Читать книгу Polemic in the Book of Hebrews - Lloyd Kim - Страница 7

General Trends

Before World War II, only a few scholars took up the issue of anti-Semitism and the New Testament. Notable are G. F. Moore, James Parkes, and A. Lukyn Williams.1 They argued that there were many anti-Judaic statements in early Christian literature. After World War II, several more studies addressed this issue. Jules Isaac’s work, Jésus et Israel, published in 1948,2 argued that the New Testament presented a contemptuous picture of the Jews and the Jewish religion. He questioned whether the Christian religion could ever separate itself from its implicit anti-Semitic roots.

Following Isaac was Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel originally published in 1948, with a second edition in 1964.3 Simon made a crucial distinction between “anti-Jewish polemic” and “Christian anti-Semitism.” The first describes the effort by Christians to distinguish themselves ideologically from Jews. The second represents hostility towards Jews in general, but mainly as a result of their refusal to accept Christian claims. This began the attempt to distinguish between justifiable rational polemic and violent acts or belligerent words.

Two scholars who have attempted to respond to Isaac are F. Lovsky4 and Gregory Baum. Lovsky tries to protect the New Testament from Isaac’s anti-Semitic claim by arguing that anti-Semitism before Christianity actually had a much larger influence on early Christianity than Isaac admits. Secondly, Isaac does not distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Lovsky argues that there is no anti-Semitism in the New Testament—except possibly in John. However, there is indeed anti-Judaism. Gregory Baum began trying to defend the New Testament from charges of being anti-Semitic by attributing anti-Semitism of Christians to later historical developments. Yet as he continued to dialogue with others,5 he changed his mind. He now believes that the New Testament is anti-Jewish and that a few marginal corrections will not clear its name.6

Much of the discussion following the holocaust revolved around making theological room for the Jewish religion. Catholic and Protestant scholars have attempted to show that the Jewish and Christian faiths are actually one, though mediated through different covenants or types of covenants.7 These studies have primarily focused on ecclesiology, redefining the believing community.

J. Coert Rylaarsdam begins by identifying two covenants in the Old Testament, one made with Israel and the other made with David. He argues that the covenant with Israel was the older berith, which was a covenant of religious confederacy.8 This covenant is more of a historically oriented covenant, while the Davidic is more eschatologically oriented.9 Rylaarsdam sees Christianity’s uniqueness as a Jewish sect as simply a reprioritizing of the Davidic covenant over against the one made with Israel. He argues that both of these covenants are found in the New Testament, creating an opportunity for dialogue between Judaism and Christianity.10

Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her book Faith and Fratricide, published in 1974, contributed to the discussion by asking whether the Christian gospel itself contains elements of anti-Jewish trends. She identifies the claim, “Jesus is Messiah,” as the source and origin of anti-Semitism in Christian thought. For by claiming Jesus as the Christ, one necessarily refutes the synagogue reading of Scripture. Therefore all the early Christian writings were bent on proving that the church alone had the hermeneutical key to understand Scripture. This implied that the Jews were reading Scripture incorrectly. It is this crucial distinction that Radford describes as the “left hand of Christology.” She argues that it is difficult to say, “Jesus is the Messiah,” without saying at the same time, “the Jews be damned.”11 Thus the gospel itself has created the divide between the synagogue and the church.

More recently, some scholars have tried to combine several different reasons for anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism within the Christian faith.12 For example, Gavin I. Langmuir points to the fact that the Christian sect of Judaism was inherently anti-Judaic in order to distinguish itself and propagate itself. “For motives common to most sects, the adherents of the new Christian religions were necessarily anti-Judaic in the sense that they had to demonstrate the superiority of their Christian religions to any Judaic religions.”13 Langmuir sees the emergence of anti-Semitism coming from the disbelief of the Jews in Jesus, the accusation of deicide, and the idea that God was punishing the Jews for their disbelief.14

Focus on Hebrews

Negative Views of the Epistle

Although Hebrews has not been the focus of the debate in regard to the question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament,15 there have been some pretty serious charges laid against it. With the majority of scholars, Lillian Freudmann argues that Hebrews was written to persuade Christians who were tempted to revert back to Judaism.16 However, she asserts that the author of Hebrews twisted Old Testament passages to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.17 Freudmann concludes that this type of exegesis “transmitted an anti-Torah, anti-Jewish, and antisemitic ideology.”18 She accuses the author of intentionally manipulating Old Testament passages to present a negative view of Judaism and those who hold on to Jewish practices.

John Gager, in his book The Origins of Anti-Semitism, admits that Hebrews does not make any explicit attack against the Jewish people, but rather the Jewish faith. Yet this attack is of such a radical nature, he cannot categorize it as simply a critique from within Judaism.19 He concludes that Hebrews is “the most sustained and systematic case against Judaizing to be found anywhere in Christian literature of the first century.”20

Samuel Sandmel does not see the book of Hebrews as vilifying Judaism. He argues that the book is really addressing the ancient Judaism of Scripture, rather than the Jews of the generation in which it was written. However, he does see the epistle as supersessionist. Hebrews describes Christianity as the pinnacle and perfection of ancient Judaism.21 Sandmel writes, “In summary, it is the ancient Judaism with which Hebrews deals, regarding it as the worthy but imperfect preparation for the perfection which is Christianity. The Christ has superseded the Law; Christianity has superseded Judaism.”22

Hunt proposes that Hebrews is actually an early anti-Judaic treatise that Paul took over adding chapter 13. Much of his argument is based on stylistic differences and the fact that Hebrews 13:22 mentions that the author only wrote briefly. Noting that the epistle itself is not brief, he imagines Paul writing a short addendum to a pre-existing anti-Judaic tract. He also points out that many of the anti-Judaic tracts of the time were entitled pro\j I)ouda/iouj. Thus the title, Pro\j (Ebrai/ouj was not “To the Hebrews,” but “Against the Hebrews.”23

Positive Views of the Epistle

Emphasis on Continuity

Other scholars do not find Hebrews to be hostile to Jewish people. These works can be divided into essentially three different types. The first is the approach that seeks to mitigate the discontinuity and polemical nature of the book. For example, William Lane first discusses the structure of Hebrews as oscillating between exposition and exhortation. He points out that the exhortation is really the focus of the book, and the exposition only serves to support the exhortation.24 This is important because Lane sees no discontinuity or pejorative terms against Judaism in the exhortation sections.25 He understands the radical statements in Hebrews 7-10, not as polemic, but as reflections on Old Testament prophecies. He argues that the author of Hebrews wants to emphasize the fulfillment of God’s promises, the very thing that is questioned by his readers (Klassen argues similarly).26 Lane concludes that the book of Hebrews is not trying to convince Christians who are tempted to abandon their Christian faith for Judaism, but those who are tempted to abandon their belief in God altogether.27 He writes, “The premise that Hebrews engages in any form of anti-Judaic polemic, however, is untenable.”28

In reference to the new covenant language found in Hebrews 8, Dieter Sänger states that the “new” covenant from a Jewish perspective never had in mind the “casting off” of the Jews, rather it was a renewal of the old covenant.29 He also argues that early Christians saw themselves as part of Judaism.30 Thus in a context where one’s view of Torah and halakah were often debated, Christians were just one voice among many. Sänger believes that Christians simply turned to Jesus in their critique of the cultural and legal aspects of the law.31

Balance of Continuity and Discontinuity

Another approach seeks to balance both the continuity and discontinuity in the epistle. Yet the discontinuity is never identified as anti-Semitism, but rather anti-Judaism. Donald Hagner asserts that though there may be anti-Judaism—a theological disagreement with Judaism—in the epistle, there certainly is no warrant for anti-Semitism—hostility toward Jews. He also points out that the strong discontinuity within Hebrews is more of an intra-Jewish debate. Finally, Hagner mentions the sociological phenomenon that those who depart from one religious faith to another often become the harshest critics of the faith they left.32

Donald Bloesch notes that Hebrews seems to promote supersessionism, but at the same time it venerates the Old Testament saints. There is both continuity and discontinuity in the epistle. He writes,

The Epistle to the Hebrews could possibly be designated as a supersessionist book, since the author insists that the Old Testament sacrificial system and priesthood have been superseded by the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his efficacious intercession as our one High Priest. Yet even here Old Testament heroes and heroines are celebrated as models of true faith in God. One passage intimates that the faith of Israel finally apprehends its object through the sanctifying of the church (Heb 11:40).33

Therefore Bloesch seems to qualify the term “supersession” to speak of the replacement of Jewish institutions and not necessarily the replacement of the Jewish people.

Rhetorical Approach

The third approach to the question of anti-Semitism in Hebrews has been the use of rhetorical analysis. Luke Timothy Johnson deals with the question of anti-Jewish language in the New Testament by placing it in its cultural context. His main point is that slander among competing religious and philosophical schools was actually quite common. Johnson argues that early Christianity was likely thought of as a sect of Judaism, which had to survive in the midst of a majority of non-Messianic sects. Therefore, the language of slander should be expected because Christians were a marginalized group among a majority.34

Since Judaism was quite Hellenized at the time, one can see a parallel between the Jewish sects and the Greek philosophical schools.35 Johnson demonstrates how the philosophers through several various writings used very strong language in their attacks on other groups. He also examines some Jewish writings and finds similar polemic. “The main thing such slander signified, therefore, was that someone was an opponent. . . . The slander was not affected by facts. A particular Platonist may be a good person, but that does not affect the way Platonists as such are to be described.”36 Johnson concludes: 1) in the context, Christians (Messianists) had reason to be critical of other groups; 2) their slander was quite mild compared with others; 3) their use of rhetoric was more to conjure up certain feelings about a group than to scientifically describe exactly what they were; and 4) both Messianic and non-Messianic Jews used the rhetoric of Hellenistic Philosophical schools.37

David A. deSilva approaches the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews by using socio-rhetorical analysis. He argues that the author of Hebrews was not arguing against the Levitical priesthood, but was simply using rhetoric to highlight the greatness of Jesus’ priesthood. He suggests that the author was using encomia, “speeches in praise of some person and his or her achievements.”38 Thus the author simply picked a type or pattern to which he could compare Jesus. It was not a poor reflection upon the Levitical priests per se, but they were chosen simply because they were a pattern that Jesus’ ministry followed. In this way, the author was better able to bring out the salvation historical element of Jesus’ priestly ministry. It follows that the author’s goal was to cause his audience to feel a sense of privilege and honor in experiencing something unavailable to previous generations. DeSilva does not see the rhetorical goal as simply a polemic against those who are tempted to fall back into Judaism.39

DeSilva’s insights are helpful in bringing out the rhetorical function of the author’s use of synkrisis within his examination of honor-shame language in the epistle. It seems reasonable that the author’s comparison of Jesus with Moses in 3:1-6 does not intend to denigrate Moses, but rather to praise Jesus. Yet it is more difficult to argue the same as we examine the author’s comparison between Christ’s priesthood, covenant, and sacrifice and that of the Levitical priesthood (and law), Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Can we reasonably believe that there was no sense of polemic in this language?40 Clearly the author did not want his readers to participate in the Levitical priesthood, the Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Therefore, it stands to reason that he did intend to paint these older institutions in a negative light, because of a real threat of reversion. Luke Timothy Johnson points out that strong polemical language signifies that someone was indeed an opponent.41

In deSilva’s approach, many insights are gleaned from examining the epistle through the lens of the patron-client relationship and honor-shame language. Yet de Silva does not explore the sociological function of conflict language in the epistle. He assumes too quickly that polemics are not at work in Hebrews.

1 See G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921) 197–254; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961); A. L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935).

2 A revised edition was published in 1959, and an English translation was produced in 1971: Jules Isaac, Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971).

3 Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425) (Paris: Boccard, 1948). For the English translation see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425), trans. H. McKeating (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

4 Lovsky, Antisémitisme et mystère d’Israel (Paris: A Michel, 1955).

5 Especially Rosemary Radford Ruether; see the introduction to Faith and Fratricide (1974; reprinted, Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1996).

6 Gregory Baum, introduction to Faith and Fratricide, by Rosemary Radford Ruether 7.

7 Alan Davies identifies Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr as two theologians who support the theory of two covenants: Antisemitism and the Christian Mind (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969) 145–46. In addition, J. Coert Rylaarsdam has also promoted this view.

8 Rylaarsdam, “Jewish-Christian Relationships: The Two Covenants and the Dilemmas of Christology,” in Grace upon Grace, ed. J. I. Cook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 72.

9 Ibid., 79.

10 Ibid., 83.

11 Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 246.

12 Miriam S. Taylor focuses her research on the early patristic writings and concludes that Christian anti-Judaism was not a result of competition with Judaism for converts, Jewish persecution, or inherited pagan or Christian prejudices. Rather it was motivated theologically to help shape early Christian identity. See Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and the Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, Studia post-biblica 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).

13 Gavin I. Langmuir, History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism (Berkeley: University of California, 1990), 282.

14 Langmuir, History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism, 285.

15 A recent article by Clark M. Williamson has brought more attention to the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews. See Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Int 57 (2003) 266–79. He frames the discussion on the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews by distinguishing “yes” and “no” types. While this article is a helpful beginning, it does not distinguish adequately the various approaches used by the “no” types. Furthermore, Williamson does not leave room for an anti-Judaism that is simply a “theological disagreement;” rather he defines the term only in a negative sense, inevitably leading to anti-Semitism (Williamson, 277).

16 Lillian C. Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994) 150.

17 Ibid., 158.

18 Ibid.

19 John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University, 1983) 183.

20 Ibid., 184.

21 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 121.

22 Ibid., 122. See also N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament, 2d ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1994).

23 B. P. W. S Hunt, “The Epistle to the Hebrews or against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaic Treatise?” SE 2 (1964) 408.

24 John Walters argues similarly in his analysis of the structure of Hebrews. He cites Barnabus Lindars as the one who has rightly identified the climax of the epistle to fall not in the doctrinal sections, but in the final hortatory section; Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” NTS 35 (1989) 392 n. 2; J. R. Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” AsTJ 51 (1996) 59–70.

25 Robert W. Wall and William Lane, “Polemic in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig Evans and Donald Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 173. See also William Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (Dallas: Word, 1991) cxxv–xxxv.

26 William Klassen, “To the Hebrews or against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 2 of Separation and Polemic, ed. Stephen G. Wilson (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1986) 1–16.

27 Wall and Lane, “Polemic in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,” 184.

28 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, cxxxv. A fuller analysis of Lane’s approach is found below in the conclusion of chapter 3, pages 60-61; chapter 4, pages 95-97; and chapter 5, pages 145-46.

29 See also Marie E. Isaacs, “Hebrews,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context, ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 158.

30 Other scholars make this same point. See Tim Perry, “The Historical Jesus, Anti-Judaism, and the Christology of Hebrews: A Theological Reflection,” Did 10 (1999) 74; C. P. Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, JSNTSS 24 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 273; and Isaacs, “Hebrews,” 157.

31 Dieter Sänger, “Neues Testament und Antijudaismus: Versuch einer exegetischen und hermeneutischen Vergewisserung im innerchristlichen Gespräch,” KD 34 (1988) 210–31.

32 Donald Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 35–36.

33 Bloesch, “All Israel Will Be Saved,” 139.

34 Luke Timothy Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108 (1989) 423–24.

35 Ibid., 429.

36 Ibid., 433.

37 Ibid., 441.

38 David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 263.

39 Ibid., 264.

40 The author describes 1) the law as “weak” and “useless” (7:18); 2) the Mosaic covenant as having “fault” (8:7) and becoming obsolete (8:13); and 3) the ineffectiveness of bull and goat sacrifices in taking away sins (10:4), cf. 13:10.

41 Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander,” 433.