another interpretation: 'For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.' Zealously do I exact punishment for idolatry, but in other matters I am merciful and gracious." The language and attitude of Spinoza concerning this question may provide an interesting and instructive comparison. Spinoza opposed forcefully both the interpretation of Scripture and, of course, its literal meaning. See B. Di Spinoza, Tractatus TheologicoPoliticus, chap. 7,101; 15,183 (translated by R.H.M. Elwes [New York, 19511, pp. 102–103, 193) : "However, as we find the name fire applied to anger and jealousy (see Job, 31 : 12) we can thus easily reconcile the words of Moses and legitimately conclude that the two propositions, God is a fire, and God is jealous, are in meaning identical. "Further, as Moses clearly teaches that God is jealous, and nowhere states that God is without passions or emotions, we must evidently infer that Moses held this doctrine himself, or at any rate, that he wished to teach it, nor must we refrain because such a belief seems contrary to reason: for . . . we cannot wrest the meaning of texts to suit the dictates of our reason, or our preconceived opinions. The whole knowledge of the Bible must be sought solely from itself . . . But I insist that it [i.e. the Bible] expressly affirms and teaches that God is jealous (namely, in the decalogue itself, and in Exodus, 34:14, and in Deut., 4:24, and in many other places), and I assert that such a doctrine is repugnant to reason. It must, I suppose, in spite of all, be accepted as true."
Page 131
regard to sacrifices, and to emphasize the separatist and isolated position of the Christians. Contra Galilaeos, 306A–B reads: "But why do you not perform sacrifices, since you have come up with the new sacrifice and are in no need of Jerusalem? Still it was unnecessary for me to say this to you, since I said it at the outset, when I wished to demonstrate that the Jews concur with the Gentiles, in all except their belief in one, sole, God. For this is, indeed, uniquely theirs, and foreign to us; however, the other things are somehow common to us all: temples, precincts, altars, purifications, and some injunctions. In these matters we differ from each other either not at all or very little." Julian links Abraham and astrology together, on the same subject, saying: And yet, by the gods, I am one of those who decline to celebrate their festivals with the Jews, but I nonetheless always honour the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They themselves, being Chaldaeans, of a sacred race and skilled in theurgy, had learned the custom of circumcision when they dwelled as strangers among the Egyptians. They worshipped a God who was welldisposed towards me and towards those who worshipped him in the manner of Abraham, and he is very great and powerful, but he has no connection with you whatsoever. For you do not copy Abraham by building altars to him, or by raising altars for offerings and worshipping him as did Abraham, by means of sacrifices. Abraham was accustomed to sacrifice even as do we Hellenes, always and uninterruptedly. In addition, he made use of divination through the shooting stars. This too, perhaps, is a Hellenic custom. . . . And if any of you disbelieves this, the very words of Moses will prove it clearly: "After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a nighttime vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.' And Abraham said: 'O Lord, what wilt thou give me? For I go hence childless, and the son of Masek, my household slavewoman, will be my heir.' And at once the voice of God came unto him saying: 'This man shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth from thee shall be thine heir.' And He brought him forth abroad and said unto him: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them.' And He said: 'So shall thy seed be.' And Abraham believed in the Lord, and it was counted to him for righteousness."192 Tell me now why did the one called angel or God bring him outside and point out the stars to him? For while still inside was he ignorant of how great is the multitude of the stars which always shine and are visible at night? But I think it was because he wished to show him the shooting stars, in order to provide the con 192
A partial paraphrase of Genesis, 15:1–6.
Page 132 firming vote of the heavens that accomplishes and sanctions all things as a palpable pledge of his words. (354A–357A.)
Isaac Heinemann considers the Midrashim of the verse "And He brought him forth abroad" as examples of the exposition of words. He points out that, because of the term "Chaldaeans" (Hebrew=Casdim), which designated astrologers, Philo's exposition of this verse was similar to that of the Sages.193 But a comparison of the Sages' exposition with the "midrash" of Julian leads me to think that the phrases of the Talmud are not only expository, but also contain reservations about, or even a rejection of, the interpretation applied by the pagans to this verse. Here are the Talmudic expositions: For Rav Judah said in Rav's name: whence do we know that Israel is not dependent on nativity [=mazal, a zodiac sign]? For it is written: "And He brought him forth abroad."194 Abraham said to the Holy One Blessed be He: Master of the world, one born in my house is to be mine heir. He [God] said unto him: No, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels. He said unto Him: Master of the world, I looked at my constellation [Iztagninuth *], and I am not worthy to beget a son. He [God] said unto him: Get out of your astrological speculations [=Iztagninuth], for Israel is not influenced by the planets [=mazal].(BT Shabbath, 156a.)
And in another place (MR Genesis, 44:12=TheodorAlbeck, p. 432): "'And He brought him forth abroad.' R. Joshua in the name of R. Levi: did he bring him forth outside the world, as Scripture said, 'And He brought him forth abroad'? (No), but He showed him the streets of heaven. . . . The Rabbis said: you are a prophet and not an astrologer." 193
The ways of the Agada (2nd ed.; Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 121, 181 (Hebrew).
194
The Munich MS here adds: "and He said: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the starts, if thou be able to count them'; and He said: 'So shall thy seed be.'"
Page 133
Chapter Three— Divine Providence, the Daemons, and the Election of Israel In the following pages we will try to understand the attitudes of the Jews, the Christians, and the pagans concerning divine providence. This seems to me useful for three reasons: 1) it is instructive in itself, showing us how the very existence of the interreligious polemic forced the parties to adopt certain positions on theological philosophical problems; 2) it provides vital background information for our discussion of other central motifs of the polemic, namely, the daemons and the election of Israel, and culture and enslavement; 3) as additional evidence of the place occupied by, and the importance of, the Jews visàvis the combatants; in this case, specifically, the importance of the writings of Hellenistic Jewry for the Church Fathers. As we came to realize in our discussion of "The Recognition of God, Revelation, and Religious Myth," there existed at the outset an ostensible agreement on principles among the parties, but this agreement turned into disagreement when more detailed problems came to be considered. The same is true of the question of providence. As we shall see further on, not only was there a unanimity of belief but also, here and there, we can see that the polemic forced on the contending parties a position which did not always reflect their true opinions. We refer to the question about the nature of providence: does it mean that God actually intervenes in the daily running of the world, and does His action in favour of one side and against another sometimes exceed the laws of nature or even contradict them, or is providence perhaps no more than a spiritual relationship between God and the individual? The Bible, as is well known, followed the former, simple concept
Page 134 1
and endeavoured to show that the history of man confirms its validity. While the parties to the polemic did not emphasize this fact, they did nonetheless believe in a general and allencompassing providence, which was realized by means of the forces of nature. Only occasionally do we find the view expressed that divine providence is as described in Psalms 73:28: "But as for me, the nearness of God is my good;. . . . " Opinion is not uniform concerning the daemons or their status with respect to God and men, good and bad daemons, angels, or the divine logos. Jewish sacred writings and the works of Hellenistic Jewry served as foundations for Christian attitudes and influenced those of the pagans as well. The very existence of the Jews and their claim to election by God were of utmost importance. As we shall see, the changes which the polemic underwent readily explain the changed attitude of the pagans to this claim, as well as the nature of the Christian argument concerning it. In the opening of his article, "Studies in the Concepts of the Sages on Providence," Ephraim F. Urbach indicates that his discussion will revolve around the opinions of the Sages on the problems of providence, fate and free will.2 Concerning providence, he notes that it is twofold; one of its aspects relates to "leading the world, ruling over nature, and providing for the needs of all creatures . . . " while its other aspect is the "observation of the ways and deeds of men. . . . "3 Urbach then discusses the relation between the concern for the needs of all creatures and the supervision of their deeds, in addition to the question of fate and free will.4 Fate and free will were not dealt with in the polemic. For us, it is important that the concept of God's concern for all the creatures of His world was common to the Sages, the Christians and the pagans alike (as will become clear below). We also learn that the worst aspect of heresy did not find its expression in a denial of the existence of God, 1
Cf. J. Gutmann, The Philosophy of Judaism (2nd ed.; Jerusalem, 1953), p. 18 (Hebrew).
2
In Jubilee Book in honour of Yehezkel Kaufmann, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 122–148 (Hebrew); see also chap. 11 of Urbach's The Sages, their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem, 1975). 3
Jubilee Book . . . , p. 123 and notes 6 and 7.
4
See D. Flusser, "The Pharisees and the Adherents of the Stoa" in Iyun, XIV–XV (1963–1964), pp. 318–329 (Hebrew), for a somewhat different treatment of this subject.
Page 135
but rather in the assertion that "there is no judgement and no judge," that is, in the view that God does not supervise what goes on in his world. Philo presented a number of different answers to this question. They stem, apparently, from the character and aim of each individual treatise. His work on the Creation, De opificio mundi, stressed the general providence of the Creator in the cosmos which was His creation. Near the beginning of this treatise (par. nine), Philo stated that "those who assert that this world is not a creation unknowingly undermine that which, of all inducements to piety, is the most beneficial and the most essential, namely providence" (=pronoia). At the end of the treatise (pars. 171–172). Philo expressed the final conclusions to be drawn from his arguments: "Fifthly: God also exercises providence [pronoei] over the world [cosmos]. For that the creator should always tend the thing created is required by the laws and decrees of Nature, and it is in accordance with these that parents tend their children." This assumption, that the world is not managed by nature (physis) in a mechanical way but rather by the providence of God, which establishes law and order in it, is the accepted opinion of all followers of religion and tradition, regardless of the extent of their belief. A greater difficulty was presented by the question of whether it be tychê, blind fortune, that governs the destinies of nations and individuals, or pronoia, providence, that controls their lives, rewards the worthy and punishes the sinners. In his preeminently apologeticpolemical treatises, Philo declared without hesitation that the Jewish people does indeed enjoy God's providence, which rescues it from all who conspire against it, and which wreaks vengeance on its enemies and those who do it evil. In the beginning of his Legatio ad Gaium Philo declared that if someone did not believe that the Deity takes thought (=pronoein) concerning men, the present case and its circumstances would remove all his doubts (par. three). And, in summarizing the considerations and apprehensions of the members of the embassy, he said: "But let our souls preserve an indestructible hope in God the Saviour, who has often saved the nation [i.e. Israel] when it was in helpless straits." (par. 196.) Philo perceived the hand of God in the fact that the emperor Gaius Caligula did not dispatch a statue from Rome and did not even order the governor Petronius to choose the best of those available in Syria and erect it in
Page 136
the Temple in Jerusalem, thus providing Petronius with additional time. This was expressed by Philo as follows: "In my view, [this occurred] through the providence [pronoia] of God who, unseen by us, stretched forth his hand to protect the wronged. . . . " (par. 220.) When Caligula cancelled his order that his statue be set up in the Temple, he commanded that, if the Jews were to act against the gentiles in Judaea who would accord him divine honours, they should be severely punished. According to Philo, such a disastrous provocation did not occur, "by virtue of a dispensation of the providence [pronoia] and vigilant care of God, who watches and rules over all things with justice." (Par. 336.) We can, of course question his statement and ask: if this be so, why did God not prevent the people of Yavneh from provoking the Jews in the first place, and thereby prevent the entire affair and the trouble it caused? The same is true of the people of Alexandria: where was the preventive providence of the God of Israel then? But this proves yet again that no man should be held to account for what he says in the heat of a polemic. A similar trend of thought informed his treatise, In Flaccum. God, who in His concern for human affairs, was filled with compassion for His people and therefore undid the plans of Flaccus (ibid., par. 102). Then justice (dikê), the defender and avenger of the wronged, came into action against Flaccus (par. 104). Proof that the downfall of Flaccus was caused by his treatment of the Jews is to be found, argued Philo, in the fact that it occurred at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (par. 116). When the Jews became aware that Flaccus was doomed, they stretched their hands out to heaven and sang hymns to God, who watches over (ephoros) human affairs, saying: "We do not rejoice, O master, at the punishment of an enemy, for we have been taught by the sacred laws to sympathize with human beings. However, we justly give praise to Thee because Thou hast pity and compassion on us. . . . " (Par. 121.) Even Flaccus himself, in his place of exile, cried out, saying: "King of gods and men, it is clear Thou dost not ignore the nation of the Jews. nor are they deceived as far as Thy providence [pronoia] is concerned . . . I am a clear demonstration of this, for I myself have suffered inasmuch as I acted insanely against the Jews." (Par. 170.) In his introduction to this treatise, after citing the words in which Philo asserted that the Jews did not rejoice at the punishment of their foe because the Torah taught them to sympathize
Page 137
with human beings (par. 121), Colson deplores the "vindictiveness" revealed by Philo as he "gloats over the misery of Flaccus in his fall. . . . " Colson goes so far as to declare that this treatise "is the only one which those who admire the beauty and spirituality so often shown both in the Commentary and Exposition might well wish to have been left unwritten."5 This strong criticism lends force to my hypothesis that the demands of the polemic influenced the feelings and attitudes of men of even such character and ethical stature as Philo. At the same time it makes conspicuous the difference which exists in Philo's words on providence in his treatise bearing that name. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius quoted at length from Philo's treatise, De providentia.6 The quotations give quite a good picture of Philo's views and arguments on this subject, and clarify the differences between his statements here and his assertions in the In Flaccum and the Legatio ad Gaium treatises. Colson thinks that this work probably dates from "an earlier stage in Philo's spiritual life, when his mind was more occupied with Greek philosophy and he had not yet settled down to his great task of interpreting the Pentateuch in the light of that philosophy."7 I would add that apparently in this period, Philo was not yet absorbed in politics and apologetics. Philo's adversary in the conversation here recorded, probably his nephew Tiberius Iulius Alexander, opened with the usual argument that it is clear from life that the wicked enjoy all material and physical benefits, such as wealth, health, reputation. and honour, while the righteous are degraded and impoverished. These facts do not accord with assumptions concerning the existence of divine providence in the world.8 In his reply, Philo declared that the governorship of God together with His care are bestowed on the universe, in the same way that parents care for their offspring and a king for his kingdom (par. three). But later Philo presented a different argument. encompassing a different concept of providence: anyone who would exert his soul and recognize that which is truly good, will value at naught all worldly goods and benefits. "And why should it puzzle us that God does not 5
Vol. 9 of the Loeb edition, p. 301.
6
7:21, and 8:14.
7
See his introduction to this treatise in vol. 9 of the Loeb edition, p. 450.
8
See par. 1 of fragment 2 (Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 8:14), according to Colson's numeration (=p. 458 of vol. 9 of the Loeb edition).
Page 138
accept them as good things? For even godly men, who honour things truly good and seemly, do not accept them as good things . . . " (pars. nine, ten, sixteen). The fact that the good things of this world are not valued by God and by those who knew God or the Supreme Good does not confirm the existence of a divine providence in its usual sense, rather, this argument excludes the life of this world and its benefits from the things considered to be worthy of providential intervention. As a result, Philo states, no man should expect or search for God's providence in the sphere of daily life. When discussing concrete historical cases, Philo put tragic examples into the mouth of his adversary, such as that of the tyrants Polycrates and Dionysius, and so was able to assert that, in the end, the wicked receive their due punishment from God (par. fortytwo); on the other hand, the wicked, as stated in the Bible, serve as the agents of punishment of God, who also vents His anger on the human race through famine, pestilence, earthquakes and other such evils sent from heaven. The purpose of all these is to cleanse the earth of moral corruption which has spread over it (par. fortyone). Another explanation of those natural disasters is that they do not derive from God, in fact, but are rather sequels of the primary works of nature and its elements (par. fiftythree). Philo stressed that providence embraces the whole of the human race and of the universe. The changes of the seasons were designed for the benefit of all mankind, and therefore it is of no moment if here and there an unseasonable sea voyager or tiller of the soil be harmed (ibid., par. fortyfour). In short, even if some innocent people are hurt, the blame should not be ascribed to the governorship of the world. Philo varied the answers offered by him in paragraphs nine, ten and sixteen by noting that those who are considered to be good by us might not be good according to the standards of God, who can comprehend man's innermost thoughts, and that providence is directed to the universe as a whole and not to individuals (par. fiftyfour). Philo ended his treatise by expressing the hope that his words might implant in the hearts of men the belief that God does take care of human affairs (par. seventytwo). We will turn later to the position of Eusebius. We will only note here that Eusebius found in the words of Philo strong support for his position on this difficult question, since Philo stressed his belief in the existence of God's beneficient care of the universe and of its inhabitants, and since Philo served Eusebius as a kind
Page 139
of representative of Christianity, in opposition to the various pagan philosophers. The way in which Philo eased the acuteness of the problem, as we showed above, as well as his declaration of his "credo," were very convenient for Eusebius and that is why he adopted them. even though they were insufficient to counter the arguments of the pagans who applied this assumption accepted by all to human history, and drew their polemical inferences from it. (This will be discussed in the next chapter). By comparison with the subtle tones of Philo's concept, Josephus presented a monolithic position, because he was a man of action and did not trouble himself much with philosophical speculation for its own sake, and principally because his words were designed to face prospective criticism by the pagan public, and to produce a desired impression upon it. Here are three examples illustrating the views of Josephus. 1) At the end of his De bello Iudaico, Josephus told of the plottings of Catullus, the governor of Libya, against local, wealthy Jews. As an excuse for his persecutions, he concocted false charges against the wealthy Jews with the help of Jewish Sicarii, who had fled thither. Therefore. Josephus said, he was afflicted by illness and died, his death being clear evidence of divine providence (pronoia), which forces the wicked to pay for their misdeeds.9 2) In his Antiquitates, when dealing with the fate of Archelaus and of his house, Josephus summarized his views in the following words: "I do not consider such stories alien to this work . . . and especially because they provide examples . . . of the way in which God's providence [promêteia] embraces human affairs; that is why I considered it appropriate to relate them." (17:354.) 3) Elsewhere in the Antiquitates, Josephus added explicit polemical statements against the Epicureans. He relied for this purpose on the book of Daniel, from the fulfillment of whose prophecy we learn, in Josephus's opinion, how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude providence [pronoia] from human life and do not expect God to control their affairs . . . but say that the universe is carried forward by its own movement, free of the charioteer and the keeper. . . . . It then seems to me, in view 9
Book 7, par. 439 ff.; ibid., par. 453.
Page 140 of the things foretold by Daniel, that those who declare that God takes no thought [pronoia] for human affairs are very far from the correct view. For if such were the case, that the universe goes on of its own impetus, we should not have seen all these things happen in accordance with his prophecy . . . Now I have written about these matters as I have found and read them; if, however, anyone wishes to hold a different opinion of them, let him do so without reproach about his heterodoxy.10
Let us now examine some Christian examples. The treatise of Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, is clearly missionary in its name and content; almost every page of it presents a rousing appeal to the pagans to leave their gods behind and join the Christian church. Clement expressed his admiration of men like Euhemerus, Diagoras and others, who were called ''atheists" by the pagans. In his opinion, although those men were not aware of the truth itself, they nonetheless sensed the error inherent in the worship of the gods, and this was an important step towards the discovery of the truth. In his detailed survey of the philosophers and their doctrines, Clement asserted that the early philosophers were "atheists" because they attributed divinity to matter. He was, of course, not satisfied with other philosophical schools either, but this did not prevent him from discussing their doctrines. "Only Epicurus will I willingly remove from consideration here, for he, in all his impious sayings, considers that God does not care at all [for the world.]."11 In the introduction (above, p. 22), we cited in another connection the words of Caecilius the pagan (from the treatise of Minucius Felix, Octavius); they express doubt as to the existence of a providence affecting individuals and natural occurrences (Octavius, 5:8–13). It was difficult for Caecilius to perceive and understand such a providence. The reply of Octavius the Christian was, however, unequivocal: there is a recognizable, directing hand which keeps law and order in all of creation (Octavius, 17–18). We have already dealt at length, in the introduction, with the problem of Celsus's alleged epicureanism and of the polemical character 10
10:277–281.
11
Protrepticus, 2:20; 5:26; 5:58 ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1919), pp. 48, 144, 150.
Page 141 12
borne by this accusation made by Origen. Here I would like to indicate one place in which Origen presented a view of providence which was essentially different from his usual one and even contradicted it. In chapter thirtyeight of book eight, Origen raised the question which emerges from the fact that writers, who were "in every way atheists, and who negated providence [pronoia], and who had created wicked and impious philosophical theories, did nonetheless neither suffer any harm whatsoever themselves nor bring any upon their followers. Rather, they earned wealth and enjoyed good physical health." Origen solved the problem by asserting that, on the contrary, they really did come to harm, "for what greater harm and misery might there be than failing to recognize the Creator from the order of His universe?" Origen generally stressed the palpable influence of providence on human life throughout history. For example, he viewed the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple as a punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus;13 he saw the resistance of Christianity to persecution and its increase in strength and numbers as evidence of a benevolent and succouring providence.14 But here, Origen found it convenient to escape the difficult position into which the arguments of Celsus had forced him by rejecting the popular, accepted concept of the nature of providence. It goes without saying that, if one assumes that the only harm that will befall the impious is that they will be as "The people that walked in darkness" (Isaiah, 9:1), then the central part of the theological edifice built by the Church, based on a connection between the attitude of the Jews towards Jesus and his execution, and the disaster which overtook them a generation later, would come crashing down of its own weight. A little earlier we tried to show what is unique to Philo's treatise, 12
See above, pp. 18–19. Cf. in addition to the references there Origen, Contra Celsum, 1:8; 3:35,80; 4:4.
13
In reply to Celsus's question (ibid., 2:35), as to why Jesus did not take revenge on those who had insulted him, at least before his crucifixion, and by this prove his divinity, Origen retorted that something similar could be asked of the Greeks, who believe in (the existence of) providence: why does God not punish those who insult the deity and deny providence? If the Greeks would answer this, then the Christians would be prepared to give the same or an even better reply. 14
See below, Chap. Four, pp. 179–180.
Page 142
De providentia, and we mentioned the reasons that Eusebius quoted from it so freely. Eusebius probably used Philo also when he rejected Porphyry's words, in the De philosophia ex oraculis, according to which magic was given to men by the gods in order that men might be able with its help to overcome the power of fate (heimarmenê).15 Eusebius could by no means agree that "fate" or "necessity" was able to eliminate free will and men's power of choice: if indeed everything were to depend on the stars and the constellations, then there would be no point in piety, philosophy or a life devoted to an unceasing spiritual effort (askêsis).16 In the last book of his Praeparatio Evangelica (15,5:7–10), Eusebius assailed the Peripatetic school by means of quotations from Herodes Atticus, and claimed that, with regard to the question of providence, there was no difference at all between them and the Epicureans. From our point of view, Eusebius said, it makes no difference whether the divinity be removed from the world and we have no contact with it, or the gods be present in the world but wash their hands of what is going on on earth. In either case, interest and care on the part of the gods for man is lacking, and wrongdoers are free from a deterrent fear of the gods. Even according to Epicurus we derive benefits from the presence of the gods in heaven, as do the animals and the inanimate. But this cannot be classed as providence, nor is it decisive. "For we seek a providence [pronoia] that has an interest in us," as Atticus put it. In his Historia Ecclesiastica (8, 16:1–3), Eusebius used language similar to that of Josephus concerning Catullus, the governor of Libya, above, p. 139. The persecutions came to an end in the tenth year; there had already been a relaxation of persecution in the eigth year. Moreover, not only did the Christians enjoy the grace of God, but their persecutors (i.e. Galerius and Licinius) even changed their minds in a most paradoxical manner. This was not caused by human agency, pity, or humanity (on the part) of the rulers, ''but it was due to a visible manifestation of the Divine Providence [pronoia] itself" which, apart from ameliorating the condition of the Christians, also afflicted and punished the perpetrator of these evils bodily and mentally.17 15
Praep. Evang., 6,8:2.
16
Ibid., 6,5 6 ff.; 6,6:45 ff.
17
The illness of Galerius is hinted at here. Cf. also 9, 8:14–15, concerning
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 143
The attitude of Arnobius is also typical of the general atmosphere of his time. At the very beginning of his treatise, he stressed that at that time there was no place for any philosophical discussion with those who denied the existence of a divine power or who thought that chance rules the world; there was no greater foolishness than to argue against such stupidities.18 Arnobius had no satisfactory solution for the problem of the existence of evil in the world. For if we say, he declared, that everything is brought about by God's will, then evil is also included thereby, whereas if we argue that evil does not originate from God and is produced without His knowledge, this will constitute an even greater disgrace to Him, for this assumes that God is ignorant of what happens in the world (Adversus nationes, 2:54). The solution which denies the existence of evil in the world was rejected immediately by Arnobius as being in contradiction of reality. Arnobius was in difficulty there, and he tried to argue that there was no need at all to answer this question (ibid., 2:55). The fact is that this problem badly needed solution, but Arnobius was unable to resolve the above noted contradiction without turning Evil into an autonomous power independent of God, and thereby falling into dualism. Since Arnobius did not wish such a result, he contended himself with the unproved statement "that nothing proceeds from God Supreme which is noxious and pernicious. This we hold, this we know, on this one truth of cognizance and science we take our stand." Two questions connected with providence were put to Arnobius by his anonymous pagan opponent. In the first instance, he asked why Jesus, the redeemer of humanity, was sent so late, and why former generations were abandoned to their bitter fate (2:63), and also queried why Jesus did not turn the hearts of men toward belief in him so they might be saved, if his power and compassion were indeed so great and if all he strove for was to save mankind from perdition (2:64–65). This question, in both its aspects, was formulated by Julian in similar language.19 Arnobius then replied that we are unable to know what became of the souls of former generations; that Christ's generosity toward all is (footnote continued from previous page) divine providence with regard to the Christians at the time of the famine and pestilence. 18
Adversus nationes, 1:31.
19
Contra Galilaeos, 106C–D; 213B–C. See above, chap. one, pp. 79–80.
Page 144
revealed in his call which was addressed to all without discrimination, distinction of origin or of status; and, finally, that the imposition of belief is an unjust act and in contradiction to divine grace. The second question put narrowed the scope to the specifically Christian field. "If indeed," the pagan asked, "you worship the Almighty God, and are confident that He is concerned with your safety and salvation, why does He suffer you to undergo persecutions and punishments of all kinds" (2:76)? Arnobius replied first with a counterquestion: why do the gods not avert misfortunes and calamities such as diseases, shipwrecks, conflagrations and other natural mishaps from you, as well as wars and their outcome? Arnobius thereby endeavoured to compare two unequal and dissimilar things: regular occurrences in the lives of nations and individuals, with religious persecutions directed specifically against the Christians because of their belief in their God and in His power to save them. It seems that Arnobius too sensed the weakness of his comparison, for he was quick to offer other replies while summarizing his first answerquestion. He says: "But, in such mishaps we too are in no way helped by God. The reason is ready and manifest: for no hope has been held out to us with respect to this life. . . . '' Arnobius then noted that the Christians had been taught to bear lightly the troubles which befell them, and did not fear even death, since by it they would be released from the fetters of the body. We have already met such explanations, whose common feature is that they seek to divert attention from the essence of an insoluble problem: how can one explain the fact that God's directing and supervising eye is recognizable only occasionally, whereas in most cases it seems that the world moves along without the involvement of providence? It would seem that, since we have to deal with believers for whom the existence of providence is an essential and primary principle of faith, answers are suggested which only in effect dispense with providence or with its being necessary for men in this world, in order not to deviate from the belief in providence held by them.
In the Introduction (above pp. 20–22), we endeavoured to reveal the nature of the pagan, Caecilius, who appears in the work of Minucius Felix, through a comparison between him and Cotta the Sceptic,
Page 145
who appears in Cicero's De natura deorum. We saw that both found it difficult to accept the idea of providence affecting individuals. Here we may add that Velleius the Epicurean ridiculed the demiurgegod of Plato in the Timaeus and the "prophetic old woman of the Stoics called Pronoea" (De natura deorum, 2,29:73). Balbus the Stoic argued against him that "the world and all the things which are in it were created for the sake of the gods and of men" (ibid., 2,53:153). Then he asserted that "the gods care for the great things and neglect the small," but added immediately that "for great men all things always came out favourably'' (2,66:167). This last utterance exposed him to the criticism of Cotta who, in order to refute it, adduced famous historical examples which prove the contrary (see his words which I quoted above in the Introduction).20 In his treatise, Contra Christianos, Porphyry raised the question of the generations which preceded God's revelation: Why did God not care for their good and for the salvation of their souls? "And let them not tell me," Porphyry hastened to add, "that the human race was taken care of by the ancient Jewish Law," since it was given to Moses very late in time and was restricted to the knowledge of the dwellers within the bounds of Syria; whereas the nations of the West did not know Moses and, because of their ignorance, were unable to observe the laws and injunctions of God. In addition, a long time passed after Moses and before the appearance of Jesus: why could he not time his arrival before innumerable multitudes were lost in their ignorance?21 This "complaint" was presented, as we noted earlier, by Arnobius in the name of the pagans; it was probably taken from Porphyry by Julian. In his Epistula ad Anebonem, Porphyry seems to have mentioned the ageold problem of why "the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper." His pupil Iamblichus attempted to deal with it, adding, as he did with regard to sacrifices, new answers to the usual ones.22 He suggested that the soul of those who suffer for no apparent reason might have sinned in its former incarnations, and was now 20
For Celsus's position on this question, see the Introduction (pp. 18–19); concerning the benefits bestowed on the world by the sun, moon and stars, such as rain, heat and fruitfulness, see Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:6. 21
His words were cited by Jerome and Augustine; see Harnack, op. cit., nos. 81–82, pp. 94–95.
22
See above, Introduction, n. 42, and De mysteriis, 4:5–6.
Page 146
brought to judgement; furthermore, many evil deeds are manifest to the gods but not observed by men, since men and gods have different ways of judging right and wrong. For the sake of argument, Iamblichus was prepared to admit that, in everyday life, wrongs are perpetrated. But this does not mean, Iamblichus objected, that the gods are to be blamed for such wrongdoing, for they, because of their goodness, are solely a source of good. Even if we seek the cause of evil and fail to find it, we should not put aside our true and clear recognition concerning the gods merely because of things whose very occurrence and manner of occurrence are controversial. In the writings of Julian, which are imbued with reverence for the divine, the place of supreme providence is, naturally, not ignored. His first oration in honour of Constantius includes an impassioned address to providence as well as a personification: "O beneficent Providence!" (40B). He ends his letters frequently (see, for example, his letter to Priscus) with a prayer to providence: "May divine providence keep you in health for many seasons." Helios, Julian said elsewhere, takes care of all of mankind, and especially of his city, Rome.23 Providence embraces not only nations and states, but also individuals as for example Julian himself. This he noted in his letter to Priscus from Gaul: through the providence of HeliosMithras, Julian declared, he was cured of a severe illness, from which he was now recuperating.24 Julian seems to allude to this event again in the Contra Galilaeos (253B–C): "Asclepius cures our bodies. . . . Asclepius has healed me many times when I have been ill, by prescribing medicines." In his "pastoral letter," Julian discussed the argument that the destruction of the statues and temples of the gods, which was accompanied by no immediate action against the perpetrators of the sacrilege, testifies to the lack of providence on the part of the gods.25 He noted that good and righteous men, such as Socrates, were put to death by the mob without being rescued by the gods, but added ''I know well that the gods cared for them more than for the temples." However, statues and buildings and the bodies 23
The letter is no. 71 in G.F. Hertlein, ed., Juliani Imperatoris quae supersunt praeter reliquiae apud Cyrillum . . . (Leipzig, 1875). See Oration IV, "To King Helios," 157A.
24
No. 44, 425 B–D, in Hertlein's edition.
25
Frag. Épist., 294D–295A–B.
Page 147
of men are destructible; therefore, the gods left them to succumb to the dictates of nature, while the perpetrators of these deeds were punished thereafter. This has happened in our times as well, to all temple desecrators. We must conclude, therefore, he adds, that we should not allow ourselves to be misled by those who wish to confuse us and to undermine our faith in divine providence.26 In contrast with these expressions which appear in treatises closely connected with the polemic, in which Julian discussed and defended the commonlyheld concept of providence, completely different attitudes were expressed by Julian in the treatise he wrote when he parted from his friend Sallust.27 Even though this treatise was, most probably, intended for a wider audience and Julian had to consider the impressions and reactions of his readers, he could nonetheless permit himself to express in it his innermost feelings and a deeper, more philosophical concept of providence because of its ultimately personal character. This philosophical concept was more in keeping with Julian's character, which was embued with deep religious sensitivity and a directness of approach to the higher powers resulting from his participation in the various mysteries, than the views forced on him by the demands of the polemic. It is unreasonable, Julian argued, that a man who entrusts himself to the hands of god should be neglected and left to himself; on the contrary, the god helps and supports him, and makes him aware of the things he should not do, as we learn from the cases of Socrates (the famous daemon) and of Achilles. How is this carried out? Julian said that the means of communication is the thinkingpower (nous) of man. Through it man comes into contact with the god, and gains knowledge of what is necessary. Since speech, or the action of any other sense, is unnecessary for this, the god is always with us, directing our thoughts. This providence — if I have understood Julian's words correctly — is nothing but some sort of reflected light, created as a result of the concentration of all our thoughts and innermost feelings on the god, of setting the god always before our eyes. It is quite clear 26
For further discussion by Julian of this subject, see Chap. four below (p. 199). For Julian's hostile attitude towards Epicurus, see his letter to Themistius, 255B–C. The writings of Epicurus and those of Pyrrho, the founder of Scepticism, are mentioned by Julian as being among the books it is forbidden to read. See Frag. Epist. 301C. 27
Oration VIII, 249 A–D.
Page 148
that such a concept of providence is wholly and essentially different from the other one put forward by Julian, according to which the god actually interferes in the history of nations as well as affects the physical condition of individuals. The treatise De diis et mundo of Sallust, Julian's close friend, was designed as a guide to polytheistic beliefs for the average pagan. Since the problem of providence is a theological one, Sallust had to discuss it. In the light of what we have seen in other polemicists' work, we might have expected him to deny Epicurean doctrine. Sallust declared: "The providence of the gods reaches everywhere."28 A more detailed explanation is found in the first paragraphs of his ninth chapter: the existence of divine providence emerges from the order in the cosmos, which could not exist without an ordering power. The existence of providence is also proved by the exemplary appropriateness of the organs of the human body. If this be the case with regard to relatively small things, then how much the more so would it be in great things. The oracles and the temples which serve as places of healing are also the fruit of beneficent divine providence in the world. But we must not suppose that this care causes the gods any effort; it is granted to the world by the mere existence of the gods, just as the sun gives light and warms us by its very existence. In this way, Sallust said, the questions posed by the Epicureans find their solution, since there is no need to assume that providence causes the gods any trouble. As to providence with regard to bodies and souls, Sallust accepted astrological doctrines, saying: "Reason shows that human affairs and especially men's physical nature are ordered not only by gods but by divine bodies [i.e. stars], and therefore sickness and health, good fortune and bad, come according to our merits from that source. . . . " (Ibid., 9:4.) (The opinions of Spinoza have no direct bearing on our subject, but as they may perhaps clarify the central issues of the polemic, I will quote some of them in the notes.)29
28
De diis et mundo, 15:2.
29
Spinoza's comments on the purpose of Creation in the sixth chapter of his Tractatus TheologicoPoliticus (81–85) agree with those of Celsus (see the Introduction, above, pp. 18– 19). Chap. 6:82–83 reads: "The folly of the multitude . . . conceives nature as so restricted that it believes man to be its
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 149
In tracing the attitudes of Jews, Christians, and pagans to the question of Providence, we discovered that there were no essential differences of opinion among them. Moreover, we found out that if there were some who cherished in their hearts a different concept, the polemic forced them to conceal their unusual opinions and to emphasize the commonly accepted views. But theories are one thing, and their practical implementation another. When the pagans and Christians came to translate their general declarations into practice, sharp contradictions between them appeared. For the being and attributes of the god as conceived by philosophy and adopted by theology made it very difficult to define the relations and bonds between the god and the world and its creatures. They brought about the creation of mediating powers: the logos, the angels, and the daemons. The character and nature of these powers, as well as attitudes towards them, were shaped within each party in accordance with its religious traditions and under the influence of its opponents. In this area, a conflict between the pagans and the Christians was inevitable and, as we shall see further on, the Jews played an important role here not only through their holy scriptures and Hellenistic Jewish literature, but principally by their very existence and unshakable claim to Election. (footnote continued from previous page) chief part . . . " and: "If anyone will tell you that God does something in contradiction to the laws of nature, he would be compelled to assert at the same time that God acted against His own nature — an evident absurdity. . . . " (Cf. the assertion of Celsus, Alêtês Logos, 5:14: " . . . But indeed, neither can God do the shameful things nor does He wish what is against nature. . . . God is by nature the author of the right and the just.") And again, Spinoza noted: "God directs nature according to the requirements of His universal laws, not according to the requirements of the particular laws of human nature, and therefore God does not care for mankind only but for the whole of nature. . . . " (Tractatus, 88). When Spinoza argued that "from the miracles we cannot recognize the essence of God nor His existence nor even His providence,'' (ibid., 84), and on the other hand sought to prove that "the decrees and commandments of God, and consequently His providence, are in truth nothing but the order of nature" (ibid., 89), his words echo the argumentation of Sallust. Spinoza differed from him and other ancient polemicists in stating absolutely that only the order of nature and its regularity represent the providence of God, whereas the ancient polemicists, even if they were of the same opinion, still preferred (because of the pressures of the polemic) not to stress this in an unequivocal way, and also paid lip service to the multitude by mentioning a particular providence which exceeded the order of nature.
Page 150
Who are the daemons and what is their nature? Eusebius disagreed with pagan etymology, which derived daimôn from daêmôn (meaning "knowing, experienced or skilled"), and argued that the source of the name is in the verb deimainein, which indicates their deeds: frightening and thereby compelling men to worship them.30 In Homer the meaning of the name is identical with that of theos, god.31 Later, however, this term was assigned to lesser divinities, and a distinction was made between good and evil daemons. Clement of Alexandria tried anachronistically to deduce from the usage of Homer that the Olympic gods were no more than daemons, and were evil and wicked ones to boot.32 Two descriptions found in the Symposium and in the Politicus of Plato were of particular importance in establishing the nature of the daemons. In them, Plato explained that the daemons are mediating powers between the gods and men, and maintain contact, communication and dialogue between them for the benefit of both sides. The art of sacrifices, the oracles, the mysteries, the incantations, and sorcery all derive from them.33 The good daemons were identified by the later Pythagoreans and Neoplatonists with the angels of Judaism, an identification which, as was to be expected, appeared in Philo's work.34 In Geffcken's opinion, the Christians took from the pagans their belief in the existence of the daemons as well as some pagans' denigrations of and polemics against them.35 Thus Celsus,36 Apuleius,37 Porphyry38 and the Roman antiquarian Cornelius Labeo39 all spoke of the daemons who are around and above the earth as not very essential divine powers whose will must be satisfied lest they cause damage while, on the other hand, noting that 30
Praep. Evang., 4:5. For this reason, the Christians usually referred to the polytheistic creed and worship as deisidaimonia, fear of the daemons. See, e.g., Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., 5, Preface: 4. 31
Iliad, 1:221–2.
32
Protrepticus, 4, 55:4–5.
33
Symposium, 202 D–E to 203 A; Politicus, 271 D–E. Cf. Heinemann, op. cit., p. 62.
34
Cf. De Gigantibus, 2:6. See H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles . . . , p. 163, and the sources cited there.
35
Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp. 220–21.
36
Origen, Contra Celsum, 8:60.
37
De deo Socratis, 6.
38
De abstinentia, 2:40,42; Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 4,23:3–4.
39
Augustine, De civitate dei, 8:13.
Page 151 40
man might also be helped by them. In the Politicus Plato explained that in early times the world and all its creatures were divided among daemons, who acted as divine shepherds, caring for all the needs of the creatures entrusted to them (see n. 33). We will return below to the theory formed in pagan circles on the basis of these ideas. In contrast with the lack of clarity that prevailed among the pagans as to the distinction between good and evil daemons, all the pagans agreed that it was the evil daemons who punished the Christians relentlessly, while the Christians asserted that there were no good daemons at all, and that the wicked ones were the gods of the nations.41 A decisive role was played in Christian thinking by the tradition in the Gospels concerning the expulsion of the daemons by Jesus, and especially by the Jewish and Biblical tradition. Justin Martyr thought that the daemons are the descendents of the angels who transgressed God's injunction and married the daughters of man.42 Eusebius, relying on the authority of the Hebrews [=the Jews], stated that there are rational powers who serve God and that they are called angels and archangels; those among them who "fell" and departed from the right way are the daemons.43 A most favourable text for the Christians was the verse in Psalms: "For all the gods of the nations are idols"44 as it was translated in the Septuagint: ''For all the gods of the nations are daemons" (daimonia).45 Clement of Alexandria had a different version from that of the Septuagint which was even more telling: "For all the gods of the nations are daemonic idols."46 Justin, and other Christian apologists, attributed virtually every evil in the world to the evil daemons.47 These daemons demand sacrifices and offerings, and are responsible for the persecution of the Christians;48 all the acts of murder and adultery ascribed to Zeus and his sons spring 40
Cf. also Nock, op. cit., p. 221 ff.; T. Whittaker, The NeoPlatonists (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Eng., 1928), p. 116.
41
See, e.g., Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 4,5:4.
42
Apologia II, 5.
43
Praep. Evang., 13,15:1.
44
Psalms, 96:5=I ChronicLes, 16:26.
45
See, e.g., Justin, Dialogus, 73,79, et passim.
46
Protrepticus, 4:54.
47
Most of Tertullian's comments on the daemons are to be found in chap. 22 of his Apologeticum.
48
Apologia I, 12.
Page 152 49
from them. Justin also commented that Marcion's doctrine, according to which there is another god greater than the demiurge (the demiourgos or creator of the world), stems from the daemons, and that it was with their help that many people fell into Marcion's net.50 He added that the daemons learned many precepts from the Law of Moses and established ones similar to them for the pagans in order to lead the people astray, and claimed that the bread and water of the mysteries of Mithras were an intentional imitation by the daemons of Christian ritual.51 It is interesting that Iamblichus also accused the evil daemons of disguising themselves as gods and as good daemons in order to mislead men, and declared unequivocally that they are the source of all evil and injustice, whereas the gods and the good deamons are the source of the good and the equitable exclusively.52 The way Eusebius argued our subject is very illuminating for us. First, he stressed Porphyry's closeness to and great knowledge of the subject.53 Then Eusebius explained that in his treatise, De philosophia ex oraculis, Porphyry had assembled and interpreted oracles of Apollo and of other gods and good daemons as Porphyry himself noted.54 Porphyry had quoted Apollo as calling upon people to offer animal sacrifices not only to the daemons and powers around the earth, but also to the powers in the ether and in heaven.55 In contrast to this, Porphyry admitted in his treatise De abstinentia that those to whom the Hellenes offer animal sacrifices are daemons and not gods, and that not only is there no need to sacrifice animals to the gods but it is even impious to do so.56 Further on Eusebius quoted Porphyry's statement in the De philosophia explaining the nature of the different kinds of animal sacrifice and the reasons for them,57 and then quoted, for the sake of comparison, from the De abstinentia.58 But Eusebius's intention in this eonfrontation was not to indicate a contradiction in Porphyry's attitude to sacrifices, but 49
Ibid., 14,21.
50
Ibid., 26.
51
Ibid., 28, 56–58, 62,64.
52
De mysteriis, 4; 7.
53
Praep, Evang., 4:26. On Porphyry's position on the question of sacrifices and the daemons, see my Introduction, above, pp. 28–29 and note 42.
54
Praep, Evang., 4,6:3.
55
Ibid., 4,8:4.
56
Ibid., 4,8:5.
57
Ibid., 4,9:6–7.
58
Ibid., 4,10:1–2.
Page 153
rather to deduce from this contradiction that "according to his [Porphyry's] and Theophrastus's reasoning. Appolo is a daemon and not a god; and not only Apollo but all those who have been considered to be gods among all the nations as well . . . "59 Furthermore, since these last rejoice in acts of inhuman savagery, such as manslaughter and human sacrifice, they are nothing other than evil daemons, as Eusebius endeavoured to demonstrate.60 Eusebius finds more proofs of the cruel daemons' demands for human sacrifice in the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.61 Eusebius's conclusion is, then, that the Scripture of the Hebrews chastises the Sons of Israel who devoted themselves enthusiastically to these acts saying: "Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto daemons" (daimonia) (Psalms, 106:37). In the last in his chain of arguments, Eusebius declared that all the above verify the words of prophecy, "All the gods of the nations are daemons. . . . " (Psalms 96:5), and the words of the Apostle, ''that the things which [the Gentiles] sacrifice, they sacrifice to daemons, and not to God. . . . " Let us now consider the theory elaborated by Celsus on the basis of Plato's words in the Politicus, on the strength of which he attacked the Christians. Celsus said: "The parts of the earth were distributed among different overseers from the beginning and divided among certain ruling powers, and are governed in this manner. Indeed, the things done by each nation are right insofar as they are done in a way that finds favour with the overseers; but it is impious to undo the laws which have been laid down in each locality from the beginning" (Alêtês Logos, 5:25). In another instance he was more detailed, asking whether, whenever the Christians eat, drink or even breathe the air, "they are not receiving each of these from certain daemons to whom the care of every one of these has been entrusted?" (ibid., 8:28). We must, therefore, attract their favour with offerings and prayers for as long as we are alive and wish to live (8:33). Then, Celsus argued, if kings, satraps and other magistrates on earth are harmful when they are offended by someone who does not fulfil his obligations towards them, how much the more would those daemons be so, who are like satraps in the air and on the earth? (8:35). 59
Ibid., 4,10:3.
60
Cf. ibid., 4,14:10; 15:1–4 repeats the former phrases with additional detail on the last point.
61
Ibid., 4,16:14ff.
Page 154
In this instance, Celsus's question had an actualutilitarian formulation; earlier, Celsus's question concerning the daemons had a more theological character: "Why should daemons not be worshipped? Is it not true that all things are administered according to God's wish, and does all providence not come from him?" (7:68). And he stated that, this being so, it applies to all of God's creation, including angels, daemons, and heroes. Origen's response to the last question is dangerously close to a dualisticGnostic way of thinking: he suggested that it neither derives from God nor is prevented by Him; just as there are bad people, there are evil daemons and angels.62 These are organized as are bands of robbers, with a leader at their head, and they seduce men and lead their souls away from the right. Origen recognized the existence of the daemons and of their power to cause harm, but did not look upon them as God's representatives. Instead he viewed them in the light of the verse from Psalms: "All the gods of the nations are daemons."63 As for Celsus's theory about the division of the world from the beginning among daemonsrulers. Origen made use of its vulnerable "topographic" component in order to refute it, in effect saying: "Do all the nations of the world reside solely in their appointed locality? Did the Roman kingdom not rise and confuse all the nations?"64 To this implied argument is joined the assumption of Origen as a Christian that there exists an absolute ethical rule according to which we can and should judge every act considered moral in a certain society. Origen confronted Celsus with many embarrassing instances of local practices.65 For example, what of the laws of the Scythians permitting parricide, or those of the Persians permitting marriages of mothers and their sons, of fathers and their daughters? Or of the law of the Taurians, who sacrifice strangers to Artemis, or that of the Libyans, who sacrifice children to Kronos? The views of Celsus indicate, added Origen, that piety is not divine by nature but rather some arbitrary determination and opinion; one people will worship an animal eaten by another people, to whom some other animal is sacred. Thus we reach the absurd result that a man 62
Contra Celsum, 7:70.
63
And cf. ibid., 8:31–32.
64
Cf. BT Berachoth, 28a.
65
Contra Celsum, 5:27.
Page 155
will be acting piously in some specific act according to some laws, but impiously according to some other people's laws. The same thing will happen if we say that it is pious for a man to keep his ancestral customs, and not impious as long as he does not keep other peoples' customs.66 But what will happen if he has relations, whether friendly or hostile, with people of other nations holding contradictory customs? Thus we face considerable confusion concerning righteousness and piety, for each of these virtues becomes restricted to the practices of a certain place, and there is nothing more absurd than this. A little further Origen returned to this question and gave a concrete example. The Ethiopians of Meroe, according to Celsus, worship only two gods: Zeus and Dionysus, while the Arabians similarly worship two gods, but their two are Dionysus and Ourania. Now, what would happen if an Ethiopian came to live among the Arabians or the reverse? Should each refuse to worship the other people's god even if such a refusal be considered impious and place him in danger of being put to death?67 Practically speaking, this question became a theoretical one, since the syncretistic spirit of the Hellenistic and Roman periods rendered it superfluous. The question of relative and absolute ethics, although it might not have worried the average pagan believer, constituted an insurmountable difficulty for a man of the calibre of Celsus who, like his master Plato, sought the universal in current phenomena and beyond them. It posed problems that he could not solve without jeopardizing his basic thesis. The theory of Celsus about the division of the world among governing daemons was applied by astrologers to the heavens. Eusebius cited it in this context from the work of Bardesanes the Syrian: "The astronomers assert that the earth was divided into seven territories ['climates'], each one of which is ruled by one of the seven stars. Men did not lay down the various laws for themselves; rather, the will of each ruler was implemented in his particular territory, and was considered to be law by those governed."68 The Jews serve as decisive evidence against this theory: they received the law prescribing the circumcision of males on the eighth day of life from Moses, and they do this whether they 66
Ibid., 5:28.
67
Ibid., 5:38.
68
Praep. Evang., 6,9:30; 6,10:36.
Page 156
are in Syria, Gaul, Italy, Greece or Parthia, paying no attention to the law prevailing in the specific country or to the authority of the stars in that district. This applies also to the observance of the Sabbath by the Jews, although it is impossible that they were all born on the same day.69 Further on, this Christian author added that the fact that Christians live in every nation and in every territory and do not keep local customs also refutes this theory.70 Multiplicity of gods is a fundamental tenet of paganism. As a result, a pagan will not forgo a theory about daemons when called upon to explain the place and function of the many gods in the world. It is no wonder, then, that Julian's phrases echo those of Celsus. The attitude towards the Jews expressed by Celsus was also an obligatory one for Julian, as we will see below. But it appears that Julian was aware of the weak points of the daemongovernors theory, and therefore endeavoured to transfer its emphasis from the geographical to the ethnographical, while taking care not to assert that what was established in a certain territory was sacred. On the other hand, he assigned certain arts to the auspices of particular gods, and stressed that they granted knowledge and skills in these fields to all the pagans. Two characteristics were attributed by Julian to the gods or daemons: they are rulers of nations (ethnarchai) and protectors of cities (poliouchoi). Of these terms, ethnarch was understood literally, while poliouchos had a clear archaic colour, and was used rhetorically in the main. Julian wrote in this vein in his letter to the council and people of Athens when he described his behaviour towards Constantius before the split between them: "I call as witnesses Zeus and all the gods who protect cities (poliouchoi). . . . " (280D.) In his letter to the Alexandrians,71 as well as in his satyrical treatise Antiochicus sive Misopogon, Julian cleverly exploited the etymology encompassed in this term. He reminded the former that Sarapis was their poliouchosgod (that is, patron of the polis Alexandria), and complained, on the other hand, that the citizens of Antioch regard Christ as their poliouchos instead of Zeus. In his treatise, Julian also swore an oath in the name of Zeus poliouchos.72 69
Ibid., 6,10:42–43.
70
Ibid., 6,10:45–46.
71
No. 51 in the Hertlein edition, 432D.
72
357C, and cf. 360D; see 366B.
Page 157
Let us now examine how Julian formulated his approach in his treatise, Contra Galilaeos: But now reconsider our teaching in comparison with yours. For ours states that the creator [dêmiourgos] is the common father and king of all, but that the various nations have been divided by him among nationruling gods [ethnarchai] and cityprotecting gods [poliouchoi], each one of whom controls his own allotment in accordance with his own nature. And since in the father all things are perfect and unified, whereas in each separate deity a different capacity predominates, Arês accordingly rules over the warlike nations, Athêna over those that are both warlike and wise, Hermês over those whose understanding exceeds their daring; thus, each essential quality of their specific gods is adopted by the nations subject to their rule . . . (115D–E.) For let them tell me the reason that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, whereas the Hellenes and Romans are, on the whole, civilized [politikoi] and humane and simultaneously hard and warlike? Why are the Egyptians more sagacious and excellent in the arts, the Syrians unmartial and effeminate, but at the same time sagacious, hottempered, conceited, and apt students? For if one is unable to perceive any reason for these variations among nations, but rather asserts that they occurred spontaneously, how can he continue to believe that the universe is administered by providence? But if a man assumes that reasons for these differences exist, let him inform me of them, in the name of the creator himself, and teach me! For it is obvious that the nature of men laid down the laws which were appropriate to it: civilized and humane by those in whom a humane disposition had been fostered in preference to all else, uncivilized and inhumane by those in whom there dwelt and was inherent the opposite personality. For the lawgivers added minimally by their instruction to the natures and tendencies of men. Thus the Scythians refused to receive Anacharsis when he was in the grip of a religious ecstasy, and it is only in rare cases that you will find men of the western nations who are ready to engage in philosophy or geometry or similar studies despite the fact that they have for so long been governed by the Roman Empire. Those among them who are very talented take pleasure only in the art of discourse and of rhetoric, and do not partake in any other study, so strong, it would seem, is the force of nature. . . . (116A–131D.) But as for the difference in ethos and customs, neither Moses nor anyone else has clarified it, although the variation among men in their customs and in the political constitutions of the nations is greater in every way than the difference in their languages. For who among the Hellenes will say that one ought to marry his sister or his daughter or his mother? Yet the Persians considered this a good thing.73 But why do I 73
This fact is produced by Origen as a counterargument. See above, p. 154.
Page 158 have to enumerate their respective characteristics, or delineate the love of freedom and the disobedience of the Germans, the submissiveness and docility of the Syrians, the Persians, the Parthians and, in short, of all the barbarians in the East and the South, and of those nations who have acquired and are satisfied with a more or less despotic regime? If then these differences that are greater and more valuable were produced without a greater and more divine providence, why do we trouble ourselves in vain and worship one who supervises us not at all? For is it justifiable that he who has concerned himself not at all with our lives, our virtues, our customs, our good government or our political establishment should still have some claim on our reverence? Never! . . . If, accordingly, he entirely disregarded our spiritual wellbeing, and paid no attention to our physical state,74 and sent us no teachers or lawgivers as he did to the Hebrews, such as Moses and the prophets who succeeded him, in return for what are we to express appropriate gratitude to him? (138A–D) . . . As we said, then, if some controlling nationalruler [ethnarch] god (and subordinate to him an angel, a daemon, a hero, and a special group of spirits who serve and work for the higher powers) did not lay down for each and every nation the differences in our laws and characters, let it be demonstrated how these differences were brought into being by some other agency. For it is not enough to say: "God said and it was so." For the natures of the created things must be in accordance with the decrees of God. I will say more clearly what I mean. Did God order by chance that the fire should be lifted upward, and that the earth be carried downward? Was it not necessary, for God's decree to be carried out, that the former should be light, while the latter be heavy? And the same is true in the case of other things as well . . . It is similar in regard to divine things. The reason for this is that mankind is mortal and subject to destruction. It is then reasonable that man's works are also perishable and changeable, and subject to every kind of modification. But since God is eternal, it is fitting that his orders be so too and, being such, they are either the natures of beings or are in harmony with the nature of beings. For how could nature oppose the decree of God? How could it willingly diverge from agreement with it? If then he did order that just as our languages are confounded and disharmony prevails among them, and such also should be the case concerning the political constitutions of the nations, then it was not only by a decree that he made such things and endowed them with their qualities, or made us fit for this disagreement. For different natures must have previously existed in those things by means of which the nations were to be distinguished from each other. This indeed is apparent if one observes how much different the Germans and Scythians 74
Cf. MR Song of Songs, 7:3.
Page 159 are physically from the Libyans and Tthiopians. Is this too because of a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country cooperate with the gods to determine what sort of complexion they shall have? Furthermore, Moses too consciously masked this kind of fact, and did not ascribe to God alone the confusion of the tongues. For he says that He did not descend alone, but that He was accompanied not by one but by several when He descended, but he did not say who these were. It is quite clear, however, that he thought that those who descended with Him were nearly as He was. If then it was not the Lord alone but his associates who descended with Him in order to confuse the dialects, it is obvious that, concerning the confusion of the ethos of men, too, not the Lord alone but also those who together with him confounded the tongues might reasonably be considered responsible for this divergence. Why then have I discussed this matter so extensively, although I wished to speak briefly? Because if the immediate creator [dêmiourgos] of the cosmos be the one proclaimed by Moses, then we hold worthier opinions about him, considering him to be the common master of all, but that there are other nationalrulers [ethnarchs] under him, similar to the viceroys of a king, each carrying out his own function differently, and we do not set him up as a divisional rival of the gods who are his inferiors. But if Moses, after honouring a divisional god, sets against him the hegemony of the whole, then it is better for you to hearken to us and recognize the God of All without ignoring the God of Moses, than to honour one to whose lot fell the hegemony over the smallest of portions, instead of the creator [dêmiourgos] of all things. (143A–148C.)
And in another place, concerning the deification of Jesus by the Christians, Julian said: "He [i.e. Moses] taught that there was one God and only one, but that he had many sons who divided the nations among themselves. . . . " (290E.) Cyril answered Julian's argument with the explanations that differences of laws and customs derive from different habits, the varying education of parents, and the influence of the fathers, founders, and lawgivers of the nations.75 This answer was already envisaged by Julian when he stated that, if we assume that chance rules in the world, this is enough to nullify belief in the existence of a supreme providence.
Towards the end of his article, "The Second Temple Period in the Light of Greek and Latin Literature," Johanan Hans Levy says: 75
Contra Iulianum, 4,133, 143–144; = PG vol. LXXVI cols. 704–705, 720–721.
Page 160 We have thus learned that the conflict between Israel and GreeceRome was not some kind of accidental skirmish between two peoples . . . but rather a major war between two methods of thinking. The animosity of the Greeks and the Romans was their response to the concept of the election of Israel. As a result of its adherence to Ata Behartanu ["Thou hast chosen us"], Judaism earned the hostility of the two nations that ruled the lands of the ancient world. The prophecy of Balaam about them was fulfilled: "I see a people that dwells alone, that has not made itself one with the nations" (Numbers, 23:9).76
This is true of the period that preceded the entrance of Christianity into the polemic with the pagan world and its displacement of Judaism. From then on, the Church firmly disputed the election of the Jews, for it was an obstacle to missionary activity among the pagans: later on, the Church argued that the Jews' election was merely a temporary one, that is, valid only until the appearance of Jesus. Henceforth, it said, God turned from Israel of the flesh, and transferred his election to the Christians, the "true Israel," Israel according to the spirit. Because of the pagan polemic with the Christians, the absolutely negative view of the pagans prevalent earlier was changed (in the middle of the second century C.E.). One can trace several variants of the pagans' attitude. Levy points them out in the concluding pages of his article, "The Emperor Julian and the Building of the Temple," although his discussion is directed towards another matter: In the opinion of Julian, the god of the Jews is the god of the Roman Empire, the manynamed god whose principal name is Helios. . . . We saw that Christianity was his [Julian's] concern. The people of Israel itself was in his eyes a contemptible and powerless nation, but great importance was attributed to it because of the relation of its doctrine to the teaching of Jesus, since the Christian religion is composed of the beliefs of Judaism and the culture of the Greeks. . . . . . . He [Julian] ridicules, indeed, the "fables" of the Bible and the lack of culture and education revealed in them, and demonstrates that the correct opinion about the supreme god whom the Jews worship differs from the tradition of Moses and the prophets. However, he makes clear again at the end of his words that these objections do not concern the existence of Judaism as a religious institution based on holy laws: its 76
Studies . . . , p. 14 (Hebrew). My italics. Cf. E.E. Urbach. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem, 1975), I, 525 ff.
Page 161 regulations are equal to the regulations of the religions of the "Hellenes," because both are based on the keeping of the injunctions of the forefathers, and on the worship of a national god attached to his place. In Julian's opinion, the Jewish religion is not distinguished from other religions with respect to its laws, except for its second Commandment denying the existence of other gods. However, even this difference is only an apparent one, and the emperor himself indicated the way to resolve this contradiction, noting that Moses mentions the "sons of the gods" (Genesis, 6:2), meaning thereby the angels of the nations. Julian thought that the doctrine of the angels could reconcile the opinion of the Jews concerning the one and only god with the Greek belief in "gods of the nations,'' who are subject to the rule of the creator of the world.77
When I noted the words of Celsus concerning the division of the world among overseer gods (above, p. 153), I deliberately omitted the initial phrases, which read: "The Jews then became a separate nation, and laid down laws according to the custom of their country; and they preserve these laws among themselves at this time, and maintain a cult which may be very peculiar but is at least ancestral [patrion]. In this sense they behave like other people since each nation observes its ancestral customs [ta patria] whatever type may be established."78 In these words and in those that follow about the division of the world among overseergods and the position of the Jews, Celsus indirectly presented his new interpretation of the election of the Jews. It is true, he said, that they are a special people possessed of a distinctive ritual and special laws: but, when one studies them, he finds that the Jews behave just as do all other peoples who observe the laws and injunctions prescribed for them by the god who rules them. In this way, Celsus placed Judaism within the framework of the polytheistic religions; he isolated Christianity as dissentient and lawless and, with one stroke, expunged the Jews' pretensions to the election which the Christians claimed as their own, in their capacity of heirs of the Jews. Origen rejected the Jewish aspect of Celsus's theory, just as he rejected the theory as a whole. He asked: to whom did Zeus assign the Jewish nation and its land? Was it Zeus who wanted Judaea's ruler to make laws for 77
Studies . . . , pp. 242–245 and the foonotes there, especially n. 112; my italics.
78
Alêtês Logos, 5:25; cf. 5:41.
Page 162 79
the Jews, or was this done against his will? No matter how one replies to this, he declared, the answer will be unsatisfactory.
Origen was well aware of the fact that the first alternative was impossible in light of the attitude of the Jewish Law towards the gods of the nations. Origen said further that we cannot dismiss this and argue that the world was not divided by one god among overseergods but rather that each of them received his share by chance, because by saying this we abrogate to a certain extent80 the providence of the supreme god. In the beginning of the second book of his Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius replied to the Jews' claim that the prophets were sent to them, and that the Messiah would come to them and fulfill all the promises of the Scriptures.81 Eusebius did not deny that the Messiah's coming, as foreseen by the prophets, would bring about the redemption of Israel, but he was not prepared to agree that only the Jews might hope for great benefits from his appearance and that the fate of the gentiles would be bad and bitter. In Eusebius's opinion, such a view contradicted the evidence of Scripture, which he quoted to support the position of the Church. Other Christian writers emphasized the temporary nature of the election of the Jews, an election that came to its end with the Jews' rejection of Jesus. Julian, on the contrary, came forth with great ardour to defend the Jewish claim, and it is not difficult to guess that he did it not from "love of Mordechai" but rather from "hatred of Haman." For he said that: Moses says that the creator [dêmiourgos] of the cosmos elected the Hebrew nation, and that only to that nation did he pay attention and devote care, and he appointed him over it alone. But in what way and by what kind of gods the other nations are governed he has made no mention, unless indeed one should acknowledge that he designated the sun and the moon for them [cf. Deuteronomy, 4:19]. But I will deal with this a little later. Here I will only note that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, indeed, as well as Paul, who surpassed all the sorcerers and deceivers of every time and place, assert that he is the god of Israel alone and of Judaea, and that the Jews are his elected people. Give heed to their own utterances, and first of all to those of Moses: "'And thou shalt say unto 79
Contra Celsum, 5:26.
80
Or "in a large measure," according to a reasonable emendation of the text.
81
2,1:1; cf. ibid., 2,1:2; 2,1:4; 2,1:24; 2,1:26.
Page 163 Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I have said to thee, Let my people go that they may serve me . . . '" [Exodus, 4:22–23] . . . And a little thereafter, "'And they said unto him, 'the God of the Hebrews hath summoned us; we will go therefore three days' journey into the desert, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God . . . '" [Exodus, 5:3] And shortly afterwards he speaks again in a similar vein, saying: "'The Lord the God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness; . . . ''' [Exodus, 7:16] But that God's attention was devoted only to the Jews from the beginning, and that he elected them as his portion, has been declared clearly not only by Moses and Jesus but also by Paul; although this is questionable in Paul's case. For he keeps altering his doctrines about God according to the occasion, as the poulp alters its colours in keeping with the rocks, and now he contends that it is solely the Jews who are God's inheritance and then yet again, when he is endeavouring to convince the Hellenes to support him he says: "Do not think that he is the God of the Jews only, but also of Gentiles: yea of Gentiles also . . . " [Romans, 3:29]82
In other places, Julian made it abundantly clear that he thought the Jews did not receive special treatment and many gifts from God.83 On the contrary, the pagans enjoyed and enjoy God's benevolence in all spheres of life to a much greater extent. He insisted however that, from the point of view of Scripture, the claim of the Jews was correct, whereas the Christians distorted it intentionally. This reliance of Julian on scriptural proofs was, of course, aimed at undermining the base on which Christian theology rests, that is, the Bible. Julian therefore sought to prove by citing many verses, in opposition to the Christians' interpretations, that the Law of Moses is eternal and that it provides no basis for adding a godlogos as his son to the god of Israel.84 Julian also disputed the right of the Christians to abolish circumcision on the basis of an allegorical interpretation and showed that, according to the Torah, the foreskin of the flesh must be circumcised (Contra Galilaeos, 351 A–B). In addition. Julian dissented from the Christians' interpretations of key verses such as Genesis 49:10: "Until there comes what is reser 82
Contra Galilaeos, 99E–106C.
83
See, for example, the quotations in the next chapter "Culture and Enslavement," pp. 168–208, as well as the following pages.
84
Contra Galilaeos, 319D–E.
Page 164
ved for him . . . " (Contra Galilaeos, 253D) and Isaiah 7:14: "Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son . . . " (ibid., 262C), among others. Julian presented two more polemical points against Christianity whose differences were subtle but significant. What did he say? 1) But reflect whether God has not also given us gods and kindly protectors of whom you are ignorant, gods in no wise inferior to him who from earliest days has been honoured by the Hebrews of Judaea, the only land which fell to his lot and providence, as was declared by Moses and by those who succeeded him, down to our own times. But even if the one honoured by the Hebrews was in fact the immediate creator [dêmiourgos] of the cosmos, still our thoughts about him are loftier than theirs, and he has granted us greater blessings than he has them, with reference to both the soul and external things . . . " (Contra Galilaeos, 141 C–D) 2) For the Hebrews have exact halachot [nomima] concerning ritual, and innumerable revered objects and observances which require the following of a priestly life and vocation. Although their lawgiver [Moses] prohibited their revering all of the gods with the sole exception of the god whose "portion is Jacob and Israel an alloment of his inheritance" [See Deuteronomy, 32:9], he did not limit himself to saying this, but, I imagine also added "thou shalt not revile the gods" [according to the Septuagint Exodus, 22:28]; for the nastiness and recklessness of subsequent generations, wishing to extirpate all fear of god from the mass of the people, have thought that blasphemy follows abstention from worship. (238C.) 3) Wherefore it is appropriate to think that the God of the Hebrews is not the begetter of the whole cosmos, having authority over all of it, but rather, as I have stated, his authority is limited; since his empire is limited, we must see him as only one of a group of other gods. Are we to devote additional attention to you because you or one of yours visualized the god of the universe, reaching only a very limited conception of him? . . . (100C–106D,E.) 4) With the exception of the precepts, "Thou shalt not bow down before other gods," [Exodus, 20:3] and "Remember the sabbath day . . . " [Exodus, 20:8] I ask you, in the name of the gods, what nation exists which does not believe it desirable to observe the other commandments? . . . But the commandment ''Thou shalt not bow down unto other gods," [Exodus, 20:5] encompasses surely a terrible libel on god. "For I am a jealous God," he says, and again elsewhere "Our God is a consuming fire" [Deuteronomy, 4:24; Hebrews, 12:29]. How is it, then, if a man is jealous and envious you consider him to be worthy of condemnation, while when God is called jealous you make this a
Page 165 divine quality? Yet how can it be conceivable to speak falsely of God in so clear a case? For if indeed he is jealous, then it is against his will that all other gods are reverenced, and that all the other nations make obeisance unto the gods. How can it be that he himself did not prevent them from so doing, if he be so jealous and not desirous of other gods' being reverenced, but only of himself? Was he incapable of doing so, or was it so that from the beginning, he did not wish to prevent the worship of the other gods? In any case, the first explanation, which states that he was incapable, is impious; while the second agrees with what we ourselves do. (152D–159E.) 5) For if whole countries and cities find it hard to bear the anger of even one of the heroes or of an insignificant daemon, who could have tolerated the fury of such a god, if directed against daemons, angels, or men? (161A–168B.)85
As did Celsus, Julian interpreted the election of the Jews as meaning that the Jews have a national god who does not differ at all from the gods of other nations, all such gods being subject to the rule of the supreme god. It should be noted that the second commandment did not deny the existence of other gods. as J. Levy asserted, but rather prohibited their worship. This prohibition contained nothing wrong in and of itself, but was something to be wondered at in the prevailing polytheisticsyncretistic atmosphere. Such a view of the god of Israel represented the absorption of Judaism into the pagan pantheon, and the exclusion of Christianity; it blurred the contradiction between polytheism and monotheism, and turned the latter into an organic part of the former. There is no need to say that, for Julian, the polytheistic creed remained the true and comprehensive one, and that it encompassed the deity the Jews claimed was the sole god. But there was a possibility that the Jews, followed by the Christians, would refuse to accept this placement of the god of the Bible as no more than a secondary deity in the pagan hierarchy since, aside from expressions confining the god of Israel to Eretz Israel and designating him as being of the people of Israel, there were also expressions in the Bible attributing supreme and universal powers to him. In this case, Julian was forced to present the monotheistic concept as the opponent of the polytheistic, and to show that the latter was preferable to the Christians' monotheistic view. Julian argued that the 85
Cf. also 115D–E and 148B–C, cited on pp. 157–159 above. For the angels, see 290B–E.
Page 166
pagan spirit of tolerance was more in keeping with the god of all than was the jealousy revealed by the god of the Bible. It was true that the Bible too forbade the cursing of other gods; yet, Julian asked, what sense and reason were behind the antagonism of the god of Israel — if indeed he were the supreme god — to the worship of the gods who were subordinate to him?86 Did not he himself appoint them to rule and lead the nations of the world? In that case the second Commandment was entirely defective, since it proved that both Jews and Christians clung to erroneous concepts about god which damaged his image and derogated from his majesty. Julian's conclusion was that polytheism had the upper hand in any case; therefore, all the pagans who had deserted polytheism for monotheism had erred and should make good their mistake by returning to their ancestral faith.87 86
Cf. Contra Galilaeos, 148C, quoted above on p. 159.
87
The translation of the Bible into Greek lent it a philosophical quality on which Philo based his interpretations. Julian, too, approached the Bible as a philosophicaltheological text. Spinoza, on the other hand, examined Scripture on what he believed was a higher level: in the natural light of philosophy. There are, nevertheless, some interesting parallels between his interpretations and those of Julian concerning the subject. For example, Spinoza said (in his Tractatus Theologico Politicus, 2:36–37): " . . . as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is merciful, gracious, and exceedingly jealous, as appears from many passages in the Pentateuch . . . further, that by reason of His power He was without equal, and unique. Moses admitted, indeed, that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the Lord) who acted as God's vicegerents — that is, beings to whom God had given the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and care for them. . . . We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that these beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin. [Cf. Julian, Contra Galilaeos, 96C–D] He further taught that this Being . . . had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew nation (See Deuteronomy, 10:14–15) and a certain strip of territory (see Deuteronomy, 32:8–9), and had handed over to the care of other gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories. . . . " (Spinoza, paragraphs 38–39.) (In Paragraph 41 [Elwes, Chapter II, p. 39]. Spinoza made a point from the case of the prophet Jonah.) Spinoza came close to the pagan position when he distinguished faith and action or conduct (ibid., pp. 179–181); in the sphere of faith he favoured wide liberality, and he thought that a man should be judged only according to his deeds. On the other hand, he tried to explain
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 167
(footnote continued from previous page) away the duality found in Paul with reference to the election of Israel (ibid., pp. 53–54), and even to utilize his words, just as he took the trouble to prove that the election of the Jews was only temporary. This point corresponded exactly with the claim of Christian theology. From a Jewish point of view, these words were of more weight than his attitude towards Jesus or his sharp attacks on the Pharisees and the Rabbis.
Page 168
Chapter Four— Culture and Enslavement: The Religious Inference of Human History In the last chapter we saw that the polemic forced on pagans and Christians alike unanimity concerning divine providence. Unlike the various atheists, those who fought for the souls of traditionalists were obliged to espouse the clearcut and simple view that god's providence is directed towards all worldly events, and that it embraces all human beings, as individuals and as nations. This general a priori consensus fostered certain polemical motifs demonstrating historical events as directed by the lord of the universe. Let us consider the continued expression of these motifs in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, while examining the pagan, Christian, and Jewish sources and the part played by the Jews. Since the Jews, as we have noted, engaged in a polemic with the pagans in the HellenisticRoman period (until the middle of the second century C.E.), it was only natural that such motifs would be used against the Jews by the pagans. This was particularly true of Hellenistic Egypt, where the Jews exerted themselves to draw closer to the Greeks and their cultural world while simultaneously producing propaganda for their own religion. And indeed Josephus presented these arguments of Apion and Apollonius Molon: . . . A clear proof, according to him [Apion] that our laws are unjust and our religious ceremonies1 erroneous is that we are not masters of an empire,2 but rather the slaves, first of one nation, then of another, and that calamity has more than once befallen our city. . . . 1
Literally, "worship of god." The verb used is eusebein; the noun eusebeia means reverence, piety, worship, religion.
2
The last words were added in the editio princeps.
Page 169 "But" [urged Apion] we "have not produced any geniuses, for example, inventors in arts and crafts or eminent sages . . . [He lists] Socrates, Zeno, Cleanthes, and others of that calibre. . . . . . . He [Apollonius Molon] adds that we are the most witless of all barbarians, and consequently the people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization.3
Apion's argument was as follows: since the Jews do not rule over other nations, but are instead subjugated to them, it is clear that their laws are not good and that the Jews do not worship god as is proper. Thus, Apion drew conclusions about the character of their laws and religion from the historical condition of the Jews.4 The second argument of Apion also derived from a similar point, although Josephus did not say so explicitly. For, if no great men appeared among the Jews and if nothing were invented by the Jews in the technical and philosophical sciences, this was a sign that they were not divinely inspired and that their piety was defective. Apollonius Molon used similar arguments, and suggested that the Jews, lacking great men 3
Contra Apionem, 2:125; 135; 148; as translated by H. St. J. Thackeray ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1926).
4
Reinach, in his Flavius Josèphe: Contra Apion (Paris, 1930) indicates that the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey might have suggested similar thoughts to Cicero. But the approaches of Josephus and Cicero were dissimilar; Cicero said: "How dear it [the Jewish people] is to the immortal gods can be learned from the fact that it was vanquished, was farmed out to the tax collectors, and it was enslaved. . . . " (Pro Flacco, 69). According to Cicero, the enslavement of the Jews showed that they do not enjoy the providence and care of the gods; according to Apion, their subjugation, which was a result of the lack of providence, teaches that their religion is defective and caused god's neglect of them. Cicero had no interest in a polemic with the Jews; all he strove for was to blacken their reputation in order to lessen thereby the gravity of the accusations filed against his client Flaccus. He therefore mentioned the rebelliousness of the Jews and their being lowly and contemptible (cf. his words in his oration De provinciis consularibus, 5:10, stating that the Jews and the Syrians were "nations born for servitude"), and viewed with disdain by the gods. Cf. the article of J. Levy, ''Cicero's Utterances on the Jews in his Oration in Defence of Flaccus," in Studies. . . . , pp. 79–114 (Hebrew). The aim of Apion and his predecessors, on the other hand, was to refute the religious propaganda of the Jews. It was important therefore for them to emphasize the theological implications of the physical condition of the Jews: it was, as they saw it, in remarkable contrast to the Jews' pretensions to election and preference over other nations, as expressed in the Jewish holy scriptures.
Page 170
and inventors, were the lowest of the barbarians. Earlier, Josephus had cited the words of Apollonius Molon as well as those of Lysimachus, claiming that Moses was a "sorcerer and deceiver" and that his laws included lessons in vice and none in virtue.5 Josephus's reply concerning the Jews' enslavement may be divided into three parts.6 He indicated that the words of Apion, whom Josephus calls an Egyptian, are valid primarily for the Egyptians themselves, who had always been enslaved.7 He then noted that disaster befell the Athenians and the Spartans, even though the Spartans were the most pious of the Hellenes. Such things had also happened to kings renowned for their piety (eusebeia), Croesus for example, while the temples of Ephesus and Delphi burned. Of course, he said, Apion disregarded the evils that befell Egypt. Josephus here wished to sever the connection posited by Apion between the historical fate of a nation and the quality of its creed. Finally, he stated that it is not true that the Jews were subjugated. On the contrary! In the time of David and Solomon they subjugated their neighbours; when the Persians and Macedonians wielded supreme power and the Egyptians were like slaves, not only were the Jews free but they governed the cities in their hinterland for one hundred and twenty years before the arrival of Pompey, and even afterwards remained the allies of Rome. As for the second point of the pagan argument, it seems that Josephus was prepared to accept its veracity in part. He thought that there were indeed no fewer individuals worthy of praise in the history of the Jews than appeared in other nations,8 but acknowledged that the Jews "produced no inventors in crafts or literature."9 The reason for this was rooted in their laws whose sole purpose was to implant piety (eusebeia) in the hearts of the people,10 and to promote the laws' strict observance.11 Josephus suggested that the habit acquired by the Jews of obeying the laws of old imbued them with an aversion towards all inventiveness in the fields of religion, law, and the sciences. Josephus 5
Contra Apionem, 2:145.
6
Ibid., 2:126–134.
7
Ibid., 2:138.
8
Ibid., 2:136.
9
Ibid., 2:182.
10
Ibid., 2:181.
11
Ibid., 2:182 ff.
Page 171 12
believed that Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, surpassed the greatest Greek lawgivers — such as Lycurgus and Solon — not only because he preceded them, but because the Mosaic Law was directed towards inculcating eusebeia, which he saw as one of the principal virtues if not as the greatest of them.13 As a result, he said, the contribution of Moses to human civilization was greater than that of all those secular inventors of whom the pagans boast. Josephus went on to enlarge on the principles and values of the Law of Moses, emphasize its power and influence on the nation, and note its diligent observance by the people. Josephus ascribed to Apion, a late contemporary of Philo, and to Apollonius Molon and Lysimachus, who had lived a hundred years and more earlier, the use of the arguments noted above against the Jews. If their treatises or quotations from them were available to Josephus a long time after their deaths, it seems reasonable to assume that they were known in their time to the Jews of Egypt. It is also difficult to suppose that Lysimachus, Apollonius Molon and Apion were the authors of these motifs. It is more probable that these motifs had been presented much earlier, along with commonlyaccepted vulgar defamations of Jews and Judaism and in company with comments both favourable and laudatory on the same subjects. It is therefore no wonder that we find that Jewish Hellenistic literature and historiography 12
Ibid., 2:154–156.
13
Ibid., 2:146: "From this, I think, it will be apparent that we possess a code excellently designed to promote piety [eusebeia], friendly relations with each other and humanity towards the world at large, besides justice, hardihood, and contempt of death." He added: " . . . for he [Moses] did not make religion [or piety, eusebeia] a department of virtue, but made the various virtues, justice, temperance, fortitude and mutual harmony in all things between the members of the community, departments of religion" (ibid., 2:170). Cf. also 2:171,188. For the importance attributed to eusebeia, see Isocrates, De pace, 63, transl. G. Norlin ("Loeb Classical Library;" London, 1929) "Well then, the qualities which we must possess as a foundation if we are to be happy and prosperous, namely, piety [eusebeia] and moderation and justice and virtue in all its phases.'' In the Areopagiticus (29–30). Isocrates explained, as did Josephus after him, that eusebia means the observance of the precepts of the gods, their worship in an orderly and obedient manner, and care not to add to or subtract from the forefathers' customs and traditions (ta patria).
Page 172
dealt at length with the question of the origin and authors of human culture, as well as with the matter of the enslavement of Egypt and all it entailed They understandably minimized the lowly condition of the Jews in Egypt and emphasized the redemption of the Jews in the Exodus from Egypt. It was for a definite purpose that Jewish Hellenistic historiographers exerted themselves in order to prove that Abraham, Moses and Joseph were the fathers of the technical, political and intellectual sciences. It is impossible not to recognize that in these writings there also appeared apologetic reactions to arguments raised and conclusions drawn, such as those passed on to us by Josephus, although this was not stated explicitly by the Jewish writers. Yehoshua Gutman, in his The Beginnings of JewishHellenistic Literature, analysed in detail the traditions included in the fragments of these treatises as well as the ways in which Greek mythological material influenced these Jewish writers and was refashioned by them in keeping with the Bible.14 He also noted that "Later writers, and particularly — and that in the most obvious and specific way — Christian writers in their disputes with the representatives of Greek literature, drew the most extreme conclusions from this, seeing in Moses and in Jewish culture the beginnings and foundations of human civilization as a whole."15 Church writers, during their polemic with the pagans, realized that they could find support for their position in these HellenisticJewish treatises, and it was because of this that they were preserved for us in whole or in part. The Hellenistic Jewish authors had found themselves in a similar polemic with their hostile pagan neighbours; how reasonable it must have been for them to write their treatises for such a purpose. But Gutman seems to have been afraid of the label of "apologetics" attached to this literature and of the reproach implied by it. He refrained therefore from ascribing such an intention to its authors, straining to explain these writings as the expression of a manifestation of interest from the outside, and as naive expositions which served at most to answer inner needs.16 14
See especially the second of his two volumes (Jerusalem, 1958, 1963) (Hebrew).
15
Ibid., II, 82.
16
Cf. for this matter the short summary of E.E. Urbach in The Hebrew Encyclopedia s.v. "Apologetics," p. 121 (Hebrew).
Page 173 17
The extent to which Philo of Alexandria depended on Jewish and Greek learning is still controversial. Philo, who was rooted in Greek culture much more than in Jewish literature, had an inner need to prove that all Greek wisdom was already to be found, and that in a more perfect form, in the Bible, and had been derived from it. It is very probable that, when he developed his Exposition in such a meticulous way, particularly its nonallegorical parts, Philo had pagan arguments of the kind we discussed above before him. We do not have to search for implicit answers in Philo concerning the questions of culture, since Eusebius preserved two fragments of Philo's treatise called Hypothetica or Apologia pro Iudaeis which, without stating so explicitly, seem to refer to pagan polemical utterances as they are found in Josephus.18 First, Eusebius cited a description of Exodus. Philo stated that the people "reviled [Moses] as a sorcerer and knave."19 F.H. Colson remarks in his edition of Philo, "Probably this refers to the abusive terms used by Molon . . . [quoting Josephus's phrase in Contra Apionem, 2:145: "sorcerer and deceiver"] rather than to the murmurers in the wilderness, though the imperfect eloidoroun, [=reviled] rather suggests this. The next sentence shows that he persists in ignoring any rebellion."20 From another paragraph of Philo, we may indeed draw the conclusion that even the expression "deceiver" used by JosephusMolon was before Philo and was rejected by him: ''And no thirst nor hunger nor bodily annihilation, nor fear of the future, nor ignorance of the course which events would take, roused these deceived and perishing masses against that sorcerer."21 In his introduction to the fragments of the treatise, Colson pointed out that there exists a conspicuous resemblance between the Hypothetica and the Contra Apionem, and he raised the possibility that Josephus had used the work of Philo.22 If this were true, Eusebius might pave thought that he was giving the words of two of the most important 17
See my article: "A New Onomasticon Fragment from Oxyrhynchus and Philo's Etymologies," in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. XIX (1968), pp. 70–82.
18
Praep. Evang., 8,5:11 ff.
19
Praep. Evang., 8,6:2.
20
Vol. IX p. 416, note a.
21
Praep. Evang., 8,6:3.
22
Vol. IX, p. 409, note a.
Page 174 23
Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, on the constitution created by the legislation of Moses, whereas he was in truth presenting only those of Philo. Colson's notes, which compare various details in the descriptions of the legislation of Moses by Philo and Josephus, are not very relevant to our subject. But the emphasis laid by Philo on the fact that the laws of Moses were kept faithfully by the Jews, implanting in them such virtues as justice and piety (eusebeia),24 and Philo's particular stress on the piety (eusebeia) which was instilled in their hearts by the reading of the Torah and its interpretation by the priests on Sabbaths and holy days,25 lead me to the view that Philo was battling here against the culture motif as formulated by Apollonius Molon and Apion. They had stated that the bad laws given the Jews by Moses had caused them "not to worship [eusebein] God properly" and that, because of this, the Jews had not attained any achievements of the sort made possible by the gods; they had added that, instead of independence and empire, enslavement was the lot of the Jews. No explicit response of Philo on the subject of the enslavement of the Jews has been preserved, but one can learn about his views indirectly, from his In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. When Josephus tried to answer Apion, at the end of the first century C.E., the condition of the Jews was very dismal. For this reason, Josephus did not expatiate on the political fortunes of the Jews in recent generations; the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple had bestowed a negative significance on Jewish existence in the lands of the Exile. The situation had been wholly different in the time of Philo. From Philo's descriptions in the In Flaccum of the million Jews living in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and of Europe and Asia, which are full of Jews since their own country was too small to sustain their increase in population, as well as from his comments that the forefathers of the Jews had come to many places as first founders and that Jerusalem, the holy city and city of the Temple, remained their metropolis ("mothercity"), it becomes very clear that the great Jewish Diaspora was a source of pride and a source of power for Philo.26 He stated 23
But cf. Heinemann, Philons . . . , p. 530, n. 1.
24
Praep. Evang., 8,6:8.
25
Ibid., 8,7:13.
26
6:43; 7:45–48. His words are not far removed in spirit from those of Strabo, quoted by Josephus in the Antiquitates (14:115): "And it is not
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 175
that the governor Flaccus, knowing how numerous the Jews were, should have understood that it was not profitable to allow incitements and disturbances against them and, instead, should have restrained the mob at the outbreak of the disturbances (ibid., fortythree). In these words, as well as in his words in paragraph forty eight, to the effect that the Jews "could not be expected to stay quiet whatever happened," there was a clear threat to the Roman authorities that the latter must be careful not to call down upon themselves the animosity of the Jews, which might cause them much trouble; Philo, however, hastened to add that the Jews are naturally welldisposed towards peace, in contrast to the Egyptians, who are naturally inclined to sedition.27 The same feeling and mood pervade Philo's treatise Legatio ad Gaium. The gentiles in Yavneh, who initiated provocations against the Jews "knew that they [scil. the Jews] would not tolerate the violation of their customs, as indeed proved to be the case" (30:201). This was true in the case of Caligula, too, who was well aware of the fact that the Jews would not acquiesce in any attempt to introduce his statue into the Temple, and who therefore ordered the mobilization and concentration of the armed forces. As to why Petronius, the governor of Syria, delayed the execution of Caligula's orders, Philo replied that Petronius, by nature just and pious, was also aware of "the impending danger not only from God but also from the outraged people" (footnote continued from previous page) easy to find any place in the habitable world which has not received this race and which did not come under its power." (For the meaning of the last words see M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, (Jerusalem, 1974) I, 280.) This positive view of the progressive dispersion of the Jews all over the world recalls the words of R. Oshaya: "What does Scripture mean by 'Even the righteous acts of His rulers [pirzono] in Israel'? [Judges, 5:11.] The Holy One Blessed be He acted righteously towards Israel by dispersing [pizran] them among the nations. . . . " (BT Pesahim, 87b). But R. Oshaya's aim was, most probably, totally different from that of Philo. 27
In Flaccum, 4:17. That the Roman authorities were indeed apprehensive of the Jewish Diaspora emerges clearly from the sharp warning of the Emperor Claudius to the Jews, in his letter to the Alexandrians. See Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (Jerusalem, 1960), II, no. 153, lines 96–100; cf. the words of the antiSemite Isidorus in the Acta Isidori, col. ii, lines 23–4 in: Herbert A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1954), no. IV, p. 23.
Page 176
(31:213). In the following paragraphs (214–216), Philo explained the other factors considered by Petronius: the Jews, because of their vast numbers, were spread over islands and continents alike throughout the world; they were many and prepared to defy death for their beliefs; it did not pay to arouse their enmity towards Rome; if they were to unite, no one would be able to stand against them. Petronius was also afraid of the (military) forces (dynameis) of the Jews living beyond the Euphrates, of whose numbers he was aware from their pilgrimages and from the great quantities of gold and silver they contributed for the Temple. Here, too, Philo puts soothing phrases in the mouths of the Jewish elders (gerousia) who appeared before the governor, to the effect that the Jews are a naturally peaceful people and carefully inculcate the love of peace in their children (32:230). Finally, Philo noted the many places both within and beyond the borders of the Roman Empire in which the metropolis Jerusalem had established colonies.28 The detailed account of these settlements appeared in a letter allegedly sent by Agrippa to Caligula, that petitioned for the repeal of the latter's decree concerning the erection of his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. Agrippa pointed out to Caligula that, through the kindness he would demonstrate to one city, Jerusalem, he would at the same time be gracious to vast numbers of other cities throughout the world inhabited by the sons of Jerusalem, and that all the world would resound with praise and gratitude towards him (36:283–284). By this, of course, Philo also hinted at the danger facing Rome from the potential hostility of such numerous groups inside and outside the Empire, should Caligula execute his plans and offend the city they held sacred. It is clear, then, that Philo was not troubled by the enslavement argument presented by pagan polemicists, nor by the fact that the majority of the Jewish nation lived in foreign countries, providing that Jerusalem and the Temple remained intact and that a broad and dynamic Diaspora supported the centre in Eretz Israel, which itself was ruled jointly by Rome and the house of Herod.
28
Legatio ad Gaium, 36:281–282. Cf. A. Kasher, "Jerusalem as a 'Metropolis' in Philo's National Consciousness" in Cathedra for the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv, XI (1979), pp. 45–46 (Hebrew).
Page 177
Let us now examine these motifs of the paganJewish polemic some one hundred to one hundred and fifty years after Philo, when it was displaced by the growing paganChristian polemic. As we shall see below, the force of the arguments noted above did not diminish, but the arguments became somewhat different in nature and were joined by new arguments. Since Christianity was closely bound to Jewish literature and Jewish history, the attack on these last enabled the pagans to argue against the Christians by saying that the Christians had erred when they deserted the polytheistic creed of their fathers and adopted this new religion. At first (especially in the second century C.E.), the Christians were reproached with being uncultured, because most of those who had joined their ranks were slaves or women. The argument from the past history of the Jews was now strengthened by the Jews' present political situation. Christians could answer this argument by arbitrarily dividing the history of the people of Israel into periods before and after Jesus, a solution which had been used by the Christians in their polemic with the Jews during the hundred years after the death of Jesus. The pagan argument that the Christians themselves were now persecuted and helpless was more difficult for the Christians to deal with, and it remained so until the government changed and the persecutions stopped.29 Only then were the Christians able to reply decisively to the polemicaltheological problem that confronted them. Celsus was the first pagan polemicist to dwell fully on our motifs. According to him, Moses was a sorcerer (as, he noted, was Jesus) who deceived the Jews, whom Celsus described as being uneducated goatherds and shepherds and runaway slaves from Egypt, who had never been of any significance or prominence whatsoever among the cultured nations.30 Origen undertook the defence of the Jews, saying that "they were men who showed signs of a shadow of the heavenly life on earth"; praising the fact that "the prostitutes . . . were excluded from their society"; noting that ''the law courts consisted of the most virtuous men"; and that "to promote leisure for the hearing of the divine laws, the 29
E.g., Justin Martyr, Apologia II, 5 notes the question: Why does your god not protect you against wicked deeds? Or Clement of Alexandria, Strom., 4,11:80 records: Why does your god not help you in times of persecution? 30
See Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:41; 1:23; 4:31.
Page 178
days known as Sabbaths as well as their other feasts were established." In all this Origen followed Philo and Josephus. Origen had another answer with an essentially Christian consideration: "that, since they were 'a chosen race and a royal priesthood' (1 Pet. 2:9), they held themselves apart, shunning relations with the masses so that their morals should not be undermined, and that they were given shelter by divine power. They had no ambition . . . to conquer other kingdoms, nor were they so forsaken that they served as ready victims for attackers themselves. . . . This sheltering by God continued for as long as they remained deserving of it. . . . " Finally, he noted, in the time of the Romans, because the Jews had committed the greatest of sins in killing Jesus, they were wholly deserted by God.31 In other places too, such as 5:42, Origen spoke of "the exalted and remarkable constitution of the Jews" and pointed out the praiseworthy regulations it contained, by comparison with those of other nations. Origen also responded to Celsus's words (5:41) by arguing that the Jews surpassed in respect of their wisdom not only the pagan multitudes but also the philosophers found among them. The proof of this was supplied, he said, by the fact that even the least among them worship the God of the universe, whereas the philosophers, despite their wisdom, fell into the trap of worshipping idols and daemons.32 Christian apologists like Justin and Tatian had already revealed their sensitivity in face of the charge concerning their "want of education" (apaideusia) and had attempted to refute the accusation, although outwardly they sought to create the impression that they harboured nothing but scorn and contempt for Greek philosophy, rhetoric and science. However, the abovementioned apologists did not succeed in acquiring extensive enough knowledge in those spheres to enable them to contend successfully against their opponents. Clement of Alexandria made progress in this direction; it was only with Origen and Eusebius that a high standard of such knowledge was attained. That was why the contemptuous language of Celsus, valid enough in his day, made Origen so very furious and caused him to shower sharp insults on Celsus.33 31
Contra Celsum, 4:31–32.
32
Cf. also Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, 4:2.
33
On classical education and literature as factors hindering the Christianization of the conservative and educated pagan aristocracy, see A.H.M. Jones, "The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Christianity," in:
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 179
The Jews were classed ethnically among the Semitic peoples that were included by the Greeks in the class of "barbarians," as distinguished from the "Hellenes." This produced a confrontation of "barbarians" and "Hellenes,'' that was used in order to taunt the Christians who, because of their joining the Jews, were considered to be "barbarians." Celsus had already insisted (1:2) that the importance of the barbarians consisted solely in their having invented the doctrines (dogmata) that the Hellenes had developed properly. Similarly, but with the opposite aim, Clement stressed the fact that almost all the inventors were barbarians,34 and that the philosophy of the barbarians was the instructor of the Greeks as Plato, himself a pupil of the barbarians, had testified.35 We will return to this motif later, when we discuss the attitudes of Porphyry, Eusebius and Julian. Elsewhere Celsus expressed doubt that the god called "Most High" would fight on the side of the Romans if they were to neglect their own gods and appeal to him. He continued to couple the Jews and the Christians, saying: "But we see of how much assistance he has been here before, to them [the Jews] and to you. Rather than being rulers of the entire earth, they have been left no clod of earth nor hearth of any kind. While in your case, if there is anyone still wandering about in secret, he is revealed and condemned to death. . . . " (8:69.) As we noted above, Origen divided the history of the Jews into two parts: independence before the death of Jesus, ruin and enslavement thereafter. This connecting of the death of Jesus and the fate of the Jews appeared in Origen's work both as a reply to the questions and accusations of the Jew in Celsus's work (for example 2:8) and as a refutation of Celsus's own words (such as those in 4:22).36 In the swift and extensive spreading of Christianity throughout the world, Origen perceived the hand of God (2:79), that had fought for the Jews and saved them in days past, and had passed later to the side of the believers from among the nations (5:50). This, he thought, was the secret of the (footnote continued from previous page) A. Momigliano (ed), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), pp. 19–21; H.I. Marrou, "Synesius of Cyrene and Alexandrian Neoplatonism," ibid., pp. 143–144. 34
Stromateis, 1,16:74.
35
Ibid., 1,15:66.
36
The argument is also found in the prophecies interpolated by Christians into Oracula Sibyllina. See, e.g., book one, verses 324–400.
Page 180
Christians' ability to withstand the Romans' wish to destroy them. Elsewhere, after remarking that God protects the Christians from their enemies and persecutors, Origen said that in the persecutions of the pagans "several men, whose number could easily be calculated, have died on occasion for the sake of the Christian creed" and added: "But God prevented the utter defeat of their nation. . . . " (3:8.) This statement seems to have caused Gibbon to draw a mistaken conclusion: "the learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as reading, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs whose relics drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches. . . . "37 Since Origen's words appeared in a polemical treatise as a rejoinder against the pagan argument that the Christians were neglected by God, enslaved and oppressed without the hope of deliverance, we cannot accept them at their face value and cannot rely on the facts included in them, despite Gibbon. Completely different evidence was presented by Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica, at a time when circumstances affecting the Christians were changing.38 This work was destined for adherents of the Church, and it is not impossible that Eusebius overlooked the theological implications of his inflation of the numbers of the martyrs. We have dealt here with the martyrs only in connection with the "enslavement" motif of the polemic, in order to show that the polemic influenced the way in which Christians dealt with this subject. The polemicists presented to us by Minucius Felix in his treatise Octavius represent the common, halfeducated strata of the pagans and Christians in Rome. The pagan Caecilius, for example, brought up the libel concerning the Christians' alleged worship of the head of an ass, a libel which testifies clearly to a very low level of dispute as well as to a meagre knowledge of the opponent. It is therefore somewhat surpri 37
E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Modern Library, n.d.), I, chap. 16, p. 468; in note 72, Gibbon quotes in part the paragraph of Origen cited above. 38
Book five, preface: "At this time [the year 177 C.E.] the persecution of us in some parts of the world was inflamed more violently by popular attacks in the cities and, to judge from the occurrences in one nation [Gaul], vast numbers were singled out for martyrdom."
Page 181
sing to discover that the enslavement motif appeared among his arguments. Caecilius asserted that the Jews were wretched and miserable, and that they worshipped one god who was so helpless and powerless that he fell into the hands of the Romans together with his chosen people.39 In his answer, the Christian Octavius argued that, when the Jews worshipped God (who is also the universal God) properly and kept His precepts as prescribed, they changed from few to many, from poor to rich, from slaves to kings, and so forth.40 This, Octavius said, Caecilius could read and verify in ancient Jewish writings or in the writings of Josephus Flavius or, if he preferred to read it in the work of a Roman author, then Antonius Iulianus would do (probably referring to the former procurator of Judaea). Then it would become clear to him that the Jews suffered their fate because of their wickedness. and that God was in no way captured with them; rather, He put them into the hands of their enemies, since they had abandoned His Law. It is interesting to note that, just as the martyr Pionius had done, Octavius did not indicate exactly what sin of the Jews had caused their misfortune, and did not even mention Jesus, although it is perfectly clear in both cases that taking the life of Jesus is the sin meant. Tertullian approached the problem of the enslavement of the Jews from another angle; that of Roman domination. The pagans claimed that the Romans had reached world rule in return for their piety, noting that the gods rewarded most highly those who were most devoted to them.41 This sort of theological deduction had been made by earlier writers who dealt with Roman affairs, such as Cicero42 and others.43 Tertullian, however, dismissed this view with three arguments, the third of which touched on the subject of the Jews and their enslavement. First, Tertullian said, the order of things must be reversed. At first, the Roman empire 39
Octavius, 10:3–4. The text reads: " . . . Cuius [scil. dei] adeo nulla vis nec potestas est, ut sit Romanis hominibus [editio princeps: nominibus P. numinibus Wowerus] cum sua sibi natione captivus." 40
Ibid., 33:2–4.
41
Apologeticum, 25:2.
42
De natura deorum 2,3:8; 3,2:5.
43
Polybius (6,56:6 ff.), discussing the factors which contributed to Roman success, stressed the benefit that the Romans derived from their strict religious observance (deisidaimonia), which promoted the obedient behaviour of the masses and of individuals as well.
Page 182
was acquired; it was only later that Roman religiosity grew. When the Roman religion was conceived by Numa Pompilius, he noted, the Roman state had not yet been filled with images and temples constructed by Greek and Etruscan men of genius. "The Romans were not 'religious' before they reached greatness; and, therefore, they are not great because they were religious."44 In this way Tertullian sought to sever the causal connection that polemicists were trying to forge between polytheistic religion and political aggrandizement. As we shall see, pagans like Julian (and Symmachus after him) continued to insist on this analogy. However, Tertullian was not wholly satisfied with this "chronological" rejection, and put forward another response, later employed by Ambrose against Symmachus on the question of the altar of Victory. Tertullian asked, "how could they be great as a result of their religion, when their greatness proceeded from irreligion?"45 Since the expansion of Roman rule entailed wars against and victories over other nations, by which the gods of those peoples and countries were simultaneously injured, "then the sacrileges of the Romans number the same as do their trophies.'' The third answer saw in the independent existence of Judaea, famous for its contempt for universally accepted gods, and in the relations Rome once had with Judaea, a refutation of the assumption that it was Roman religion that supported and directed the Roman regime (26:3). Indeed, the Romans would never have dominated Judaea he declared. "if Judaea had not sinned against Christ at the end." In Tertullian's opinion, the god who has the world and its inhabitants in his charge endows certain nations with empire and deprives others of it in the course of history (26:1). Near the end of his treatise Tertullian deplored the cruel persecutions of the Christians, and took pride in stressing that, although Christianity was but a recent creation, it had managed to win adherents all over the world and in all spheres of society (37:4). He declared that the Christians refrained from presenting armed resistance to their persecutors not because of their numerical or physical inferiority but because the principles of their religion prevented them from doing so (37:5). Arnobius, as we might expect, made no use of materials connected with Judaism that cast aspersions on Christianity; he similarly refrained 44
Apologeticum, 25:12–13.
45
Ibid., 25:14–16.
Page 183
from Jewish literary sources even in cases where other Christian apologists had used them in the manner of discoverers of great treasures. Nevertheless, we may note an indirect comment related to our subject in Arnobius's argument that the expansion of the Christian religion throughout the world in so short a time is evidence against those who question its veracity.46 Porphyry's extant polemical writings indicate that, as a religiouslyminded man, he preferred to comment on the "culture" motif rather than on the "enslavement" motif.47 Of the latter he remarked in a matter of fact style in his De abstinentia: "Of the nations known to us, it was the Jews who suffered intolerable assaults on their laws and customs, first at the hands of Antiochus and later at the hands of the Romans, when their Temple in Jerusalem was captured and access to it was permitted to all those to whom it had been forbidden previously, and the city itself was ruined. Then the Jews abstained for a long time from the eating of many animals,48 and they especially refrain, even now, from eating pork'' (4:11). The language of Porphyry, if not compassionate, was in any case not hostile; it is obvious that the last matter referred to was of interest to him.49 On the question of "culture," it seems that Porphyry adopted a twofold approach. In his Contra Christianos he asked: "And to what kinds of punishment should those men who, deserting their ancestral customs, have become zealous adherents of the alien mythologies of the Jews, which are held in contempt by all men, not rightly by subjected?"50 The expression othneia mythologêmata does not mean only "alien mythologies" in contrast with patria (ancestral); othneia here corresponds to barbara (barbarian) and is used in a negative sense, since these terms serve Porphyry alternately as adjectives for the same noun. A similar classification of Jewish doctrine as barbarian is found in Porphyry's 46
Adversus nationes, 1:55.
47
See above, pp. 27–30.
48
Cf. BT Baba Bathra, 60b: "The Sages taught: when the Temple was destroyed recently, the abstemious in Israel, who refrained from eating meat and drinking wine, multiplied . . . . "
49
Cf. his comments on the Book of Daniel, as quoted by Jerome from Porphyry's treatise Contra Christianos (in Harnack's edition: p. 68, no. 43D; p. 71, no. 43V).
50
Harnack, p. 45, no. 1, =Praep. Evang., 1,2:1 ff.
Page 184 51
comments on Origen: "but Origen, a Hellene educated in Hellenic doctrines, drifted towards barbarian recklessness . . . " (In the same fragment, Porphyry spoke of the othneia to be found in the Jewish writings and of their othneioi mythoi.) Eusebius's comprehensive treatise, the Praeparatio Evangelica, was in fact devoted to the explication and justification of the Christian position against both facets of the abovenoted argument: the desertion of ancestral religiousnational traditions, and the preference for and adoption of barbarian, i.e. Hebrew, doctrines.52 Eusebius began to deal with the second part of the argument, the relative cultural barbarianism of the Jews as compared to the Hellenes, in the seventh book of his Praeparatio Evangelica, declaring that he now turned to "the Hebrews and their philosophy and religion [or piety, eusebeia], to which we have given preference over all our ancestral doctrines; it is now time to describe their way of life" (7, 1:1). His presentation of evidence and his discussion of this subject continue until the end of the extant treatise.53 Along with the view that the barbarians were naturally and culturally inferior to the Hellenes, an idealized picture of the barbarian peoples had been widespread from the classical period onward; it emphasized their superiority as the inventors of civilization as a whole, and most especially of religion and worship. The reason offered for this image was the uninterrupted culture of those countries from ancient times on, as against that of the Greeks, who had had to start all over again from the beginning in the wake of natural disasters that wiped out their ancient civilization. Porphyry acceded to this tradition, along with other NeoPlatonists as is seen from his treatise, De philosophia ex oraculis. In the excerpts from his treatise presented by Eusebius, Porphyry stated, in the name of Apollo, that the wisdom of the Hebrews and the Chaldaeans in the field of religious worship was unique.54 Apollo also testified, according to Porphyry's interpretation, that the barbarians, that is, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Chaldaeans, the Lydians, and the Hebrews, had discovered the difficult but correct path to the divinity to which many paths led, whereas the Hellenes had gone as 51
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., 6,19:7.
52
See ibid., 1,1:15.
53
See ibid., 15,62:16.
54
Praep. Evang., 9,10:1–5.
Page 185 55
tray. Was there not a contradiction here, or did this perhaps reveal that Porphyry tended to change his mind, as Eunapius charged? Porphyry's attitude can be explained without our having recourse to such assumptions. Other Greek writers saw no contradiction between their honour and admiration for ancient Eastern civilizations, and the contempt in which they held contemporary barbarians, in an age in which the Greeks, with their talent and industry, surpassed their teachers' achievements. But, if this explanation be valid for the confrontation of barbarians and Hellenes in Porphyry's work, it does not clarify why Porphyry thought it necessary to include the Hebrews in his list. This inclusion may indicate his wish to isolate the Christians as people who "paved for themselves some new, desolate road that is no road, following neither the Hellenic nor the Jewish tradition."56 This is the source of his assertion in the treatise mentioned above, according to which the Christians were uncorrigibly corrupt, while the Jews were to be praised for their recognition of god;57 it was also the point of departure for his attempts to sever the connection which the Christians tried to establish between the New Testament and the Jewish Bible, especially in connection with the Book of Daniel and the messianism of Jesus. Julian followed Porphyry in this. In keeping with the twofold approach adopted by Porphyry to the "culture" question (above, p.183), Eusebius declared that the defensive course he was about to take was a double one: on the one hand, a positive and impressive presentation of the Jewish doctrines and constitution,58 on the other hand, a demonstration that "the Hellenes, even their celebrated philosophers, had plagiarized from barbarians all their philosophic learning along with everything that was otherwise public 55
Celsus, on the other hand, belittled the Jews in comparison with those endowed with the highest inspiration, such as the Chaldaeans, the Magi, the Egyptians, the Persians and the Indians (Origen, Contra Celsum, 6:80). 56
Harnack, p. 45, no. 1. Julian, who exerted himself even more for this purpose, said that he wished "to ask those, who are neither Hellenes nor Jews but rather are part of the sect of the Galilaeans, why they chose their belief instead of ours and, furthermore, why they do not then cleave to their own [Jewish] traditions, but instead have departed from them as well, and have turned to a road of their own." (Contra Galilaeos, 43A.) 57
Quoted by Augustine, De civitate dei, 19:23.
58
Praep. Evang., 7,1:1.
Page 186 59
and useful for their civic needs." In the tenth book of his work Eusebius added more details on this subject: "I will now prove, from various sources, that each and every one of these marvellous Hellenes, circulating among the barbarians, has collected the other fields of knowledge: geometry, arithmetic, music, astronomy, medicine and the primary elements of grammar, as well as countless other skills practical and useful in daily life." (1:2.) For this purpose Eusebius first called Clement of Alexandria to his service. After citing him, Eusebius said that should the pagans consider Clement to be untrustworthy, since Clement preferred "barbarian" philosophy to that of the Hellenes, as did Eusebius himself (although Clement's proofs did not derive from his own words but rather from those of the Hellenes themselves), then Eusebius would be ready to present evidence from philosophers considered trustworthy by the pagans.60 He thereupon began quoting Porphyry and other pagan writers. With regard to the first point of Eusebius's defence, the character of the Jews, their constitution, philosophy and literature, Eusebius referred to Hellenistic Jewry, especially that of Alexandria. At the beginning of this chapter we surveyed what Josephus and Philo had to say on these matters. As is well known, in addition to the "Apology" of Philo, which was preserved in part only by Eusebius, unique fragments of the work of many Jewish writers of the Hellenistic period were preserved in the Praeparatio Evangelica. Eusebius, however, was not content with copying from others, but sought to make his own contribution to the polemic in this sphere. Eusebius showered the ancient Hebrews with praise, as the first and only people who had followed the path of true piety (eusebeia).61 Even though "Moses, the great theologian, had been a Hebrew of the Hebrews," Eusebius was nonetheless anxious to make it clear to his readers — and in this he differed from Josephus and Philo — that the Hebrews had existed prior to Moses and, because of their greatness of mind, had not been in need of the laws and precepts Moses gave to Israel.62 This distinction was necessary so that he might distinguish between "Judaism" and "Hebraism," and defend the rejection of the former by 59
ibid., 7,1:3.
60
Ibid., 10,2:16.
61
Ibid., 7,3:1; 7,3:2; 7,6:4. Cf. 7,3:3.
62
7,7:1. See also 7,6:1; 7,6:4.
Page 187
the Christians and emphasize their connection with the latter. But this was of secondary importance to the major concern of Eusebius, the polemic against the pagans, and he therefore presented the Hebrews and Moses as a front united against polytheistic doctrines and beliefs. The ancient Hebrews, he said, understood and concluded correctly that the four elements of which the cosmos was composed (earth, water, air, fire), as well as the sun, the moon and the stars, were not gods but God's creatures.63 They also realized, he added, that the nature of material being was such that it lacked both logos and soul, and was perishable, and that the order of the cosmos could not be "automatic," but that, rather, for each and every thing, there had to be some directing and generating hand or power. Eusebius then described Biblical cosmogony, which he called "theology," by citing verses from Genesis, the Prophets and Hagiographa (especially Psalms), and by offering expository notes in the spirit of Philo, from whose work he quoted from time to time in order to provide support for the accuracy of his general and Christological interpretations.64 The teaching of Moses, Eusebius noted, was not made up of syllogisms and persuasive arguments, but was informed by authoritative and decisive principles deriving from the holy spirit which had inspired him (7, 11: 1). Incidentally, this technique of contrasting frail human reasoning, unable to reach complete truth, with the Law of Moses and the Prophets, whose truthfulness had a divine origin, was a technique much favoured by Church writers. Without dwelling much on the views of various philosophic schools, such as the Epicurean and the Stoic (7, 11:13), or those of the Phoenicians and the Egyptians (7, 17:1), Eusebius proceeded to lecture on the creation of man, while quoting the words of Philo, as was his habit (7,17:4ff.). A little further (7, 18:11), Eusebius declared that he intended to show that the Greeks, whose cultural development came long after that of the barbarians (including the Hebrews), devoted their efforts to pillaging the intellectual treasures of the barbarians and the Hebrews. The remainder of the seventh book of the Praeparatio Evangelica, and books eight, nine and ten of it, were composed in the main of quotations from Jewish and pagan writers that confirmed these theses. 63
7,3:2. Cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2:191–192, and the words of Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:6.
64
7,11:1 ff. See, e.g., 7,12:14.
Page 188
It was in the eleventh book that Eusebius returned to his "comparative research" on this subject. At the outset of book eleven (preface, three) Eusebius stated that the time had come to fulfill his promises and show the "symphony" existing between some (or all) of the theories on matters of principle held by Greek philosophers and expressed in the prophetic utterances of the Hebrews. Since the subject was so broad, Eusebius decided to limit his discussion to the doctrines of Plato, whom he considered to be foremost among the Greeks. Even though most of Plato's words were signed with the seal of truth, Eusebius said, not all of them were, as Eusebius would show in his work. He found it necessary to emphasize immediately the fact that he wrote not for the purpose of belittling Plato but rather in order to explain why he (Eusebius) willingly accepted barbarian philosophy rather than Greek (preface, five). The method Eusebius employed was in no way different from that of his predecessors; however, his writings were much more extensive. Eusebius and his predecessors would find some "mechanical" similarity, sometimes a literal one, like the Talmudic gzera shava (= an identicalterm analogy), and claim on the basis of it that whoever had said these things in this way first was their source, while the later writers of such phrases were plagiarists. In the event that the similarity was not obvious, they argued that the copyists had not understood their sources and had, because of this, erred in their work. One favourite subject of the Church Fathers was a comparison of the creation of the world and of man in Genesis with the Timaeus of Plato. Celsus, too, compared Plato and Jesus and drew, of course, quite different conclusions. For example, Celsus argued that the Christian precept to turn the other cheek to a man who smote you on one,65 was no more than an inferior version of Plato's conclusion in the Crito (49B–E) that not only should one not wrong any man but that one should not even revenge himself on one who does him wrong.66 This was also true, he said, of the saying of Jesus: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," which was, in Celsus's opinion, a clear corruption of the Platonic saying: "It is impossible for an outstandingly good man to also be exceptionally rich."67 Plato explained in the Leges 65
Matt., 5:39; Luke, 6:29.
66
Origen, Contra Celsum, 7:58.
67
Ibid., 6:16; Leges, 743A.
Page 189
(715E) that justice (dikê) was always to be found with the god, punishing those who transgress divine law, and that he who would be happy follows it humbly (tapeinos) and in an orderly manner, that is, without transgressing the laws of the cosmos and of nature (physis). In this statement by Plato, Celsus detected the origins of Christian humility (tapeinotês) which, he said, in their mistaken view, means that a man throws himself on the ground, wears sackcloth and heaps ashes upon his body.68 Eusebius dealt with his material (Plato and the Bible) in a similar way, as we will see presently. Before presenting a long series of textual comparisons Eusebius commented that Plato's division of philosophy into three spheres, physics, ethics, and logic, had already been in existence among the Hebrews.69 As an example of ethics, Eusebius put forward the book of Proverbs, the work of "Solomon, the wisest of all men," which comprised ethical doctrines formulated as aphorisms.70 As for logic he indicated approvingly that the Hebrews were not happy with the skillful syllogisms and sophistry contrived to mislead people, so popular among the Greeks, but rather strove to reach the truth itself.71 Nonetheless, and without himself knowing the Hebrew language, Eusebius had the audacity to argue that "if someone were to become experienced in the study of the [Hebrew] language itself, he would see how there exist, among the barbarians, men who are excellent dialecticians, in no wise inferior to sophists and rhetoricians in his own [Greek] language."72 68
Ibid., 6:15. Celsus also argued that, in the tales of the Tower of Babylon and of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses corrupted the myths of Deucalion, the sons of Aloeus, and Phaeton (ibid., 4:21). Origen indicated other cases in which Plato's writings contradicted the instances adduced by Celsus (6:12) and, at the same time, he made use of Biblical verses, claiming (6:18) that they excelled Plato in their exalted ideas, and were of course of earlier date than those of Plato. Cf. also 7:26. 69
Praep.Evang., 11,1:1.
70
Ibid., 11,4:6.
71
Ibid., 11,5:1.
72
Ibid., 11,5:6. With regard to beauty of language and style, Origen had already argued, in response to Celsus, that the prophets of Israel excelled in it (in Hebrew, of course); he then reverted to stressing that it was the content and the aims of reaching the multitudes and of teaching them which were of greatest importance. For this purpose, he noted, the simple language of the prophets was preferable to the sublime, and incomprehensible, formulations of the Greek sophists. See Contra Celsum, 7:59–61.
Page 190
The same held true, Eusebius argued, of the technique elaborated by the Greeks for writing poetry: "There were also poems in metre to be found among them, such as the great song of Moses and the 118th psalm of David, which were written in what the Greeks call heroic metre. At any rate, it is said that these consist of hexameters, and are composed of sixteen syllables. Their other epic compositions too are said to be made up of trimeters and tetrameters, in keeping with the sound of their own tongue."73 Although Eusebius insisted in the Praeparatio Evangelica that Plato had followed Moses and the Hebrew prophets, he was less rigorous concerning the way in which Plato had arrived at his views (11, 8:1). Perhaps, he said, Plato had learned from the Hebrews, who had returned to Egypt for the second time when Plato sojourned there. Plato might have added ideas of his own, or even have been endowed with some inspiration from above. In any case, Eusebius contended, Plato had admitted in the Cratylus that the natural harmony of names with the things they represent was preserved among the barbarians, and he suggested that Plato probably referred by this term to the Hebrews and to Moses (11. 6:1). Not only material harmony was to be found between Plato, and Moses and the Prophets, he contended, but even considerable linguistic identity. Eusebius indicated that this was the case concerning the mystery of God's name, which was to be found in the Seventh Letter of Plato "word for word" (11,12:1). Moses said: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deuteronomy, 6:4); Plato taught similarly in the Timaeus that there was one god (11, 13:1). Eusebius referred to the Platonic saying about the goddess of justice (dikê), who is always at the side of God to avenge those who transgress divine law, as being parallel to verses from Psalms (for example, 11:7: "For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; The upright shall behold His face") and from the New Testament.74 Concerning the same saying Celsus, as we noted above, had accused the Christians of a corrupted plagiarism. Plato, argued Eusebius, was of the same opinion as Moses about the immortality of the soul, while the mystical words of Moses with regard to events in Paradise, to Adam being misled by his wife, and to the story of the snake, were copied by 73
Praep. Evang., 11,5:7. Cf. Josephus, Antiquilates, 2:346; 4:303.
74
Praep. Evang., 11,13:7.
Page 191 75
Plato in the Symposium "all but directly, translating word for word"; just as had Moses, Eusebius said, Plato related them allegorically.
It is clear that Plato, in the Symposium, did not understand the intention of Moses in the story told about the creation of woman from Adam's rib.76 Moses thought that he should preface his legislation with an introduction based on "archaeology," dealing with such themes as the Flood and the renewal of human life on earth in its wake; so did Plato in the Leges.77 Solomon said succinctly in Proverbs (10:7): "The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing; But the name of the wicked shall rot," while the Book of Sirach (Ben Sira), 11:28, admonished men to "Pronounce no man happy before his death." Plato expanded this in the Leges, saying that it was appropriate to extol the dead who had performed praiseworthy deeds when alive, but that this should not be done during their lifetimes.78 The Hebrew nation was divided into twelve tribes; Eusebius noted that Plato established a similar division for the citizens of his state in the Leges.79 The metropolis of the Hebrews was situated in the mountains far from the sea and in possession of agricultural land; Plato prescribed that such should be his citystate as well.80 It is possible to multiply these examples, but even those noted above will suffice to elucidate the means employed by Christians and pagans alike in order to buttress their polemical positions. As we have noted, neither Porphyry nor Eusebius made use of the motif of the enslavement of the Jews. Nonetheless, certain indirect comments on this subject are to be found in the work of Eusebius. It was important to Eusebius, in connection with Christian theology, to show that the abrogation of the ancestral laws of the Jews, the Jews' 75
12,11:1. It is interesting to observe that Eusebius was not aware that, in exerting himself to point out the similarities and parallels existing between the works of Plato and those of Moses, he himself performed an allegorization of Plato which, if the pagans were to continue it (as some of them actually did), might remove the difficulties and repulsion the myths provoked. In this he was clearly, although indirectly, different from Origen, who was not prepared to let the pagans perform an allegorization of Greek mythology. 76
Ibid., 12,2:1.
77
Ibid., 12,15:1–2.
78
Ibid., 12,34:1–2.
79
Ibid., 12, 47.
80
Ibid., 12, 48:1.
Page 192
loss of autonomy, their subjection to their enemies, the destruction of their Temple and of Jerusalem, the resettlement of the city by strangers, and the dispersion of the Jews among the nations were all direct results of the Jews' outrageous behaviour (tolmê) towards Jesus,81 or of their execution of James, the brother of Jesus, which was followed immediately by Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem.82 Eusebius retorted to the argument already recorded, that Jesus was "a sorcerer and a deceiver," by stressing that the present success of the Christians and the diffusion of Christianity and its doctrines among all the nations would have been impossible had Jesus, indeed, been such a deceiver.83 Elsewhere, Eusebius contended that the victory of the Church was the victory of Jesus, as well as evidence of the truth of his doctrine.84 The development of his argument on this question is interesting: if Jesus were a deceiver and sorcerer, and his disciples were likewise deceivers and knaves as well as being uneducated men, and were, moreover, barbarians ignorant of any language other than the Syrian, how was it that they had made progress throughout the inhabited world?85 The very arguments of Christianity's opponents prove all the more, he added, that true divine power is the basis of the Christian faith. Eusebius enumerated later the lands in which the Christians were present and even held positions of power among them, Rome, Persia, Armenia, Scythia, India, and the islands of Britain. He concluded by saying: "These things could not indeed, in my opinion, be regarded as wrought by a mere man, let alone by worthless and common persons, and least of all by deceivers and sorcerers."86 In the fragments preserved by Cyril from Julian's treatise Contra Galilaeos, these motifs appear in full. However, as we will see presently, 81
Demonstratio Evangelica, 1,1:7.
82
Hist. Eccles. 2,23:18–24; cf. Dem. Evang., 3,7:30–33.
83
Dem. Evang., 3,5:100; 3,6:1.
84
Ibid, 2,3:155; cf. 3,2:74.
85
Ibid., 3,4:43–45. His remarks in the Praep. Evang. 3,11:17, testified that the Christians were still somewhat sensitive about this accusation.
86
A similar argument is to be found in Origen (Contra Celsum, 6:7). In response to Celsus's assertion that Paul, Peter and others had copied the words of Plato and corrupted them, Origen said that it would have been impossible for such simple persons (Paul, a maker of tents; Peter, a fisherman) to read and understand Plato. The inevitable conclusion was, therefore, that their utterances were of divine inspiration, that had come to them from God and the Holy Ghost.
Page 193
there was no mechanical borrowing by Julian from former polemicists; rather, after examining the material, including the answers of his opponents and their criticism, he accepted things as they were where he saw no need for change and inserted changes only where they were essential. It is clear that Julian had read the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius, and he replied to Eusebius both directly and indirectly. He declared explicitly: But, as for the laws of society and the qualities of the courts of law, the conduct of affairs of the cities and the splendour of the laws, the furtherances of scholarship and the amelioration of the liberal arts — were not these things wretched and barbarian among the Hebrews? And yet the scoundrel Eusebius claims that some hexameters are to be found even among them, and strives to prove that there exists among the Hebrews the practice of logic, whose very name he heard from the Hellenes. What kind of medical art has been revealed among the Hebrews similar to that of Hippocrates or of other schools after him among the Hellenes? Is Solomon, the wisest of men, the equivalent of Phocylides or Theognis or Isocrates among the Hellenes? Nonsense! In any case, if you were to match the moral precepts of Isocrates and the proverbs of Solomon, I am certain that you would discover that the son of Theodorus [ = Isocrates] surpasses the wisest king. ''But," they say, "Solomon was also trained in theurgy." What of it? Did not this very Solomon worship our gods after being deceived, as they say, by his wife?87 What greatness of virtue! What abundance of wisdom! He was unable to prevail over his pleasure, and the words of a woman led him astray! If he were indeed deceived by a woman, do not declare him to have been wise. But if you believe that he was wise, do not accept that he was deceived by a woman, but rather that he worshipped the other gods as well, having been persuaded by his own judgement and sagacity, and through the instruction of the God who appeared to him.88
Julian was prepared to admit that Greek mythology, which told of immoral or improbable acts of the gods, was no better nor worse than Biblical tales about Paradise, the woman and the snake (44A–94A). The same was true of the story of the Aloadae and its equivalent in the Pentateuch, the story of the construction of the Tower of Babylon (134D–135D). With regard to the accusation put forward by Eusebius that Plato was a plagiarist, Julian presented passages from the Pentateuch on the creation of the world and of man, contrasting them with 87
Cf. I Kings, 11:4.
88
Contra Galilaeos, 221E–224E.
Page 194
the relevant passages from the Timaeus of Plato. He stated at the outset that "in this way, it will be seen who was the better and who was more worthy of God [i.e. in his description], Plato the worshipper of idols or the man concerning whom the Scripture says that God spoke with him mouth to mouth" (Numbers, 12:8).89 Here the comparison ended (according to the preserved fragments), but there is no doubt as to what would have been its conclusion. If the words of Plato were superior to those of Moses, it was of no relevance to assert that Moses had anteceded Plato and Plato could not be accused of unsuccessful plagiarism, as he was by the Church Fathers. The Fathers did indeed rely on the same passages from the Bible and from Plato but, through allegorical interpretation, both theirs and Philo's, the Church Fathers concluded that the Law of Moses was superior, and that there had been a transcription or a more or less corrupt literary theft by Plato. Julian realized that the argument that the Christians were dependent on barbarians — the Hebrews — not only missed its target but even served as a great hindrance to the pagans. For the Christians assiduously collected all the sayings of the philosophers from the classical period onward which demonstrated that, in the barbarian Greek struggle, it was the former who had the upper hand with regard to the creation of human civilization. These philosophers said that, at the time when the barbarians had already developed a broad culture in the spheres of science and religion, the Greeks were still in a savage condition or at any rate in a very primitive stage of development. This literary fashion was also to be found among neoPlatonic philosophers such as Porphyry and Iamblichus; since their hostility to Christianity was never in doubt, the Christians were delighted to discover that they might turn the philosophers' own words against them. This is exactly what Eusebius did when he collected all the passages in Porphyry that praised the Jews, since they belonged to the nations of the East — the barbarians — so noteworthy for their wisdom and antiquity. Inasmuch as the Christians claimed to be associated with the Jews, either as the faithful upholders of their Law or as their heirs, the natural conclusion was that, even as regards culture, the Hellenes were in the inferior position. In order to sever this connection, Julian replaced the racial conflict of barbarians and Hellenes with a religious polytheistic contraposition, joining the 89
Ibid., 49A ff.
Page 195
religions of the barbarians and Hellenes against the monotheism of the Jews. By such a presentation of the conflict, Julian succeeded in reviving the culture motif even more forcefully; it now was wholly supporting the polytheistic side, while the Jews, with their monotheism, and the Christians were left in wretched isolation. This is the interpretation I suggest for the following passages, in which Julian also made comprehensive comparisons between the Jews and the pagans. Here is what he said in Contra Galilaeos on these matters: Moreover, look and see from the following that god did not care solely for the Hebrews but rather for all nations; he gave them nothing valuable or great while he granted us things that far excelled theirs. Indeed the Egyptians, when they recount the names of not a few wise men among themselves, are able to say that many of them received [knowledge] from Hermes, that is, from Hermes who visited Egypt in his third appearance. The Chaldaeans and Assyrians can pride themselves on those who received knowledge from Oannes and Belos, while the Hellenes can claim myriads who received knowledge from Cheiron. From then on, all became gifted in the mysteries and theology, the same field that the Hebrews pride themselves on holding as their monopoly. . . . But did God give you the foundations of any science or any philosophical discipline? Which, then, is it? Why, the theory of heavenly phenomena was brought to perfection by the Hellenes after the first observations had been made by barbarians in Babylon; geometry, which has reached such excellence, was born in the measurement and division of land in Egypt, whereas the study of numbers, whose beginnings were among Phoenician merchants, became established as a science among the Hellenes in the course of time. The Hellenes joined these three and music into one science, interweaving astronomy with geometry, and they brought the numbers into concord with both after detecting the principle of harmony in them. . . . Do I have to name them one by one, or according to their professions? Should I name persons like Plato, Socrates, Aristeides, Cimon, Thales, Lycurgus, Agesilaus, Archidamus, or instead speak of the class of philosophers, of armycommanders, of craftsmen, of legislators? For even the most wretched and loathsome of armycommanders will be found treating more reasonably those who committed the greatest sins than Moses treated those who erred in nothing. And now of what kingdom shall I tell you? Should it be that of Perseus. or of Aeacus, or of Minos of Crete, who cleansed the sea afflicted by piracy, dislodging and expelling the barbarians as far as Syria and Sicily . . . And sharing with his brother Rhadamanthus, not the earth itself, but rather the care of men, he himself instituted the laws which he received from Zeus, and left it
Page 196 to Rhadamanthus to carry out the administration of justice. . . . (176A–190C.) For a while the greatest of the gifts of Helios and Zeus escaped my memory. It is appropriate however that I reserved it for the last. For it is not special to us Romans alone, I imagine, but in common with the Hellenes our kinsmen. For indeed Zeus procreated Asclepius from himself among the intelligible gods, and through the life of procreative Helios he manifested him to the earth. Asclepius, having made his way to earth from the sky, appeared at Epidaurus in one image, the image of man; but then he multiplied himself, and, in his visitations, held out to the whole earth his redeeming right hand. He went to Pergamum, to Ionia, then to Tarentum; and later he went to Rome. He journeyed to Cos, from there to Aegae. Then he is present everywhere on land and sea. He does not visit anyone of us separately, yet he puts back in order souls that went astray as well as bodies that are ill. Of what thing of this kind do the Hebrews boast they were given by God, so that you have been persuaded to flee from us to them? At least, if you had paid attention to their teachings, you would not have been cast into utter misery . . . And though you would be using a severe and inflexible law, which encompasses much that is rough and barbarous, in place of our fair and humane laws, and would otherwise be in worse condition, you would still be more holy and pure as regards your rituals. . . . (200A–202A.) . . . If indeed those things which we say be true, show me among the Hebrews one armycommander who equals Alexander, one who equals Caesar. For there is no one (like them) among you. . . . For the lesser of those armycommanders are unknown to the masses, but each one of them is more admirable than all of those who were among the Hebrews put together.90
Apart from these comments, we find in Julian some more invective on this subject, stressing the educational and moral inferiority of the Jewish and Christian holy scriptures. He stressed that the gods had bestowed on the pagans abundant benefits of the body and soul. Why do you consume the learning (current) among the Hellenes, if the reading of your own writings is sufficient for you? Although it were preferable to prevent people from studying it than from consuming sacrificial meat. . . . For because of this learning, every being among you whom nature has made noble departed from atheism. . . . But you yourselves are aware, as it seems to me, of the difference between your writings and ours with respect to sagacity, and that from your writings no one would become a noble man nor even a good one, 90
Ibid., 218B–C. And see the continuation, paragraphs 22lE–224E, cited above on page 193.
Page 197 while from our writings every one would become fairer than before, notwithstanding the fact that he were wholly lacking natural talents. . . . . . . And yet you are so wretched and lacking in sense that you think those treatises of yours divine, by means of which no one could ever become more wise or courageous, nor better than he was before; but the very writings, by means of which it is possible to gain additional courage, wisdom, and justice, all these you assign to Satan and to those who worship Satan. Asclepius cures our bodies; the Muses, together with Asclepius, Apollo and Hermes, the god of eloquence, educate our souls;91 Ares and Enyo aid us in that which concerns war; Hephaistus allots and bestows that which concerns the crafts, and Athene, the motherless virgin, presides over all these things together with Zeus. Contemplate then whether we are not in a better position than you as regards every one of these things; I refer to that which concerns the crafts, wisdom, and sagacity . . . (229C–235C.)92
As might be expected, the enslavement motif is present in Julian's work, although as we noted above, Eusebius had not paid attention to this motif. But in this matter (in contrast to other matters), Julian followed the beaten path, saying: However, to go back to the point at which I digressed, in asking "for what reason were you so ungrateful to our gods that you ran away from them to the Jews?" Was it because the gods bestowed the right to rule93 on Rome, allowing the Jews only a brief period of freedom and then making them forever foreign and enslaved? Consider Abraham: was he not foreign in an alien land? And Jacob: was he not a slave first to the Syrians, then to the Palestinians, and in his old age to the Egyptians? Does not Moses say that he led them forth from the house of 91
The emphasis laid by Julian (here, in 235B–C, as well as in 200A ff.) on the traditions concerning Asclepius, the messenger of god who came to heal mankind and who worked miracles, is most probably due to the fact that the pagans were prone to compare him with Jesus, to the disadvantage of the latter (cf. also BT 'Abodah Zarah, 55a). 92
Cf. 176A–C, 200A–H, and 193C–D. In Letter 42 (Hertlein ed.), Julian gave reasons for the prohibition of the teaching of pagan literature by Christian teachers other than the above noted arguments (229C–D) concerning these matters. See also Robert Browning's comprehensive discussion in the chapter on "Julian and the Christians" in The Emperor Julian (London, 1975), p. 150 ff.). As for the gifts of Athene, Aphrodite and Helios, cf. Oration IV, Ad helium, 150A–B. 93
=basileuein. Talmudic sources habitually designate the Roman Empire or rule as a "kingdom" (basileia=malchut), or as "the wicked kingdom."
Page 198 bondage out of Egypt "with an outstretched arm" [Exodus, 6:6]? And after their settlement in Palestine, did their fortunes not change more often than a chameleon changes its colour, as observers say, here subject to the judges [Judges, 2:16], there enslaved by alien races? And when kings began to rule them, (let us postpone for the time being the question of how they were ruled) . . . they did nonetheless at least inhabit their own country and cultivated it for just over three hundred years. They then were enslaved, first by the Assyrians, then by the Medes, thereafter by the Persians, and now, finally, by ourselves. Jesus, who was proclaimed in your midst, was also one of Caesar's subjects. If you doubt me, I will prove it to you in a little while; perhaps you will allow me to state it now. Indeed, you declare that he was registered along with his father and mother in the census of the time of Kyrenius [Luke, 2:2].94
In his letter to the Alexandrians in connection with their request to recall bishop Athanasius from exile, Julian utilized this motif cunningly, in order to influence with its help the Christians whose Hellenicpagan patriotic feelings had not vanished. He said: By the gods, I am filled with shame, O men of Alexandria, to think that even a single Alexandrian concedes that he be a Galilaean. The ancestors of the true Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians long ago but, nowadays, men of Alexandria, you who defeated the Egyptians (for your founding father was the conqueror of Egypt) willingly yield yourselves, in spite of your ancient traditions, to enslavement by men who have despised the doctrines of their forefathers.95 94
Contra Galilaeos, 209D–213A. Cf. also 218A–B. Cyril, in his Contra Iulianum, admitted Julian's claims concerning the enslavement of the Jews and the excellence of the pagans in the arts, the sciences, war and peace, but argued that this had nothing to do with the veracity of Christian (and Jewish) religion and worship. He did not believe that these things testified to support from heaven. Julian, however, believed that those who enjoy them hold the true religion, and that those who lack them are in the wrong. Cyril admitted that Greek had a pleasant sound, but noted that this too might be found in Hebrew. The Law of Moses, on the other hand, had, in Cyril's opinion, a religioeducational force which was absent from the writings of the pagan Greeks (Contra Iulianum, end of book 6; 7:218–224; = Patrologia Graeca, vol. 76: cols. 829, 833–841) 95
That is, by the Christians; Letter 51 (ed. Hertlein), 433B. Cf. Pesikta de Rav Kahana, p. 82a–b: "R. Judah ben R. Simon in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: . . . So since the nations of the world were taunting the people of Israel and saying to them that they were descendants of Egyptians, who ruled the lives of Israel and all the more so [ruled] their wives . . . "
Page 199
That Julian had no real intention of vexing and humiliating the Jews as well, in this letter, and in Contra Galilaeos since he did not regard them as a party to the polemic (as I tried to show in the first chapter) can be learned from Julian's explicit words in another connection, from which a conclusion emerges that is valid for our subject. In his long "Letter to a Priest" Julian dealt with various arguments against polytheistic worship. One of them was why the gods did not strike down those who desecrated their statues and temples.96 Julian dismissed this query, saying: Therefore let no one deceive us with his sayings or shake our faith in providence. For, with regard to men who make such profanation an argument against us, the prophets of the Jews, what will they say about their own temple, which has been overthrown for a third time, and has still not been rebuilt once again?
But Julian immediately apologized for his possibly offensive words and explained the reason for them: This I said not in order to reprove them, for I myself, after such a lapse of time, have considered rebuilding it, in honour of the god by whose name it is called. In the present instance, I have used this case because I wish to show that nothing which is of human manufacture can be incorruptible, and that the seers who wrote such things were saying silly things, as a result of their gossiping with foolish old women. (259C–D.)
Julian further ascribed the errors of Jewish prophets to the fact that "they have not made submission of their souls to purification by encyclical studies." And added: "But, concerning this, it will be preferable to demonstrate separately that these proponents of tales about the gods are greatly inferior to our bards." (296B.) Julian's treatise dealing in great detail with these matters is, of course, the Contra Galilaeos. Study of the origins and development of our motifs has revealed how the parties manoeuvred them and how, although their essential form did not change (except for current additions), they were now addressed by the pagans to a new address: Christianity. Let us now consider to what extent we can apply the results of our study to the relevant Talmudic sources.
96
Fragmentum Epistulae, 294–295.
Page 200
The Hellenistic Jews, who were imbued with Greek culture and familiar only in part (and that, at one remove) with Jewish literature, were very much disturbed by pagan arguments on this subject. Josephus, who was more learned in the Jewish sources and less so in the Greek ones, was not as troubled by these arguments. Considering relative familiarity or unfamiliarity with Jewish or Greek sources, it is only reasonable to assume that the Sages would have been less disturbed than Josephus or Philo by this motif when it was aimed directly at the Jews, and even less by it when it became a pagan tool to attack the Christians. The Biblical injunction, "Observe therefore and do them [the statutes and the ordinances]; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people'" (Deuteronomy, 4:6), aptly expresses the attitude of the Sages and, to a certain extent, even the view of Josephus. His statement at the end of the Antiquitates (20:264) seems to reflect the attitude of the Sages to foreign languages and, concomitantly, to foreign literatures. Josephus seems to have apologized for his poor style, and to have explained the obstacles which prevented him from studying the Greek language and literature: "For among us they who study thoroughly the languages of many nations are not approved, since it is thought that this occupation is open not only to any free man but also to slaves who wish it; only those are credited with wisdom who clearly understand the traditional laws [nomima — halachot], and are capable of expounding the meaning of the holy scriptures." About one hundred and fifty years after Josephus, in response to Celsus, who had presented a Jew disputing with the Christians while quoting verses from the Bacchae of Euripides, Origen expressed doubt as to whether Jews (probably including those of the Diaspora) devote their time to reading classical literature, although he was prepared to concede for the sake of argument that some Jew or other might do this.97 On the other hand it is clear from Tertullian's comments that it was considered vital for the Christians to study pagan literature as a foundation for their general education.98 A question arises in this context: how are we to understand all the Talmudic sources which refer to hochmath * yevanith? In two works of 97
See Origen, Contra Celsum, 2:34; cf. G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History, II, 272–274 (Hebrew).
98
De idololatria, 10.
Page 201 99
great erudition, Professor Saul Lieberman collected, compared, and analyzed Talmudic and Midrashic texts attesting to Greek influence on Eretz Israel. But, unfortunately, Lieberman revealed a strong inclination to exaggerate the results of his investigations. He commented: "There were a thousand young men in my father's house, five hundred of whom studied the Law, while the other five hundred studied Greek wisdom," said Rabban Simeon (the son of Rabban Gamaliel the Patriarch). This is firsthand evidence that an academy of Greek wisdom existed in Jewish Palestine under the auspices of the Patriarch. It was established in the beginning of the second century for the purpose of facilitating the relations between the House of the Patriarch and the Roman government. The Rabbinic sources have not provided us with a clear statement of what they called 'Greek Wisdom.' Did it include all the Hellenistic sciences and arts of that time or only the superficial oriental knowledge of certain branches of Greek literature which were prerequisite to acceptance into Roman highofficial society? Although we are unable to answer this question we can assert that the very existence of an officially recognized "Academy of Greek Wisdom" in Jewish Palestine is of great importance. The members and teachers of the academy were in a position to make valuable information from Greek sources available to the Rabbis. Good literary style was probably one of the main subjects studied in this academy, and we can expect that certain Rabbis were well equipped to speak and write literary Greek. It seems that the foundation of this academy marked a turning point in Jewish literary history. The Jewish leaders felt that not only is "Greek wisdom" indispensable for proper relations with the Roman government but that Greek philosophy is a useful instrument in religious discussions, especially with the Gentile Christians who became more and more influential. Yet it is obvious that Greek philosophy was the appanage of only very few outstanding Rabbis . . .100
And on page sixtysix, Lieberman added: "The Rabbis of Palestine were familiar with the fashionable style of the civilized world of that time. Many of them were highly educated in Greek literature as has been proved above." In his review of this book, Gedaliahu Alon strongly criticized Lieberman's theory, and offered a diametrically opposed one, positing a 99
Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950).
100
Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 1.
Page 202 101
minimum of Greek literary knowledge and influence in Eretz Israel. In a later article, Lieberman seems to have altered his former statements considerably, thereby coming close to Alon's position.102 But it still seems to me that the central point has not been clarified sufficiently, and that it is worth looking into the matter again. In the English version of his books, Lieberman disregarded the constructstate form hochmath * and invariably translated the whole expression by "Greek wisdom," paying no attention to this unusual form. In the Hebrew translation of his books, checked by Lieberman himself, hochmah, the nominative form, even replaced the enigmatic hochmath. This change matches the interpretation. Lieberman attached to this expression. It is curious that Lieberman, a master of manuscript versions, did not wonder about this extraordinary form. For there is no doubt that the true version is hochmath. Apart from the fact that it has been preserved in manuscripts, it is also to be found in the printed editions of the Talmud, even when it appears in shortened form (hochm.) in the manuscripts. It is clear that the version hochmath, though the lectio difficilior, was left intact by the copyists because they considered it to be equivalent to hochmah.103 The Rabbis of the Middle Ages were not confronted by the problem of whether to study the Greek language, but rather of whether to study profane subjects. That is why they always interpreted hochmath yevanith as hochmah yevanith, that is, Greek philosophy and sciences. Lieberman accepts this interpretation, as well as their unfounded distinction between teaching one's son and studying oneself; the former, in their view, was prohibited, while the latter was permissable.104 But, if we examine the sources, we realize that there was no distinction made at all between hochmath yevanith and the Greek language (lashon 101
Kiryath Sepher, (1943), p. 76 ff.; = Studies in Jewish History, II, 248 ff. (Hebrew).
102
"How much Greek in Jewish Palestine?" in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Mass., 1963); cf. Baer's comments in Molad, XXI (1963), p. 322, note 28 (Hebrew). 103
Cf. Lieberman, Hellenism . . . , p. 100 ff.
104
See Lieberman, ibid. In his article, "Concerning the Ban on Greek Wisdom" in Tarbiz, XLI (1972), pp. 269–274 (Hebrew), E.E. Hallewy adheres to Lieberman's theory, drawing attention to the different attitudes on this question characteristic of the Sages of Babylon and those of Eretz Israel.
Page 203
yevanith). The clear point of departure was in the Mishnah, in Sotah (9:14), in which it was decreed ''that no man should teach his son Greek," that is, the Greek language. The baraita in BT Sotah (49b), which ostensibly explained the circumstances in which this injunction was issued, ended up by stating: "cursed be the man who will teach his son hochmath * yevanith." The Gemara also raised an objection, on the basis of the saying of Rabbi (= R. Yehuda the Patriarch): "Why speak the Syrian language in Eretz Israel? Nay, either [speak] the holy language or the Greek language (lashon)." This indicates that it understood hochmath yevanith as equivalent to lashon yevanith but, in order to extract itself from the contradiction between the Mishnah and the saying of R. Yehuda the Patriarch (who approved the use of Greek), the Gemara tended to distinguish between the two statements.105 The objection raised afterwards concerning hochmath yevanith itself was based on a tradition in the name of Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel, according to which five hundred children had studied hochmath yevanith in Yavneh. It is difficult to believe that these children studied Greek literature and philosophy, rather than the foreign language itself. The adherents of the interpretation hochmath yevanith = Greek philosophy found support for their theory in the question posed by Ben Dama to R. Ishmael: "Is a man like myself who has studied the whole Torah permitted to study hochmath yevanith?"106 R. Ishmael's response was that since there is an injunction to study the Torah day and night, studying Greek was permissable only if the questioner found a time that was neither day nor night. But the question was similar to the case in which R. Joshua was asked: "Is a man permitted to teach his son Greek?"107 That is, the Greek language was meant, as would be appropriate for a youth; the response of R. Joshua was identical to that of 105
The Munich manuscript of the BT presents an interesting version: "The Greek language [lashon] apart, and the language [lashon] of hochmath yevanith apart."
106
BT Menahot, 99b.
107
JT Pe'ah, 1,1:15c. The same version also appears in the parallel paragraph in JT Sotah. It is possible that this version was influenced by the language of the Mishnah in Sotah, but even the version of the Tosefta ('A bodah Zarah, 1:20) which seems to be authentic, "a Greek book," is closer in its meaning to "Greek language" than to "Greek philosophy." As for the version of Midrash Tehillim (1:17, ed. S, Buber [Vilna, 1981], p. 16): "Is a man permitted to teach his son hochmath yevanith?" Lieberman (Helle
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 204
R. Ishmael. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that even an adult like Ben Dama, who had devoted much study to the Bible, was necessarily asking permission to study Greek philosophy. It is entirely possible that he wished to acquire a good elementary knowledge of the Greek tongue, some words of which he might have known only from hearing them spoken. That the Sages of Eretz Israel did not always know simple words in Greek can be seen from what R. Hanin * related in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: "I went round to all the language masters to learn the meaning of 'diethemon,' but no one told me anything."108 Similarly, R. Huna and R. Shemi did not know "till what number konta is used".109 This being the case, it seems to me that hochmath* yevanith was not identical with hochmah yevanith, but was an abbreviated expression of "hochmah of the Greek language" (lashon). This, then, is what I suggest was the meaning of the unusual grammatical form, hochmath. The meaning of hochmah here is not wisdom but rather discipline, art (the Greek technê). ''Hochmath yevanith" therefore signifies "the art of the Greek language." The prohibition to study the Greek language was, most probably, issued as a token of solidarity with the Greekspeaking Jews of the Diaspora, who had suffered a devastating blow in the rebellions under Trajan.110 But the prohibition was a symbolic one and of short duration, just as had been the decree "that a bride should not be carried in a litter within the town," concerning which it was explicitly stated that "our Rabbis" thereafter permitted the renewal of this custom.111 If this interpretation of hochmath yevanith as referring solely to the Greek language be accepted, all the theories based on the "philosophic" inter (footnote continued from previous page) nism . . . , p. 101, n. 12) has pointed out its contamination and lack of authority. 108
JT Baba Bathra, 8,9: 16c. (The meaning is "I have left in my will.")
109
JT Baba Bathra, 10,1:17c. (Konta is the suffix used for numbers from thirty to ninety.)
110
See my article: "The War of Kitos: Towards the Clarification of a PhilologicalHistorical Problem," in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. XXIII, (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 79–84. A different opinion as to the time of the imposition of the ban, along with a surprising (and, in my opinion, farfetched) interpretation of the Babylonian baraita in Sotah is offered by E. Wiesenberg, Related Prohibitions: Swine Breeding and the Study of Greek," in HUCA, XXVII (1956), pp. 213–233. 111
Mishnah, Sotah, 9:14.
Page 205
pretation fall, as well as all the attempts to find support for it in various utterances of the Sages ostensibly echoing Greek literature or philosophy. The attitude of the Sages towards the enslavement motif was completely different from their position on the culture motif.112 In the case of enslavement, there was no room for indifference; even if this motif had not been employed as a tool by the pagans and Christians, the Sages could not have disregarded it. They had to report to the people about grave events which touched on the life of the nation.113 The prophets of Israel had attributed the misfortunes that afflicted the people of Israel to the sins committed between man and man, and between man and God. But this general explanation was seen as being trite by the Sages, and they therefore endeavoured to improve it by bringing forward some other and rather peculiar reasons to explain the destruction of the Temple. R. Yohanan * said, for example, that the "destruction of Jerusalem came through [a trivial dispute of] a Kamza* and [his opponent] a Bar Kamza; the destruction of Tur Malka [the mountain of the king] came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. . . . " And, a little further on, in an even more paradoxical expression, "R. Yohanan* said: through the scrupulousness [literally, "the humility"] of R. Zechariah b. Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.''114 The explanation of R. Yosé ben Halafta* also has a curious (and anachronistic) character: " . . . And why was it [the town of Bethar] laid waste? Because it kindled candles after the destruction of the Temple. . . . "115 One Midrash presented the problem of the enslavement of Israel by foreign kingdoms in a dramatic manner; in it, Abraham the patriarch had misgivings on this subject, since he was required to determine by his decision the fate of his descendants — hell or enslavement.116 The 112
See N.R.M. de Lange's general survey, "Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire" in Imperialism in the Ancient World. ed. P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker (Cambridge, Eng., 1978), pp. 251–281 and 354–357. 113
MR Lamentations, Proem. 24.
114
BT Gittin, 55b–56a, translated by M. Simon (London, 1963).
115
JT Taaniyot, chap. 4, 69a.
116
Pesikta de Rav Kahana, 42b–43a,b ed. S. Buber (Lvov, 1868); = ed. B. Mandelbaum (New York, 1962), I, 80–81; cf. 151a (in Buber's edition).
(footnote continued on next page)
Page 206
conclusion that emerges from the story is that enslavement was seen as the lesser evil. In the Talmudic sources, there are other, multiform answers treating the whole problem of the domination of the Romans and the enslavement of the Jews. Among their themes are the following: 1. Sin. For example, Tanhuma, Vaëre 17: R. Yehuda Halevi bar Shalom said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Lord of the World, why is this nation enslaved? There are seventy nations in the world and they are not enslaved but this nation only. Then the sin is known ( = informing, false accusation], as it is written: "Then the matter is known" [Exodus, 2:14], that you are not enslaved for nothing.117
2. The situation, although bad, nonetheless had some redeeming features: (footnote continued from previous page) "Simeon bar Abba in the name of R. Yohanan * . . . The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him [Abraham] . . . and the Temple will be destroyed and the sacrifices cease: which do you prefer, that your children will be oppressed in hell [Gehinom] or by the kingdoms? . . . R. Berechia in the name of R. Levi: all this day Abraham sat and pondered in his heart, saying: which shall we choose, hell or the kingdoms? The one is harder than the other. [Or, "this is hard and this is hard."] The Holy One, Blessed be He, said unto him: Abraham! till when will you sit and wonder in your heart? Stop this softness [=the Greek word malakia in Hebrew transliteration] in your heart. This is that which is written: 'On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying' [Genesis, 15:18]. What does it mean saying? R. Hinena bar Papa said: Abraham chose the kingdoms for himself. We have arrived at a controversy. R. Yudan and R. Idi, R. Hama* bar Hanina* and one elder said in the name of Rabbi [=R. Yehuda the Patriarch]: The Holy One, Blessed be He, chose the kingdoms for him. . . . " The controversy over Abraham's position indicates that the Sages of the second and third centuries C.E. held different positions on the matter of the enslavement; in addition, the very fact of the ascription of this decision to Abraham suggests that the Sages sought to cast off their burden of having to explain the bitter facts. 117
Ed. by S. Buber (New York, 1946), II, 32.) MR Song of Songs, 8:9 translated by M. Simon (London, 1939): "R. Zeira . . . heard R. Shila sitting and expounding: If she is a wall' [Song of Songs, 8:9]: had the Israelites gone up from Babylon like a wall, the Temple would not have been destroyed a second time." And cf. the words of R. Yohanan ben Torata in Tosefta Menahot, 13:22: " . . . Why were they exiled? [Following the destruction of the Second Temple.] Because they are fond of money and hate each other."
Page 207 R. Oshaya said: what is the meaning of the verse "Even the righteous acts of His Ruler in Israel?" [Judges, 5:11] The Holy One, Blessed be He, displayed righteousness [mercy] towards Israel by dispersing them among the nations. And Rabbi Eleazar said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not exile Israel among the nations if not so that converts might join them. [BT Pesahim, 87b.]
3. The situation is temporary; it is now the Romans' lucky hour. Josephus explained his having surrendered to the Romans instead of committing suicide on this basis: Since it pleases thee. . . . who didst create the Jewish nation, to break thy work, since fortune [tychê] has wholly passed to the Romans, . . . I willingly surrender to the Romans and consent to live; but I take thee to witness that I go, not as a traitor, but as thy minister.118
Midrash Rabba, Deuteronomy, relates: What is the meaning of "Turn you northward" [Zafonah] (Deuteronomy, 2:3)? R. Hiyya * interpreted: Moses said to Israel: If you see that he [Esau = Rome] seeks to make war on you, then do not stand up to him but hide [hazpinu] yourselves from him, until his day has passed. . . .119
4. Hopes for the downfall of Rome, and promises for the future. Our sources abound in these. Here are a few examples. Rome is designed to fall into the hand of Persia.120 R. Menahma* (others state, R. Tanhuma in the name of R. Yehoshua b. Levi) said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, will make the peoples of the world drink a cup of bitterness from the place whence this [river] issues. . . . "And the fourth river is Perath [Euphrates]": that is Edom . . . Perath also denoting that I [God] will ultimately consign it to oblivion [hafer]; [finally it is called] Perath on account of its ultimate destiny, as it is written, "I have trodden the winepress [Purah] alone . . . " [Midrash Rabba, Genesis, 16: 4,]121 118
De bello Iudaico, 3:353–355. as translated by H. St. J. Thackeray (London, 1927).
119
MR Deuteronomy, 1:19, transl. J. Rabbinowitz (London, 1939). Cf. MR Genesis, 44:18.
120
BT Yoma lOa. This saying is attributed to various Sages. This translation is by L. Jung.
121
Ed. Theodor — Albeck, I, 148. See Isaiah, 63:3. The passage begins with a reference to Edom = Rome. Compare the fantasy of R. Hanina* bar Papa or R. Simlai in BT 'Abodah Zarah, 2a–b.
Page 208
Finally, three citations from R. Yohanan *: "And heareth the voice of adjuration" [Leviticus, 5:1] . . . R. Yohanan said: They [God and Israel] gave reciprocal promises: He, that He would not disown them, they, that they would not disown Him. [Midrash Rabba, Leviticus, 6:5];122 "And He [God] will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers" [Deuteronomy, 30:5] . . . For R. Helbo* or R. Simeon bar Abba said, in the name of R. Yohanan . . . "more . . . than your fathers", your fathers, although they were delivered, were enslaved again, but you, when you are redeemed, you will not be enslaved again. Why? ''Ask now, and see, can a man bear a child?" [Jeremiah, 30:6] Just as a male cannot bear a child, so you, when you are redeemed you are not enslaved again. . . . [JT Sheviit, chap. 6, 36b]; . . . R. Yohanan interpreted the verses as referring to Sodom and Israel. . . . "Then was I in his eyes as one that found peace" [Song of Songs, 8:10] Why so? Because all the other nations [of the world] taunted Israel saying to them: If that is so, why did God expel you from his land, and why did he lay waste His sanctuary? Israel thereupon answered: We are like a king's daughter who went to celebrate the first festival after her marriage in her father's house; in the end she will certainly return to her own house in peace. . . . [Midrash Rabba, Songs of Songs, 8:8–9]123
The last saying is an attempt to evade the question rather than to answer it, but we must remember that it was difficult to find satisfactory replies for this vexatious question, and that the conventional attempts of theodicy were unable to hearten the people — in contrast to the descriptions which painted pictures of a glorious and joyful future.124 122
Translated by J. Israelstam.
123
Cf. also MR Song of Songs, 1:5 end; ibid., to chap. 1:7; MR Esther, 1:13; Mechilta d' Rabbi Ismael, Tractate Shirata, chap. 10, ed. H.S. Horovitz and I.A. Rabin p. 150; for an English version, see that of J.Z. Lauterbach, II, 80. 124
Cf. for these matters E.E. Urbach, in The Hebrew Encyclopedia, s.v. Apologetics (Hebrew).
Page 209
Summary and Conclusions At the outset of this work, we considered biographical sketches of the pagans and Christians who played the most important and active parts in the polemic. We attempted to reveal their characters by studying their attitudes towards sacrifices and daemons. We then turned to a genera] analysis of the place of the Jews in the polemic. Scholarly literature dealing with the polemic presents the opinion that the Jews participated in the polemic during the period from the BarCochba revolt to the time of the emperor Julian and even afterwards no less than they did during the Hellenistic period and the first hundred years of Christianity. Some scholars suggest that the Jews were fighting the Church for the souls of the pagans; others argue that there existed a paganJewish alliance to fight Christianity, the common foe. Still other scholars admit the existence of a ChristianJewish polemic, but emphasize that, while the Christians and Jews fought one another, both were waging a fierce battle against idolatry. Reading the sources themselves, however, I drew the conclusion that such explanations are not compatible with the literal meaning of the pagan writings and that even the character of the Christian treatises "Adversus Iudaeos" does not necessarily testify to the existence of a ChristianJewish polemic. The pagans contributed a realistic character to the literary polemic by turning it into a part of their political and police activity directed towards the liquidation of Christian cells or defence against them. One must deal, therefore, with the pagan point of view in the period before the rise of Christianity as well as in that after it, showing pagan motives and what changed in the pagan attitude towards the Jews. There is no
Page 210
reason to suppose that the pagans were "born" antiSemites, though Jewish monotheism seemed weird to polytheists, and the Jews' contempt for idolatry and idolaters might have awakened feelings of resentment and hatred. But if one looks into the relations of the Jews of Eretz Israel and of the Diaspora with pagan neighbours and governments, there appears a parallel between the politicosocial sphere and the spiritual. The generally positive attitude concerning Jews that dominated pagan thinking of the third century B.C.E. yielded its place to a negative, hostile one. The change was produced by several causes: the emergence and actions of the Hasmonean kingdom; the struggle of the Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt for civil rights; and, not least, the intensive propaganda campaign waged by He]lenistic Jewry against the polytheistic religions. This last, with the help of the spiritual atmosphere that existed in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, must have brought about the conversion to Judaism of pagans in such numbers as to worry the adherents of polytheism, and became a constant factor in attracting their animosity. Pagans such as Tacitus saw in conversion to Judaism the cause of the corruption of virtues and the decline of morals in the Empire. Furthermore, Jewish rebelliousness in Eretz Israel and the Diaspora (the great revolt of 66 C.E., the rebellions of Trajan's and Hadrian's reigns) constituted a danger to the security and integrity of the Empire. If all the abovementioned factors created the paganJewish polemic, one might expect its decline or even cessation with their disappearance. And, indeed, from the middle of the second century C.E. there is a recognizable change in paganJewish relations. This may be ascribed to the spread of a spirit of moderation and acquiescence among the Jews as regards their subjugation by the Romans, and also to an apparent subsidence of the conversion wave, due most probably to the physical destruction of Hellenistic and Eretz Israel Jewry. But Judaism produced a replacement that came forth to conquer the pagan world. From the middle of the second century C.E., the activity of the Christian "mission" was intensified. This phenomenon, and the social separatism of the Christians which was expressed in their avoidance of military and civil service, was viewed with increasing alarm by the authorities. The pagan polemical literature against the Christians testifies that the threat to the Roman state played a major part in its creation; factors similar to those that elicited the pagan polemic against the Jews produced a pagan polemic against the Christians. This theory
Page 211
about the transmutation of the paganJewish polemic into a paganChristian one receives further support from an argumentum e silentio. In the HellenisticRoman period, the pagans composed special polemical treatises against the Jews, and were answered by them, whereas from the second century C.E., no work of such a character is extant, nor is the title of such a work even mentioned in the sources. This gap is filled by pagan and Christian polemicalapologetic writings. It is difficult to explain this fact unless one assumes that it reflects the polemical reality. This analogy is somewhat weakened by the existence of the Christian writings "Adversus Iudaeos"; however, no Jewish work has been preserved which might have caused their composition or which reacted to them. If one examines the content of these writings against the Jews and their schematic construction, it becomes clear that their title is misleading and that they were not addressed to the Jews in particular but to pagans, sectarians, heretics, and even catechumens. The fact that the existence of the Jews and their keeping of the Law constituted an internal difficulty for the Church — because of their "objective" attraction for Christians and wouldbe Christians — does not prove that an actual ChristianJewish polemic existed. This impression is strengthened by the nature of the exchanges between the minim (heretics), sometimes obviously Christians, and the Jews in the Talmudic sources. The importance of the Jewish factor in the polemic was different for each side. The Christians sought by the help of the Bible to escape the accusation of revolutionary renovation; apart from ancient roots, the Bible offered them a text for building their theology and ethics as a counterweight to pagan doctrines. From Hellenistic Judaism, Christianity acquired the allegorical system of Biblical exposition and a whole body of apologetic arguments and proofs. The pagans, on the other hand, tried to sever this connection of the Christians and the Holy Scriptures by emphasizing the position of the Jews against the Christians. Each side could use all things relevant to Judaism without being handicapped by the counterargument that the Jews were partial to it, since the position of the Jews was thought to be one of hostile "neutrality" towards Christians and pagans alike. One must therefore understand that the praises and recriminations that pagans and Christians alike heaped upon the Jews and their doctrines were but their means of attacking an opponent. The pagans recognized that the basic teaching of the Christian religion originated in the Law of Moses (see Origen, Contra Celsum,
Page 212
5:33, 65), whereas the Christians were aware that the pagans intended to "prove Christianity to be untrue" by showing "its spuriousness by attacking its origin in Judaism" (ibid., 1:22). We then considered such topics as the recognition of God, revelation, and religious myth. We traced the development of the polemic around a central theological problem, religious myth, and examined the Jewish factor in it. It is worth noting that the polemic was not a theoretical dispute among theologians, but an attempt to defend the docrines and traditions upon which the missionary propaganda of each side was based. The success of their preaching depended upon their proving superiority and credibility. For a discussion to take place, there must be certain premises accepted by both sides. Among pagans and Christians (as well as among the Sages and Hellenistic Jews), it was taken for granted that recognition of God is inherent in every person, or that he arrives at it by contemplation of the workings of the universe. The heavenly bodies were even thought by the pagans to be divinities. There was also no difference of opinion as regards the existence of and necessity for a divine revelation. For the Christians this revelation was embodied in the Bible, whereas the pagan revelation was scattered in books of poetry, oracles, laws, and so on, the rituals being a question of custom and tradition. Although this material had its limitations, arising from the mythical frame of thought in which it was formed, both sides adhered to it as it was. They were nevertheless obliged to have recourse to a greater or lesser amount of allegorical exposition in order to demonstrate their opinions and beliefs. And even though each side denied the other the right to allegorize its own writings, the legitimacy of allegory for the solution of problems arising from the religious myth was accepted by all. (Arnobius was extraordinary in this respect, but then he did not pay any attention to the "Biblical myth" and the problems of its adaptation by the Church.) Josephus served the Christians as a model, especially in his attacks on pagan mythology and concerning the question of antiquity, while Philo put in their hands the tools for constructing their theology and for defending themselves against the attacks of pagans whose point of departure was Greek philosophy. We have examined a number of examples of positive and negative attitudes towards the "Biblical myth," which appeared indiscriminately in the polemical writings of the pagans. The pagans argued on scriptural
Page 213
grounds against the rejection of the injunctions (mitzvoth) by the Christians and praised the Jews for keeping them, and rejected — again on scriptural grounds — the special status with which the Christians endowed Jesus, making him the foundation of their belief. On the other hand, they belittled Biblical cosmogony, and complained bitterly of the degradation of God's image caused by the description of deeds such as that of Phinehas *. In all these cases, one must remember that the treatises were directed against the Christians, and that the use made of anything connected with Judaism was only a means and not an end in itself. A number of additional subjects, such as divine providence, daemons and the election of the Jews also required treatment. As regards the question of who is an impious man and what is impiety, there existed full agreement among Jews, pagans and Christians, as we have seen. They all emphasized that the most impious man is not he who denies the existence of God or the gods, but the Epicurean type who denies the existence of providence as concerns the world, nature, nations, and individuals. The aims of the polemic forced the adoption of an antiEpicurean, popular concept of providence, in spite of the fact that the polemicists themselves might have held a very different view of it. Examples of this are to be found in the Jewish (Philo), Christian (Origen), and pagan (Julian) camps. The work of providence is described as a spiritual relationship or intellectual contact between man and his creator (Julian); the value of the goods of this world is so belittled that it is of no importance whether the impious enjoy them, since they are valueless in the eyes of God and the righteous (Philo); it is explained that there is no graver punishment for the atheists than the fact that they do not know God (Origen). All these theories about providence are in contradiction to the conceptions expressed by the same men in their polemical treatises, and it is worth noting that Philo's and Julian's unusual statements appear in writings that were not intended directly for the polemic. In contrast to the general agreement on this principle, there was sharp disagreement between pagans and Christians about the powers implementing divine providence. The pagans were of the opinion that the daemons were the gods of the nations, and supervised and cared for those entrusted to them. The Christians, on the other hand, believed the daemons to be wicked powers of darkness, and exerted themselves
Page 214
to prove that the daemons were identical with the gods mentioned in pagan mythology. The Christians repeated time and again, as an irrefutable statement, the Psalmist's pronouncement that "all the gods of the nations are idols." "Idols" was translated by the Septuagint as "daemonic powers,'' and this authority set aside the distinction made by the pagans between good and evil daemons. The Jewish people's claim to be the elect can be seen as evidence of a special and particular care on the part of an allembracing providence; for this reason, it appeared in the discussion of providence. The pagan attitude on this question testifies clearly to the change that the polemic underwent. At first, when the pagans were involved in polemical exchange with the Jews, they unequivocally rejected this presumption. This stand altered when the Church, whose adherents now came mostly from pagan circles, began to dispute the election of Israel, saying that it was only temporary and that it had passed to the Church, the True Israel. Celsus dismissed the Jewish pretensions to election adopted by the Christians when he stated that the Jews did not differ in any respect from other nations maintaining the ancestral traditions delivered to them by their special god (Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:25). The emperor Julian even used the Bible in his attacks upon Christianity, citing Biblical verses to show that the Jews were indeed elected by their particular national god — just as other nations were. Such a god was entitled to order them "Thou shalt not worship other gods." If, on the other hand, the Jews and Christians insist that the god of the Bible is the supreme god and not merely a national one, then, retorted Julian, their false notions about his jealousy of the lesser gods and of their worship denigrate from his highness and are much inferior to the pagans' conception (see Contra Galilaeos, 99E ff.; 148B ff.). The polemical motifs of culture and enslavement derived directly from the general consensus about the existence of a divine providence in the world, as we noted above. There was a continuity in the usage of these motifs at least from the second century B.C.E. Just as the neoPlatonic polemicists of the Empire depended upon their pagan predecessors of the Hellenistic period, so did the Church Fathers make use of the apologists of Hellenistic Judaism. Only one thing changed: the object. In the Hellenistic period, the Jews served as a target for pagan missiles; now, the Christians occupied the place of the Jews. These motifs can be summarized in this way: the Jews were culturally
Page 215
inferior to the Hellenes; the Jews were subjugated to the Hellenes. Later, the latter motif was amplified to include the contemporary condition of the Jews and the persecutions that befell the Christians. The pagans argued that the Greeks and Romans were endowed by the gods with an extensive empire, and that the arts and sciences were developed by their talented men with divine help. And, they argued, since the benefits of the gods are bestowed in proportion to man's piety and correct worship, the selfevident conclusion is that the religion of the Jews (and of their Christian "heirs") is defective, whereas pagan worship is the true one. In treating the theme of enslavement, the Church Fathers arbitrarily divided Jewish history into two periods: before, and after, the coming of Jesus. This division was also necessary to them for internal theological reasons. As far as the culture motif was concerned, the Christians adopted the arguments developed in early Jewish Hellenistic circles and by Philo and Josephus, according to which the forefathers of the Jewish people were also the progenitors of the sciences, and in which there was po doubt as to the religious and ethical superiority of the Law of Moses to constitutions of the other nations. In some cases, the Christians even surpassed the Jews in their praise. The culture motif was connected in the polemic with a wider question: is the status of the Barbarians, who were according to a general consensus the inventors of culture, superior to that of their pupils, the Hellenes, who developed it and brought it to perfection? Since the Christians put themselves on the side of the Hebrew Barbarians as against the Hellenes, Julian was forced as a last resort to replace a racial antagonism with a religious one, with polytheism, both Barbarian and Hellenic, being opposed to JewishChristian monotheism. When reviewing the Talmudic sources, one realizes that the Sages saw no need to react to the culture motif; the Talmudic expression hochmath * yevanith ("Greek wisdom") does not signify Greek philosophy and literature but only the art of the Greek language. The motif of enslavement, however, was an internal problem that the Sages had to face whether or not "the nations were chastising Israel" about it. The Sages' reactions to this challenge had no systematic character; they did not emerge from an attempt to explain human history in general after contemplation, but were intended only to solve a religious difficulty
Page 216
in such a way as to satisfy the people and to instill in it a spirit of hope and encouragement. It has been impossible in a work of such limited size as this to enter into a detailed discussion of all the sources having any bearing on the polemic. Therefore, I have not exhausted all the Christian and Talmudic sources here, but have rather attempted to take account of and deal with all the sources that seemed to have possibly damaging implications for my thesis. On the surface there seems to have been a constant and unchanging repetition of motifs and arguments used by the parties to the polemic. But a deeper and more thorough analysis of the sources reveals the differences and alterations, sometimes subtle and virtually undetectable at first glance, to which these motifs and arguments were subject. My hypothesis about the objective and subjective "neutrality" of the position of the Jews emerges from and is confirmed by the connection between history, that is, political and social occurrences, and the literary polemic. It is only by taking into account what was happening in the spheres of reality, and in political and social relations between nations, that we can understand more accurately what was going on in the literary and cultural spheres of which our polemic was an important part. In the course of this study, we have tried to follow the development of the paganChristian intellectual polemic, its sources and its actual causes. We have also tried to ascertain the place occupied by the Jews and Judaism in its general framework. Like every generalization, my hypothesis will be tested on the basis of the accuracy of its component parts. To the extent that the various detailed interpretations suggested above for all of the sources creating a picture of the polemic are reasonable and convincing, to that extent my general thesis will stand or fall. There is also a negative test of my thesis, that is, the impossibility of explicating a large part of these sources, even if with difficulty, on the basis of another hypothesis. The religious and, to a certain extent, the intellectual background of the parties to the polemic provided the polemic with a common base. Nevertheless, the polemic might have degenerated into one of abuses and insults, of casting aspersions on and of concocting unfounded and malicious libels about one's opponents, were it not for the Jewish factor. The influence of the Jews was instrumental in raising the level of the polemic, and in intensifying the consideration of problems of essential
Page 217
importance as being worthy of historicaltheologicalphilosophical contemplation in their own right. It is true that, since we are dealing with a polemic, the parties to it were not very strict about pursuing truth for its own sake — as they repeatedly claimed — but endeavoured to derive the maximum benefit for their cause, as well as to frame arguments, from that which was considered and presented as the factual truth. Although we did not gain much, in this sense, we did profit immensely by the unique preservation of fragments of various works, JewishHellenistic and pagan, as the result of their use in the polemic. The way in which people of later antiquity viewed their past is an instructive lesson for us, a lesson to which we should pay attention, when we approach the task of summing up the inheritance of the ancient world, which has cast its stamp on Western society and culture to this very day.
Page 219
Index A Aaron 127 Rabbi Abba bar Kahana 55 Abba Saul 128n. Rabbi Abbahu 77 78 81 AbdalJabbar 72n. Abel 30 31 34 Abel, L. E. 62n. Abraham 34 48 60 63n. 70 84 120 131 132 172 197 205 206n. Academic, Academician 34 94 Acarnanians 123 Achaeans 100 Achilles 147 Adam 84 95 110 118 125 190 191 Adonai 86n. Aeacus 99 195 Aegae 196 Aelian 16 Aemilius Paulus 21 Aesculapius, Asclepius, Asculapius 39n. 100n. 123 146 196 197 and n. Africa, African 13n. 22 24 103 Agada, Ag(g)adahs, Agadists 105 116 Agesilaus 195 Agrippa 176 Agrippa 52 Agrippas 129 Rabbi Aha * 123 Rabbi Akiva 55 Alexander 196 Alexandria, Alexandrian(s), Alexandrian Judaism 57n. 80n. 136 156 174 175n. 186 198 Allard, P. 41n. Allegory allegorical, allegorically 81n. 90 97 104–13 191 allegorical explications, exposition(s) 96 109 110 112 113 212 allegorical interpretation(s) 15 26 68 69n. 71 91 93–5 104 107 110 117–19 125 163 194 allegorical meaning(s), senses 96 104 107 allegorical method 97 98 allegorical system 211 allegorization, allegorize 59n. 97 107–09 110n. 112 117 125n. 191n. 212 allegory, allegories, allegorists 90 91 95 96 104 105 107 108 110 111 114 125 212 Almog, S. (ed.) 69n. Aloadae, Aloeus 118 125 189n. 193 alogos pistis 75 Allon, G. 42 44n. 52n. 66n. 200n. 201 202 Alon, G.: see Allon, G. altar of Victory 182 Am Haaretz 56n. Ambrose 26 102 Ammonius 28 Amora 53n. 122 Amphilochus 123
Page 220
Amphion 99 Amram 56 Anacharsis 157 ancestors 21 80 81n. 113 114 198 ancestral custom(s), tradition(s) 15 20 28 73 76 120 155 161 183 184 214 ancestral doctrines, faith 166 184 ancestral laws 58n. 191 ancestral legacy 73n. ancients 95 102 112 116 117 Andresen, K. 80n. angel(s), angeloi 70n. 86n. 109 122 124 126 127 131 134 149–51 154 158 161 165 and n. anger 98 127–29 130n. 138 165 animal worship 100 109 Antioch 156 Antiochus III 50 Antiochus IV 183 Antiope 99 antiquity 10n. 16 36n. 40 57n. 68 and n. 90–2 102 103 119 194 212 217 antiSemite(s), antiSemitism 43n. 57 82 175n. 210 antitheistic 20 Antoninus Pius 52 Antonius Iulianus 181 apaideusia 178 apathy, apatheia, apathês 126 128 Aphraates 45 Aphrodite 197n. Apion 57 168–71 174 Apollo 73 87 152 153 184 197 Apollonius Molon 57, 168–71 173 174 apologetics, apologists 9 11 12 19 31 38 39 41 47 73 93 97 116–18 129 135 137 151 172 178 183 211 214 apostasy, apostasize 24 28 60 72 74 76 Apostate, Julian the 32 Apostle(s) 37 61 63 153 Apuleius 150 Aquila 69n. Arabians 155 archangels 151 Archelaus 139 Archidamus 195 archiliporine 55n. archilochus 37 Arês 157 197 Aristeides 195 Aristides 13 38 67n. 97 100 129 Aristobulus 71 73n. 110n. Aristotle 37 116 Armenia 192 Arnobius 24 25 36 and n. 38 39n. 86 101–07 143–45 182 183 212 Artemis 154 Asclepius: see Aesculapius Asculapius: see Aesculapius Asia 15 174 askêsis 142 Assyrians 195 198 astrology, astrologer(s), astrological 131 132 148 155 astronomy, astronomers 155 186 195 Athanasius 198 atheism, atheistic, atheists 15 24 59n. 64n. 75 100 102 104 141 168 213 Athena, Athene 86 115 157 197 and n. Athenagoras 13 15 16 38 67n. 97 129 Athenians 170 Athens 35 156 atheotês 33 atoms 34 atopia 117 Attica 103 106 Attis 106 107 116 Auge 99 Augustine 10n. 25 26 30 and n. 38 67 71 92 145n. Augustus 25 Rabbi Avin 81 82 B Baalpeor 127 Babylon 195 202n. 206n. Babylonia, Babylonian(s) 56n. 63 78 Baer, I. 48 49 and n. 50 202n. Balaam 160 Balbus 21 35 84n. 94 145 BarCochba 40 52 56 63 and n. 64n.
Page 221
65 and n. 76 78 209 Bar Drossai 49n. Bar Kamza * 205 Bar Kappara 127n. barbarian(s), barbara, barbarous 14 15 26 28 59 73 and n. 76 103 111 112 158 169 170 183–90 192–96 215 Bardesanes (the Syrian) 155 Basil 49 basileia (= malchut), basileuein 197n. begrudge 128 Belos 195 bêma 54 and n. Ben Coziba 56 Ben Dama 64n. 203 204 Benoit, P. 63n. Rabbi Berechia 206n. Berenice 52 Bethar 205 Bible Bible 12 70 74 77 87 89–3 97 101 108 109 112–14 119 121 123 126 130 and n. 204 211 212 214 Biblical cosmogony 125 187 213 Biblical criticism 38 74 94 Biblical ethics 119 Biblical exposition 211 Biblical interpretation(s) 74 77 Biblical myth(s), mythos 89 97 101 108 110 and n. 111 118 119 125n. 212 Biblical narrative 68 Biblical parables 111 Biblical prophecies 94 Biblical story 110 Biblical studies 78 104 Biblical tales 193 Biblical text(s) 80n. 82 91 Biblical theology 119 Biblical tradition 151 Bickermann, E. 61n. Bidez. J. 27 28 bircat haminim 63 Bloch, H. 25 Blumenkranz, B. 45 46 65n. Bolshevik 19n. Braude, W.G. 42 Britain 192 Brodie, I. (ed.) 65n. Browning, R. 197n. Büchler, A. 65n. C Caecilius 20 22 140 144 180 181 Caesar 13 198 Caesar: see Julius Caesar. Cain 34 Caligula, Gaius Caligula 52 135 136 175 176 Camillus 22 Cannae 106 cannibalism 67n. Capitol 26 Carmel, Mount 34 catacombs 180 "Catholic" 91 Catullus 139 142 Celsus 14 16–9 27–9 38 40 58 and n. 59 67 70–2 75 76 80n. 81n. 82n. 86 et passim Celts 157 census 198 centurian 23 Ceres 104–06 Chadwick, H. 15n. 18n. 19n. Chaldaeans, Chaldeans 97 114 131 132 184 185n. 195 chance 20 159 162 Cheiron 195 Christ 39n. 100–02 121 143 156 182 Christians 9–3 16 et passim Christology, Christological interpretation 91 93 187 Chrysippus 37 94 95 Chrysostom: see John Chrysostom Church 10n. 48 49 59 63 68 et passim Church Father(s) 22 26 29 31 41 64 67 et passim Cicero 20 34–7 57 94 145 169n. 181 Cilicians 123 Cimon 195
Page 222
Cinna 21 circumcision, circumcise(d) 67 69 70 96 120 121 131 163 civilization(s) 27 103n. 111 169 171 172 184 185 194 Claudius 175n. Cleantês 95 100 169 Clearchus 56 Clement of Alexandria 12n. 13n. 68n. 71 100 103 111 125 140 150 151 178 179 186 Cochba: see BarCochba. Colson, F.H. 20n. 96n. 137 and n. 173 174 Commandment(s) 121 127 149n. 161 164–66 conflict 71 73 78 83 160 195 Constantine (the Great) 31 65 Constantius 24 146 156 conversion, converting, converts 48 52n. 65n. 66 78 92 93 210 Cornelius Labeo 150 Cornutus 15 95 Cos 196 Cosmos cosmogony 118 cosmology 91 cosmos 85 86n. 87 135 148 159 164 187 189 Cotta 20 21 26 35 94 144 145 council (= synhedrion) 61n. Creation, Creator creation, creatures 18 87 95 110 123 124 135 140 148n. 154 166n. 187 188 191 193 creator 86n. 98 101 111 126 135 141 151 157 159 161 162 164 213 Crete 195 Croesus 170 Culture culture 60 68 71 103 111 133 160 172 173 184 185 194 200 215 cultural barbarianism 184 culture motif 88 174 183 195 205 214 215 Cybele 106 116 Cynic(s) 37 72 95 Cyprian 23 48 Cyrene 50 Cyril (of Alexandria) 10n. 30 37 38 117 118 192 198n. D Daemon daemon(s), daimon(es) 11, 16–8, 28 29 60 64n. 70 73 82 98 133 134 147 149–56 158 165 178 209 213 214 daimonia, daemonic 16 150 151 153 214 deimainein 150 deisidaimonia 150n. 181n. Damascus 51 Danaë 99 Daniel 123 139 140 185 David 170 190 de Lange, N.R.M. 205n. de Vaux, R. 63n. decalogue 130n. deceiver(s) 64n. 162 170 173 192 Decius 49 53 Delphi 170 Demetrius 71 demiurge, dêmiourgos 145 152 157 159 162 164 Deucalion 108 189n. Diagoras 26 and n. 102 140 diaita 120 Diana 87 Diaspora 61 64 99 174–76 200 204 210 dikai 54 dikê 136 189 190 Dinai 56 Dio Cassius 43n. Diocletian 24 49 and n. 53 and n. 54n. Diodorus (of Sicily) 73n. 113n. Diogenes 26n. Dion 23 24 Dionysius 21 22 138
Page 223
Dionysius (of Halicarnassus) 113n. 153 Dionysus 58 98 109 155 divination 131 dogma, dogmata 58n. 73n. 179 Domitian 4 dôron 54n. double meaning 105 111 doxa 115 dualism 90 143 154 dynameis 176 E East, Eastern 51 72 73 158 185 194 "Ebionite" 63 edict 64n. Edom (= Rome) 54 207 and n. Egypt, Egyptian(s) 35 50–2 57 62 87 97 100 109 110 114 131 157 168 170–72 174 175 177 184 185n. 187 190 195 197 198 and n. 210 Eleazar 127 Rabbi Eleazar 207 Rabbi Eleazar beRabbi Shimeon 55n. election (of Israel) 43n. 64n. 79 133 134 149 160–63 165 167 169n. 213 214 Eleusis 106 Rabbi Eliezer 42 Elijah 33 34 elogium 54n. emperor cult, worship 15 23 49 53 54 92 Enslavement enslaved 169n. 170 180 197 198 206 208 enslavement 111 133 169n. 170 172 174 176 179 180 198 and n. 205 206 and n. enslavement motif 181 183 191 197 205 214 215 envy 17 127 Enyo 197 Ephesus 170 ephoros 136 Epictetus 64n. 123 Epicurean(s), Epicureanism 16 18n. 19 and n. 20 34 35 94 95 139 140 142 148 187 213 Epicurus 16 18 34 35 36 and n. 140 142 147n. Epidaurus 196 Eretz Israel (= The Land of Israel) 42 47 51 53 56n. 61 64n. 165 176 201–04 210 Eros 110 Esau (= Rome) 207 Essenes 59 96 ethics 27 96 111 155 189 211 Ethiopian(s) 155 159 ethnarch(s), ethnarchai 156–59 Etruscan 182 Euhemerus 102 140 Eunapius 29 185 Euphrates 176 207 Eupolemus 71 Euripides 58 200 Europa 98 Europe 15 174 eusebeia, eusebein 15 20n. 37 75n. 168n. 170 171n. 174 184 186 Eusebia 115 Eusebius 10n. 25–8 30 31 37 38 48 59 63n. 65n. 68n. 71–6 80n. et passim Eve 95 118 Exodus 172 173 Ezekiel 73n. Ezra 56n. F fables 59 94 95 100n. 125n. 160 famalia (= familia) 128n. Fascist 19n. fathers, forefathers 21 26n. 28 32 41n. 58 72 74 114 124 161 171n. 174 177 198 215 Feast of Tabernacles 136 fellow (= haver *) , fellowship 55n. Flaccus 136 137 169n. 175 Flavian 52 Flood 191
Page 224
Flusser, D. 134n. foods, prohibited 119 forefathers: see fathers. freedom from emotion, passion 124 126 128 129 Frend, W.H.C. 69n. Frey, J.B. 43 Fuks, A. 48n. 51n. 175n. fury 128 130 165 G Galerius 142 and n. Galilaean(s) ( = Glelaim =
) 33 63n. 64n. 121 122 185n. 198
Galilee 63n. 64n. Gallienus 23 Gallus 52 Rabban Gamaliel 129 201 garden of Eden 95 Garnsey, P.D.A. (ed.) 205n. Gaul 67n. 103 146 156 180n. Geffcken, J. 37 38 82n. 150 Geiger, A. 89n. genius 23 Gentiles 79 80 131 136 153 162 163 175 German(s) 103 157 158 gerousia 176 Getae 123 Gibbon, E. 57n. 180 and n. Gnostic(s) 65n. 71 76 90 91 125n. 126 154 goês, goêteia 59n. 76n. Gomorrah 189n. Gospels Gospel of John 91 98 Gospel(s) 43n. 47 91 151 Great Revolt 51 61 210 "great Sabbath": see Sabbath. Greece 87 156 160 Greek literature 75 201 203 205 215 "Greek Wisdom" 44 201 202 215. See also hochmath * yevanith. Greeks 14 15 51 52 57 73–5 84 89 96 97 99 101 103 109 110 112 125n. 141 160 168 179 184 185 187–90 194 198n. 215 Gregory Nazianzus 64n. griefless 100 Gutman, Y. 25n. 57n. 172 Gutmann, J. 134n. gzera shava 188 H Hadês 108 115 Hadrian 52 210 hairesis: see Heresy. Hak, M. 61n. Halacha halacha, halachot 63 164 200 halachic 42 Hallewy, E.E. 202n. Halpern, I. (ed.) 48n. Rabbi Hama* bar Hanina* 206n. Rabbi Hanin* 204 Hanina, Hanania* (= nephew of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania) 63 64n. Rabbi Hanina (the Prefect of the Priests) 51 Hanina (= Rabbi Hanina ben Theradion) 52n. Hannibal 26 Haran, M. (ed.) 134n. hardhearted 81 82 Harnack, A. 18 41n. 46–8 65 90n. 91 and n. Harrison, J. 106 Hasmonean kingdom 210 "Hebraism" 186 Hebrew 31 54n. 73 and n. 76 80 81n. 119 162 166n. 184–86 Hebrews 31 72–4 85 87 89 114 119 121 124 128 151 153 158 163 164 184 186–91 193–96 198 Hecataeus 56 hêdonê 35 heimarmenê 142 Heinemann, I. 57n. 68n. 84 90n. 96 and n. 132 174n. Rabbi Helbo* 55 56n. 208 Hêlios 115 146 160 196 197n
Page 225
Hellenes, Hellenism Hellene(s), Hellenic 33 85 95 99 100 109–11 115 118 131 152 157 161 163 170 179 184–86 193–96 198 215 Hellenism 38 49n. Hellenistic Jews, Jewry 9 12 72 74 89 90 92 93 95 133 134 149 171 172 186 200 210 212 215 217 Hellenistic Judaism 90 103 211 214 Hellenistic kings, kingdoms 50 51 Hellenistic period 10 155 168 186 209 210 214 HellenisticRoman period 92 93 168 211 Hellenistic sciences 201 Hellenistic writers 56 Hephaistus 197 Hêra 98 117 Heracles, Hercules 39n. 108 123 Heresy. See also minim, minuth. hairesis 64n. heresy 64n. 134 heretic(s) 46 62 63 65n. 68 69 71 72n. 125 126 211 Hermês 157 195 197 Herod, house of Herod 51 176 Herodes Atticus 142 Hesiod 88 94 108 110 115 Hezekiah 99 122 High Priest 61n. Rabbi Hilkia * 54 Rabbi Hinena* bar Papa 206n. 207n. Hippo 26 Hippocrates 193 Hipponax 37 Rabbi Hiyya* 55 207 Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba 53n. 127n. hochmath* yevanith 200 202–04 215. See also ''Greek Wisdom". Holy Ghost 98 Homer 60 68 88 89 94 97 115 118 125 150 Homeric myths 89 112 house of idolatry 77 houses of prayer 62 Hulen, A.B. 27n. 47 65 Rabbi Huna 204 Hyperiôn 115 I Iamblichus 29n. 30n. 86 87 109 145 146 152 194 Rabbi Idi 206n. Idolatry, Idols idolaters, idolatry 55 84 129 130n. 209 210 idol(s) 70 80 151 178 194 214 imitation 128 and n. 152 impiety, impious 18 24 33 36n. 94 97 108 120 129 140 141 152 153 155 165 213 incarnation 80n. incest 67n. India, Indians 185n. 192 Inge, W.R. 19n. injunction(s) (= mitzvoth) 60 62 67 70 81 and n. 82 88 97 99 119 131 145 151 161 200 203 213 innovation(s), innovators 14 115 119 Ionia 196 Isaac 60 131 Rabbi Ishmael 55 203 204 Isidorus 175n. Isocrates 171n. 193 Israel 49 50 55 56 69n. 73 75n. 79–1 87 122 128 132 135 136 153 160 162–66 175n. 177 183n. 186 189n. 198n. 205 Israelites 121 206–08 215 Italy 156 Iupiter (Optimus Maximus) 101 102 Iztagninuth* 132 J Jacob 60 131 164 197 James 192 jealousy 126–30 164–66 214 Jerome 145n. 183n. Jerusalem 34 57 61 131 136 141 169n. 174 176 183 191 192 205 Jesus
Page 226
Jesus(Christ) 13 23 25 29 32 37 46 59 61–7 70 75n. 76n. 79–2 93 98–01 108 109 114 120 141 and n. 143 145 151 159 160 162 163 167 177–79 181 185 188 192 197n. 198 215 Jesus (status of) 121–23 213 JewishChristians 58 61–4 72 and n. 76 "Jewish tax" 52 Jews 9 10 and n. 31 33 40 41 and n. et passim John Chrysostom 42 45 48 John the Evangelist 73 122 Jonah 123 166n. Jones, A.H.M. 25 178n. Joseph 172 Josephus (Flavius) 31 38 52 54n. 57n. 59 68n. 70–3 94 97 102 125 139 142 168–71 173 174 and n. 178 181 186 200 207 212 215 Rabbi Joshua 132 Rabbi Joshua (ben Hanania *) = Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania 203 204 Rabbi Joshua ben Levi = Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi 55n. 198n. 204 Judaea 53 58 64n. 65n. 121 136 161 162 164 181 182 Judaean desert 63n. JudaeoChristian 92 Judah 122 Ray Judah 132 Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Simon 198n. "Judaizers", "Judaizing" (Ioudaizein, Iudaizare) 42 and n. 46 68 and n. Julian 17 27 29–4 36–8 40 and n. 41 50 59 61 64n. 67 74–6 79–2 85–7 et passim JulioClaudian 52 Julius Caesar 51 52 196 Jupiter 39n. 104 Justin (Martyr) 13 and n. 14 38 43n. 47 48 50n. 62 63n. 66–8 76 80n. 92 et passim Juvenal 42n. 44 K Kabbalists 116 kainotomia, kainotomêsai 119 123 Kamza* 205 Kasher, A. 51n. 176n. Keim, T. 18 Ketia Bar Shalom 42 Kfar Nahum* (= Capernaum) 63 korban 54n. Kronos 98 118 154 Kyrenius 198 L Land of Israel 63 64n. lashon yevanith 202 203 Lauterbach, J.Z. 62n. Law (of Moses) 32 50 58 60 68–0 79–2 90 93 96 99 111 114 120 121 124 145 152 162 163 171 174 181 186 187 194 198n. 201 211 215 lawgiver(s) 64n. 80n. 85 88 95 97 157–59 164 171 Leda 98 Rabbi Levi 55 132 206n. Levy, I. 45n. Levy (Lewy), J.H. 36n. 57 and n. 61n. 75n. 114 150n. 159 160 165 169n. libel(s) 67n. 74n. 75 127 164 180 216 Liber 39n. Libya, Libyans 15 139 142 154 159 Licinius 142 Lieberman, S. 44n. 49n. 50 and n. 54n. 66n. 201–03 Lietzmann, H. 90n. Linus 110 litotrachêlos 82n. Lods, M. 58n. logos 17 61 71 80 and n. 82 93 97 115 122 134 149 163 187 Lucian 16 17 Lugdunum: see Lyons Lycurgus 88 171 195 Lydia, Lydians 50 184 Lyons (= Lugdunum) 67n. Lysimachus 57 170 171
Page 227
M Maccabean rising 51 Macedonians 170 Magi 185n. malakia 206n. Marcella 30 Marcellus 21 Marcion 90 91 152 Marcus Aurelius 14 58 Marius 21 Marrou, H.I. 179n. Mars 87 martyrdom, martyrs 13 41 66 71 180 and n. 181 Masek 131 Maximian 24 Maximilian 24 Maximus 24 mazal 132 Medes 198 Megasthenes 56 Melampus 101 Melanippe 99 Rabbi Menahma * 207 Mercury 39n. 87 Meroe 155 messiah, messianism 61 69 93 99 162 185 metuentes ("godfearers") 43 Middle Ages 202 Midrash(im) 15 54n. 79 and n. 84 116 132 205 Milik, J.T. 63n. 64n. Millar, F. 69n. minim, minuth 62–5 72n. 76–9 125 and n. 126 211. See also Heresy. Minos 99 95 Minucius Felix 19 20 140 144 180 "mission", missionaries 25 46 61 65n. 66 92 140 160 210 212 Mithras 146 152 mochtheros 27 Molon: see Apollonius Molon Momigliano, A. 25n. 31 179n. monotheism, monotheistic 60 89 91 93 103n. 165 166 195 210 215 Mopsus 123 Moses 17n. 27 33 34 58–0 68 73–5 79 80 82 85 95 96 101 108–12 114 118–22 124–27 130n. 131 145 155 157–60 162–64 166n. 170–74 177 186 187 190 191 and n. 194 195 197 206 207 Most High 86n. Musaeus 68 94 101 110 Muse(s) 115 197 Musurillo, H.A. 13n. 22 23n. 175n. mysteria, mysteries 16 56 103 104 106 107 112 123 147 150 152 195 mysticism 19 87 88 105 116 117 123 190 myth(s), mythos (mythoi), mythêdes 15 37 59 88–0 94–01 103 105–19 125n. 133 189n. 191n. 212 mythology 16 38 39 58 93–5 97–01 106 108 109 112 113n. 117 123 183 191n. 193 212 214 N Rabbi Nathan 130 nature 20 94 95 135 138 148n. 149n. 158 Nazarene 162 NeoPlatonism, NeoPlatonists 38 50 95 110 150 184 194 214 Nerva 52 Neumann, C.I. 120n. 121 Neumann, K.J. 12n. 13n. New Testament 69n. 74 88 89 91 93 185 190 Noah 108 Nock, A.D. 12 15 and n. 16 17n. 151n. nomima 119 164 200 North Africa 45 notarikon 123 nous 147 novelty 92 Numa (Pompilius) 21 101 182 Nymph 116 O Oannes 195
Page 228
Octavius 19 20 22 140 181 "Oedipean intercourses" 67n. oikoumenê 25 Old Comedy 37 Old Testament 24 48 Rabbi Onia 56 oracles 74 87 88 112 148 150 152 212 Oral Law 63 Oriental 16 Origen 13 14 17–9 25 38 43n. 58 67n. 69 and n. 70 72 75 80n. 86 et passim Orosius 26 Orpheus 68 94 101 108 110 123 Rabbi Oshaya 175n. 206 othneia (mythologêmata), othneioi mythoi 183 184 Ourania 155 P pagan(s) 9–3 19 et passim pain 98 Palestine, Palestinians 80 108 197 198 201 Pantera 62 Paradise 125 190 193 Parkes, J. 41n. 43–5 65 Parthia, Parthians 156 158 passion(s) 98 126 128 130n. Passover 120 121 patria, patrion 161 171n. 183 patriarch(s), Patriarchate 34 40 61 75n. 81n. 201 205 Paul 29 33 37 79 90 91 119–21 162 163 167 192 Pella 61 Pentateuch 31 137 166n. 193 Perath (= Euphrates) 207 Pergamum 196 Peripatetic 142 persecution(s) 41 49 and n. 53 54n. 63 64 69n. 141 142 144 151 177 and n. 180 and n. 182 215 Perseus 99 195 Persia, Persian(s) 50 55 154 157 158 170 185n. 192 198 Peter 120 192 Peterson, E. 19n. Petronius 20n. 135 136 175 176 pettyminded 128 Phaeton 189n. Phalaris 22 Pharaoh 163 Pharisaism, Pharisees 43n. 61 167 phêmê 115 Pherecydes 110 philantrôpia 79 Philo (of Alexandria) 20n. 70–3 80n. 81n. 84 85 94–7 110 and n. 113 124 125 132 135–39 141 142 150 166n. 171 173–78 186 187 194 200 212 213 215 Philo (of Byblus) 112 philoSemitism 41n. Phinehas * 127–29 213 Phocylides 193 Phoenician(s) 112 184 187 195 Phrygia 51 107 phylagmata 119 physis 135 189 piety 15 16 20n. 37 114 135 142 154 155 168–71 174 181 184 186 215 Pindar 100 Rabbi Pinehas* 54 Pines, S. 71n. 72n. Pionius 66 67 181 pistis, pistoi 13 75 plagiarism, plagiarists 73 185 188 190 193 194 Plato 11 18 27 36n. 37 60 72–4 80 89 90 97 109 110 113n. 118 119 124 and n. 145 150 151 153 155 179 188–95 Pliny (the Younger) 13n. 67n. Plotinus 27 and n. 28 polemic, polemos 9–1 17 18 20 25 et passim polemicist(s) 14 19 27 29 50 59 et passim Plutarch 72 113n. poliouchos, poliouchoi 156 157 politeia 70
Page 229
politeuma 51 politikoi 157 Polybius 181n. Polycarp 66 Polycrates 138 polytheism 25 29 32 86 89 92 et passim Pompey 51 169n. 170 Porphyry 10n. 16 17 27–0 38 40 50 59 and n. 60 67 71–6 82n. et passim Poseidonius 57 precepts 67 70 96 152 164 181 186 Priscus 146 Proclus 36n. proconsul 23 24 procurator(s) 51 181 promêteia 139 Pronoea, pronoia. pronoei, pronoein 115 135 136 139–42 145 prophecy 79 87 91 99 123 139 140 160 179n. prophet(s) 33 64n. 69 73–5 79 80 and n. 93 111 121 122 125 and n. 158 160 162 166n. 189n. 190 199 205 proselyte(s) 42–4 46 58 78n. proselytism 42–4 57n. 65 Protesilaus 108 providence 18 20–2 26 35 80 93 115 133–49 154 157–59 162 164 168 169n. 199 213 214 provinces 52 53 Ptolemy I 50 Ptolemy (Philadelphus) 93 126 Pyrrho 147n. Pythagoras, Pythagoreans 37 150 R Rabba Bar Bar Hana * 55n. 56n. Rabbi (= Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch) 55 and n. 130 and n. Rabbinowitz, J. (ed.) 65n. Rabbis 132 167 201 202 204 raging 128 Rav 132 rebellion(s), rebelliousness 33 56n. 63n. 169n. 173 204 210 recognition (of God) 84–7 133 146 185 212 Reinach, T. 169n. Rendall, G.H. 20n. 21n. Republic 35 res publica 26 Resh Lakish (= Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish) 54 56n. revelation 64n. 87 88 114 133 145 212 revolt 56 61 63–5 71 revolutionaries 14 28 40 211 Rhadamanthus 195 196 Rhea 98 riddle(s) 95 111 112 116 rite(s) 16 23 96 101 103 106 ritual(s) 87 88 91 100n. 102 103 106 111 152 161 164 196 212 Rochefort, G. 126 and n. Rokeah*, D. 62n. 69n. 173n. 204n. Roman Empire, kingdom 9 10 12 15 19 25 49 53 54 64 83 154 157 160 176 181 197n. 210 214 215 Roman period 155 168 210 Roman(s) 21 53 55 63n. 101 103 150 157 160 178–83 196 206 207 210 215 Rome 12 22 25 26 43 49 51 53–6 102 135 146 160 170 176 180 182 192 196 197 207 Romulus 21 Rutilius 22 S Sabaoth 86n. Sabbath "great Sabbath" 66 Sabbath(s) 45 60 63 67 96 156 164 174 178 sacrifice(s) 11, 15–7 24 28–4 59 60 111 121 131 145 150–54 163 196 206n. 209 Ray Safra 78 Sages 43 44 50 51 53 55 and n. 56n. 62 64 and n. 67n. 77–9 81n. 84–6 97 119 125 129 132 134 183n. 200 202n. 204–07 212 215
Page 230
Sallust, Sallustius 104n. 107 109 116 and n. 117 126 147–49 Samothrace 26n. Sanchuniathon 112 Sanhedrin 61 Sarapis 115 156 Satan 197 Saturninus 23 Sceptic(s), Scepticism 17 20 34 94 95 144 147 Scholem, G.G. 88 116 Scilli 13n. Scipiones 21 Scripture(s) 31 47 60 70n. 74 75n. 77 88 90–2 96 99 110–14 116 119 128 130n. 132 149 153 162 163 166n. 169n. 175n. 194 196 200 211 Scythia, Scythians 154 157 158 192 sebasmata 119 sect(s) 64n. 67n. 71 72n. 75 90 sedition, seditiousness 28 55 76 92 175 Seleucid 51 Semitic 179 Senate, senators 25 36n. Seneca 15 Senones 26 Septimius Severus 52n. Septuagint 69 93 99 125 128n. 151 164 214 servitude 169n. Severan 52 Rabbi Shemi 204 Rabbi Shila 206n. Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nahman 126 Shuthelah (the son of Ephraim) 56 Sicarii 139 Sicilian, Sicily 103 195 (Rabbi) Simeon bar Abba 206n. 208 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel (son of Rabban Gamaliel the Patriarch) 201 203 Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: see Resh Lakish Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai * 53 Rabbi Simlai 77n. 207n. Rabbi Simon 54 Simon, M. 40–5 48 49n. 77n. 82n. Sinai (Mount) 82n. Siracides (= Ben Sira) 71 Sirinelli. J. 113n. sklêrokardios 81 sklêrotrachêlos 81 Smyrna 66 Socrates 21 22 80 100 106 109 146 147 169 195 Sodom 189n. 208 Solomon 123 126 127n. 170 189 191 193 Solon 88 171 Sonne, I. 50n. sons of God, of the gods 89 159 161 sorcerer(s), sorcery 59 76n. 150 162 170 173 177 Spaniard 103 Spartans 170 Speratus 13n. 23 Spinoza, B. Di 130n. 148 and n. 149n. 166n. stasis 19 67 state(s) 13–6 19–5 27 28 30n. 32 51 103 110 146 182 191 210 Stein, E. 80n. Stern, M. 57n. 175n. Stern, S.M. 72n. stiffnecked 81 82 Stoa, Stoic(s) 15 21 35 84n. 93–5 100 104 126 145 187 stonenecked 82 Strabo 174n. subjection, subjugation 169 and n. 170 191 198 210 215 Sulla 106 supreme god 122 162 165 166 214 Supreme Good 138 symbols, symbolic interpretations 91 94 95 104 106 109 114 117 125 Symmachus 25 102 182 sympatheia 30n. symphonia 75 synagogues 61 69n.
Page 231
syncretism 12 155 165 Synoptic Gospels 66 Syracuse 21 Syria 47 135 145 156 175 195 SyrianGreek 51 Syrian(s) 52 155 157 158 169n. 192 197 203 systema patridos 19 T Tacitus 42n. 57 and n. 58 69 210 Rabbi Tanhuma 207 Tannaitic studies 78 tapeinos, tapeinotês 189 Tarentum 196 Rabbi Tarphon 76 Tatian 13n. 14 22 38 68 92 178 Taurians 154 Tcherikover, V.A. 51n. 175n. technê 204 Temple 40n. 43n. 46 50 and n. 54n. 60 61 99 136 141 174–76 183 and n. 191 199 205 206n. Ten Commandments 60 Tertullian 12 13n. 22–5 43n. 45 67 and n. 69 and n. 100 101 151 181 182 200 Thales 195 Theia 115 Themistius 147n. theodicy 208 Theodorus 193 Theognis 193 theologian(s), theology 38 60 64 73 74 91 96 100 112 124 149 163 167 186 191 195 211 212 Theophilus 92 Theophrastus 29n. 56 153 theosebeia 75n. Theseus 108 Thesmophoria 103 theurgy, theurgic 30n. 116 131 193 thihamath 89 Thrasymachus 109 thrêskeia 75n. "Thyestean feasts" 67n. Tiberius Julius Alexander 137 Tishbite 33 Titans 109 tolmê 192 Torah 34 44 57n. 67 68n. 81 89 95–7 111 119 121 125 126 129 136 163 174 203 Torquatus 35 Tower of Babel, Babylon 118 123–25 189 193 tradition(s) 12 16 20 26 28 35 38 40–2 49n. 53n. 55n. 59–1 76–8 88 93 102 109 124 135 149 151 160 171n. 172 184 185 and n. 197n. 198 203 212 Trajan 13n. 52 67n. 204 210 TransJordan 61 Triarius 35 Trojan War 106 Trojans 100 Trophonius 101 True Israel 69n. 92 102 160 212 Trypho 43n. 62 66 76 99 Tur Malka 205 tychê 135 207 tyrannia 81 Tyre 53n. U unleavened bread 120 121 unwritten laws 114 uprisings 55 Urbach, E.E. 15n. 44n. 49n. 54n. 55n. 56n. 81n. 97 134 and n. 160 172n. 208n. Usha 64n. V Valerian 23 Varro 24 Velleius 34 35 94 145 Vespasian 192 Victory (goddess of) 25 Virgin 98 122 164 virgin birth 99 100 197 Vogt, J. 45 voluptas 35
Page 232
W West, Western 72 145 217 Whitaker, G.H. 96n. Whittaker, C.R. (ed.) 205n. Whittaker, T. 151n. Wiesenberg, E. 204n. Williams, A.L. 45 65 Wirszubski, Ch. 26n. Worship worship 15 20n. 24 29 33 35 41n. 59n. 69 70 75n. 85 86n. 100 101 119 122 123 129 140 144 150 and n. 154 155 158 160 161 164–66 168n. 169 171n. 174 178 180 184 193 197–99 214 215 worshipper(s) 30n. 33 86 129 194 "worshippers of stars and constellations" 86 wrath 128 130 Wright, W.C. 115 written law 96 Y Yavneh (Jamnia) 63 64n. 136 175 203 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania * = Rabbi Joshua ben Hanania 42 63 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi = Rabbi Joshua ben Levi 64n. 207 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha 62 Yehuda the Ammonite 42 Rabbi Yehuda Halevi bar Shalom 206 Rabbi Yehuda ben Ilai 53 55n. Rabbi Yehuda ben Nakossa 77 Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch: see Rabbi Rabbi Yitzhak* 49 Rabbi Yohanan* 49n. 55n 81 205 206n. 208 Rabbi Yohanan ben Torata 206n. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai 51 Rabbi Yonathan 126 130 Rabbi Yosé ben Halafta* 205 Rabbi Yosé ben Hanina* 55 56n. Rabbi Yosé ben Kisma 52n. Rabbi Yudan 206n. Z Zamolxis 123 Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas 205 Rabbi Zeira 56n. 105 206n. Zeno 37 94 95 169 Zeus 98 99 115 117 118 151 155 156 161 195–97