Читать книгу Polemic in the Book of Hebrews - Lloyd Kim - Страница 5

Is the New Testament responsible for anti-Semitism? Do the New Testament writings give rise to belligerent behavior or hateful thoughts toward Jewish people? Ever since World War II and the Jewish Holocaust, New Testament scholars have been wrestling with these kinds of questions. Most studies, however, have focused on the gospel accounts, Acts, or the Pauline epistles. Very little has been written specifically on the epistle to the Hebrews. 1 The goal of this dissertation is to determine whether the epistle to the Hebrews is anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic or supersessionistic, and if so, to what extent.

The topic itself poses several challenges. First, there does not seem to be a universal definition of anti-Semitism, nor any real consensus in the validity of distinguishing it from anti-Judaism. Second, the polemic in Hebrews seems to be directed not to the Jewish people, but rather to fundamental Jewish institutions.2 Would then, an attack on the Jewish faith and ritual constitute anti-Semitism? Third, it is clear that the author of Hebrews3 sees both continuity and discontinuity between Christianity and Judaism. Though there are indeed strong words against the Levitical priesthood, Mosaic Covenant, and Levitical sacrifices,4 there are also words of praise for Jewish men and women in the history of Israel.5 Though the author speaks against the law,6 he frequently quotes Scripture to support his arguments.7 Though he seems to encourage his readers to separate from Judaism,8 he also promotes a faith that is deeply rooted in Jewish thought and history. How then are we to understand his polemic in light of Christianity’s birth from her Jewish roots? Is the author advocating supersessionism?

Defining Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism

Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Judaism

John Gager makes a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. He defines anti-Semitism as “hostile statements about Jews and Judaism on the part of Gentiles.” He defines “anti-Judaism” as a primarily religious and theological disagreement with Judaism. The real difference according to Gager is that anti-Semitism is uninformed hostility from those on the outside, while anti-Judaism is a more informed critique from those on the inside or at least familiar with the Jewish faith.9 This distinction implies that anti-Semitism is irrational, belligerent behavior, while anti-Judaism is thoughtful, non-aggressive dialogue.

Several scholars follow Gager in distinguishing anti-Judaism from anti-Semitism.10 Craig Evans defines anti-Judaism as opposition to Judaism as a religion, while anti-Semitism is opposition to the Jewish people.11 Scot McKnight also makes this distinction, but further describes anti-Semitism as “irrational, personal, racial prejudice against Jews because they are Jews,” and anti-Judaism as “the religious polemic exercised especially by early Christians who thought rejecting Jesus as Messiah was abandoning God’s covenant with Israel.”12 Though he uses the term “anti-Judaism,” he admits that it too may not be the most appropriate term in light of the fact that the earliest Christians saw themselves as true Jews or the true Israel. Therefore they were not against Judaism per se, but rather against non-Messianic Judaism.13 McKnight stresses that the real issue is not that Christians have disagreed with Jews over matters of religion, but how they have expressed their disagreements.14 James Dunn in an article entitled, “The Question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament,”15 also makes several clarifications regarding the term “anti-Semitism.” First he questions the appropriateness of the term in light of the fact that it emerged in the nineteenth century referring to hostility toward Jews based on racial or ethnic differences. Hostility toward Jews prior to the nineteenth century was based primarily on religious differences.16 It is this fact that has prompted the use of the term “anti-Judaism”. Dunn finds this term helpful in that it focuses the discussion on the Jewish religion, but argues that it too needs further clarification. First, it assumes that there is a uniform view of Judaism, universally agreed upon by all its constituents. Second, it assumes a prejudice against the religion from those on the outside. 17

Qualifying the Term “Anti-Judaism”

Dunn acknowledges Douglas Hare’s distinctions between three different kinds of “anti-Judaism”: 1) prophetic anti-Judaism, which describes internal critiques of Judaism by Jews; 2) Jewish-Christian anti-Judaism, which are criticisms of Judaism by Jews who believe Jesus is Messiah; and 3) Gentilizing anti-Judaism, which rejects Israel, emphasizing the Gentile character of Christianity.18 Yet Dunn does not believe these distinctions go far enough. The real problem comes from the fact that Judaism cannot be defined as a monolithic, uniform religious movement. He cites Jacob Neusner’s work, which argues for several varieties of Judaism.19 The lack of consensus on one, single, normative Judaism makes the term “anti-Judaism” somewhat question begging. Which “Judaism” is being attacked? Therefore in any discussion on this subject, these particular nuances of Judaism in the first century need to be considered.

Anti-Judaism as Anti-Semitism

Though there are several scholars who clearly distinguish anti-Judaism from 19th century anti-Semitism, there are others who continue to describe the New Testament as containing anti-Semitism. Samuel Sandmel admits that the term “anti-Semitism” is inappropriate in connection with the New Testament, in light of the fact that the term has 19th century roots. Yet he continues to use the term throughout his book.20 Though Rosemary Radford Reuther also admits a distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, she believes that the anti-Judaism implicit in Christian interpretations of Scripture find “social expression in anti-Semitism.”21 Gavin I. Langmuir also questions whether the efforts of scholars, who have tried to prove that Christian anti-Judaism was distinct and separate from pagan anti-Semitism were successful. He states that Christian scholars were not able to prove an empirical difference between Christian hostilities toward Jews and pagan hostilities. Thus he concludes, “Their historical investigations only demonstrated ever more clearly an undeniable connection between Christian hostility in the first century and the horrors of twentieth-century antisemitism.”22

Hatred and Hostility

Thus we must ask, is the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism merely a word game, not really getting to the heart of the issue? Is not the real concern hatred and hostility toward the Jewish people, regardless of the basis of the hatred (theological or racial)? What difference does it really make to a person who receives hate whether it is based on the fact that they look different or whether they believe different things?23 Therefore, if we adopt the term “anti-Judaism” to distinguish it from nineteenth-century anti-Semitism, we must acknowledge that its extreme forms can be just as morally base as current strands of anti-Semitism.

Douglas Hare’s distinctions of anti-Judaism seem to imply that internal critiques are somehow less damaging than external critiques. Yet in each of his categories, there are perhaps extreme forms of rhetoric that promote hatred toward the Jews or some segment of them. Even internal criticisms by fellow Jews vary in degree of harshness and influence. Though these critics may not be properly labeled as anti-Semites, they could be called traitors, who may be even more offensive to their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters.

As we turn our attention to the book of Hebrews, it clear that its polemic is not directly directed against the Jewish people (the term I)oudai/oj is not found in the epistle)24 but to fundamental Jewish institutions. The language against the Levitical priesthood (and law), the Mosaic covenant, and the sacrificial ritual is quite severe.25 Therefore as we work through the individual passages, we need to evaluate the extent to which the identity of the Jews was tied to these fundamental Jewish institutions and to what degree if any these passages promote hatred or antagonism toward Jews. This will help us evaluate whether the polemic against these religious symbols constitutes a belligerent form of anti-Judaism.

Defining Supersessionism

Traditionally, supersessionism implies a complete abandonment of Israel by God, with the church as Israel’s replacement. Franklin Littell identifies supersessionism as having two foci: “(1) God is finished with the Jews; (2) the ‘new Israel’ (the Christian church) takes the place of the Jewish people as the carrier of history.”26 After the Holocaust, there has been a strong denouncement of supersessionism in favor of a more open, accepting view of Judaism.27 Donald Bloesch writes that in the contemporary approach, “Israel has its own unique contribution to be a light to the nations; and the church is another light, but not one that surpasses or supersedes Israel.”28

When the discussion is framed in such a manner it seems that only two options are available. If one believes in the exclusive claims of Christianity, he or she is a supersessionist (= God has abandoned Israel; the Christian religion replaces Judaism). The only other option seems to be to embrace contemporary Judaism as an equally acceptable religion, doing away with the uniqueness and necessity of Jesus as Messiah. It seems that this dichotomy is too simplistic and rigid to do justice to the complex dynamics of Christianity’s emergence from Judaism.29

Therefore, as we examine various polemical passages in Hebrews we need to ask what specifically is being superseded? Is the text arguing for the replacement of the Jewish people, or simply Jewish practices and institutions? And if the passage does indicate the replacement of specific elements of Judaism, what takes their place? Are they completely new institutions, or things that are informed and foreshadowed by the old? There can be a supersession of Jewish practices and institutions that need not imply a complete abandonment by God of the Jewish people.

1 To illustrate the disparity between the amount of work done in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul versus Hebrews regarding the question of anti-Semitism, we simply need to examine a few major studies. Gregory Baum’s book, Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?, contains only two sections: 1) the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; and 2) the epistles of Saint Paul. There is nothing written on the book of Hebrews. Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? by Samuel Sandmel dedicates seven chapters to the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline writings. Only three pages are given to the epistle to the Hebrews. In Lillian Freudmann’s book, Antisemitism in the New Testament, only nine pages are given to Hebrews, while the rest of the book focuses primarily on Paul’s writings, the Gospels, and Acts. In the book Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, seven articles are dedicated to Jesus, Paul, the Gospels, and the deutero-Pauline writings, while only one deals with the book of Hebrews (and not exclusively).

2 William Lane identifies the following as polemical passages in Hebrews: 7:18-19; 8:7; 8:13; 9:8-10; 10:1-4; 10:9; “Polemic in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. C. Evans and D. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 166–98. These passages describe polemic against the Levitical priesthood, sacrificial ritual, Jewish law, Mosaic covenant, and temple.

3 Though it is unknown for certain whether the author was male or female, I will use male pronouns for convenience when referring to the author. Donald Hagner notes that Priscilla is a possible candidate for the authorship of Hebrews. See Donald Hagner, “Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Literature and Meaning of Scripture, ed. Morris A. Inch and C. Hassell Bullock (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 221.

4 Heb 7:11-19, 8:6-13, 10:1-10.

5 Heb 3:5; 7:1-10; 11:4-38.

6 Heb 7:18-19, 28; 10:1.

7 Heb 1:5-13; 2:6-8, 12-13; 3:7-11, 15; 4:3-7; 5:5-6; 7:17, 21; 8:8-12; 10:5-7, 16-17; 12:5-6; 13:6.

8 See chapter 3. Cf. Heb 13:10, 13.

9 John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 8.

10 See also Robert A. Guelich, “Anti-Semitism and/ or Anti-Judaism in Mark?” and Donald Hagner, “Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, 80–81, 128–29.

11 Craig Evans, “Faith and Polemic: The New Testament and First-Century Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, 1.

12 Scot McKnight, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, 56–57.

13 Ibid., 56; see also 57 n. 5.

14 Ibid., 57 n. 4.

15 James D.G. Dunn, “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period,” in Jews and Christians: the Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, rev. ed., ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 177–211.

16 Ibid., 179–80.

17 Ibid., 180.

18 Douglas R. A. Hare, “The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptics and Acts,” in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. A.T. Davies (New York: Paulist, 1979), 28-32. John Gager clarifies the term “prophetic anti-Judaism” to mean an internal debate within Judaism where the meaning and control of the essential symbols of the faith (temple, Torah, ritual commandments) were in debate rather than the symbols themselves (Gager 1983, 9).

19 Jacob Neusner, “Varieties of Judaism in the Formative Age,” in Formative Judaism: Second Series (BJS 41; Chico: Scholars, 1983) 59–89.

20 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), xix-xxi.

21 Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide (1974; reprinted, Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1996) 116.

22 Gavin I. Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) 276.

23 We must also note that attacking someone’s religion is often more offensive than attacking one’s appearance.

24 When the author refers to Jews, he designates them “the (your) fathers” (1:1, 3:9, 8:9). See Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Int 57 (2003) 270.

25 Heb 7:18-19; 8:7; 8:13; 10:1-4; 10:9.

26 Franklin H. Littell, The Crucifixion of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1975) 30.

27 In the declaration, Nostra aetate, signed by Pope Paul VI in 1965, the Catholic Church officially rejected older views of supersessionism. The document states, “the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture” (Documents of Vatican II, ed. Austin P. Flannery [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 741). For more statements by the Roman Catholic Church against supersessionism, see Eugene J. Fisher, “The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17 (1991) 58. In addition, in 1987, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a document entitled, A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Christians and Jews (New York: Office of the General Assembly, 1987). In this document, which was not an official position paper but commended to the church for study and reflection, these two statements were made:

1) 2. We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, Christians have not replaced Jews (A Theological Understanding, 8).

2) 3. We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world and that the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both (A Theological Understanding, 10).

For an evaluation of the paper see Robert R. Hann, “Supersessionism, Engraftment, and Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Reflections on the Presbyterian Statement on Jewish-Christian Relations,” JES 27 (1990) 327–42. For more ecumenical statements see Thomas Breidenthal, “Neighbor-Christology: Reconstructing Christianity Before Supersessionism,” Cross Currents 49 (1999) 319 n. 1.

28 Donald G. Bloesch, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Supersessionism and the Biblical Witness,” Int 43 (1989) 131.

29 See Donald Hagner, “A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,” SEÅ 69 (2004) 7–28.