matthaeus adversus christianos · 2018. 4. 24. · lee, peter watts, michael difuccia, david...
TRANSCRIPT
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament middot 2Reihe
Herausgeber Editor
Joumlrg Frey (Zuumlrich)
Mitherausgeber Associate EditorsMarkus Bockmuehl (Oxford)James A Kelhoffer (Uppsala)Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago IL)Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)
350
Christoph Ochs
Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus
Mohr Siebeck
Christoph Ochs born 1977 2000 BA in Bible and Biblical Languages Columbia Int Uni-versity USA 2001 MA in OT Theology Columbia Int University USA 2003ndash04 post-gra-duate studies Hebrew University Jerusalem 2004ndash08 Language Instructor China 2013 PhDat University of Nottingham UK currently in training for ministry
ISBN 978-3-16-152615-2ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2Reihe)
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra-phie detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at httpdnbdnbde
copy 2013 by Mohr Siebeck Tuumlbingen Germany wwwmohrde
This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisherrsquos written permission This applies particularly to reproduc-tions translations microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems
The book was printed by Laupp amp Goumlbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buch-binderei Naumldele in Nehren
Printed in Germany
e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152655-8
Fuumlr Herbert Reinhard1929ndash2011
Jesus spricht Ich bin die Auferstehung und das LebenWer an mich glaubt der wird leben obgleich er stuumlrbe
Johannes 11 25
Preface
The present book is a slightly revised and corrected version of my dissertation(Nottingham 2012) which surveys how Jewish polemicists have made use ofthe New Testament and predominantly the Gospel of Matthew to refute theChristian conviction that Jesus is divine It investigates the exegetical argu-ments that were put forward in medieval Adversus Christianos literature inorder to analyze the use and interpretation of Matthew in relation to the divin-ity of Jesus
Jewish polemicists have used a significant number of gospel passages par-ticularly where Jesus is portrayed as a human (who has to sleep is hungryignorant) and those where he differentiates himself from God The two mainarguments consistently encountered are that 1) Jesus is distinctly and exclu-sively human and 2) that it is unthinkable that God could become human Thearguments form a kind of polemical tradition based on the New Testamentperpetuated in exegetical arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity the incarnationand the Trinity Some of these arguments can be traced back to heterodoxdogmatic debates in antiquity while others look suprisingly modern
Seven Jewish polemical texts comprise the main sources for this inquiryQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf (c 89th century) and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer(before 1170) Sefer Milḥamot ha-Shem (c 1170) Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne(c 13th century) Nizzahon Vetus (13ndash14th century) Even Boḥan (late 14thcentury) Kelimmat ha-Goyim (c 1397) and Ḥizzuq Emunah (c 1594)
I would like to thank my wife Staci and our three children Hudson Miriamand Ruben for their loving support these last years Heartfelt gratitude alsoneeds to be directed to Prof Dr Roland Deines my Doktorvater for hisimmense generosity criticism and guidance I can truly say that I would havenever attempted nor successfully finished this study without his support andsupervision Special thanks are also due to Prof William Horbury the exter-nal examiner of the dissertation and also to Prof Tom OrsquoLoughlin theirmany suggestions and detailed corrections have greatly improved this book
Further heartfelt thanks are due to my colleagues and friends at the Univer-sity of Nottingham in particular to Matthew Malcolm Andrew Talbert EricLee Peter Watts Michael DiFuccia David Mosely Emily Gathergood andKimbell Kornu I am grateful for their friendship and many fruitful conversa-tions over coffee (and cake)
Then I would like to thank the series editors of ldquoWissenschaftliche Unter-suchungen zum Neuen Testamentrdquo Prof Dr Joumlrg Frey (Zurich) Prof MarkusBockmuehl Prof James Kelhoffer Prof Dr Hans-Josef Klauck and ProfDr Tobias Nicklas I also wish to express my thanks Dr Henning Ziebritzkiat the publishing house Mohr Siebeck and also Ilse Koumlnig (and Ilona Wiens)for the countless corrections to the manuscript
Finally and most importantly I would like to sincerely thank Him withoutwhom we can do nothing (John 155)
I dedicate this work to Herbert Reinhard (1929ndash2011) זל who was like afather to me and who sadly was not able to see me finish my doctoral studiesbut without whom I would have never been able to walk this path
Nottingham June 2013 Christoph Ochs
VIII Preface
List of Contents
Preface VII
Abbreviations XVII
Chapter 1 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus 1
11 Introduction 1
12 The Divinity of Jesus 3
13 The Gospel of Matthew 6
14 Jewish Polemics 13
1 5 Methodology amp Presentation 23
Chapter 2 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer 29
21 Introduction 29
22 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa 35
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 37
231 The Narrative Setting (sectsect1ndash8) 38232 Better Candidates for Divinity (sectsect9ndash24) 40233 Theological Issues with the Trinity (sectsect25ndash32) 42234 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (sectsect33ndash37) 44235 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (sectsect38ndash57) 45236 The Law Jesusrsquo Humanity and his Divinity (sectsect58ndash71) 47237 The Life of Jesusrsquo Reveals his Utter Humanity (sectsect72ndash109) 48238 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (sectsect110ndash138) 50239 Arguments from a Different Gospel Sequence (sectsect139ndash158) 51
24 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor 52
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 56
251 Jesusrsquo Distinctiveness 56 2511 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2436 1218 (sect39 sect57) 57 2512 Jesusrsquo Prayer at the Cross Mt 2746 (sect45) 61 2513 The Use of ldquoMessianic Psalmsrdquo Mt 2241ndash46 (sect50) 63 2514 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916f (sect51) 65 2515 Jesusrsquo Prayer in Gethsemane Mt 2636ndash46 (sect53) 67 2516 Jesusrsquo Statements of Being Sent Mt 1254ndash57 (sect55) 68
252 Jesusrsquo Human Origins (sect78 sect77 sect80 sect150 sect97) 71253 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (sect74 sect76 sect82 sect111) 78
26 Summary 89
Chapter 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inJacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem 91
31 Introduction 91
32 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem 94
33 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem 98
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 101
341 Outline of Chapter 11 102342 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16 104343 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17 108344 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a 110345 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash27 111346 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash37a 40bndash41
par Mt 2636ndash40a 45 113347 Jesusrsquo Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash19 119348 Jesus on the Kingdom and Authority Mt 2816ndash20a 120349 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1230ndash32 121
35 Summary 123
Chapter 4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inJoseph ben Nathanrsquos Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 127
41 Introduction 127
42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 129
X Contents
43 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 136
44 Overview of the Use of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 138
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 141
451 Jesusrsquo Mission Mt 116 18 21 (sect16) 142452 Jesusrsquo Birth Mt 123 2639 and 2028 (sect37) 143453 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Mt 213ndash14 (sect22) 145454 Jesusrsquo God-given Judgment Lk 1222ndash24
par Mt 625ndash26 (sect24) 146455 Jesus was Sleeping Mt 821ndash25 (sect29) 147456 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 818ndash20 (sectsect26ndash27) 149457 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 (sect7 150458 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 96 (sect25) 150459 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 96 (sect28) 1514510 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman Mt 920 (sect12) 1524511 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111a (sect1) 1534512 Jesus on Gluttony Mt 1119a (sect4) 1554513 Quicunque Vult and Blasphemy against the Spirit
Mt 1231ndash32 (sect9) 1554514 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1231ndash32 (sect41) 1574515 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 1337 (sect13) 1584516 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo
Mk 1017ndash21 par Mt 1916f (sect33) 1594517 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2022ndash23 (sect15) 1604518 Jesusrsquo Lament over Jerusalem Mt 2337 (sect3) 1614519 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2638 41 (sect6) 1614520 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2639 (sect10) 1624521 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2746 (sect38) 1634522 Jesus Commissions his Disciples Mt 2816ndash20 (sect30) 164
46 Summary 165
Chapter 5 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inSefer Nizzahon Vetus 167
51 Introduction 167
52 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus 170
53 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus 174
XIContents
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 176
541 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash17 25 (sect154 sect88 sect28) 181542 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Mt 213ndash14 (sect159) 184543 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313 16ndash17 (sect160) 185544 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a (sect162) 188545 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 96 2028
(sect188 sect168 sect215) 191546 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash30 (sect170) 193547 Blasphemy against the Spirit Lk 1210
par Mt 1231ndash32 (sect223) 194548 Jesusrsquo Statement of Being Sent Mt 1357 and
Mt 1218 (sect207) 195549 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21
par Mt 1916ndash21 (sect184) 1965410 Cursing the Fig Tree Mk 1111ndash14a
par Mt 2117ndash19a (sect181) 1975411 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1324ndash34a
par Mt 2429ndash33 36 (sect177 sect194) 1985412 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash42
par Mt 2636ndash46 (sect176) 1995413 Jesus on the Cross Mk 1533ndash34
par Mt 2745ndash46 (sect178 sect145) 2025414 Jesus Commissions his Disciples Mt 2816ndash20 (sect182) 206
55 Summary 206
Chapter 6 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Even Boḥan209
61 Introduction 209
62 The Historial Context of Even Boḥan (and Kelimmat ha-Goyim) 211
63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 213
64 The Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 219
641 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16 (sect1) 223642 Bethlehem Ephratah Mt 21ndash12 (sect3) 225643 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Mt 213ndash15 (sect4) 227644 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17 (sect6) 227645 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11 (sect7) 228646 Jesusrsquo Healings Mt 81ndash4 (sect18) 230
XII Contents
647 Jesusrsquo Raising of the Dead Mt 918ndash26 (sect22) 231648 Jesusrsquo Miracles Mt 932ndash38 (sect24) 231649 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111ndash15 (sect24) 2366410 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash30 (sect25) 2386411 Jesusrsquo Exorcisms Mt 1222ndash29 (sect28) 2396412 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1230ndash37 (sect29) 2416413 Jesusrsquo Signs Mt 1238ndash45 (sect30) 2426414 Peterrsquos Confessions Mt 1613ndash20 (sect37) 2436415 The Transfiguration Mt 171ndash8 (sect38) 2456416 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2110ndash22 (sect42) 2466417 Paying Taxes to Caesar Mt 2215ndash22 (sect44) 2466418 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mt 2427ndash36 (sect50) 2486419 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2631ndash44 (sect53) 2486420 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2727ndash66 (sect56) 251
65 Summary255
Chapter 7 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inProfiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim 257
71 Introduction 257
72 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim 259
73 The Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim 265
731 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament 267732 Jesusrsquo Temptation I Mt 41ndash11 268733 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash21 269734 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21
par Matt 1916ndash21 269745 Jesusrsquo Temptation II Mt 43ndash4 270736 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo Mk 1045 1113ndash14 271737 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo John 530 271738 Joseph is Jesusrsquo Father Lk 241ndash48 par Mt 122ndash23 272739 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2734 2747310 Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding John 1019ndash36 2747311 Matthewrsquos Intention with Isa 714 Mt 122ndash23 2777312 The Hypostatic Union and Jesusrsquo Death Mt 2746 279
74 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament 281
75 Summary 285
XIIIContents
Chapter 8 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inIsaac b Abraham of Trokirsquos Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah 291
81 Introduction 291
82 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah 297
83 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah 297
84 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah 299
841 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo and Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (I sect10) 302
842 Jesusrsquo Nativity and Isaiahrsquos Prophecy Mt 120ndash25 (I sect21) 305843 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2636 2746 (I sect47) 307844 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash10 (II sect7) 308845 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 819ndash20 (II 12) 309846 Jesus is Sent Mt 1040 (II sect14) 309847 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (II sect16) 310848 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916ndash21 (II sect19) 310849 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2023 (II sect20) 3118410 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2028 (II sect21) 3118411 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24) 3128412 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24) 3128413 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Mt 2818 (II 27) 3128414 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mk 1112ndash40
par Mt 2118ndash22 (II sect30) 3138415 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1332 par Mt 2436 (II sect31) 314
85 Summary314
Chapter 9 Conclusion The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inJewish Polemics 317
91 Synopsis of Finds 320
911 Selectivity of Readings 321912 Continuity with Earlier Polemics 326913 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement 331
92 Evaluation of Finds 333
921 The DivineHuman Dichotomy 333922 Jesus is Vere Homo Only 335
93 Epilogue The Central Paradox 336
XIV Contents
Appendix I Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet MiṣvaReason 11 of the 15 Reasons Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus 341
Appendix II Index and Overviewof Common Polemical Arguments 345
Bibliography 349
Index of Literature 383
Index of Modern Authors 401
Index of Persons amp Subjects 407
XVContents
Abbreviations
The abbreviations used for ancient texts periodicals and reference works arealmost entirely according to P H Alexander et al eds The SBL Handbookof Style For Ancient Near Eastern Biblical and Early Christian Studies(Peabody Hendrickson 1999) In certain instances the suggested guidelineshave been amended for stylistic reasons and greater convenience
Chapter 1
Matthaeus Adversus ChristianosThe Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics
Against the Divinity of Jesus
1 1 Introduction
The belief in the divinity of Jesus has been challenged at all times From thefirst century onward the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God incarnate evenldquoGod with usrdquo (Matt 123) has constantly been called into question fromwithin and without the Christian community Be it from inner-Christianpagan Jewish and Muslim objections to the more recent Jesus Quests thedivinity of Jesus was always a controversial subject It is therefore false tothink that it was merely the naiveteacute of earlier ldquopre-criticalrdquo generations thatallowed such a high view of Jesus to prevail unchallenged Rather right fromthe beginning the ldquoChrist of Faithrdquo was a stumbling block (cf 1 Cor 123)From the authors of the New Testament to the medieval church apologists andbeyond the conundrum of Christology was clearly understood by Christiansand yet against all objections and probabilities maintained as a necessaryelement in the description of the ldquorealrdquo Jesus1
Already the author of the first gospel proclaimed Jesus as the miraculouslyconceived ldquoGod with usrdquo who is the fulfillment of the hopes and promises ofIsrael while simultaneously maintaining that he was a human descendant ofAbraham and successor of king David and thus rooted in history and biblicalJudaism2 It is in fact the New Testament itself that binds these transempiri-cal3 claims about Jesus to the physical world of first century Judaism and by
1 For a recent discussion of the ldquorealrdquo Jesus see Roland Deines ldquoCan the lsquoRealrsquo Jesus beIdentified with the Historical Jesus A Review of the Popersquos Challenge to Biblical Scholar-ship and the Ongoing Debaterdquo in The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth Christ Scripture and theChurch (ed Adrian Pabst and Angus Paddison London SCM 2009) 199ndash232 also inDidaskalia 39 (2009) 11ndash46
2 See Matt 11 17 20ndash23 3153 This term was appropriated by Anthony Thiselton and subsequently put to use by my
doctoral supervisor Roland Deines see his ldquoCan the lsquoRealrsquo Jesus be Identified with the His-torical Jesusrdquo 205ndash11 and Anthony C Thiselton Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand RapidsEerdmans 2007) 376ndash413 (the term appears on p 377) Transempirical does not relate hereto something that is utterly beyond experience but refers to the movement of transcendentreality into and through the empirical It describes as such the high christological claim that
doing so has effectively kept the ldquoChrist of Faithrdquo permanently joined to thehuman figure of Jesus of Nazareth In this the gospels themselves constitutethe guardians of the controversial and paradoxical nature of the identity ofJesus For it was the evangelists who effectively compelled orthodox4 Christi-anity to maintain and defend the paradox when it would have been far easierto abandon the intellectual embarrassment of a divine-human Christ in favorof a purely human or purely divine Jesus Thus both those who defended andthose who challenged Christianity found the content of the Christian canonuseful for their arguments particularly the gospels In fact a great number ofJewish polemical texts have persistently used the Gospel of Matthew todispute this most central of Christian claims and it is surprising that no in-depth study of this aspect of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Matthew is availableto date especially considering that both the divinity of Jesus and the Gospelof Matthew have been central to Christianity5
the pre-existent transcendent Son of God has entered the horizon of human history in theperson of Jesus of Nazareth and then ldquoleftrdquo it by means of crucifixion death resurrectionand ascension This move ldquointo and throughrdquo the empirical realm therefore allows andnecessitates the use of all historical-critical tools within the empirical horizon (that is it oper-ates on the basic premise that God was indeed present in Jesus and acted in history) yetwithout succumbing to the illusion that human enterprise would ever be able to describe allthere is to Jesus of Nazareth In this regard since true objectivity in this (or any other matter)is an illusion this footnote also serves the purpose of indicating that this study as unbiased asit seeks to be is the exercise of a Christian who wants to understand his own tradition andScripture by engaging another highly capable tradition which out of exegetical religioushistorical and rational concerns is antagonistic to it On this see Hans-Georg Gadamer Truthand Method (2nd ed trans Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G Marshall London Sheed ampWard 1989) 277ndash307
4 Here and throughout the term ldquoorthodoxrdquo denotes the traditional mainstream of Christ-ian thought (in contrast to heterodoxy or heresy) rather than a Jewish or Christiandenomination
5 An exhaustive study of the pagan use of the New Testament recently became availablein John G Cook The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (STAC3 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000 repr Peabody Hendrickson 2002) Nothing comparableexists for the Jewish corpus of polemical texts Only a single study albeit never publishedhas examined the use of the New Testament in Jewish polemics see Joel E Rembaum ldquoTheNew Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo (PhD diss Los Angeles Uni-versity of California 1975) While Rembaum has made many observations that this study cancorroborate (see chapter 9) he did not focus on the Gospel of Matthew or the divinity ofJesus Likewise Philippe Bobichon only researches the role of the Hebrew Bible in Jewish-Christian debate see idem ldquoLa Bible dans les œuvres de controverse judeacuteo-chreacutetienne (IIendashopXVIIIe siegravecles) entre texte reacuteveacuteleacute et litteacuteraturerdquo in De la Bible agrave la litteacuterature (ed Jean-Christophe Attias and Pierre Gisel Religions en perspective 15 Geneva Labor et Fides2003) 69ndash97 (I am grateful to Nicholas De Lange for brining this to my attention) See alsoDaniel J Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages (2nded Oxford The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2007) first published in 1977 whoexamined the philosophical arguments used against four Christian doctrines viz the Trinity
2 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
This study then is an examination of how one of Christianityrsquos mostprominent texts the Gospel of Matthew was read by one of Christianityrsquosmost formidable opponents medieval Jewish exegetes in regard to one ofChristianityrsquos most controversial (and most foundational) beliefs the divinityof Jesus
1 2 The Divinity of Jesus
This study is admittedly asking a very Christian question From a Jewish pointof view probably the more pertinent question was initially at least whetherJesus was the Messiah6 not only because this is a concept closer to thehorizon of Jewish expectations but also because the Christian arguments tothis end provoked doubts especially in the medieval period7 Hence thediscussion of Christian interpretations in Jewish polemical literature were to alarge extend focused on refuting the notion that the Hebrew Bible foretoldJesus as the Messiah and considerable effort was spent on discussing egGenesis 4910 or various passags in the prophet Isaiah8
For Christians on the other hand it was one of the most foundationalbeliefs that Jesus was the Messiah which is why this confession already veryearly had essentially become a proper name ldquoJesus Christrdquo9 The question ofhis divine status mdash however it was perceived initially mdash was and is morecontroversial both in terms of accounting for its origins and its historicaldevelopment In more recent New Testament studies the question of how
the incarnation the virgin birth and Transubstantiation However his study focuses on thephilosophical discussion thereby excluding most exegetical arguments While many of hisobservations are valuabe esp in regard to the incarnation the present study is distinct
6 See Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics xxvii ldquoThe central question remains WasJesus of Nazareth the messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets or was he not In a sense therest is commentaryrdquo See also Tertullian Apol 2115
7 So Norman Roth Conversos Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain(Madison University of Wisconsin Press 2002) 10ndash13 318
8 See eg Adolf Posnanski Schiloh Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre mdashErster Teil Die Auslegung von Genesis 4910 im Altertume bis zu Ende des Mittelalters(Leipzig J C Hinrichs 1904) and Adolf Neubauer S R Driver and E B Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (2 vols Oxford and LondonJames Parker 1876ndash77)
9 See Martin Hengel ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israel The Debate about the lsquoMessianicMissionrsquo of Jesusrdquo in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed Bruce Chilton and Craig AEvans Leiden Brill 1999) 323ndash49 esp 323ndash35 idem ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israelrdquo inStudies in Early Christology (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1995) 1ndash72 and idem ldquolsquoChristosrsquo inPaulrdquo in Between Jesus and Paul Studies in Earliest Christology (London SCM 1983) 65ndash77 (and endnotes 179ndash88)
12 The Divinity of Jesus 3
Jesus came to be understood as divine is much debated10 and it is an issuethat promises to remain controversial for the foreseeable future11 What isdefinite is that by the second century at the latest a substantial number of thefollowers of Jesus considered Jesus Christ to be divine12 This understanding
10 For an overview of the more narrow discussion of how Jesus originally came to be seenas divine see William Horbury Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London SCM1998) esp 109ndash52 but also Thiselton Hermeneutics of Docrine 395ndash413 who situates thedebate in the larger post-enlightenment context Larry Hurtado based on Martin Hengelrsquoswork has argued that Jesusrsquo divine status originates in the praxis of the first followers ofJesus who worshipped him alongside God which he has called a ldquobinitarian devotionalpatternrdquo though he subsequently has abandoned the term ldquobinitarianrdquo advocating now aldquodyadic devotional patternrdquo see Larry W Hurtado Lord Jesus Christ mdash Devotion in EarliestChristianity (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2003) and idem How on Earth Did Jesus Become aGod Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids Eerdmans2005) Richard Bauckham who has become a co-founder of the so-called ldquoEarly HighChristology Clubrdquo argues that Jesusrsquo identity was directly related to the one God of Israel inthat Jesus was understood as a ldquodivine personificationrdquo of God see his Jesus and the God ofIsrael God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testamentrsquos Christology of DivineIdentity (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) One of the most prominent New Testament schol-ars disagreeing with Hurtado and Bauckham is James D G Dunn Did the first Christiansworship Jesus The New Testament Evidence (London SPCK 2010) who maintains that theearly church very clearly distinguished between Jesus on the one side and God as Creatorand ldquoFatherrdquo on the other (143) arguing eg that Jesus was a monotheist (101) That he wasdesignated as Lord (κύριος) meant that he was regarded as a highly exalted ldquodivine agent ofcreationrdquo (145) but not as identical with the Creator According to Dunn high Christologydeveloped gradually rather than rapidly as Hurtado and Hengel have maintained On therecent reconstructions of the development of Christology see also Andrew Chester ldquoHighChristology mdash Whence When and Whyrdquo Early Christianity 2 (2011) 22ndash50
11 Esp with Daniel Boyarinrsquos contribution Jewish Gospels The Story of the JewishChrist (New York The New Press 2012) who argues based on the depiction of the ldquoSon ofManrdquo in Daniel and in the Similitudes of Enoch that Jews at the time of Jesus and longbefore had a clear expectation that the Messiah was divine (this is similar to WilliamHorburyrsquos argument that the theological ideas behind Jesusrsquo divinity were already present inSecond Temple Judaism) Needless to say that if Boyarin is right this would constitute amajor paradigm shift from the prevalent view that Jesusrsquo divinity is the most significantboundary marker between Judaism and Christianity Not surprisingly then this theory has sofar not been received favorably see esp Peter Schaumlferrsquos highly critical review entitled ldquoTheJew who would be Godrdquo in The New Republic (May 18 2012) Online httpwwwtnrcomprintarticle103373books-and-artsmagazinejewish-gospels-christ-boyarin
12 When referring to the ldquodivinity of Jesusrdquo and the ldquoincarnationrdquo in the following andthroughout I wish to refer to what Christian doctrine traditionally has meant not simply thatldquoJesus is Godrdquo but the more differentiated definition expressed in the Chalcedonian Creedthat ldquoJesus Christ is to us One and the same Son the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] Perfect inGodhead the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] Perfect in Manhood truly God and truly Man the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] of a rational soul and body consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον] with the Fatheraccording to the Godhead the Self-same consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτον] with usaccording to Manhood like us in all things sin apart before the ages begotten of the Father
4 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
has subsequently become more central to Christianity and was (more or less)settled at the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon13 Within the Jewish-Christiandebate the issue of Jesusrsquo divinity has therefore likewise taken center stageover the discussion of his messiahship Michael Wyschogrod has expressedthis wellThe most difficult outstanding issues between Judaism and Christianity are the divinity ofJesus the incarnation the trinity three terms which are not quite synonymous but all ofwhich assert that Jesus was not only a human being but also God Compared to this claim allother Christian claims such as Jesus as the Messiah become secondary at most The divinityof Jesus has been unanimously rejected by all Jewish (and Muslim) authors as incompatiblewith true monotheism and possibly idolatrous For Jews once this issue is raised it is nolonger necessary to examine seriously any teachings of Jesus A human being who is alsoGod loses all Jewish legitimacy from the outset No sharper break with Jewish theologicalsensibility can be imagined14
Likewise Robert Chazan has pointed out thatthe harshest Jewish criticism of all is leveled against the Christian doctrine of IncarnationChristianity with its notion of a deity incarnate and its concomitant doctrine of a trinity ofdivine beings became (hellip) the ultimate irrationality (hellip) The doctrine of Incarnation wasprojected as the teaching that would supposedly reveal to any impartial observer the funda-mental irrationality of Christian thinking It was seen as responsible for the profound gulfbetween the two traditions was viewed by Jews as thouroughly unreasonable and wasclaimed to have more than a tinge of the immoral about it as well15
Moreover the Christian notion of incarnation which essentially is part andparcel of the doctrine of Jesusrsquo divinity is not only a question of religious
as to the Godhead but in the last days the Self-same [τὸν αὐτον] for us and for our salva-tion (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood One and the Same Christ SonLord Only-begotten acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly unchangeably indivisi-bly inseparably the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of theUnion but rather the property of each Nature being preserved and (both) concurring into OneProsopon and One Hypostasis not as though He were parted or divided into Two Prosopabut One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God Word Lord Jesus Christrdquo seeT Herbert Bindley and F W Green The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith (4th edLondon Methuen 1950) 234ndash35 cf 193 also Heinrich Denzinger and Adolf SchoumlnmetzerEnchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (35th edFreiburg Herder 1973) 108 (sect301)
13 For an overview see Aloys Grillmeier Christ in Christian Tradition From the Apos-tolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (trans J S Bowden London Mowbray 1965) esp 480ndash91and Richard P C Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God The Arian Contro-versy 318ndash381 (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1988)
14 Michael Wyschogrod ldquoA Jewish Perspective on Incarnationrdquo Modern Theology 12(1996) 195ndash209 here 197ndash98
15 Robert Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 349
12 The Divinity of Jesus 5
differences but from a Jewish point of view also touches on the definition ofGodrsquos nature and holiness which is the reason why[t]he Jewish polemicists employ a wide range of contentions which stress that this doctrinewas not befitting God They insisted that is was beneath Godrsquos dignity to enter into awomanrsquos body to be born into the world like other men to live a wordly life in which He atedrank slept etc and finally was humiliated and suffered death (hellip) It would be a diminu-ition of Godrsquos dignity a legravese majesteacute for God to live as man among men and to suffer Forthe Christian however incarnation did not imply a diminuition of Godrsquos glory but ratherindicated Godrsquos greatness for He did not hesitate to become a man in order to bring mencloser to Him16
The divinity of Jesus is thus not an arbitrary topic of Jewish investigationand Christian theologians likewise could not refuse the challenge of addres-sing the objections against this most central of Christian beliefs17
1 3 The Gospel of Matthew
In this study the Gospel of Matthew has been chosen as the principal NewTestament text of investigation which limits the scope of the Jewish sourcesexamined both in terms of the selection of texts and also the presentation ofarguments within these sources This is not to say that Jewish polemicists andscholars did not know and use other New Testament texts In fact the otherthree evangelists often make an appearance in exegetical arguments that
16 Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics 107 10817 In this respect I would argue that extensive prolonged involvement and in-depth study
of apologetic-polemical literature is fueled by at least two related motivations the first beingthe need of self-assurance that onersquos own belief system is correct the second being a vestedinterest in defending andor advancing onersquos own belief system (or ldquotruth-claimsrdquo) against theadvances and claims of another especially where the interaction between these two defineseither side (ie in establishing religious boundaries) This rings true in my opinion for manyof the principal scholars of Jewish polemical literature in the past and present be it Chris-tians eg Johann Christoph Wagenseil Sebastian Muumlnster Johann Andreas EisenmengerA Lukyn Williams or be it Jews eg Abraham Geiger or Judah Eisenstein Likewise morerecent scholars are not unaffected by these two related motives see eg David Berger andMichael Wyschogrodrsquos tractate Jews and ldquoJewish Christianityrdquo (New York Ktav 1978repr 2002) Noteworthy here is also Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprụtrsquos comment in the introduction ofchapter twelve of Even Boḥan (see chapter 6) ldquo(I wanted) to show to the leaders of ourexalted faith the shortcomings of those books and the errors contained in them Through thisthey shall come to know and understand the advantage and superiority of our faith over thatof the remaining faiths For one does not (properly) know the degree of the superiority of amatter other than through the investigation of its oppositerdquo (emphasis mine) MS Laur Plutei217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) f 134r הרמהאמונתנולבעלילהראות
עלאמונתינוומעלתיתרוןויבינוידעוובזהבתוכםהנופלותוהשגיאותההםהספריםחסרוןהפכו בבחינת אם כי הדבר ומעלת גודל יודע שלא לפי האמונות שאר
6 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
employ Christian sources Nevertheless Matthew features much morefrequently and extensively than passages from any other New Testamentauthor That the Gospel of Matthew was predominantly used in the Jewishcritique of Christianity in this manner is mostly due to dogmatic historicaland exegetical reasons
First of all Matthew played a vital role for Christian theology and thedevelopment of the Christian dogma as the exegetical basis and defense ofJesusrsquo divinity by means of the incarnation That Jesus Christ conceptus est deSpiritu Sancto and natus ex Maria Virgine18 was chiefly argued by means ofMatthew 118ndash24 and Isa 714 and was integral to the claim that God hadcome to dwell among humankind in the person of Jesus of Nazareth Ofcourse Christians could defend the belief in Jesusrsquo divinity without theGospel of Matthew eg by refering to the prologue of the Gospel of John orPsalm 110 but it was in particular the evangelistrsquos nativity account of Jesus(Matt 11ndash223) championing the identification of Jesus as Isaiahrsquos Imma-nuel that was seminal in conceptualizing Jesusrsquo identity19 In fact Matthew isthe only New Testament author who linked the (Septuagint) text of Isa 714ldquothe virgin (παρθένος) shall have a sonrdquo with Jesusrsquo birth making Matt122ndash23 all the more christologically important to Christians In conjunctionwith Matt 2820 the ldquoGod-with-usrdquo motif brackets the whole gospel20 Thismotif then gives initial shape to Matthewrsquos Christology summarized here byJack KingsburyMatthew is equally intent upon showing that Maryrsquos child can be called the Son of God he isconceived by the Holy Spirit (mentioned twice 118 20) he is not the product of the unionof any man with Mary (cf 118 20 24) because she is a ldquovirginrdquo when she bears him (123)and Joseph for his part scrupulously refrains from having martial relations with her untilafter she has had her son (125) his mission is to save his people from their sins (121) andGod himself albeit through the prophet (122) is the one who discloses the true significanceof his person (ldquoGod with usrdquo 222ndash23) When these several factors are combined they
18 Apostlesrsquo Creed the Symbolum Apostolorum see John N D Kelly Early ChristianCreeds (3d ed London Longman 1972) 369 similar the Old Roman Creed see ibid 102
19 The most important christologial passage in the Hebrew Bible for the writers of theNew Testament however was Psalm 1101 and its association with Psalm 86 cf eg Matt2244 2664 Mark 1236 1462 1619 Luke 2042ndash43 2269 Acts 233ndash35 531 755ndash56Rom 834 1 Cor 1525 Eph 120 26 Col 31 Heb 13 13 81 1012ndash13 122 1 Pet 322Rev 321 For the importance of Psalm 1101 for Christology see Martin Hengel ldquolsquoSit at myright handrsquordquo in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1995) 119ndash225 Therevised version of this article (so far only in German) is entitled ldquolsquoSetze dich zu meinerRechtenrsquo Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 1101rdquo in Studien zurChristologie Kleine Schriften IV (ed Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton WUNT I201 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 2006) 281ndash367
20 Matthew is also the only gospel author who explicitly maintains the virgin birth seeMatt 118 20 23 and esp 25 Luke implies the virgin birth but is not as explicit about it cfLuke 134ndash35
13 The Gospel of Matthew 7
compel the following conclusion about the sonship of Jesus Messiah Jesus Messiah born ofMary is without question the Son of David but beyond this by reason of his unique originhe is the Son of God21
Matthewrsquos linking of Jesusrsquo to Isaiah 714 as virgin-born Immanuel was thusparamount in the development of doctrinal expressions22 In particular therelated claim of the virginal conception became a signature and conceptualvehicle for teaching and defending Jesusrsquo divinity Already in the middle ofthe second century we find that this interpretation underlies Justin Martyrrsquosreply to TryphoWhat is truly a sign and what was to be an irrefutable proof to all men namely that bymeans of a virginrsquos womb the first born of all creatures took flesh and truly became man wasforeknown by the prophetic Spirit before it took place and foretold by him in different waysas I have explained to you23
Also Irenaeus in Against Heresies effectively relies on Matthew to argue thatJesus was more than a mere man
21 Jack D Kingsbury Matthew Structure Christology Kingdom (Philadelphia Fortress1976) 43 Simon Gathercole recently has made the case that Matthew portrays Jesus as moreexalted than recent New Testament scholarship conventionally has allowed for ldquoMatthewalone has the material about Jesusrsquo transcendence of space and the requirement to meet in hisname (Matt 1818-20) as well as the Emmanuel motif the mention of Jesus as sender ofprophets and the supplement of walking-on-water account which contains just one of manyreferences in the Gospel to reverence (προσκυνεῖν) of Jesusrdquo Simon J Gathercole The Pre-existent Son Recovering the Christologies of Matthew Mark and Luke (Grand Rapids Eerd-mans 2006) 79 (emphasis original) see also 46ndash79 About all Synoptic Gospels he furtherstates that ldquoin very brief summary then we have seen a clear identification of Jesus astranscending the God-creation divide the heaven-earth divide and as transcending the con-finement of his earthly ministry This is held together with his genuine humanity and subor-dination to the Father all the power and status the Son has is a result of the Fatherrsquos deter-minationrdquo (ibid) Gathercole subsequently argues for the pre-existence of Jesus by examiningthe various ldquoI have comerdquo sayings and by doing so joins Martin Hengel Larry Hurtado andRichard Bauckham et al with a very high (and early) view of Christology in the SynopticGospels
22 See esp David D Kupp Matthewrsquos Emmanuel Divine Presence and Godrsquos People inthe First Gospel (SNTSMS 90 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1996) 49ndash108157ndash244 For the history of interpretation of Isa 714 see Marius Reiser ldquoAufruhr um Isen-biehl oder Was hat Jes 714 mit Jesus und Maria zu tunrdquo in Bibelkritik und Auslegung derHeiligen Schrift Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese und Hermeneutik (WUNT I217 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007) 277ndash330 but also Laurenz Reinke Die Weissagungvon der Jungfrau und von Immanuel Jes 714ndash16 (Muumlnster Coppenrath 1848) appraisedby Reiser for his meticulous and exhaustive investigation of the interpretation of Isa 714 see286 n 29
23 Justin Dial 842 trans Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (ed Michael Slussertrans Thomas B Falls rev Thomas P Halton Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3Washington DC Catholic University Press 2003) 130
8 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
So this Son of God our Lord was both the Word of the Father and the Son of Man Since Hehad a human generation from Mary who was of the human race and was herself a humanbeing He became the Son of Man For this reason the Lord Himself gave us a sign in thedepths below and in the heights above Man [ie Ahaz] did not ask for that [sign] because hedid not hope that a virgin as a virgin could become pregnant and that she [could] also givebirth to a son and that this child [could] be ldquoGod with usrdquohellip24
And likewise Tertullian appeals to Matthewrsquos nativity account in Against theJewsldquoFurtherrdquo they say ldquothat [Christ] of yours who has come has neither been spoken of undersuch a name [as Emmanuel] nor has engaged in any warfarerdquo But we on the contrary con-sider that they ought to be reminded to consider the context of this passage as well For thereis added an interptetation of Emmanuel (lsquoGod is with usrsquo) so that you should not only payarttention to the sound of the name but the sense as well For the Hebrew sound which isEmmanuel has an interpretation which is lsquoGod is with usrsquo Therefore inquire whether thatword lsquoGod is with usrsquo which is Emmanuel is employed afterwards with regard to Christsince the light of Christ has begun to shine I think you will not deny it For those fromJudaism who believe in Christ from the time they believe in him since they wish to sayEmmanuel they mean that lsquoGod is with usrsquo and in this way it is agreed that he has comealready who was proclaimed Emmanuelhellip25
These short excerpts many more could be cited show that the introductorychapters of the Gospel of Matthew were not only important for Christiandoctrine and Christology but further that Matthew was effectively used toestablish religious boundaries with other groups such as Judaism
A second related factor why Matthew was used by Jews is the firstgospelrsquos linking of Jesus with various passages in the Hebrew Bible which isdiplayed so prominently by means of the so-called ldquofulfillment formulardquo26
This linking of passages from the Hebrew Bible positioned Matthew as bridge
24 Ireneaus Haer 3193 (cf ANF 1449) trans Irenaeus M C Steenberg and Dominic JUnger St Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies (Book 3) (Ancient Christian Writers 64Mahwah N J The Newman Press 2012) 94 Incidentally ldquoSon of Manrdquo is understood liter-ally here (ie as denoting Jesusrsquo humanity) which is similar to the Jewish arguments sur-veyed in this study
25 Tertullian Adv Jud 92ndash3 (cf ANF 3161) trans Geoffrey D Dunn Tertullian (TheEarly Church Fathers London Routledge 2004) 84ndash85
26 In Matthewrsquos prologue In 122 215 17 23 414 cf also 25ndash6 33 In the mainbody 817 1217ndash21 1335 214ndash5 279ndash10 cf also 1314ndash16 and 2415 Besides com-mentaries ad loc see on this also Robert H Gundry The Use of the Old Testament in StMatthewrsquos Gospel With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden Brill 1967)Wilhelm Rothfuchs Die Erfuumlllungszitate des Matthaumlus-Evangeliums Eine biblisch-theo-logische Untersuchung (BWA[N]T 58 (88) Stuttgart Kohlhammer 1969) Carlene McAfeeMoss The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 156 Berlin Walter deGruyter 2008) and David Instone-Brewer ldquoBalaam-Laban as the Key to the Old TestamentQuotations in Matthew 2rdquo in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (edDaniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) 207ndash27
13 The Gospel of Matthew 9
between the history of biblical Israel and Jesus and gave Christians furtherlicense to find additional interpretations and prophecies fulfilled in Jesus27
However Matthewrsquos ldquoproof-textingrdquo as it was popularly understood fre-quently turned out to be an easy target for Jewish scholars who often weremore familiar with the details and historical context of the Hebrew Bible andwho appealed to a more contextual interpretation of a given passage28 Thusthe popularity of the Gospel of Matthew in polemical arguments not onlyresulted from the importance Matthew was given by Christians but also wasdue to a perceived need to refute the christological interpretations of theHebrew Bible and the ease (and urgency) by which many fulfillment analo-gies could be challenged29 The resolute Jewish objections to the Christianinterpretation of Isaiah 7ndash9 often linked to the rejection of the translation ofעלמה as παρθένος30 must have been especially irritating to Christians as it
27 The literature on this topic is extensive but see the essays in Stanley E Porter ed TheMessiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2007) and idem Hearingthe Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2006) Steven MoyiseOld Testament in the New (London TampT Clark 2001) esp Donald Juel Messianic Exege-sis Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (PhiladelphiaFortress 1988)
28 Matthewrsquos actual intention and exegetical strategy in linking these various passagesfrom the Hebrew Bible to Jesus by means of the ldquofulfillment formulardquo cannot be fully consid-ered here they certainly point to Matthewrsquos conviction (and intention) that his gospel narra-tive stood in continuity with Israelrsquos divine history and expectations and that in Jesus an ageof fulfillment had arrived see eg James M Hamilton Jr ldquolsquoThe Virgin Will ConceiversquoTypological Fulfillment in Matthew 118ndash23rdquo in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel ofMatthew (ed Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) 228ndash47and Roland Deines ldquoDas Erkennen von Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte bei Matthaumlusrdquo inHeil und Geschichte Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heils-geschichte in der biblischen Tradition und in der theologischen Deutung (ed Joumlrg FreyStefan Krauter and Hermann Lichtenberger WUNT I248 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2009)403ndash441 esp 426ndash34 Already the first followers of Jesus and most likely he himself under-stood the Jewish Scriptures to foretell events that were fulfilled in him cf 1 Cor 153 Mark11ndash3 Luke 421 2444 John 1238 Acts 116 1327
29 The Jewish discussion of Matthewrsquos interpretations does not necessarily mean thatJewish protagonists had an actual gospel text in front of them as we will see later Only fromthe medieval period onwards do we have clear evidence in Jewish sources that the text itselfwas in some form encountered
30 Since translating the original עלמה as παρθένος (ldquovirginrdquo) is only one interpretivechoice from a range of semantic possibilities which could also easily be ldquomaidrdquo or ldquoyoungwomanrdquo The matter of translation became thus a heated issue in the Jewish-Christian debateChristians saw in this a clear proof for Jesusrsquo distinction and the exegetical basis for arguingfor the virgin birth and Jesusrsquo divinity Jews on the other hand pointed to the ambiguity of theterm עלמה and rejected it as mistranslation Both sides subsequently accused each other ofhaving altered the text see already Justin Dial 688 713 841ndash3 The ensuing debate wasusually based on semantics and the historical context of Isa 714 Where Jews initially appearto have identified the child as Hezekiah (a position which was later revised by Rashi Ibn
10 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
undermined a foundational aspect of their doctrine and missionary strategy Inturn the dispute over the interpretation of Isaiah became an integral part ofAdversus Judaeos texts and many include extensive discussions of the Jewishinterpretation of Isa 71431
Moreover elements from Matthewrsquos nativity story and beyond were alsoechoed in the various Toldot Yeshu (ldquoHistory of Jesusrdquo) accounts well-knownpopular Jewish gospel parodies32 Likewise the adaptation of Matt 517 in
Ezra and David Qimḥi in response to Jeromersquos often quoted rejoinder) Christians attemptedto dispel this exegesis by pointing to the miraculous character of this sign which they saw wasonly fulfilled in Jesus see Reiser ldquoAufruhrrdquo 299ndash302
31 Eg Justin Dial chs 43 54 63 66ndash68 77 84 also his 1 Apol 32ndash35 IrenaeusHaer 39 19 21 and 423 Tertullian Adv Jud 9 Ignatius Phld 3 Origen Cels 133ndash35The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila 85ndash6 186ndash10 266 3414ndash20 see William VarnerAncient Jewish-Christian Dialogues Athansius and Zacchaeus Simon and TheophilusTimothy and Aquila Introduction Texts and Translations (Lewiston NY The Edwin Mel-len Press 2004) 156ndash157 180ndash181 196ndash197 216ndash217) The Dialogue of Athanasius andZacchaeus 28ndash34 (Varner Dialogues 36ndash39) and The Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus12ndash14 (Varner Dialogues 102ndash105) Though we do not have any verifiably genuine Jewishpolemical texts of this nature from this early period the arguments refuted by these earlyChristian writers when compared to what is found in Jewish polemical sources seem authen-tic or at least point out an actual issue with Matthewrsquos use of Isa 714 (as this study will beable to show) Also Peter Schaumlfer discusses how parthenos (virgin Isa 714 Matt 123) maydeliberately have been distorted by the talmudic rabbis to pantheros (panther) as a ldquowellknown rabbinic practice of mocking pagan or Christian holy namesrdquo see Jesus in the Talmud(Princeton Princeton University Press 2007) 98 which would further indicate that the rabbiswere not ignorant of Matthewrsquos uses of Isa 714 Likewise Marcion Emperor Julian andPorphyry appear to have discussed Matthewrsquos linking the virgin-born Immanuel with Jesussee Tertullian Marc 312ndash13 (ANF 3330ndash332) and R Joseph Hoffmann Julianrsquos ldquoAgainstthe Galileansrdquo (Amherst NY Prometheus Books 2004) 253AndashB 125ndash126 262C 126ndash127 Fragment XV 145 According to Jerome and Epiphanius also Porphyry commented onvarious passages in Matthew see Robert M Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians(Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts 1 Leiden Brill 2005) 144 (sect28)157ndash158 (sect73)
32 The various narratives labelled Toledot Yeshu are Jewish gospel parodies or ldquoanti-gospelsrdquo more recently classified as ldquocounter historyrdquo and have a different character thanmost other Jewish polemical works although their influence is readily felt in many JewishAdversus Christianos texts It is likely that Toledot Yeshu represent a fairly early Jewishattempt (probably written in Aramaic initially) to counter a Christian gospel (written in Ara-maic or Hebrew) which must have had some relationship to the Gospel of Matthew as somemajor Toledot Yeshu manuscripts relate that Jesus applied Isa 714 to himself (eg MSSStrassburg Vindobona Adler) see Samuel Krauss Das Leben Jesu nach juumldischen Quellen(Berlin Calvary 1902) 41 53 69 94 118ndash119 123 For an in-depth discussion of this im-portant polemical link see William Horbury ldquoA Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshurdquo(PhD diss University of Cambridge 1970) Guumlnter Schlichting Ein juumldisches Leben JesuDie verschollene Toledot-Jeschu-Fassung Tam ū-mūrsquoād (WUNT I24 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 1982) and David Biale ldquoCounter-History and Jewish Polemics against ChristianityThe Sefer Toldot Yeshu and the Sefer Zerubavelrdquo Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999) 130ndash45
13 The Gospel of Matthew 11
b Šhabb 116b the only New Testament text given the prominence to be citedin the Talmud demonstrates that Matthewrsquos gospel or at least parts of itwere known and used by Jews comparatively early33 Further evidence thatJews knew of the gospels and their content has also been accumulated byJames Carlton Paget34 It should therefore not surprise that in the medievalperiod Jewish polemical works could include often lengthy refutations ofChristian beliefs with verses derived from Matthew foremost among them arefutation of Matthewrsquos use of Isa 71435
The investigation of the use and role of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewishpolemics is therefore intrinsically related to the historical importance thisgospel has for Christians In the light of the prominent role the Gospel of
also Morris Goldstein Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York Macmillan 1950) 147ndash66and esp the essays in Peter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch eds ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference (TSAJ 143 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 2011) Since 2008 Peter Schaumlfer and Michael Meerson have been overseeing thecollection and transcription of all available Toledot Yeshu manuscripts see online httpwwwprincetonedu~judaictoledotyeshuhtml
33 In the case of b Šhabb 116b Matthew could be used to argue that Christians had aban-doned Torah against the wishes of their master an argument that has prevailed to this dayThat the Talmud alludes to Matt 517 has mdash not very convincingly mdash been challenged byJohann Maier Juumldische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Ertraumlge derForschung 117 Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982) 78 89ndash93 222 n178 Against Maier Peter Schaumlfer has argued that the Talmud contains a sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives and contends that the Babylon-ian Talmud demonstrates a special familiarity with John and Matthew see idem Jesus in theTalmud 8ndash9 More recently Holger M Zellentin has shown that the talmudic authors (andthose of Bereshit Rabbah) were familiar with passages from Matthew (ie the Sermon on theMount) see his Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature (TSAJ 139 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 2011) 137ndash236 This however does not mean that Jews always had access toa written Gospel of Matthew nor that they were aware that they used verses from Matthew(cf ibid 15ndash16 21 137ndash43 168ndash73) as was argued by Hugh J Schonfield According to theHebrews A new translation of the Jewish life of Jesus (the Toldoth Jeshu) (London Duck-worth 1937) who contended that b Šabb 116a ldquoestablishes that a Hebrew Gospel withMatthaean matter was well-known to the Jews at the end of the first centuryrdquo (248) On theother hand Zellentin remarks that ldquowe cannot categorically exclude the possibility that somerabbis had occasional access to written Christian textsrdquo and goes on to show that it is ldquolikelythat some rabbis did have such accessrdquo (141) which in his estimate would have been TatianrsquosDiatessaron cf William L Petersen Tatianrsquos Diatessaron Its Creation Dissemination Sig-nificance amp History in Scholarship (Leiden Brill 1994)
34 See idem ldquoThe Four among the Jewsrdquo in Jews Christians and Jewish Christians inAntiquity (WUNT I251 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010) 267ndash86 First published in TheWritten Gospel (ed Markus N A Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner Cambridge UniversityPress Cambridge 2005) 205ndash21
35 For a brief discussion of the debate over Isa 714 in medieval polemics see RobertChazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 126ndash33
12 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
Matthew enjoyed within Christendom36 Jewish commentators paid specialheed to this part of the Christian canon and as this study shows the Gospel ofMatthew is the primary New Testament text that Jews rely on in their exegeti-cal based critique of Jesusrsquo divinity
1 4 Jewish Polemics
Before venturing into an examination of specific sources and single argumentsthat use the Gospel of Matthew it is necessary to give some initial observa-
36 This claim that Matthewrsquos gospel played a leading role amongst other New Testamenttexts while seemingly self-evident is not so readily substantiated Seaacuten P Kealy has at-tempted to do so in his Matthewrsquos Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation Book 1(Mellen Biblical Press Series 55a Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1997) 5ndash6 andhas counted 70 references in Biblia Patristica to the Gospel of Matthew for the first two cen-turies and another 120 for the third century (incl Origen) which is significantly more thanthe other gospels He also emphasizes that the Sermon on the Mount is the most frequentlyquoted New Testament passage in all the Ante-Nicene writers (quoting W S Kissinger) andrefers to the works of Christopher M Tuckett and Jacqueline A Williams on the NagHammadi library who likewise point out the importance of Matthew in gnostic texts cfWarren S Kissinger The Sermon on the Mount A History of Interpretation and Bibliography(Metuchen NJ Scarecrow 1975) 6 Christopher M Tuckett Nag Hammadi and the GospelTradition Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library (Studies of the New Testamentand Its World Edinburgh TampT Clark 1986) 249ndash50 Jacqueline A Williams Biblical Inter-pretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi (Atlanta Scholar Press 1988)Kealy further relies on Eacutedouard Massaux The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew onChristian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus (3 vols New Gospel Studies 51ndash3 ed Arthur JBellinzoni trans Norman J Beval and Suzanne Hecht Macon Ga Mercer University Press1990ndash1993) who has extensively argued that the Gospel of Matthew had most influence onearly Christianity see esp Bellinzonirsquos preface the the English edition 2ixndashxii A furtherway the influence of Matthew could be gauged though this cannot be further investigatedhere is its use as sermon text and in various lectionaries on this see eg Caroll D OsburnldquoThe Greek Lectionaries of the New Testamentrdquo in The Text of the New Testament in Con-temporary Research Essays on the Status Questionis (ed Bart D Ehrman and Michael WHolmes Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1995) 61ndash74 According to the THALES lectionary data-base (see online wwwlectionaryeu I am grateful to Daniel Stoumlkl Ben Ezra for allowing meto use the beta version of the database) readings from Matthew occur 443 times in compari-son to 75 readings in Mark 361 in Luke and 336 readings in John Where Jews (and Chris-tians) did not have access to written Christian texts it would stand to reason that there is a cor-relation between the Matthew passages found in lectionaries and those that are discussed inJewish polemical works eg the Matthean nativity (incl the references to the Hebrew Bible)and also the Gethsemane pericope (rather than Markrsquos version) are featured in the ArmenianJerusalem Lectionary one of the oldest lectionaries in existence which is thought to preservethe practice of the Jerusalem church in the fifth century see Athanase Renoux ldquoLe CodexArmeacutenien Jeacuterusalem 121rdquo in Patrologia Orientalis 351 and 362 (1969ndash1971)
14 Jewish Polemics 13
tions about so-called Adversus Christianos literature which for the most partbegan to be produced in the medieval period37
Daniel J Lasker one of the leading scholars in the field of Jewishpolemics has stated that the primary function of this kind of literature wasapologetical38 rather than seeking to facilitate some kind of dialogue withChristiansJewish polemicists had one goal in mind to prevent Jewish conversion to Christianity It ishard to imagine that even the most academic scholastic polemical Jewish author had somesympathy for Christianity otherwise he would not have written a polemic at all (hellip) Ibelieve the primary explanation for stylistic diversity is that the polemicist uses those argu-ments which he thinks will work Polemical literature is a genre in which almost anythinggoes Polemicists do not have to believe the arguments they present they merely have to beconvinced that someone will find the arguments persuasive (hellip) The authorrsquos view of Chris-tians and Christianity is a secondary consideration if it is a consideration at all The Jewishpolemical literature was intended for internal consumption and not as an attempt to convince
37 For a comprehensive and manageable introduction of Adversus Christianos texts seeSamuel Krauss and William Horbury The Jewish-Christian Controversy From the EarliestTimes to 1789 mdash Volume I History (TSAJ 56 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1995) and Judah MRosenthal ldquoThe Anti-Christian Polemical Literature to the End of the Eighteenth Centuryrdquo[ השמונה־עשרההמאהסוףעדהאנטי־נוצריתהיווכוחספרות ] Areshet 2 (1960) 130ndash79 3(1961) 433ndash39 [Hebr] also A Lukyn Williams Adversus Judaeos A Birdrsquos-eye View ofChristian Apologiae Until the Renaissance (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1935repr 2012) But see also Ora Limorrsquos multi-volume ldquoAdversus Iudaeos projectrdquo Jews andChristians in Western Europe Encounter between Cultures in the Middle Ages and theRenaissance [ החדשההעתראשיתעדאירופהבמערבונוצריםיהודיםלנוצריםיהודיםבין ](5 vols Tel Aviv The Open University of Israel 1993ndash98) [Hebr] For the reciprocalAdversus Judaeos literature see Heinz Schreckenberg Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1ndash11 Jh) (Europaumlische Hoch-schulschriften 23 Theologie 172 Frankfurt P Lang 1982 repr and rev 4th ed 1999)idem Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) Mit einer Ikonographie desJudenthemas bis zum 4 Laterankonzil (Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 335Frankfurt P Lang 1988 repr and rev 3d ed 1997) idem Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13ndash20 Jh) (Europaumlische Hoch-schulschriften 23 Theologie 497 Frankfurt P Lang 1994) and Bernhard BlumenkranzJuifs et chreacutetiens dans le monde occidental 430ndash1096 (Eacutetudes juives 2 Paris Mouton 1960repr Leuven Peeters 2006)
38 When using the terms ldquopolemicalrdquoldquopolemicsrdquo and ldquoapologeticalrdquoldquoapologeticsrdquo one isnot only faced with the issue that individual authors mean different things with them but alsothat the purpose of this kind of literature cannot be limited to one or two functions Somescholars will use these terms interchangeably others eg William Horbury reserve the termldquopolemicalrdquo for attack or external reference and ldquoapologeticalrdquo for internal defense whileothers employ them exactly the opposite eg Daniel Lasker employs the term ldquopolemicsrdquo inthe context of internal use (see quote) This study will mostly follow William Horburyrsquos defi-nition see idem ldquoHebrew apologetic and polemical literaturerdquo in Hebrew Scholarship andthe Medieval World (ed Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2001)189ndash209 esp 189
14 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
Christians of the folly of their ways It had to speak to a Jewish audience not a Christianone39
While this view that the function of Adversus Christianos literature wasforemost apologetical has been common in Jewish studies recently it isbeginning to be revised not least by Lasker himself40 Nevertheless this isstill an important disclaimer insofar as the actual arguments that are scruti-nized in this study may not allow one to directly deduce what a given authoractually believed about Christianity or understood Matthew to mean (nor thatthere was an interest in this) In other words the polemical use of Christianteachings may not be equal to what a Jewish scholar knew about Christiani-ty41 Lasker is certainly right that this kind of polemic literature was primarilyintended for the Jewish faith community42 but I question the notion thatldquoalmost anything goesrdquo The Jewish arguments prove to be not that arbitrary
First Jewish scholars did engage Christians in debates and it would havebeen precisely the arguments they had learnt from their own polemical tradi-tion that guided them in these encounters and subsequently lead to a refine-ment (or abandonment) of specific arguments43 In fact many of the Jewishpolemicists are known to have been involved in religious exchanges withChristian missionaries and high status clergymen and not infrequently thisgave the impetus for composing polemics44 If such treatises were merelymeant for internal consumption and could offer any kind of anti-Christianpolemic45 then a community leader who was engaged in a friendly (or not so
39 Daniel J Lasker ldquoPopular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval JewishCritique of Christianityrdquo Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999) 243ndash59 here254 See also idem ldquoTeaching Christianity to Jews The Case of Medieval Jewish Anti-Chris-tian Polemicsrdquo in Judaism and Education Essays in Honor of Walter I Ackerman (ed HaimMarantz Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press 1998) 73ndash86
40 See Daniel J Lasker ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianity In Search of a New Narra-tiverdquo Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 6 (2011) 1ndash9 See also below
41 It is likely that some authors may not have had much knowledge of a discussed aspectof Christianity and just repeated a traditional argument whereas others were much betteracquainted with particular Christian teachings which was nevertheless not reflected in theirwritings On this see also Daniel J Lasker ldquoJewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfthand Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social HistoryFestschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan (ed David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman and EliotR Wolfson SJJTP 15 Leiden Brill 2012) 97ndash109
42 After all most sources were written in Hebrew though there are exceptions SeeKrauss and Horbury Controversy 202ndash49 cf 249ndash61
43 Profiat Duran eg replaces the traditional Jewish attack of the two natures of Christwith something far more perceptive see 7312
44 Eg in Jacob ben Reuben (see 31) the Offical family (see 41) Shem Ṭov ibn Shapruṭ(see 61) and Isaac ben Abraham of Troki (see 81) who were not involved in debates but it isclear that these encounter were instrumental in the composition of their treatises
45 This is more characteristic of Toledot Yeshu narratives
14 Jewish Polemics 15
friendly) dispute with Christians and who relied on such a treatise for direc-tion at best would have been unable to impress the other party and at worstwould have become easy prey46 Instead the kind of arguments Jews em-ployed (and handed on) as can be seen below were precisely those that his-torically had ldquoworkedrdquo against Christians which is why exactly the samearguments are refuted in much earlier Adversus Judaeos literature47
Secondly William Horbury based on the work of Jacob Katz has pointedout that there is also a ldquolink between communal self-identification and thedesire to refute error and win proselytesrdquo48 In other words Jews were notmerely defensive they also actively sought out the debate with Christians49
In addition Jewish scholars employed polemical literature to define and nego-tiate religious boundaries which recently has become a more recognized
46 That various (later) treatises were not confined to mere defense is clearly seen in thetitles they were given eg Simeon ben Zemah Duranrsquos Qeshet u-Magen (ldquoBow and Shieldrdquo)Hayyim Ibn Musarsquos Magen ve-Romaḥ (ldquoShield and Spearrdquo) Leon Modenarsquos Magen va-Ḥerev (ldquoShield and Swordrdquo)
47 See 912 and passim The fact that Christians went to great lengths to refute thesearguments shows that they were not considered trivial or arbitrary by Christians
48 Horbury ldquoHebrew apologetic and polemical literaturerdquo 191 but see also the list on p205 which summarizes the functions of Jewish apologetical literature and Jacob Katz Exclu-siveness and Tolerance (Oxford Oxford University Press 1961) 81 90ndash92 96ndash97 105
49 As meticulously argued by David Berger ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-ChristianContacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Agesrdquo AHR 91 (1986) 576ndash91 [thisand most of Bergerrsquos essays dealing with polemics have been republished in idem Persecu-tion Polemic and Dialogue Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations (Boston AcademicStudies Press 2010)] concluding that the ldquoabsence of a christian missionary ideology and thepresence of frequent Jewish-Christian confrontations establish the likelihood that eleventh-and twelfth- century Christians wrote polemics not out of missionary objectives but largely inresponse to requests generated by a genuine Jewish challenge (hellip) Nevertheless by the lateMiddle Ages the tone is profoundly different one begins to see the defensiveness nervous-ness and demoralization of a worried community Jewish polemic was never the same againrdquo(591) emphasis mine See also Lasker ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianityrdquo 9 ldquoIn sum aclose look at the Jewish critique of Christianity indicates that some Jewish authors wereresponding directly to overt Christian missionary challenges hoping that their argumentswould convince their fellow Jews not to abandon the religion of their fathers Others saw crit-icism of Christianity as part of their rational exposition of Judaism Others may have under-stood it as part of Jewish self-definition and a marking of borders One thing seems to becertain medieval Jews did not offer refutations of Christianity solely as a reaction to a per-ceived Christian threatrdquo See also Gavin I Langmuir ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-Christ-ian ContactsScholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy Commentrdquo AHR 91(1986) 614ndash24 who suggested that already ldquothe eleventh century marked the beginning of aperiod in which Christians at different social levels were assailed by doubts about theiridentityrdquo (619) Irrespective of the exact period in which this began it is clear that the produc-tion of Adversus Judaeos tracts in the medieval period was not only motivated by inner con-cerns but also was prompted by actual Jewish challenges
16 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
aspect of this genre50 For this reason one will frequently find in polemicalworks explanations of the Christian doctrines which can even include specificterms in Latin Greek or a particular vernacular (eg German)51 In this waythe Jewish audience was actually informed about the content of the Christiancanon52 and about Christian doctrine53 though not always correctly54 Theunderlying purposes and applications for this kind of polemic was evidentlymore complex and not just apologetical It also served the purpose of Jewishself-identification taught Jewish philosophy and dogma to onersquos own commu-nity and prepared Jewish scholars for an encounter with Christians Conse-quently the arguments used in Jewish polemics even if they were onlyintended for ldquointernal consumptionrdquo and were not ldquoan attempt to convinceChristians of the folly of their waysrdquo still can express what Jewish scholarsperceived to be serious issues with various Christian beliefs The argumentsexamined here therefore still may allow a level of access to what the indi-vidual authors thought Christians actually believed or understood Matthew tomean
Having thus dealt with some preliminary issues related to Jewish polemicswe can now consider the more narrow topic of the use of the New Testamentin Jewish polemics In fact many Christians are not used to the reading andcritique of their own scriptures by Jewish readers55 The Christian tradition in
50 In particular argued by Robert Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity For an overview ofthis issue see Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics xviindashxx
51 Eg in Nizzahon Vetus (see 51)52 Most notably in Even Boḥan where an entire Gospel of Matthew text is reproduced in
Hebrew see chapter 653 Eg by Profiat Duranrsquos presentation of the hypostatic union see 7312 and esp
Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics 161ndash6854 See the discussion in 913 and passim55 More recent exceptions are the (more or less favorable) reception of the contributions
of Wilhelm Bacher Claude Montefiore Joseph Klausner Pinchas Lapide David FlusserShalom Ben-Chorin Samuel Sandmel Jacob Neusner Geza Vermes Mark Nolan Amy-JillLevine et al But already since Justin Martyrrsquos Dialogue with Trypho it is clear that Christianshave not been comfortable with Jewish objections (whether real or imagined) to which alsomuch of the rest of Adversus Christianos can testify The insightful exchange between JacobNeusner and Pope Benedict XVI in and of itself shows how extraordinary a genuine Jewishresponse still remains to Christians cf Jacob Neusner A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (2nd edMontreal McGill-Queenrsquos University Press 2000) and Joseph Ratzinger (Pope BenedictXVI) Jesus of Nazareth From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (transAdrian J Walker New York Doubleday 2007) 69ndash70 103ndash27 see also Deines ldquoCan thelsquoRealrsquo Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesusrdquo That said the Church Fathers incomparison as will become evident in the course of this study were often quite familiar withJewish arguments that used the New Testament And also starting with the 16th and 17thcentury a segment of Christian scholarship began to devote itself to the study of Judaism andtherefore was not ignorant of Jewish objections for an overview with an extensive bibliogra-phy see Stephen G Burnett ldquoLater Christian Hebraistsrdquo in Hebrew BibleOld Testament II
14 Jewish Polemics 17
contrast is thoroughly acquainted with assessing various Jewish interpreta-tions of the Hebrew Bible and to accept modify or reject them within thecontext of the Christian schema mdash a process which is already well attested inthe writings of the New Testament56 It was most probably due to the vitalityof Christianity that Jews began to consider and use sections of the New Testa-ment for polemical and apologetical purposes57 Especially in the medievalperiod Jews produced not an insignificant number of polemic texts and com-mentaries many engaging the Christian scriptures with varying degrees ofscrutiny58 However this body of Jewish polemical writings has for variousreasons often been disregarded by Christian scholars and it is regrettable thatespecially modern and ldquopost-modernrdquo New Testament scholarship has largelyfailed to investigate the reading of its own canonical texts by those familiarwith its cultural and lingusitic conventions who are nevertheless unencum-bered by Christian presuppositions and commitments59 This is all the more
From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (ed Magne Saeligboslash Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht 2008) 785ndash801 and also Raphael Loewe ldquoHebraists Christianrdquo EncJud (2007)8510ndash51
56 For example portrayed in Jesusrsquo debate with the Pharisees (cf Matt 121ndash8 Mark719) in the negotiation what the mission and nature of the Messiah was (cf Matt 112ndash6) orin Paulrsquos discussion of Torah adherence (cf Gal 52ndash12) It is possible that Christians them-selves also may have encouraged the use of the New Testament in Jewish arguments seeBernhard Blumenkranz ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnde im Religionsgespraumlch mit den Christenin den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis 11 Jahrhundertsrdquo TZ 4 (1948) 119ndash47 who recalls that in the Vita Sylvestri 2 Christians are meant to use the Hebrew Bible intheir arguments against Jews and Jews are to use the New Testament in their argumentagainst Christians (134ndash35)
57 Anti-Christian Jewish polemics cannot simply be explained as reaction to some form ofChristian pressure or persecution (or vice versa) This popular and widely held view isincreasingly recognized as too limited because it cannot account for how Jewish polemicscould arise in situations when Christians were not in a position to exercise power eg inmillieus under Muslim rule It also relegates the authors of such polemics into the role ofvictims which is neither a very helpful qualification nor is it necessarily true The composi-tion of polemical writings certainly can arise in environments of non-aggressive interactionand have been shown to be important for religious identification Religious polemic shouldperhaps be better understood as a response to the vitality of another religious group whereasthe exact manner of how this vitality is experienced could then be further classified (this mayor may not include the desire to proselytize) This model would also account for the largebody of Christian Adversus Judaeos literature which Christians produced precisely becauseJudaism was ldquoalive and thrivingrdquo even if individual polemicists had not personally encoun-tered Jews In fact the initial flurry of Christian apologetic-polemical literature in the twelfthcentury was a response to the vitality of Judaism ldquoand not a self-initiated attack upon theminority religionrdquo Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics xix
58 Krauss and Horbury list 75 individual authors and 35 anonymous polemical worksSince some of these authors wrote more than one treatise the number of Adversus Chris-tianos texts is well over a hundred
59 There are a few exceptions eg Hans-Georg von Mutius (though not a New Testament
18 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
striking considering that recent New Testament scholarship has focused somuch on the historical Jesus and his particular Jewish identity
A factor in why these texts are understudied may be that access to Adver-sus Christianos literature is not without its difficulties The scarcity of criticaltexts language limitations and the general inaccessibility of source materialposes a formidable entry hurdle but the situation is steadily improving60 Anadditional sense of superiority of the critical method might also have pre-vented the closer examination of so-called ldquopre-criticalrdquo (or pre-modern)authors though some texts will certainly surprise in this respect Some of themedieval Jewish evaluations of Jesus are quite similar to those of the contem-porary Jesus quests61
One of the benefits for New Testament studies in having such an extensivebody of Adversus Christianos literature that is those that use the New Testa-ment is that it has the potential to be a touchstone for Christian interpretationThe consideration of the medieval Jewish exegesis of passages in the NewTestament might bring forth less christologically biased interpretations whichwould be similar to how the Jewish critique of christological readings of theHebrew Bible can act as a corrective to various interpretive extravagances Itmay also be able to demonstrate that certain non-christological readings ofpassages are not possible or at least highly unlikely62 Historically Christianscholars have already profited from considering Jewish scholarship and in-sights As is well known Martin Luther extensively consulted Rashirsquos com-mentary via Nicholas de Lyrersquos Postilla63 and many New Testament scholars
scholar) ldquoEin Beitrag zur polemischen juumldischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Mit-telalterrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980) 232ndash40 who investigatesthe use of the Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem (this study attempts to expand on thisboth in depth and scope) And while New Testament scholarship is aware that Hebrew ver-sions of the Gospel of Matthew exists see eg Craig A Evans ldquoJewish Versions of theGospel of Matthew Observations on three recent Publicationsrdquo Mishkan 38 (2003) 70ndash79no serious study of the reception and use of these Matthew versions has been undertakeneven by those who have focused on such texts eg George Howard (see the discussion in61ndash63)
60 Though the situation is by no means what it could be as many important source textsare still not edited remain unpublished or are not available in translation For this reasonmost of the relevant passages in this study are given in extenso and are translated intoEnglish
61 Especially Shem Ṭovrsquos Even Boḥan and Profiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim in placesare comparable to critical scholarship see chapter 7
62 This is eg seen in how Jewish interpreters use the various ldquoSon of Manrdquo passages ina very limited and restricted manner see 911 et passim
63 Luther also appears to have consulted some exegetical writings of Rabbi David Qimḥicommenting in the Protokoll und handschrifliche Eintraumlge Psalm CXXVII that ldquoRabbiKimchi est deusrdquo Weimar Edition Deutsche Bibel 3574 cf also 543 For Lutherrsquos depen-dence on Nicholas de Lyrersquos Postillae perpetuae see Carl Siegfried ldquoRaschirsquos Einfluss auf
14 Jewish Polemics 19
continue to benefit from Billerbeckrsquos meticulous referencing of Jewishsources despite all its shortcomings and the criticism heaped on it64
But by and large it is unfortunately the case that (contemporary) Chris-tians can been rather ignorant of the Jewish objections to Jesus and about theJewish reading of the Gospel of Matthew in particular of the adverse feelingsthe incarnation and Trinity may invoke in Jews (and Muslims) The Jewish-Christian debate is not merely a rational or philosophical exchange of differ-ing opinions about ontology it has a deep emotional dimension which canonly be apprehended if one understands the arguments and the theologicallogic behind them While the nature of the genre of polemics may skew thevarious arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity they are nevertheless authentic rep-resentations of the ldquoother sidersquosrdquo reactions and perceptions and as suchshould be taken seriously
In terms of the use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish polemics it hasalready been noted that this gospel plays a prominent role where medievalJewish scholars appeal to New Testament passages In fact the arguments thatuse Matthew often employ a standard set of passages from the gospel to refutewhat is understood as the most problematic Christian beliefs65 Very dominantin any Jewish polemic is the rejection of (messianic) interpretations of theHebrew Bible as prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus or the understand-
Nicolaus von Lira und Luther in der Auslegung der Genesisrdquo Archiv fuumlr WissenschaftlicheErforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1869) 428ndash45 2 (1871) 39ndash65 also Theodor PahlQuellenstudien zu Luthers Psalmenuumlbersetzung (Weimar H Boumlhlaus Nachfolger 1931)
64 Hermann L Strack and Paul Billerbeck Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament aus Talmudund Midrasch (6 vols Munich C H Beck 1922ndash1961) Cf Berndt Schaller ldquoPaul Biller-becks Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch Wege und AbwegeLeistung und Fehlleistung christlicher Judaistikrdquo in Zwischen Zensur und SelbstbesinnungChristliche Rezeptionen des Judentums (ed Christfried Boumlttrich Judith Thomanek andThomas Willi Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 17 Frankfurt P Lang 2009) 149ndash74(see also the three other articles on Billerbeck in the same collection by Andreas Bedenben-der Julia Maumlnnchen and Christina Biere) and Hans-Juumlrgen Becker ldquoMatthew the Rabbisand Billerbeck on the Kingdom of Heavenrdquo in The Sermon on the Mount and its JewishSetting (ed Hans-Juumlrgen Becker and Serge Ruzer Paris Gabalda 2005) 57ndash69
65 No exhaustive overview of all the themes Jewish polemical literature discusses is avail-able but for a summary see Daniel J Lasker ldquoMajor Themes of the Jewish-Christian DebateGod Humanity Messiahrdquo in The Solomon Goldman Lectures Perspectives in JewishLearning mdash Vol 7 (ed Dean Philip Bell Chicago Spertus College of Judaica 1999) 107ndash130 idem ldquoPopular Polemicsrdquo David Berger ldquoJewish-Christian Polemicsrdquo ER (2nd ed2005) 117230ndash36 Horbury ldquoHebrew apologetic and polemical literaturerdquo Edward KesslerAn Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge Cambridge University Press2010) 109ndash11 Hans-Joachim Schoeps The Jewish-Christian Argument A History of Theo-logical Conflict (trans David E Green London Faber amp Faber 1963) 1ndash77 and GoldsteinJesus in the Jewish Tradition esp 167ndash242 See also Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemicsxivndashxvii 2ndash11 172ndash3 (n 11) and Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo
20 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
ing that the church was the ldquotrue Israelrdquo Other topics which are frequentlydiscussed are the Christian abrogation of Torah the notion of original sin theveneration of Mary the virgin birth the divinity of Jesus the Trinity and theincarnation66 The last three doctrines which for Christians were perhaps themost crucial points of contention are generally addressed by emphasizingJesusrsquo humanity which is contrasted with Godrsquos transcendence and unique-ness67 Metaphysical and exegetical themes often overlap in the response toChristian doctrines although within the exegetical arguments that rely on theNew Testament one will rarely find extensive discussions of philosophical ormetaphysical concepts they are however assumed68 The Gospel of Matthewis heavily featured in arguments against the more crucial Christian beliefsand the familiarity and importance of Matthew for Christians lends thesearguments perhaps more weight than a highly philosophical argument Atleast on a popular level these exegetical arguments must have made animpression on the Christian party especially since they were more accessiblethan philosophical debates
Matthew was employed in Jewish polemics in two ways69 One was tosimply reject deride or discard Matthewrsquos interpretation eg his reading of
66 It is worthwhile recalling here Laskerrsquos remarks about the latter topic incarnationldquoJewish arguments against this doctrine can hardly be called philosophical in the way theterm is being used here The Jewish polemicists employed a wide range of contentions whichstressed that this doctrine is not befitting God They insisted that it was beneath Godrsquos dignityto enter into a womanrsquos body to be born into the world like other men to live a worldly lifein which He ate drank slept etc and finally was humiliated and suffered deathrdquo LaskerJewish Philosophical Polemics 107 The same line of argument will consistently be encoun-tered when dealing with the divinity of Jesus
67 The underlying premise of this argument is usually human corporeality in contrast toGodrsquos incoporeality see 921ndash2 also Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics 108ndash134 whoshows that Jewish philosophical polemicists content that Godrsquos immutability incorporealityand simple unity precludes incarnation from the outset
68 Daniel Lasker has proposed a simple classification for the various types of polemicalarguments into ldquo(1) exegetical arguments (min ha-ketuvim) (2) historical arguments (min ha-meẓirsquout) and (3) rational arguments (min ha-sekhel) rdquo see Jewish Philosophical Polemics 3see also 3ndash11 Exegetical arguments which are the focus of this study can either employ theHebrew Bible the Talmud or the New Testament See also Lasker ldquoPopular PolemicsrdquoOther classifications that have been suggested are found in Jeremy Cohen ldquoToward a Func-tional Classification of Jewish Anti-Christian Poelmic in the High Middle Agesrdquo in Reli-gionsgespraumlche im Mittelalter (ed Bernhard Lewis and Friedrich Niewoumlhner WolfenbuumlttelerMittelalter-Studien 4 Wiesbaden Harrassowitz 1992) 93ndash114 and Amos FunkensteinldquoReflections on Anti-Judaism 3 Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewis Polemics in the LateMiddle Agesrdquo Viator 2 (1972) 373ndash82 which is a slightly abridged version of what is foundin idem ldquoChanges in Patterns of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Centuryrdquo[ היב במאה לנוצרים יהודים שבין הדת בווכוח התמורות ] Zion 33 (1968) 125ndash44 [Hebr]
69 See also Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics 5ndash6
14 Jewish Polemics 21
Isa 714 or the claim to virginal birth70 This could be done by several meanseither by appealing to exegetical observations metaphysics (ontology) theimpropriety of various Christian beliefs by juxtaposing the Hebrew Bible orby pointing to contradictions within the New Testament
The second way the Gospel of Matthew was used by Jewish polemicists isas positive support for their critique of Christians and that in at least twoareas Jesusrsquo divinity and the Christian abrogation of Torah71 In particularShem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Even Boḥan and Profiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyimchampion the use of Christian sources against Christian doctrines in thismanner This type of argument simply uses passages from Matthew to disputeChristian convictions by either emphasizing particular aspects seeminglyoverlooked by Christian interpreters or by using Jesusrsquo own words to confuteChristian beliefs and practices (especially Matt 517ndash19) In argumentsagainst Jesusrsquo divinity one will frequently find a mix of both negative andpositive applications of the Gospel of Matthew although the positive use thatis the presentation of passages that stand in tension with Christian beliefs isoften more pronounced The main body of this study will present a wide rangeof these kinds of arguments and it will be seen that they form a kind ofpolemical tradition that frequently discuss the same passages and pericopes inthe Gospel of Matthew
It remains to be admitted that this study is somewhat unconventional inthat it will peruse Jewish texts from a Christian point of view by analyzing theJewish point of view so as to come to perhaps a more insightful understandingof Christian texts and the Christian position Usually Jewish polemic texts arestudied to investigate the historical and cultural contexts of their authors thedevelopment of philosophical and theological reflection within Judaism thegenre of Jewish polemics in general and the interaction and dynamics ofJudaism and Christianity throughout the centuries normally by scrutinizingthe underlying causes and factors for conflict and Christian aggressiontowards Jews While this study might very well be able to inform any of theseareas of research in that it can be used to trace the development of individualarguments and ideas its focus is on coming to a better and fuller appreciationof the Jewish (and in some sense the similar Muslim) objections to the belief
70 The at times crude parody of Jesusrsquo birth circumstances in the Toldot Yeshu accountswould be a good example for this There Jesus is often portrayed as Maryrsquos illegitimate off-spring of rather questionable circumstances
71 On the topic of Jesus and the Law see eg Adolf Harnack ldquoGeschichte eines pro-grammatischen Worts Jesu (Matth 517) in der aumlltesten Kirche Eine Skizzerdquo SPAW (1912)184ndash207 Ulrich Luz Matthew 1ndash7 (Hermeneia rev ed Minneapolis Fortress 2007) 215ndash17 222ndash25 and the overview of the more recent Jewish positions by Donald A Hagner TheJewish Reclamation of Jesus An analysis amp critique of the modern Jewish study of Jesus(Eugene Or Wipf amp Stock 1997) 87ndash132
22 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
in Jesusrsquo divinity and further to investigate the role and Wirkungsgeschichteof the Gospel of Matthew in this regard72
1 5 Methodology amp Presentation
The starting point for this investigation is Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and itsHebrew translation known as Nestor ha-Komer (chapter 2) which is the firstgenuine Jewish polemic that uses Christian texts extensively73 The argumen-
72 For the early reception of the Gospel of Matthew by non-Christians see Martin HengelldquoDie ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelienrdquo in Beim Wort nehmen mdash die Schrift alsZentrum fuumlr kirchliches Reden und Gestalten Friedrich Mildenberger zum 75 Geburtstag(ed Michael Krug Ruth Loumldel and Johannes Rehm Stuttgart Kohlhammer 2004) 99ndash117repr in Jesus und die Evangelien Kleine Schriften V (ed Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton WUNT I211 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007) 702ndash724 for the Christian reception see Massaux TheInfluence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew Kealy Matthewrsquos Gospel and the History of Bibli-cal Interpretation and Wolf-Dietrich Koumlhler Die Rezeption des Matthaumlusevangeliums in derZeit vor Irenaumlus (WUNT II24 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1987)
73 The focus on the use of the Gospel of Matthew meant that the Jewish anti-Christianpolemics in apocalyptic prose homiletic-exegetical works (midrashim) commentaries andsynagogal poetry (piyyut) are not considered here For the apocalyptic compositions seeYehuda Even Shmuel (Kaufman) Sermons of Redemption The Chapters of Jewish Apoca-lypse from the Finalization of the Talmud to the Beginning of the Sixth Century מדרשי]
הששיהאלףראשיתועדהבבליהתלמודמחתימתהיהודיתהאפוקליפסהפרקיגאולה ] (TelAviv Bialik Institute Massada 1943 repr 1953 1968) [Hebr] for the midrashim see Zel-lentin Rabbinic Parodies 51ndash94 Burton L Visotzky ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in LeviticusRabbahrdquo PAAJR 56 (1990) 83ndash100 and idem Golden Bells and Pomegranates Studies inMidrash Leviticus Rabbah (TSAJ 94 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2003) for anti-Christianremarks in commentaries see Erwin I J Rosenthal ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in MedievalBible Commentariesrdquo JJS 11 (1960) 115ndash35 repr in Studia Semitica Volume 1 JewishThemes (ed Erwin I J Rosenthal Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1971) 165ndash85]and Shaye J D Cohen ldquoDoes Rashirsquos Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity AComparison of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shorrdquo in The Idea of Biblical InterpretationEssays in Honor of James L Kugel (ed Hindy Najman and Judith H Newman SJSJ 83Leiden Brill 2004) 249ndash72 Avraham Grossman ldquoThe Commentary of Rashi on Isaiah andthe Jewish-Christian Debaterdquo in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social HistoryFestschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan (ed David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman and EliotR Wolfson SJJTP 15 Leiden Brill 2012) 47ndash62 and for the piyyutim see W Jac vanBekkum ldquoAnti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (piyyuṭ) of the Sixth andSeventh Centuriesrdquo in Early Christian Poetry A Collection of Essays (ed J den Boeft andA Hilthorst Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 22 Leiden Brill 1993) 297ndash308 HagithSivan ldquoFrom Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem Jewish Perspectives and JewishChristianPolemicsrdquo GRBS 41 (2000) 277ndash306 and Krauss and Horbury Controversy 5ndash13 See alsoPieter Willem van der Horst ldquoBirkat ha-Minim in recent researchrdquo in Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity Essays on Their Interaction (2nd ed Contributions to Biblical Exegesis andTheology 8 Kampen Kok Pharos 1994) 113ndash24 first published in The Expository Times
15 Methodology amp Presentation 23
tation of Nestor ha-Komer reappears in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem (chapter 3) a highly influential twelfth century composition that left itstraces in many subsequent polemical works The next major critique of Jesusrsquodivinity that utilizes gospel texts is found in Joseph ben Nathanrsquos Sefer Yosefha-Meqanne (chapter 4) and the anonymous Nizzahon Yashan (chapter 5)which are both collections of polemical arguments that from the thirteenthcentury onwards were circulated in France and Germany respectively whichtherefore allow access to the Ashkenazi polemical tradition In fact NizzahonVetus is one of the most comprehensive and important polemical composi-tions available Also indispensable to this study is the fourteenth century workEven Boḥan by the prominent Spanish Rabbi Shem Ṭov Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ(chapter 6) for in it we have the first clear evidence of a Jewish scholarengaging with the entire text of the Gospel of Matthew which he provides inform of an annotated Hebrew translation Equally important is Kelimmat ha-Goyim (chapter 7) penned by probably the most exceptional and ingeniouspolemic writer of the Late Middle Ages Profiat Duran Much later is thesixteenth century Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah by Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki(chapter 8) who also comments on a good number of New Testamentpassages Since it is one of the best known Jewish polemical works and still inuse today and also had an impact on so influential thinkers as Voltaire andHermann Samuel Reimarus it could not be omitted here
Five more sources have been considered alongside the seven main wit-nesses yet without treating them in seperate chapters instead they are dis-cussed where appropriate These are Joseph Qimḥirsquos Sefer ha-Berit (ldquoTheBook of the Covenantrdquo)74 a manuscript usually related to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (MS Rome Or 53)75 Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq (ldquoThe Disputation ofRadaqrdquo)76 Sarsquod b Manṣur Ibn Kammunāhrsquos Tanqīḥ al-abḥāt li-l-milal
105 (1993ndash94) 363ndash68 and esp William Horbury ldquoThe Benediction of the Minim and earlyJewish-Christian Controversyrdquo JTS 33 (1982) 19ndash61 Further also Stefan Schreiner ldquolsquoEinZerstoumlrer des Judentumsrsquo Mose ben Maimon uumlber den historischen Jesusrdquo Trias of Mai-monides (ed Georges Tamer Studia Judaica Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2005) 323ndash45
74 Sefer ha-Berit was written by Joseph Qimḥi (c 1105ndash1170 who lived most of his lifein Narbonne) at the same time as Milḥamot ha-Shem See Frank Talmage The Book of theCovenant and other Writings [ הנצרותעםרדקוויכוחיהבריתספר ] (Jerusalem BialikInstitute 1974) [Hebr] For the English translation see idem The Book of the Covenant ofJoseph Kimhi (Toronto Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1972) also Robert ChazanldquoJosephrsquos lsquoSefer Ha-Beritrsquo Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologeticsrdquo HTR 85 (1992)417ndash32 Sefer ha-Berit uses John 184 6 Luke 1619ndash31 2334 Matthew 2639 (see 346)and Mark 1534 (par Matt 2746 see 346) See also under 253 and 6419
75 See the discussion under 4376 Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq is a late 12th or early 13th century pseudonymous polemical work
attributed to the exegete David Qimḥi (1160ndash1235) published in a collection of polemicaltexts entitled חובהמלחמת (ldquoObligatory Warrdquo) in Constantinople in 1710 (ff 13andash18a) on
24 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
al-talāt (ldquoExamination of the Inquries into the Three Faithsrdquo 13th century)77
and Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣvah (ldquoCommanded Warrdquo)78 These arenot all the texts that could have been considered there are far more79 yet
this see also Krauss and Horbury Controversy 221ndash22 For a translation of this text seeFrank Talmage ldquoAn Hebrew Polemical Treatise Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodoxrdquo HTR 60(1967) 323ndash48 See also the discussions under 232 252 346 348 6410 64117310 and the appendix
77 See Moshe Perlmann Ibn Kammūnarsquos Examination of the Three Faiths A thirteenth-century Essay in the comparative Study of Religion (Berkeley University of California Press1971) 74 81ndash83 86ndash93 see the discussion under 2511 See also Stefan Schreiner ldquoIbnKammucircnas Verteidigung des historischen Jesus gegen den paulinischen Christusrdquo in Ge-schichte mdash Tradition mdash Reflexion Volume 1 Judentum (ed Hubert Cancik Hermann Licht-enberger and Peter Schaumlfer FS Martin Hengel Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1996) 453ndash79
78 Milḥemet Miṣvah is a 13th century compendium of disputations between Mersquoir benSimeon and noted Christians amongst them the bishop of Narbonne The work is not fullypublished but several significant portions have been printed see Krauss and Horbury Con-troversy 227ndash29 esp 227 n 98 Hanne Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword JewishPolemics Against Christianity and the Christians in France and Spain from 1100ndash1500(TSMJ 8 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1993) 73ndash83 Chazan Daggers of Faith Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley University of CaliforniaPress 1989) 39ndash66 and esp Siegfried Stein Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth-Century Narbonne (London University College London H K Lewis 1969) MilḥemetMiṣvah is extensive and rather interesting eg it contains a list of fifteen reasons why Jewscannot believe in ldquothis manrdquo Jesus Of these especially reason eleven is comparable to what isencountered in the sources surveyed in this study (see 253 but also the reproduction of thissection in the appendix) The Gospel of Matthew is also alluded to in regard to Torah abroga-tion (mostly Matt 5) see William K Herskowitz ldquoJudeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence asreflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R Meir HaMeilirdquo (PhD diss Yeshiva University 1974) 72(cf pp 5 62 66 Hebrew section) and Siegfried Stein ldquoA Disputation on Moneylendingbetween Jews and Gentiles in Mersquoir b Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣwah (Narbonne 13th Cent)rdquoJJS 10 (1959) 45ndash61 esp 52
79 Further noteworthy (though by no means all) sources that treat the Gospel of Matthewwhich are not considered here are The Karaite Jacob Qirqisanirsquos Kitāb al-anwār (ldquoBook ofLightsrdquo 10th century) see Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood Yalsquoqūb al-Qirqīsānī onJewish Sects and Christianity A translation of lsquoKitāb al-anwārrsquo Book I with two introduc-tory essays (Judentum und Umwelt 10 Frankfurt P Lang 1984) 138ndash39 [only discussesMatthewrsquos genealogy] Judah ha-Levirsquos Kitacircb al-Radd wa-rsquol-Dalīl fi rsquol-Dicircn al-Dhalicircl (ldquoTheBook of Refutation and Proof on the Despised Faithrdquo) written in 1140 see N DanielKorobkin The Kuzari In Defense of the Despised Faith (Northvale NJ J Aronson 1998)8ndash9 50ndash51 222 [only Matt 517 39ndash40 mentioned] Judah Hadassirsquos Eshkol ha-Kofer(ldquoCluster of Hennardquo) a twelfth century text from Constantinople see Wilhelm BacherldquoInedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassirsquos lsquoEshkol Hakkoferrsquordquo JQR 8 (1896) 431ndash44 esp432 437 440 [only marginal references to Matthew] Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillasrsquo lsquoEzerha-Emunah (ldquoAid to Faithrdquo) written after a public debate with Christians which occured inAvila c 1375 see Krauss and Horbury 165ndash66 232ndash33 [unfortunately no published text]Ḥasdai Crescasrsquo (c 1340ndash1411) Biṭṭul lsquoiqqare ha-Noṣrim (ldquoRefutation of the ChristiansrsquoPrinciplesrdquo) see Daniel J Lasker The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai
15 Methodology amp Presentation 25
these thirteen sources create a fairly representative historical and geographicaloverview of the exegetical arguments that occur in Jewish polemics In factas will be seen most discuss the same passages in Matthew
Each of the seven main sources will be placed in its historical and culturalcontext and then analyzed for the use and citations of the Gospel of MatthewThe relevant passages will be presented in the original and as translation80
Furthermore the arguments will be situated within the context of the greatertheological issues and briefly summarized at the end of the chapter of eachmain witness The last chapter will then draw out some of the finds and makesome general observations (chapter 9)
The individual arguments within each chapters will mostly be organizedfollowing the order of the Gospel of Matthew This is necessary evenunavoidable because many of the polemical works that treat the New Testa-ment are seemingly random collections of exegetical arguments81 At first
Crescas (Albany NY State University of New York Press 1992) 66 71ndash73 [only marginalreferences to Matthew] Joseph Alborsquos (c 1380ndash1444) Sefer ha-lsquoIqqarim (ldquoBook of Princi-plesrdquo) see Hans Georg von Mutius ldquoDie Beurteilung Jesu und des Neuen Testamentes beimspanisch-juumldischen Religionsphilosphen Josef Albordquo FZPhTh 27 (1980) 457ndash64 [alludes toMatt 123 218 517ndash19] Simeon ben Zemah Duranrsquos Qeshet u-Magen (ldquoBow and Shieldrdquo)originally part of his Magen Avot (ldquoShield of the Fathersrdquo) written in Algiers in 1423 seeProsper Murciano ldquoSimon ben Zemah Duran Keshet u-Magen A Critical Editionrdquo (PhDdiss New York University 1975) 3ndash3a 9a 13ndash13a 15ndash15a 16 21ndash21a 22 23ndash27 29ndash29a 31ndash31a 34ndash36 37andash39a 43 44ndash44a 48 53 56andash58a 60andash61 [extensively discussesJesusrsquo Torah adherence probably relies on Milḥamot ha-Shem and Kelimmat ha-Goyim et alsee Murciano xxv 24a n 8 (translation)] Lipmann Muumlhlhausenrsquos Niṣṣaḥon (early 15thcentury) see Ora Limor and Israel I Yuval Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov LipmannMuumlhlhausen A Critical Edition (forthcoming) and Krauss and Horbury 112 223ndash25 [likelydependent on Nizzahon Vetus andor the French polemical tradition] Leon Modenarsquos Magenva-Ḥerev (ldquoShield and Swordrdquo) see Allen H Podet A Translation of the Magen Wa-Herebby Leon Modena 1571ndash1648 (Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 2001) 29ndash30 4966ndash67 74ndash75 89ndash90 92ndash94 95ndash97 119ndash22 132ndash45 170 173 182ndash87 A further manu-script Paris Bibliothegraveque Nationale Heb MS 712 which contains a selection of New Testa-ment passages transcribed from Latin into Hebrew mentioned by Lasker and described byPhilippe Bobichon and Tamaacutes Visi during a conference he attended was not available seeLasker ldquoJewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo 105
80 This is necessary because the Hebrew original is often not easily available and anEnglish translation is frequently non-existent Where Hebrew editions exist text critical nota-tions have been kept to a bare minimum to not encumber the overall presentation which iswhy the consultation of the critical editions is highly recommended In chapter 6 (EvenBoḥan) it was necessary to give more textual variances as no critical text has been publishedso far and two manuscripts were used as the source for the chapter When it comes to thetranslation medieval Hebrew can be notoriously stubborn to yield an adequate rendering intoEnglish mdash and I am by no means an expert mdash any shortcomings in this regard is hopefullymitigated by having easy access to the Hebrew original
81 In certain sources eg in Qiṣṣa the material appears to have been deliberatelyarranged which consequently resulted in a somewhat different chapter organization
26 Chapter 1 Matthaeus Adversus Christianos
sight this may give the impression that each chapter presents only a list of dis-jointed arguments Due to the nature of the source material however thearrangement along the Matthean chapter sequence is in most cases animprovement of the presentation in the sources82 The content table and head-lines identify the respective passage in Matthew and thus provide convenientaccess to the discussion of a given passage in the Jewish sources Moreoverthis arrangement will allow the comparison of individual arguments
Finally it needs to be mentioned that the discussion of a given argumentthat has already been encountered mdash very frequently the same or very similararguments are repeated by various polemicists mdash will not be discussed againand again Instead the reader will be directed to the discussion in previous (orin some cases subsequent) chapters
82 This is especially true for Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizzahon Vetus
15 Methodology amp Presentation 27
Chapter 2
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer
2 1 Introduction
The earliest Jewish composition presently available that uses and directlyengages Christian scriptures is Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf1 This ldquoAccount ofthe Disputation of the Priestrdquo2 is a polemical treatise composed in Judeo-Arabic and next to Toledot Yeshu it is one of the earliest genuine JewishAdversus Christianos works extant3 The Hebrew version a later medievaltranslation of Qiṣṣa was already known in 1170 as Sefer Nestor ha-Komer(ldquoThe Book of Nestor the Priestrdquo)4
The anonymous author of Qiṣṣa presents himself as a former Christianpriest who after having converted to Judaism provides various arguments forhis change of mind It is not clear if this proselyte identity is a mere literarydevice or indeed recalls the account of a Christian convert to Judaism Thiswould not be entirely implausible in particular since a significant number of
1 Subsequently Qiṣṣa The principal source text was edited by Daniel J Lasker and SarahStroumsa The Polemic of Nestor the Priest Qiṣṣat Mujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer NestorHaKomer (2 vols Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in theEast 1996)
2 Sometimes also referred to as ldquoAccount of the Disputation of the Bishoprdquo For the trans-lation of usquf see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 152 n 1
3 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 236ndash238 For an introduction to Anti-Christianpolemical works in proximity to Qiṣṣa see Daniel J Lasker ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Chris-tianity under Islam in the Middle Agesrdquo PAAJR 57 (1990ndash1991) 121ndash53 but see alsoNicholas De Lange ldquoA Fragment of Byzantine AntindashChristian Polemicrdquo JJS 41 (1990) 92ndash100 and Hagith Sivan ldquoFrom Byzantine to Persian Jerusalemrdquo
4 Subsequently Nestor both together will be abbreviated as QiṣṣaNestor כומר) shouldtechnically be translated as an ldquoidol-priestrdquo) Passages that are are attributed to Nestor appearalready in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem which is dated to 1170 (see chapter 3) In1880 Moritz Steinschneider concluded that Nestor was a Hebrew version of Qiṣṣa seeLasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 127ndash29 31 and Daniel J Lasker ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalatal-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer The Earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish Anti-ChristianPolemicsrdquo in Genizah Research After Ninety Years The Case of Judaeo-Arabic Papers readat the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (ed Joshua Blau and Stefan CReif Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1992) 112ndash18 here 112
Christian passages mostly from the gospels are discussed in Qiṣṣa5 Alsodetails from a range of Christian apocryphal texts appear at times inter-spersed with novel details and treated as co-equal to canonical texts6 Thegreat familiarity with canonical and apocryphal texts seen in Qiṣṣa lends assuch some credence to the claim that the composer was formerly Christian7
In the Hebrew version the author is identified as ldquoNestorrdquo which then alsoprovided the title for the treatise The name Nestor appears in Qiṣṣa in sect768
and may refer to Nestorius of Constantinople (died c 451) or perhaps to theless known Nestorius of Adiabene (c 800)9 While in Qiṣṣa this personNestor simply provides a polemical example of a Christian who came to agreewith a more Jewish understanding of God the later European translatorunderstood this reference to signify the author of the whole work10 ThisNestor is said to have ldquoleft your religionrdquo because he did ldquonot believe in a
5 See Lasker ldquoCritique of Christianity under Islamrdquo 123ndash24 The gospel references aremostly taken from Matthew and John see also Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in MedievalJewish Anti-Christian polemicsrdquo 62ndash112
6 Apocryphal traditions appearing in QiṣṣaNestor have been related to The InfancyGospel of Pseudo-Matthew The History of Joseph the Carpenter and The Protoevangeliumof James (see Qiṣṣa sectsect81ndash82 sect92 sect111 sect152 also sect28a sect31 sect75 sectsect153ndash157 sectsect182ndash183)For further discussion see Simone Rosenkranz Die juumldisch-christliche Auseinandersetzungunter islamischer Herrschaft (7ndash10 Jahrhundert) (Bern P Lang 2004) 288ndash93 who alsoexplores similarities to the Sibylline Oracles and the Arabic Infancy Gospel She notes thatQiṣṣa reflects a high esteem for apocryphal traditions common to oriental Christianity ibid293 She also points out similarities to Toledot Yeshu ibid 261 269ndash70 Joel Rembaum like-wise sees similarities to the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Thomas see his ldquoTheInfluence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemicsrdquo PAAJR 45 (1978) 156ndash85 esp 160ndash63 commenting ldquoit is practically impossible to ascertain whether or not theauthor knew the difference between canonical and apocryphal traditionsrdquo (163)
7 The Jewish philosophical polemicist Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammaṣ a prominentJewish reconverted proselyte from Christianity who was active in the early 10th century hasbeen suggested as a possible author but was ruled out on terminological grounds see Laskerand Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 115 and Lasker ldquoQiṣṣatrdquo 115ndash16
8 Here and in the following based on LaskerStroumarsquos numeration9 See Lasker ldquoQiṣṣatrdquo 114ndash15 esp n 28 Harry A Wolfson has suggested that this
latter Nestorius has founded a ldquosplinter group of Nestoriansrdquo with a differing theological viewof the Trinity and the incarnation see idem ldquoAn Unknown Splinter Group of NestoriansrdquoRevue drsquoeacutetudes augustiniennes et patristiques 6 (1960) 249ndash53 and idem ldquoMore about theUnknown Splinter group of Nestoriansrdquo Revue drsquoeacutetudes augustiniennes et patristiques 11(1965) 217ndash22 Nestor most likely Nestorius of Constantinople also appears in ToledotYeshu (eg in those of the ldquode Rossirdquo type) see Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 269 espn 55 Krauss Leben Jesu 232ndash36 but also William Horbury ldquoThe Strasbourg Text of theToledoth Yeshurdquo in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) (ed Schaumlfer et al) 49ndash59 see 5059 and Stephen Gero ldquoThe Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth Yeshurdquo OrChr 59 (1975)108ndash20
10 See Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 266
30 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
god who dwelt in the filth and menstrual blood in the abdomen and wombrdquo11
More so he found in the Torah that God was described as a devouring fireand consequently he questioned how there could ldquobe fire upon fire in awomanrsquos abdomenrdquo12
Qiṣṣa and Nestor have a complicated and uncertain textual transmissionhistory which have made it difficult to determine the exact date origin orsetting of the composition in particular since both the original composer andlater copyist(s) appear to have drawn on various sources Daniel J Lasker andSarah Stroumsa who prepared the presently most authoritative critical editionand translation of Qiṣṣa and Nestor discuss ldquoapproximately the middle of theninth century as a plausible date for the composition of Qiṣṣardquo13 Yet some ofthe oldest available fragments which might represent underlying source mate-rial or earlier versions of Qiṣṣa date to the 8th century14 Qiṣṣa is thus one ofthe earliest genuine Jewish polemic works currently available
A much earlier date reaching back as far as the early sixth century was pro-posed by the first editor of Qiṣṣa Leacuteon Schlosberg in 188015 This dating isbased on sect133 in Paris Heb MS 755 in which the persecution of Diocletian is
11 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167 see also 129 113ndash14 152 LaskerldquoQiṣṣatrdquo 114ndash15 and Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 266ndash74 She proceeds to discussessect76 and Nestoriusrsquo role in Jewish and Muslim polemics ibid 266ndash74
12 For more on Qiṣṣa sect76 see this chapter 25313 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 119 Agreeing with this later dating are
Krauss and Horbury Controversy 236ndash38 and Heinrich L Fleischer ldquoUumlber eine juumldisch-ara-bische Streitschrift gegen das Christentumrdquo in Kleinere Schriften Vol 3 (Leipzig S Hirzel1883) 167ndash86 repr from BVSGW 34 (1882) 57ndash75 Rosenkranz after an extensive study ofthe internal evidence comes to the conclusion that Qiṣṣa was composed in the 8th centurysee Auseinandersetzung 107 250ndash308
14 These fragments are shorter than later versions and distinguished by the fact that Jesusis called Yeshulsquoa (ישוע) See discussion below but also Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor thePriest 125 and Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 250ndash51
15 For the publishing history of QiṣṣaNestor see Lasker ldquoThe earliest Arabic and HebrewJewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo 112ndash14 For Scholars who have held to the earlier datingsee Leacuteon Schlosberg אלאסקףמגאדלהקצה Controverse drsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee agrave unde ses colleacutegues vers lrsquoan 514 texte arabe (Vienna Chez lrsquoeacutediteur 1880) idem Controversedrsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee a un de ses collegravegues vers lrsquoan 514 Traduite en franccedilais dutexte arabe Publieacutee drsquoapregraves un ancien Manuscrit de la Bibliotheacuteque Nationale de Paris (No755 du Catalogue) (Versailles F Vieweg 1888) Samuel Krauss ldquoUn Fragement poleacutemiquedel la Guenizardquo REJ 63 (1912) 63ndash74 Michel van Esbroeck ldquoLe manuscript heacutebreux Paris755 et lrsquohistoire des martyrs de Nedjranrdquo in La Syrie de Byzance agrave Islam VIIe ndash VIIIesieacutecles Actes du colloque international ldquoDe Byzance agrave lislamrdquo (ed P Canvivet andJ-P Rey-Coquais Damas Institut franccedilais de Damas 1992) 25ndash30 idem ldquoDer von einemBischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Verfolgung von seiten DūNuwāsrdquo in Ausgewaumlhlte Vortraumlge XXIV Deutscher Orientalistentag (ed Werner Diem andAbdoldjavad Falaturi ZDMGSup 8 Stuttgart F Steiner 1990) 105ndash15 Rembaum assumeda date between 500 and 800 CE see idem ldquoTestamentrdquo 64
21 Introduction 31
mentioned as having occurred 230 years earlier This then allowed for theconjecture of a date as early as 514 CE16 However Lasker and Stroumsapropose that this particular section originates in ldquoearlier Christian hagiograph-ical literature and the date found in the earlier work was left unchangedrdquo thusthe section ought to be deemed inadequate for dating the composition of theoverall work17 Yet it shows that earlier source material was incorporated intoQiṣṣa and it can thus be assumed that some of the polemical arguments itselfantedate the eight or ninth century
Based on manuscript evidence Lasker and Stroumsa suggest the middle ofthe tenth century as terminus ad quem18 Though ldquothe latest possible date forQiṣṣa can be pushed back even earlier Some early Muslim polemical textswhich can be dated with a fair degree of certainty to the middle of the ninthcentury seem to depend on Qiṣṣardquo19
16 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 11517 Ibid 116 esp n 16 They point out that Qiṣṣa sect133 is strikingly similar to a Christian
Arabic manuscript from the 10th or 11th century MS Brit Mus Or 5091 relating the mar-tyrdom of Christians in Sinai which also includes The Protoevangelium of James They sub-sequently suggest that the passage in Qiṣṣa may therefore have been copied from this Christ-ian material which itself was translated into Arabic in c 772 CE See Joshua Blau TheEmergence and linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic A Study of the Origins of Middle-Arabic (2nd ed Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in theEast 1981) 5ndash6 esp n 7 Rosenkranz provides an in depth analysis of the content of sectsect133ndash134 which also includes references to the legends of the miracle healers Cosmas and Damianand of the finding of the true cross Auseinandersetzung 253ndash66 She concludes that theauthor of sectsect133ndash134 had a good knowledge of Christianity which in her estimation reflects aGreek-speaking ldquomelkitisch-syrisches Christentumrdquo (265 see also 282)
18 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 11819 Ibid 118 esp n 27 The textual interdependence of Muslim texts on the Qiṣṣa or vice
versa appears to be an area in need of further investigation Lasker and Stroumsa note thatwhole paragraphs and ldquocoherent unitsrdquo in Muslim polemical works ldquobear a striking resem-blance to parts of Qiṣṣa but the direction of the influence is harder to determinerdquo (122) Forexample a Muslim text from the late eight century the Risāla of Ibn al-Laith is briefly men-tioned as possibly exhibiting some dependence on Qiṣṣa cf Melhem Chokr Zandaqa etzindīqs en Islām au second siegravecle de lrsquoheacutegire (Damascus Institut Franccedilais des Eacutetudes Arabesde Damas 1993) 85ndash87 102 see also Dominique Sourdel ldquoUn pamplet musulman anonymedrsquoeacutepoque lsquoabbāside contre chreacutetiensrdquo Revue des eacutetudes islamiques 34 (1966) 1ndash33 Laskerand Stroumsa tentatively favor the movement of arguments from Jewish to Muslim polemicsand in their estimation Jewish polemical arguments were adapted by Muslims (ibid 122)Yet the historical milieu arguably allowed for more mobility than this For instance Chris-tians who had converted to Islam would have been able to provide unique access to (hetero-dox) Christian arguments (eg Abū Bakr or lsquoAli al-Ṭabarī) In fact various Muslim worksfrequently cite and use the New Testament see esp Martin Accad who brought togetherldquo1270 Gospel references from 23 works of 20 Muslim authorsrdquo (from the abstract) in ldquoTheGospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Century An exegeticalinventoryrdquo Islam and Christian Relations 14 (2003) 67ndash91 205ndash20 337ndash52 459ndash79 Henotes several authors who utilize the Gospel of Matthew amongst them al-Qāsim al-Rassī
32 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Lasker and Stroumsa have based their critical text on a 15th or 16th centmanuscript Paris Heb MS 75520 which presents the most complete versionof Qiṣṣa It is also the longest of presently 30 other manuscripts consisting of36 fragments21 Lasker and Stroumsa have compared and corrected the Parismanuscript which ldquooffers a very corrupt textrdquo22 with all other manuscriptsavailable at the time and produced a critically reconstructed and rearrangedtext version of Qiṣṣa and of Nestor They also helpfully translated both theJudeo-Arabic and the Hebrew texts and included a commentary of the respec-tive arguments encountered
Lasker and Stroumsa propose that the available Qiṣṣa manuscripts reflectat least four different text versions23 they find 1) a longer and later ldquomainversionrdquo which MS P represents 2) an early version preserved in the oldestfragments24 and 3) further various ldquointermediaterdquo versions as some manu-scripts are closer to the ldquomain versionrdquo and others to the shorter early versionBut because some of these manuscripts greatly differ from the ldquomain versionrdquoLasker and Stroumsa also have identified 4) a separate and shorter ldquoparallelversionrdquo
Nestor does not follow the long version of MS P but is ldquomore often thannot (hellip) closer to the shorter parallel version but sometimes includes ele-ments that are present only in the long onerdquo25 Thus Lasker and Stroumsaassume the existence of an intermediate version as the basis of the Hebrewtranslation that often best preserves the logical sequence of the arguments
(c 820) who translated and included the first eight chapters of the gospel of Matthew (ibid72) and (Pseudo-)lsquoUmar II (ninth century ibid 74) On this topic see also Philip AlexanderldquoThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debaterdquo in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Storyof Jesusrdquo) (ed Schaumlfer et al) 137ndash58
20 Hereafter designated MS P This is also the manuscript on which Schlosberg vanEsbroeck and Rembaum based their research albeit without considering additional manu-scripts MS P is a Qiṣṣa text it is composed in Judeo-Arabic and not Hebrew
21 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 125ndash26 39ndash48 cf esp 46ndash47 It is to beexpected that further fragments will become available see 125 n 63
22 Ibid 14623 See ibid 125ndash26 There are only four Nestor manuscripts which appear to represent
three distinct recensions as they often arrange the arguments differently see 193ndash95 cf alsoRosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 251ndash52
24 In at least three fragments of this presumably earliest version of Qiṣṣa Jesus is calledYeshulsquoa (ישוע) which stands in contrast to all other manuscripts These three fragmentsbelong to the same manuscript (c 10th century) and are printed without a translation inNestor the Priest they are MS Z (sectsect60ndash68) MS K (sectsect69ndash77) and MS H (sectsect114ndash125) ibid125 40 287ndash92 see also Lasker ldquoQiṣṣatrdquo 114 117
25 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 126 Accordingly all the Hebrew Nestor man-uscripts are closer to the ldquoparallel versionrdquo and at least when it comes to the logical sequenceof the treatise represent an earlier stage of textual development than MS P see alsoRosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 252
21 Introduction 33
They maintained that ldquoNestor in some instances actually bears better witnessto the original Qiṣṣa than does MS Prdquo26
The setting of the composition is in light of the manuscript evidencesomewhat difficult to determine Not much else can be said other than that theauthor or compiler was a ldquoJew probably of the ninth century who lived in anArabic-speaking environmentrdquo who appears to reacted to a form of ldquoEasternChristianityrdquo27 Simone Rosenkranz has narrowed this down further and sug-gested that Qiṣṣa appears to reflect the environment of an original Greek-speaking Melkite Christianity28 She like Ora Limor deems it possible thatthe treatise may have come from a convert to Judaism as claimed in theintroduction of Qiṣṣa29
26 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 129 Hans-Juumlrgen Becker has challengedLasker and Stroumsarsquos textual reconstruction see his review of their Nestor the Priest inZDMG 148 (1998) 406ndash409 He mainly criticizes the editorial decision to postulate an ldquoorig-inal textrdquo and then proceed to rearrange the often hopelessly cluttered arguments of thevarious manuscripts and eclectically correct MS P with other earlier text versions and manu-scripts Becker suggests that the complex manuscript situation is rather similar to that of rab-binic literature with its fluid textual transmission where alterations additions or truncation oftexts are quite common Qiṣṣa and Nestor were in his estimation much like other rabbinicaltexts adjusted and rearranged to the cultural and language milieus of their audiences aproposition which is reflected in the complex nature of the manuscripts mdash which also showsthe popularity of this text He consequently qualifies Lasker and Stroumsarsquos dating and recon-struction of transmission history as ldquounsicherrdquo
27 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 121ndash22 but see also 119 where they entertainthe possibility of a Syriac language background to Qiṣṣa for which also Schlosberg and vanEsbroeck have argued
28 See Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 287 also 307ndash308 as already mentioned sheproposes the eighth century as composition date ibid 107
29 See ibid 308 following Ora Limor ldquoJudaism examines Christianity The Polemic ofNestor the Priest and Sefer Toledot Yeshurdquo [ldquo הכומרנסתורפולמוסבנצרותמתבוננתיהודות
ישותולדותוספר rdquo] Pelsquoamim 75 (1998) 109ndash28 [Hebr] here 111ndash13 who sees the com-poserrsquos great familiarity with Christian texts as an indicator of being a convert Moreoverbased on well-known medieval parallels of Jewish conversions to Christianity Limor findsthe assertion quite realistic that such a person would pen a polemical text against his formerreligion (for self-assurance out of zeal or to gain the trust of Christians) Converts toJudaism while probably not common are known to exist For example Simeon ben ZemahDuran mentions in Qeshet u-Magen (15th century) that ldquoI have already seen French prose-lytes pious and learned in their traditions who converted to Judaism on account of thismatter [discrepancies within the Christian canon andor Jeromersquos insufficient attempts to dealwith them]rdquo see Murciano Keshet u-Magen 60 [ חכמיםחסידיםצרפתיםגריםראיתיוכבר
זהמפנישנתגיירובנימוסיהם ] For more on the topic of converts and proselytism see alsoNorman Golb Jewish Proselytism A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early MedievalEurope (The Tenth Annual Robbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture Cincinnati JudaicStudies Program University of Cincinnati 1987) and in addition especially Joseph Shatz-miller ldquoJewish Converts to Christianity in Medieval Europe 1200ndash1500rdquo in Cross CulturalConvergences in the Crusader Period Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth
34 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
2 2 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa
Common to the geographical context and preceding the more conservativesuggestions for the composition date is the Arab conquest which is mostclearly illustrated in the composition language of Qiṣṣa Judeo-Arabic By theseventh century the Byzantine Empire had lost Palestine Syria easternAnatolia and Egypt to the advancing Arab armies and this area would largelystay under expanding Muslim control and influence but for the brief inter-mezzo of the Crusades30 The administrative consolidation by the Abassidsmade the various Jewish and Christian communities throughout the Levantequal in social and legal standing from the middle of the eight centuryonward As dhimmi officially tolerated and subjugated ldquominoritiesrdquo that weregranted certain rights including freedom of worship and religious self-admin-istration Jews and Christian were on equal socio-political footing althoughregional differences probably allowed one or the other group to exercise moreinfluence at times31 Melkite Jacobite Coptic Nestorian and other forms ofChristianity were present in the Mashreq (generally speaking the regionunder Muslim control east of Egypt and north of the Arabian Peninsula) inaddition to Jewish and Muslim communities The new political situation andwith it the elimination of regional borders and increasing influence of Arabicput many religious groups in direct contact with each other attested to by thevarious polemic texts created in this period32
Birthday (ed Michael Goodich Sophia Menache and Sylvia Schein New York P Lang1995) 297ndash318
30 Although from the middle of the 10th century the Byzantine Empire resurged recon-quering northern Palestine see eg Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 148ndash49
31 The dhimmi as the native population of newly conquered territories were in fact in themajority and only gradually became a minority See Youssef Courbage and Philippe FarguesChristians and Jews under Islam (London I B Tauris 1997) 3ndash28 Bernhard Lewis TheJews of Islam (Princeton Princeton University Press 1984) 17ndash19 25 Bat Yersquoor (GisegraveleLittman) The Dhimmi Jews and Christians under Islam (rev and enlarged English editionCranbury NJ Associated University Press 1985) 48ndash49 67
32 This is mostly an exchange between Christians and Muslims with only very littleJewish polemical activity against Islam or Christianity see Lasker ldquoCritique of Christianityunder Islamrdquo 122 esp n 3 For an overview of polemical literature written in Arabic seeMoritz Steinschneider Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwi-schen Muslimen Christen und Juden (Kunde des Morgenlandes 63 Leipzig Brockhaus1877) also Sarah Stroumsa ldquoJewish Polemics against Islam and Christianity in the Light ofJudeo-Arabic Textsrdquo in Judeo-Arabic Studies Proceedings of the Founding Conference ofthe Society for Judeo-Arabic Studies (ed Norman Golb Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations3 Amsterdam Overseas Publishers Association 1997) 241ndash50 and Rosenkranz Auseinan-dersetzung 29ndash103 See esp the various volumes edited by David Thomas BarbaraRoggema and Alex Malett eds Christian-Muslim relations A bibliographical History (sofar vols 1ndash4 Leiden Brill 2009ndash2012)
22 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa 35
Thus even if one assumes the seventh to the tenth century as possible timerange of writing one cannot deduce that Christian hostilities towards Jewsgave cause to the composition of Qiṣṣa which often has been postulated as aprecursor for the later European Jewish polemic literature Qiṣṣa is not in par-ticular hostile nor employs any crude verbal abuse known to occur in othertexts of the polemical genre although it can be quite blunt and graphic in pas-sages33 The reason for writing or collating various arguments could be per-sonal as converts often appear to be leading the charge of proselytization34
Alternatively Qiṣṣa can be understood as response to the continual vitality ofChristian groups in contact with the intended audience probably in one of theurban centers where Jewish and Christian communities co-existed35
Simone Rosenkranz has argued in her dissertation that Christianity posedat least for a time a noteworthy theological challenge for Jews prompting thewriting of several extensive polemic works and that Qiṣṣa in particular defiesthe notion that Jewish anti-Christian polemics were only reactionary literaryexpressions caused by Christian persecution36 Qiṣṣa was preserved and circu-lated for ldquodomesticrdquo use as a strong reaffirmation that Christianity is a sub-stantially flawed belief In particular the frequent use of the New Testamentshows that Qiṣṣa is not a refutation of Christians and their arguments onlybut the means by which one can demonstrate the inherent contradiction ofChristianity37
Jacob ben Reubenrsquos pivotal treatise Milḥamot ha-Shem brought some ofQiṣṣarsquos polemic to the European Jewry in the 12th century38 However hisclearer style of argumentation seems to have superseded QiṣṣaNestor in theEuropean context evidenced by the fact that so far only four manuscripts of
33 See eg sect60ndash61 sect82 Nestor is in comparison more graphic and sometimes morehostile in tone and choice of words perhaps reflecting the greater pressures the audience andredactors experienced in the European context
34 See Ora Limor ldquoJudaism examines Christianityrdquo 111ndash1235 Most of the thirty Qiṣṣa manuscripts were found in the various (Cairo) Genizah collec-
tions hence providing us with a definitive setting for this kind of writing See Lasker andStroumsa Nestor the Priest 140 42 47
36 See Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 1537 See ibid 307 cf Lasker ldquoCritique of Christianity under Islamrdquo 121ndash22 and idem
ldquoQiṣṣatrdquo 11738 For the influence of NestorQiṣṣa on later European polemic see Daniel J Lasker ldquoThe
Jewish Christian Debate in Transition From the Lands of Ishmael to the Lands of Edomrdquo inJudaism and Islam Boundaries Communication and Interaction mdash Essays in Honor ofWilliam M Brinner (ed Benjamin H Hary John L Hayes Fred Astren Jewish Studies 27Leiden Brill 2000) 53ndash65 esp 61ndash61 idem ldquoJewish-Christian Polemics at the the TurningPoint Jewish Evidence from the Twelfth Centuryrdquo HTR 89 (1996) 161ndash73 esp 166ndash68and idem ldquoJudeo-Christian Polemics and Their Origins in Muslim Countriesrdquo הפולמוס]
האסלאםבארצותומקורוריוהיהודי־נוצרי ] Pelsquoamim 57 (1993) 4ndash16 [Hebr] For Qiṣṣarsquosand Nestorrsquos influence on later Jewish polemic see Rembaum ldquoInfluencerdquo 164ndash70
36 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Nestor have been preserved the oldest from the 15th century Neverthelessthe Hebrew manuscripts show a remarkable circulation one of the manu-scripts cites the New Testament in Latin gloss and two manuscripts cite thetext in Greek39
It would seem that Qiṣṣa made ldquoits way from the Middle East throughNorth Africa and onto the Iberian peninsula where it became part of theAndalusian Jewish tradition of anti-Christian polemicsrdquo There it wouldprovide important guidelines for the encounter between Jews and ChristiansldquoFurthermore it is possible that Jews in Christian countries were as yet unfa-miliar with the text of the New Testament and Qiṣṣa with its extensive quota-tions from the New Testament was translated to provide such familiarityrdquo40
Thus QiṣṣaNestor can be seen as a conveyor of arguments from a milieu thatwas reasonably familiar with Christianity a milieu which had a long estab-lished anti-Christian polemic tradition to a new shore where these argumentsprovided important assurance against the vitality of Christianity and religiouspressures encountered in Europe It serves as a crucial link between polemicsfrom late antiquity to the medieval period (and beyond) forming an importantliterary bridge for polemics moving from the orient to the occident
2 3 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor
In contrast to the more abstract or rational-philosophical arguments common-ly used in the period the arguments in Qiṣṣa are generally more popular andexegetical and appeal to ldquocommon senserdquo41 Thus QiṣṣaNestor only brieflydeal with the doctrinal aspect of the Trinity and incarnation (sectsect25ndash32) andmostly focus on Jesusrsquo humanity and contradictions found within the gospelsIn their current form Qiṣṣa and Nestor probably should be seen as a compila-tion of anti-Christian polemics42 which for the most part advances argumentsagainst the divinity of Jesus43
39 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 193ndash95 One manuscript Vatican MSHeb 804 ff 20andash33b (hereafter MS H-B the letter lsquoBrsquo stands for A Berliner the first editorof this manuscript) a 15th c manuscript has Latin glosses of New Testament passages twofurther manuscripts have Greek glosses Athens Jewish-Museum MS 79199-23 (hereafterMS H-A dated to 1578 CE) and Vatican MS Heb 17150 ff 521bndash534b (hereafter MS H-C dated to 1493 CE) The glosses are appended to Lasker and Stroumsarsquos edition see ibid1173ndash86
40 Ibid 12841 Lasker ldquoThe earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish anti-Christian polemicsrdquo 11342 See Sarah Stroumsa ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf A case study in polemical literaturerdquo
in Genizah Research After Ninety Years (ed Joshua Blau and Stefan C Reif CambridgeCambridge University Press 1992) 155ndash59 esp 157
43 This is despite the possibility that one of the underlying sources of Qiṣṣa originally
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 37
Qiṣṣarsquos primary strategy is to challenge Christian convictions about thedivinity of Jesus by emphasizing his humanity In this Qiṣṣa has to be seen asa potent polemic since it takes the Christian canon seriously If the New Tes-tament shows Jesus to be distinctly human (and nothing else) then this posesa direct challenge to the incarnation and trinitarian thinking44 As the polemiclargely rests on the New Testament Qiṣṣa must have provided Jewish polemi-cists with ample material to counter Christian claims (whether for their ownassurance or as ammunition in actual debates with Christians) Consequentlythis kind of use of the New Testament is also encountered in many laterJewish polemical works
The various arguments contained in QiṣṣaNestor are loosely grouped intosections which Lasker and Stroumsa have called ldquoclustersrdquo Some of theseindividual clusters are quite noticeable eg sectsect9ndash24 sectsect25ndash32 sectsect33ndash36sectsect47ndash58 possibly sectsect72ndash109 etc45
2 3 1 The Narrative Setting (sectsect1ndash8)
The following sections attempt to provide a general mdash and admittedly quiteextensive mdash overview and outline of this important yet underappreciatedtext I am quite aware that the outline of an already eclectically re-arrangedtext will probably create more coherence than the composition ever may havepossessed46 Nevertheless the attempt of finding such an outline is warrantedsince QiṣṣaNestor exhibit at least two indicators of an editorial arrangementFirst the whole treatise has an introduction and second various redactionaltransitions appear in the text
may have attempted to defend the humanity of the Messiah (against those that argued for hisdivinity) See the discussion in 24
44 Right at the beginning it must be said that this line of popular exegetical argumentationencountered in the surveyed texts is frequently debating the Christian doctrine on a rathersuperficial level without engaging the more sophisticated development of the christologicaldogma that consistently has affirmed and defended the full humanity of Jesus againstDocetism Gnosticism Apollonarianism etc On this see eg Hugh R Mackintosh The Doc-trine of the Person of Jesus Christ (2nd ed Edinburgh TampT Clark 1956) 196ndash222 ThomasF Torrance Incarnation The Person and Life of Christ (ed Robert T Walker DownersGrove IVP amp Paternoster 2008) Gerald OrsquoCollins Christology A Biblical Historical andSystematic Study of Jesus (2nd ed Oxford Oxford University Press 2009) 229ndash61 andThomas G Weinandy In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh An Essay on the Humanity of Christ(London TampT Clark 1993) esp 21ndash38 For a more detailed presentation see John N DKelly Early Christian Doctrines (5th rev and repr ed London Continuum 2011) 109ndash62223ndash343
45 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 123 33ndash34 Each cluster could perhapsstand independently of those around
46 There is as such always the danger that an outline just traces Lasker and Stroumsarsquoseditorial decisions and not the arrangement of the composer
38 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
The introductory section is somewhat different in Qiṣṣa and Nestor yet inboth versions sectsect1ndash8 provide a narrative and topical framework for the wholecomposition In Qiṣṣa sectsect1ndash2 the narrator introduces the converted priest andhis friend also a cleric and perhaps a former proteacutegeacute who in one manuscriptis referred to as ldquotheir greatest priestrdquo47 The subsequent treatise from sect2onward is then framed as a letter from this apologetically competent con-verted priest to his former presumably influential friend The implied audi-ence of the letter is therefore Christian and presents an insider view that of aformer Christian priest addressing his former co-religionist whereas thewhole treatise is given for the benefit of Jewish readers48
Nestor likewise introduces the whole treatise as a letter to a priest49 but ismore elaborate here The writer is identified as a converted priest by the nameldquoNestorrdquo who is highly proficient and who even corresponded with ldquoall theirsagesrdquo50 This inside view however is not fully maintained in the followingsect2 since ldquomatters between me and yourdquo are meant ldquoto explain to you the erro-neous faith of the uncircumcised concerning their errors regarding the Lordand that which they imagine concerning the Messiah (hellip)rdquo51
After a confessional formula in sect3 the following sect4 in Nestor is meant tobe a reply to a question with which the convert has been challenged by hisfriend in contrast to Qiṣṣa where it is a challenge posed to the imagined
47 MS Cambridge T-S Ar 52222 (designated as MS ARB) see Lasker and StroumsaNestor the Priest 152 n 2
48 Yet the author frequently addresses and challenges an implied Christian reader asldquoyourdquo and at times also refers to himself and asserts what he believes eg in sectsect2ndash3 sect74sect168 sect180 et passim
49 Jewish Seminary of America MS Mic 2455 [ENA 1726] (hereafter MS H-J dated tothe 17th century) begins with the Shema and a selection of other quotations from the HebrewBible and then informs the reader ldquo[This is] the book which Usquf the proselyte composedagainst the religion of Jesus the Christian [Yeshulsquoa ha-Noẓeri] to inform the Christians oftheir error in their faith (hellip) He sent it to a priest who was his beloved friend who was like acomrade and brother to him And thus it beganrdquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest197 n 6
50 Perhaps this is reminiscent of the letter exchange between Nestorius of Constantinopleand Cyril of Alexandria In fact it might be fruitful to compare Qiṣṣarsquos content with Nesto-riusrsquo and Cyrilrsquos letter exchange For example in Nestoriusrsquo second letter to Cyril we readldquoFor it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name lsquoproprietyrsquo to make God the Wordshare because of this same propriety in being fed on milk in gradual growth in terror at thetime of his passion and in need of angelical assistance I make no mention of circumcisionand sacrifice and sweat and hunger which all belong to the flesh and are adorable as havingtaken place for our sake But it would be false to apply such ideas to the deity and wouldinvolve us in just accusation because of out calumnyrdquo Norman P Tanner Decrees of theEcumenical Councils (2 vols London Sheed amp Ward 1990) 149 For the Latin and Greektexts see ibid or Friedrich Loofs Nestoriana Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle M Nie-meyer 1905) 179
51 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 197 emphasis mine
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 39
Christian recipient This difference then shows the intention of the respectiveredactors Qiṣṣa is more discursive perhaps reflecting a more courteous butalso more assertive and confident religious exchange while Nestor is morereactionary
In sect5 both the Judeao-Arabic and Hebrew have an overture of topoi thatsubsequently will be addressed in the rest of the treatiseHeaven forbid that one says that God dwelt in the womb in the filth of the stomach in theoppression of menstrual blood and in gloom and darkness Or that the eyes of the creaturessaw Him that He slept or dozed off or He did that which he did not want to do against hiswill or that He sinned or was sad or was stricken by fear and terror or that He pleaded witha human or was jailed with sinners or let himself be controlled by Jews or by mortals or byinfidels who made Him do things He did not want to do52
The themes listed in this introductory section echo and preview the exegeticalarguments provided in the rest of the treatise and perhaps allow the intendedaudience to employ it as an easily usable quick response in their encounterswith Christianity53
The second indicator for an editorial framework are the various redactionaltransitions that tie some thematic units together The repeated rhetorical ques-tion at the end of some sections ldquoWhy are you not embarrassed about aboveinappropriatenessrdquo in sect82 sect88 sect962 (Nestor) and sect109 can be seen as aform of redaction and linking of those sections though they might also stemfrom underlying source material
2 3 2 Better Candidates for Divinity (sectsect9ndash24)
In the first discernible thematic unit sectsect9ndash24 the belief in the divinity of theMessiahChrist54 is challenged55 A list of candidates equally deserving ofdivinity is given comparing their deeds and circumstances with those ofJesus Adam and Eve ldquohad neither father nor motherrdquo (sect9) Enoch and Elijah
52 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 198 The quoted translation is from Nestorthe Qiṣṣa version is similar cf ibid 153
53 Cf the introduction of The Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus (c 4th or 5thcentury) which treats very similar topics to those of QiṣṣaNestor ldquoYou Christians aredeceived First because you think that there are other gods beside the one and only God (hellip)And second you are deceived because you say that the Messiah is God and that he is subjectto suffering and that he was born from a woman When you hear this are you not ashamedrdquoVarner Dialogues 23 (sect1)
54 Lasker and Stroumsa prefer to translate אלמסיח (al-masiaḥ) as ldquoChristrdquo although itequally could be translated as the ldquoMessiahrdquo This is in particular important to consider whenone peruses the sections which speak affirmingly about Jesus as אלמסיח (see 235 and 24below)
55 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 154ndash56 (Qiṣṣa) 199ndash102 (Nestor) TheJudeo-Arabic and Hebrew texts are in volume 2
40 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
also ascended to heaven (sect10) God called the people of Israel first ldquomy first-born sonrdquo (sect11) moreover the apostles (sect11) Elisha (sect13 sect19) Elijah (sect12sectsect16ndash18) Ezekiel (sect14) Moses (sect21) Joshua (sect22) and Hezekiah (sect23)performed miracles which were however ldquomore wondrousrdquo than those ofChrist Christians should therefore reckon that itis more fitting and proper that you should worship those prophets rather than worship Christwho was imprisoned and crucified after having a crown of thistles put on his head and afterhe was given vinegar and colocynth to drink and he was made to carry a piece of wood uponwhich he was [then] crucified as you yourself claim in your Gospels56
This kind of comparative argument bears perhaps similarities to the Qurrsquoān(359) in particular to Muslim polemic works57 but appears also in earlysources58 The argumentation here essentially responds to various Christian
56 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 155 (Qiṣṣa) This strategy to compareJesus to other characters who performed miracles is common and occurs also in later sourcessee eg Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq ldquoTell me further By your life you know that Elijah of blessedmemory revived the dead and that the whole world saw him and recounted his praise[saying] lsquothis is the man whom Elijah revivedrsquo Similarly Elisha revived two dead personsone while alive and the other after his death and helped the leper Naaman general of theking of Aram Everyone saw those dead whom he had revived and the leper who was healedby him and they recounted his praise extolling and glorifying the living God Thus was itwith Jesus According to your notions he revived the dead and healed the lepers and the lameand those [with] other illnesses Here too when everyone saw the dead who were revived byJesus and those who were healed by him they recounted his praise and glorified God whogave him this power Thus when he revived himself he should have shown [himself] toevery city and province saying lsquoI am he whom the Sages of Israel have stricken and tor-mented No I am as alive and hale as one of yoursquo He should have at least shown himself tothe court which sentenced him to death Then all Israel would have undoubtedly believed inhim However after they hanged him and killed him he was not seen again and never will beseenrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 343 [ff 15vndash16r] The additional argumentthat Jesusrsquo miracles resulted in people praising God rather than Jesus can only be based on aclose reading of the Gospel texts cf Matt 98 1531 Luke 1843 1937 John 114
57 See esp Lasker and Stroumsarsquos commentary in Nestor the Priest 1139ndash43 who pointout the various parallels in particular to two muslim polemical works lsquoAmr b Baṛ al-JāḥiẓrsquosldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā al-naṣārārdquo in Thalāth Rasārsquoil mdash Three Essays of Abū lsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥral-Jāḥiẓ (ed Joshua Finkel Cairo al-Matbaʻah al-Salafīyah 1926) 10ndash38 [Arab] and Ibnal-Laythrsquos ldquoRisālat Abī Rabīlsquo Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā ilā Qusṭanṭīn malik al-Rūmrdquo in Jamharat rasārsquoil al-lsquoArab fī lsquouṣūr al-lsquoarabiyya l-zāhira Al-lsquoaṣr al-lsquoAbbāsī l-awwal(ed Aḥmad Zakī Ṣafwat 4 vols Cairo Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī 1937) 3252ndash324[Arab] For a translation of al-Jāḥiẓrsquos Al-Radd lsquoalā al-naṣārā see Charles D Fletcher ldquoAnti-Christian polemic in early Islam A translation and analysis of AbūlsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓrsquos risāla Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā (A reply to the Christians)rdquo (MA thesis Montreal McGillUniversity 2002)
58 Eg in Lactantius Inst 53 where Porphyry discusses Apollonius of Tyana as a bettercandidate for divinity see Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect62 154 Also Celsuscompared Jesus to a total of ten other figures cf Origen Cels 33 22 36 42 520 et al see
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 41
beliefs ie the incarnation (sect9) Jesusrsquo ascension (sect10) and that Christiansvenerate Jesus as ldquoSon of Godrdquo and ldquoLordrdquo (sectsect11ndash12) In comparison withthese other characters in the Scriptures it is argued that Jesus is surely lessimpressive and in fact a rather inappropriate candidate for divinity
2 3 3 Theological Issues with the Trinity (sectsect25ndash32)
The second cluster presents questions of a more metaphysical natureconcerning the Trinity and the incarnation which is the only part of Qiṣṣa thatfocuses on more philosophic-theological issues (apart from the introductorysect4) Part of this section sectsect25ndash30 has been studied in depth by Rosenkranzwho has shown that it reflects a popular understanding of the Credo corre-sponding and reacting to some sections from the Nicaneum and Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum albeit without completely understanding trinitariandoctrine59
The main thrust of the argument goes against the incarnation mostly in theform of questions which are subsequently answered in a manner that showsthat the Christian position is untenable[sect25] Presentation of the Christian Understanding of the Trinity[sect26] Question 1 Did the Father call the Son his child before or after he was conceived
And did he call him lsquohis Sonrsquo before the creation [sect27] Question 2 Was the Son with the Father before he was conceived[sect28] Question 3 When he ascended in divine and human nature did fear horror sadness
sleep hunger thirst and refuse seat itself on Godrsquos throneWhen he was in heaven did he eat and defecate
[sect29] Question 4 If the lsquoLord Jesusrsquo the lsquoSon of Godrsquo the lsquoChristrsquo who created all things came down to earth to redeem us without being separated from the Father and the Spirit why did he as lsquoLordrsquo need to take on human natureAnd if he was fully human why would he need a divine nature as well
[sect30] Question 5 Did all three persons incarnate themselves in Mary or did the Son descend alone60
Ernst Bammel ldquoJesus und ein andererrdquo in Judaica Kleine Schriften I (WUNT I37 Tuumlbin-gen Mohr Siebeck 1986) 157ndash74 esp 163ndash67 also Walter Bauer Das Leben Jesu imZeitalter der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1909 repr Darm-stadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967) 466
59 See her Auseinandersetzung 274ndash87 She notes that in comparison Saadia GaonQirqisani and al-Muqammaṣ three prominent Jewish theological-philosophical polemicistsof the 10th century display a better understanding of Christian doctrine In the same contextRosenkranz also remarks that the entire argumentation of Qiṣṣa against the incarnation failsto apprehend the doctrinal differentiation between the eternally begotten logos and the incar-nation of Christ in Mary which many other anti-Christian polemics likewise fail to appreci-ate ibid 284ndash85
60 See esp Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 279ndash80 where she presents a tabularcomparison of the creedal Greek text with that of Qiṣṣa sectsect29ndash30 and sect26 See also Lasker
42 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
After sect30 ldquothe Gospelrdquo and ldquoyour Gospelrdquo are mentioned the first time inQiṣṣa as a source of Christian beliefs (sect31 sect32) a reference that then occursmore frequently (in sect33 sect35 sect36 sect37 et al)61 In Nestor however the wordldquogospelrdquo is missing62
The particularly enigmatic sect31 in Qiṣṣa then appears to break with the pre-vious arguments63
You say in the Gospel that Christ had been inside the earth (Fīrsquol-arḍ) in the place of infinityand where the base of the mountains is to the right and left east and west just as al-jarab[meaning unclear] is everywhere if you insist that this is true then you lie because you havedeclared that Christ is a human being with a human body like other people A perfect humanbeing is at most three or four cubits tall If you say the body of Christ was on earth then thebody of Christ [could not have become] five thousand cubits long64
Lasker and Stroumsa suggest this might discuss Jesusrsquo descent to hell65 Butconsidering that the following sect32 discusses Christrsquos visibility in contrast toGodrsquos invisibility and then sect33 his ldquodescent upon earthrdquo it is perhaps morelikely that sect31 responds to the belief that Christ in his pre-existent stateupheld all things (cf Col 117)66 It would be in that sense that he was ldquoin theplace of infinity and where the base of the mountains isrdquo which is thencontrasted to being found in a much more limited human form
ldquoPopular Polemicsrdquo 250 n 25 idem Philosophical Polemics 121ndash22 and esp the discus-sion in David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages A CriticalEdition of Nizzahon Vetus (Northvale NJ J Aronson 1996) 366ndash69 (Appendix 5)
61 The use of the word ldquoGospelrdquo אלאנגיל) al-Injīl) in this context seems to refer more tothe whole of what Christians considered their Scriptures (ie the New Testament) rather thanthe four gospels proper An exception to this is sect35 where Matthew 517ndash19 is clearlyreferred to From sect39 onwards ldquoGospelrdquo is then further qualified by adding the name of therespective evangelist (see sect39 sect40 sect50 sect51 sect52 sect57 sect68 sect78 sect80 sect180 sect181 but cfsect31 sect32 sect33 sect36 sect37 sect67 sect69 sect85 sect106 sect139 sect146)
62 In Nestor this whole cluster (from sect25 onwards) is much more elaborate and easier tofollow Qiṣṣa in this section presents the lectio brevior and lectio difficilior and is thus morearchaic and terse (sectsect27ndash32 in Qiṣṣa in Lasker and Stroumsarsquos edition are based on MS ARBand not MS P the ldquomain versionrdquo see ibid 157 n 2) Nestor (the ldquoparallel versionrdquo) dis-plays in comparison a better understanding of the doctrinal issues which make it difficult todecide which text preserves the ldquooriginalrdquo argument
63 Rosenkranz did not include sect31 or the following sections in her discussion64 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 15865 See ibid 158 n 366 Colossians 117 states that Christ is ldquobefore all things and in him all things hold
togetherrdquo (αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν NA27) In likemanner Col 116 might be the background of the next argument in Qiṣṣa sect32 ldquoYou professthat God created everything both visible and invisible tell me nowhelliprdquo Lasker and StroumsaNestor the Priest 158 emphasis mine Cf Col 116 ldquoFor by Him all things were createdboth in the heavens and on earth visible and invisiblehelliprdquo (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐντοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόραταhellip NA27)
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 43
Nestor sect31 equally points to a discrepancy between the alleged heavenlyand earthly existence of Jesus although it seems to be aimed more at thehypostatic union in particular where the human nature is located in relation-ship to the divine natureIf [Jesus was] fully divine and fully united with the Holy Spirit inform me when [he]descended to the earth where were his flesh and blood in the heavens or on earth or in theends of the earth or in that which is beyond them since Jesusrsquo stature was not greater than the[stature of] other humans who are on earth If you say that [his flesh and blood] were not withhim according to your words then he was not perfect with full divinity and with the HolySpirit If you say that [only] part of the divinity was there [in Jesus when he] descended [youhave separated] part of him from the other part67
Either way sectsect31ndash32 discuss the contradiction arising from the belief thatChrist as God had divine attributes (omnipresence invisibility) yet whileldquoon earthrdquo is paradoxically confessed by Christians as a human (physicallylimited visible) Consequently there is no significant break from the previousphilosophic-theological arguments of sectsect25ndash30 In a sense the arguments inthis whole cluster from sect25 onward to sect37 and in some respect the whole ofQiṣṣa are essentially based on the strict dichotomy between God as theCreator and his creatures which also is a major point in the followingarguments
2 3 4 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (sectsect33ndash37)
Although the following sections discuss contradictions concerning the prac-tice and abolition of Torah (sectsect33ndash36) a topic which is also discussed in asubsequent cluster (sectsect63ndash71)68 the topic of Torah abolition in this firstsection (sectsect33ndash36) is mostly used to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity69 Accordingto the argument in sect33 Jesusrsquo use and submission under the Torah of Moses
67 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1105 This argument in Nestor can perhapsalso be read as a polemic against the Eucharist (ldquoflesh and bloodrdquo)
68 Altogether Qiṣṣa deals with neglected Torah obedience in three clusters sectsect33ndash36 (alsoin sect58) sectsect63ndash71 and in sectsect120ndash138
69 For an in-depth discussion see Roland Deines ldquoDie Verwendung der Bergpredigt imaumlltesten erhaltenen Text der juumldischen Adversus-Christianos-Literaturrdquo in Judaistik undneutestamentliche Wissenschaft Standorte mdash Grenzen mdash Beziehungen (ed Lutz DoeringHans-Guumlnther Waubke Florian Wilk FRLNT 226 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht2008) 372ndash400 who shows that in sectsect33ndash36 it is argued that Jesusrsquo submission under theTorah of Moses contradicts his divinity (since God is the one who decrees Torah) Clustersectsect63ndash71 contrasts then the conduct of Christians in comparison to Jesusrsquo own submissionunder Torah and cluster sectsect120ndash128 discusses the failure on the side of the Christians toobserve the Sabbath and circumcision Also in sect136 and the following sections the argumentis made that Jesus himself did not keep the Law based on Matt 538 43ndash47 (the so-called fifthand sixth ldquoantithesesrdquo)
44 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
demonstrates that he is not divine Jesus is not the law-giver he is someonewho receives and obeys70
This argument is carried over to sect37 where it is asked if the MessiahChrist based on Psalm 26ndash7 is ldquothe one who sends messengers or is he amessengerrdquo71 This section forms kind of a conclusio with the previouscluster with the final remark that ldquoyour various beliefs contradict each otherand your creeds are corruptrdquo72 But the identity of Jesus as messenger in sect37is also thematically related to sectsect55ndash57 where this implicit identificationbecomes explicit forming an inclusio with sect37 perhaps sect37 is even a redac-tional transition from sectsect25ndash36 to sectsect37ndash57
2 3 5 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (sectsect38ndash57)
Between the two sections on Torah abrogation sectsect33ndash36 and sectsect63ndash71 onefinds a sequence of statements disputing Jesusrsquo divinity based on the Christiantexts themselves one set of arguments sectsect38ndash46 presents Jesusrsquo own state-ments and sayings and leads the audience to conclude that Jesus as a humanis distinct from God The next set of arguments sectsect47ndash50 presents furtherstatements from other noted (Christian) authorities corroborating this conclu-sion The final set in this cluster sectsect51ndash57 argues more forcefully that Jesus isdistinct from God finite and therefore ought to be understood as a messengerand prophet
In the first set of arguments the audience is repeatedly called on to decidewhether God or the MessiahChrist is lying (cf sectsect38 44 45 46)73 The aim isto demonstrate that by worshipping the MessiahChrist Christians do notproperly relate to the Creator nor are they correctly apprehending theMessiahrsquosChristrsquos self-understanding
70 This is based on Matt 51771 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 15972 Ibid 15973 In sect44 it is even remarked that ldquoif you say that Christ lied woe to you for this is a base
and shameful thing to sayrdquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 160 Though this couldbe a way of playing the devilrsquos advocate this particular line of argumentation could easilyreflect an inner-Christian dispute over Christology First in order to reject the possibility thatldquoChrist liedrdquo appeal is made to onersquos implicit respect of the person of Jesus or at least to thebelief in Jesus as Messiah (sect44) In fact the entire argument in sectsect38ndash57 rests on ChristianScripture and implicit appeal to its authority for Christian believers Further Jesus is ratheraffirmingly called MessiahChrist אלמסיח) al-masiaḥ) throughout (in fact the Hebrew trans-lator was not comfortable with this changing it to the less contentious Yeshu (ישו) and like-wise Lasker and Stroumsa chose to translate אלמסיח as ldquoChristrdquo rather than as ldquoMessiahrdquo)Yet a Muslim background cannot be ruled out either in particular since it is emphasized insect38 and sectsect55ndash57 that the MessiahChrist is a prophet and messenger For further discussionsee 24
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 45
I Christrsquos Statements about Himself sectsect38ndash4374
1 In Mark 1332 mdash Christ presents himself as the (human) ldquoSon of Manrdquo sect39 (cf sect58)
2 In John 530ndash32 816ndash18 mdash Christ says he is sent and only co-judging with God sectsect40ndash41
3 In John 1725ndash26 mdash He pointed his disciples to the Father sect424 In John 2017 mdash Christ calls the Father his and their God sect435 It follows that Jesus is distinct from God sect44ndash46
i Christ is not God because he either spoke the truth in identifying God as distinct from himself or he lied (which is not acceptable) sect44 (= sect38)
ii Christ is not God because he appealed to God in hardship (Matt 2746 par Mark1534) sect45
iii It is thus false to claim that Christ is God sect46
II Other Authorities on Christrsquos Distinction from God sectsect47ndash501 Paul75 mdash Christ and God are distinct () sect472 John 536ndash3876 mdash Christ and God are distinct sect483 David in Psalm 22 mdash Christ and God are distinct sect494 John77 uses Psalm 1101 mdash Christ and God are distinct sect50 (cf sect28)
III Christrsquos Self-Understanding sectsect51ndash571 Christ is explicit about not being divine according to Matthew 1916ndash17 (ldquothe Rich
Young Rulerrdquo though the passage is closer to Mark 1017ndash19 and the par Luke 1818ndash19) sect51
2 Christrsquos prayer to God shows that he is a finite creature sectsect52ndash54i In Luke 2231ndash32 Christ prays to God on Peterrsquos behalf sect52ii In Gethsemane Jesus prays to God sectsect53ndash54
a Quoting Matt 2639 (par Mark 1435ndash36) sect53b Quoting Matt 2746 (par Mark 1534) sect54
3 Christ regarded himself as sent by God (= as a prophet) sect55ndash57i He is called a prophet in Matt 1354ndash57 (parr Mark 61ndash4 Luke 424) sect55ii He calls himself a prophet in Luke 1331ndash33 sect56iii He says himself he was sent and authorized as a servant sect57
a In John 1249ndash50 (Nestor adds John 537)b In the Gospel (only in Qiṣṣa)78 he calls himself ldquoSon of Manrdquoc In Matthew 1218 by citing Isa 421
74 Underlined words appear in the text Also the rather curious method of citing the NewTestament discussed in 24 is only encountered in this first part of the treatise
75 The references are not clear here ldquoPaul said at the beginning of the seventh chapterlsquoChrist is the son of God and our scriptures elucidate thisrsquo And he said lsquoI have worked withyou and [given you] peace from God the benefactorrsquo after which he said lsquoand Christ is withHimrsquordquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 161
76 This is wrongly attributed to Paul in Qiṣṣa Nestor correctly references John77 The attribution to John cannot be correct as Psalm 110 is cited in the gospels only in
Matt 2444 Mark 1236 and Luke 204278 Nestor has ldquoyour book(s)rdquo ( כם)י(בספר ) here instead see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor
the Priest 2101 123
46 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
2 3 6 The Law Jesusrsquo Humanity and his Divinity (sectsect58ndash71)
The next set of arguments sectsect58ndash71 appears to be purposely placed as sect58 islinked to the previous sect57 by also quoting from the prophet Isaiah (491ndash15)Interestingly the argument is introduced with ldquothis is what the MessiahChristsays in the book of Isaiah peace be upon himrdquo and this particular sectionends withhow is it that you are not distressed by what you have done concerning the MessiahChristYou have denied his words you have abrogated his sayings you have denied the Torah andthe Psalms and you have changed the laws of Moses peace be on him that were given onSinai79
The ldquoservant of the Lordrdquo in Isaiah is thereby interpreted as the Messiahwhich consequently is extended to to Jesus
In the second half of sect62 the topic of Law-abrogation is then revisited andin the following sectsect63ndash71 more closely investigated thus sect58 and sect62 mayform an inclusio80 In the intermediate section sectsect59ndash62 a series of argumentsis given more polemical in tone on the unbecomingness indignity and limi-tations of human weakness seen in Jesusrsquo human life81 This section startswith Christrsquos childhood (sect59) continues with the particulars of Jesusrsquo humanexistence ie the need to sleep and eat (sect60) and then discusses that Jesusexperienced fear and was crucified (sect61) finally ending with his death anburial (sect62) thus roughly following Jesusrsquo biography and the Gospelaccounts
Then in sectsect63ndash71 the argument turns back to the law where the Christ-ianrsquos behavior is contrasted with Jesusrsquo submission under Torah82 followedby more arguments in sectsect72ndash109 against the inappropriateness of ascribinghumanity to God (assuming at least for the sake of argument that Jesus isGod) which is possibly (again) arranged around Jesusrsquo biography83
We thus find two distinct sets of arguments which are intertwined andalternated between in the present edition one that employs Jesusrsquo attitudetowards Torah against Christian antinomian behavior (sect58 sect62 sectsect63ndash71) andone that more generally argues against the idea that Jesus as a human could beGod (sectsect59ndash62)
79 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 16380 Also sectsect63ndash66 may point forward to sectsect120ndash13881 There is some difference here between Qiṣṣa and Nestor esp sect5882 On this cluster see Deines ldquoDie Verwendung der Bergpredigtrdquo 387ndash8983 Some of the details in this section seem to follow a different narrative of Jesusrsquo life
Satan eg is reported to have kidnapped Jesus from the temple (cf Nestor sect61 see also sect60)Also in Qiṣṣa sect62 Jesus is said to have been captured and crucified by demons Cf also ErnstBammel ldquoDie Versuchung Jesu nach einer juumldischen Quellerdquo in Judaica Kleine Schriften I(idem WUNT I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1986) 253ndash56
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 47
2 3 7 The Life of Jesus Reveals his Utter Humanity (sectsect72ndash109)
The next segment begins with sect72 where the audience is informed that ldquoyoushould know I have examined the Gospels of Matthew Mark and John andhave found their testimony about Christ contradictoryrdquo (Qiṣṣa)84 This isfollowed in sect73 with a secondary introduction ldquoI have written for you theaccount of Jesus from the beginning to the end from the time his mother gavebirth to him until he was crucified on a piece of wood according to that whichis written in the Gospelsrdquo (Qiṣṣa)85 thereby clearly indicating that the narra-tive of Jesusrsquo life is the framework for the following discussion86 Althoughafter sect97 the arguments appear to become more random interjections in sect82sect88 sect96 and sect109 clearly suggest a form of redactional linking and topicalarrangement After sect109 the text appears to become more of an anthology andcollection of various argumentsI Arguments Based on Jesusrsquo birth and nativity sectsect73ndash82
1 Gabriel did not87 say lsquoyou shall give birth to a godrsquo (cf Luke 130) sect732 Comparing Adam and Jesus again (cf sect9) Matthew reports that Jesus was confined
in a filthy womb sect743 [Debate about the timing of when a legionary stabbed Jesus (cf sect6) sect75]4 ldquoNestorrsquos creedrdquo denying that God could dwell in a womb (Deut 93) sect765 Mary told the census registrars that Jesus is Josephrsquos son sect776 Gabriel referred to Mary as Josephrsquos wife in Matthew (Matt 120) sect787 The people of Nazareth testify that Jesus is Maryrsquos son (Matt 1355 par Mark 63)
sect798 Matthewrsquos genealogy of Joseph to Jesus (Matt 11ndash16) sect80
i Matthewrsquos and Lukersquos genealogies (only Qiṣṣa) contradict each otherii Again Mary tells the census registrars that Jesus is Josephrsquos son (cf sect77)
9 Salome Jesusrsquo harlot-midwife nursed and suckled Jesus sect8110 First Interjection Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety sect82
84 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 166 The Gospel of Luke is not mentioned inthis list in Qiṣṣa although Luke is referred to by name in Qiṣṣa sect68 It would therefore seemthat sect72 belongs to a new source see also below
85 Ibid 16686 See ibid 166 This secondary introduction clearly indicates that a new source is
underlying this section in particular because after sect72 Jesus is not anymore referred to asMessiahChrist (אלמסיח) in Qiṣṣa but only as Jesus (יסוע) Also in the following sectionsreferences to apocryphal and Toledot Yeshu traditions occur which is not the case for the pre-vious sections Moreover just from comparing the outline and the kind of arguments that aremade it is evident that this later part is employing a more popular folk-story-like polemicthan the first half of the treatise As such there is a major seam in the text after sect71 whichwill be explored further in 24
87 Some manuscripts affirm rather than deny that Gabriel announced to Mary that shewould be giving birth to a God see 252
48 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
II Arguments Based on Jesusrsquo Humanity Human-Only Characteristics sectsect83ndash91
1 Jesus the wine drinker sect832 Jesus was sleeping sectsect84ndash87
i Jesus was asleep in a boat (cf Mark 438 parr Matt 823ndash25 Lk 823ndash24) sect84ii Jesus got drunk and fell asleep at the wedding at Cana (cf John 21ndash11) sect85iii Jesus slept at lsquoPeterrsquos banquetrsquo and a Samaritan harlot kissed his feet sect86iv Jesus slept in animal shelters sect87
3 Second Interjection Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety sect88i Appendix to sectsect84ndash87 Challenge against the idea that Jesus is divine because
God does not sleep nor can be seen sectsect89ndash91i According to David God does not sleep (Psalm 1214) sect89ii According to Moses God cannot be seen (cf Deut 436) sect90iii Summary The error and inappropriateness of attributing human nature to
God sect91(Qiṣṣa)
III Arguments Based on Jesusrsquo Humanity Childhood and Adolescence (cf sect72f) sectsect92ndash961 A prophecy of ill-omen about Jesus at the temple (cf Luke 221ndash35) sect922 After his flight to Egypt Jesus learns dyeing and magic (Matt 21ndash22 Matt 141ndash2)
sectsect93ndash943 Jesus was drunk at the wedding (cf sect85) sectsect95ndash9614 Third Interjection Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety sect962
IV Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesusrsquo integrity sectsect97ndash10988
1 Jesus puts no distance between him and the sons of Zebedee thus he is human (Matt 2020ndash23 Mark 1035ndash40 cf sect150) sect97
2 It is incredible to believe one can move mountains by faith Jesus is therefore a liar (cf Matt 1720) sect98
3 Jesusrsquo parentsrsquo statements about his origin sectsect99ndash100i Again Maryrsquos statement to the census registrars (cf sect77 sect80) sect99ii Maryrsquos statement to Jesus after finding him in the temple (cf Luke 248) sect99iii Gabriel told Joseph Mary is his wife (cf Matt 120 sect78) sect100
4 Jesus compared to Isaiah 11 did not do what the Messiah is prophesied to do sect1015 Jesus is cursed through crucifixion sectsect102ndash1046 Jesus on love and servitude (cf sect39 sect57) sectsect105ndash106
i Jesus washed Peterrsquos feet thus affirming his humanity (cf John 135ndash20) sect105ii Jesus affirms that he is only ldquoSon of Manrdquo (cf Matt 2028)89 thus only human
and a servant sect105iii Jesusrsquo outrageous demand to love him more than onersquos parents (cf Matt 1037)
sect106i Interjection Are you not ashamed about saying that God has a mother (only
Qiṣṣa)7 The testimony of the people of Nazareth about Jesus (cf Matt 1354 sect79) sect107 8 Jesus was sweating afraid and anxious (cf Matt 2638 parr Mark 1434 Luke
2244) sect108
88 From sect97 onwards the arguments become more spurious and repeat elements from theprevious sections
89 Nestor has ldquothe son of fleshrdquo ( הבשרבן ) cf Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest1119
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 49
9 Jesus the donkey thief (cf Matt 211ndash5 parr Mark 111ndash6 Luke 1928ndash35 John 1214ndash15) sect1091
10 Fourth Interjection Why are you not embarrassed over this impropriety sect1092
Since this is the last interjection of this kind it is possible that the underlyingsource ends here the cluster would as such begin in sect73 and end in sect109
2 3 8 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (sectsect110ndash138)
The immediately following sections present arguments of a more theologicalcharacter though appear somewhat randomI Jesusrsquo fasting shows that he is seeking forgiveness (cf Matt 42 par Luke 41ndash2) sect110
II The Hebrew Bible says God cannot be contained but Jesus was in a womb a manger ona mule a boat the cross sect111
III Jesus claims to be a prophet yet he was bribing and lying to an official (cf Luke 424 parr Mark 64 Matt 1357 Matt 1724ndash27) sect112
IV How can Jesus be identical to the ldquoFatherrdquo if he is his called the ldquoSonrdquo sectsect113ndash11990
1 Philip wants to see the Father Jesus says he and the Father are the same (John 148ndash10a) sect113
2 Yet Jesus was purified through baptism in the Jordan (Nestor Luke cf sect60) sect1143 Also God calls Jesus ldquomy Sonrdquo (Mark 111 par Mt 317 Nestor Luke 322) sect1154 Also Mark (Nestor Luke) calls Jesus ldquoSon of Godrdquo in contradiction to what was
said to Philip in John 149 sect1165 Also in the Christiansrsquo ldquotrinitarian prayerrdquo and creed Jesus is called a ldquoSonrdquo (cf
sect69) sect1176 Moreover Moses could not see Godrsquos face (cf Exod 3320) so how can Jesus see
the Father and sit next to him since no-one can see God and live sect1187 The son of Archelaus (Qiṣṣa) even slapped Jesusrsquo face so God forbid that one
worships someone as God who is described so unseemly sect119
After this section the topic of Torah adherence and abolition is discussed for athird time though with a focus on circumcision (sectsect120ndash138) then topoiemphasizing Jesusrsquo frailty and humanity are discussed again which largely
90 After sect113 MSS H-A and H-C end with perorations MS H-A concludes with acomment about Jesus that shows some similarities to the Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu ldquoThisman called Jesus son of Pandera was a mamzer and an outcast as it is written in their erro-neous cursed book lsquoThe belly that carried the outcastrsquo [in Greek] whose abbreviation ismamzerrsquordquo MS H-C has ldquoAnd I Nestor the Priest believe in the God of heaven and earth notin anyone born nor in anyone who bearsrdquo see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1121n 4 (this particular comment shows some affinity with the Nestorian position ie the rejec-tion of Mary as theotokos) As such at least two (Nestor) manuscripts would seem to endwith sect113 However sect113 and sect116 are clearly linked and thus sectsect113ndash119 might very wellform one argument (against John 148ndash10a) disputing that the Son and the Father areidentical
50 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
recycle many of the arguments already given earlier However here we findthat the arguments work off a somewhat different narrative of Jesusrsquo life(perhaps echoing a Toledot Yeshu account or an apocryphal or popular versionof Jesusrsquo biography) which would consequently suggest that a differentsource or redactor (or at least polemical strategy) stands behind this cluster ofpolemical arguments
2 3 9 Arguments with a Different Gospel Sequence (sectsect139ndash158)I Jesusrsquo Prayer (Luke 2239ndash46 parr Matt 2638ndash42 Mark 1432ndash38) sectsect139ndash141
1 Jesus prayed to God thus he cannot be God sect1392 Jesus prostrates prays and asked for prayer in his agony sect1403 Prayer in which Jesus asks for intercession he is consequently not almighty sect141
II Jesusrsquo Temptation (Luke 41ndash13 parr Matt 41ndash11 Mark 112ndash13) sectsect142ndash1451 After this () Jesus was for 40 days in the wilderness sect142 2 Satan coerces and tempts Jesus (taking him screaming) Jesus escapes sectsect143ndash1453 [In Qiṣṣa Jesus praised and followed Torah sect146]
III Luke Chapters 3 and 4 sectsect147ndash1521 [In Nestor Jesusrsquo baptism (Luke 321ndash22) sect147a]2 Lukersquos (and Matthewrsquos) contradicting genealogy (Luke 323ndash38) sect147b3 Jesusrsquo was captured and mastered by Satan (temptation cf Luke 41ndash3) sect1484 Interjection The Christianrsquos convictions can only be deemed nonsensical sect149
IV Christians should therefore be ashamed sectsect150ndash1521 The Christian Scriptures claim different and contradicting fathers for Jesus sect1502 The prophets would curse this idolatrous belief sect1513 Joseph the carpenter admits having relations with Mary (Matt 125 1355ndash56)
sect15291
V The Passion Narrative and Judas (similar to Toledoth Yeshu and Gospel of Bartholomew) sectsect153ndash158
The text concludes with a series of passages from the Hebrew Bible empha-sizing the unique monotheistic nature of God (sectsect159ndash164 though this is onlyfound in Qiṣṣa MS P) followed by another series of passages showing andsummarizing why Christianity is essentially blasphemy (sectsect165ndash179 againonly in Qiṣṣa MS P) The treatise offers then some final objections againstJesusrsquo crucifixion and the notion that Jesus descended into hell (sectsect180ndash183)compares Jesus once again with Moses (sect184) and then ends with an expres-sion of messianic expectation (sect185)92
91 This section sect152 repeats details from the previous sections in particular it is reiter-ated that the angel Gabriel the evangelist Matthew and Joseph (Jesusrsquo father) testified toJesusrsquo human parentage
92 sect185 is much longer in Nestor
23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor 51
2 4 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor
In the course of outlining QiṣṣaNestor various thematic units became clearlydiscerniblesectsect1ndash8 The Narrative Setting of QiṣṣaNestor
sectsect9ndash24 Better Candidates for Divinity
sectsect25ndash32 Philosophic-theological Issues with the Trinity and Incarnation
sectsect33ndash37 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law
sectsect38ndash57 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus
sectsect72ndash109 The Biography of Jesus demonstrates his embarrassing Humanity
sectsect139ndash158 Arguments from a different Gospel sequence attributed to Luke
As was noted at least one clear textual seam appears after sect7193 but a furthersignificant seam can be identified after sect57 This seam may shed some lighton the overall composition of Qiṣṣa
The arguments up to sect57 demonstrate some familiarity with Christianscriptures and creeds More pertinently the arguments presented before sect57do not manifest any particular negative view for the person of Jesus ldquotheMessiahrdquo However after sect57 the arguments take on a distinctly more popularand cruder character often alluding to apocryphal or other folk narrativesMoreover up to sect57 Jesus is designated as the MessiahChrist rather affirm-ingly (esp in sect44) and the names of Christian persona seem to be purposelyarrayed as authoritative witnesses against the idea that the MessiahChrist isdivine (in sectsect47ndash58)94 It is also only in this section in sectsect39ndash40 sect47 sectsect51ndash52 and sect57 that we find that the New Testament is cited by means of a pecu-liar division of books A verse may for instance be referred to as appearing inldquothe fourth of the five parts of Markrdquo95 This manner of citation and appeal toChristian authorities as witnesses at least in the underlying source materialseems to anticipate an audience that either recognized these (as authorities) or
93 Evidence for this seam shall be briefly reiterated besides the introductions in sect72 andsect73 it was noted that after sect72 Jesus is not referred to as ChristMessiah (אלמסיח) anymorebut only as Jesus ( ישויסוע ) Also the whole of sectsect72ndash109 forms a redactional unit
94 This stands in contrast to Qiṣṣa sect167 where some of these witnesses notably theauthors of the gospels are called ldquosinners perpetuating liesrdquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestorthe Priest 185
95 This style of citation often does not correlate with the actual location of the citedpassage in the respective book If this style of citation (and the text cited) could be related to aparticular Christian source or context the underlying source or its contexts might be furtheridentifiable Lasker and Stroumsa conjecture that the verses quoted in Qiṣṣa in this mannerldquowere drawn from some anthology perhaps from a manual for the apologist or from a lectio-naryrdquo idem Nestor the Priest 117ndash18
52 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
a situation where the use of such an argument in some form of social ex-change would make an impression on the Christian party96
Then Isaiah 714 is not discussed anywhere in Qiṣṣa and although this isessentially an argument from silence the absence of any discussion ofMatthewrsquos interpretation of Isaiah 714 in a Jewish polemical text of thisnature is decidedly odd97 Thus one is left with a source that appears to omitpassages that identify Jesus directly as God (ldquowith usrdquo) yet refers to Jesus asMessiahChrist and appeals to Christian personae and scriptures as trustwor-thy support While the Christian claim of virginal conception is mentioned inthis earlier section (cf sect9 sect30) only in the latter part after sect57 the inappro-priateness of God being in the womb is discussed in detail and rejected asinconceivable (in sect74 sect76 and sect111)98 Likewise the assertion that Jesuswas a drunkard only appears after sect5799 In other words before sect57 Jesus is
96 After all the introduction to Qiṣṣa explicitly wants the following arguments to beunderstood at least in part as an internal exchange between a former Christian and a Christ-ian If some of the underlying source material was indeed from non-exclusively Jewishsources or even from the a former Christian priest there might have been even a benefit orfelt need in admitting to such a source
97 Already in the middle of the second century as mentioned in the introduction (under13) Justin Martyr used Isa 714 as a ldquoproof from propehcyrdquo against Trypho who counteredthis with a comparison to Perseus intending to downplay the potency of this kind of propheticargument see Dial 66ndash69 Also in the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus 30ndash33 (c 4thor early 5th century) the Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus 312ndash13 (c 400 CE) and theDialogue of Timothy and Aquila 85ndash6 186ndash13 266 3414ndash20 (5th to 6th c) the prophecyof Isaiah is debated see Varner Dialogues 36ndash38 100ndash103 180ndash83 216ndash17 Also Julian(Flavius Claudius Julianus) debates Isa 714 see Against the Galileans in The Works of theEmperor Julian (trans Wilmer C Wright LCL 3 vols London William Heinemann 1923)3399 Interestingly Celsus also seems to have omitted a discussion of Isa 714 althoughOrigen doubts that Celsus was ignorant about this see Origen Cels 134 The absence of anydiscussion of Isaiah 714 and Matt 122ndash23 in QiṣṣaNestor (especially after citing all of Matt11ndash16 in sect80) is as such noteworthy One of the reasons why a discussion of Isa 714 and ofMatt 122ndash23 was not included in Qiṣṣa surely is not because the (first) compiler purposelycropped it from his sources when almost every other Jewish (and pagan) polemic arguesagainst the Christian interpretation of Isa 714 It is more plausible that the available sourcematerial of Qiṣṣa would appear to not mention the passages (esp if it was originally ofMuslim or Christian provenance) and the Jewish compiler was not aware that it was Matthewwho made the link between Isa 714 and Jesus in which case the compiler probably had noaccess to the Gospel of Matthew
98 Although in sect5 mention is made of the ldquofilth of menstrual bloodrdquo this is clearly part ofthe introductory section Yet no mention of the unbecomingness of birth is made in sectsect9ndash71and that despite the fact that Jesusrsquo birth is discussed in sect9 (in comparison to Adam) in sect26(in being begotten) and in sect30 (incarnation)
99 Apart from the introductory overview in sect5 the first time Jesusrsquo intoxication is men-tioned is in sectsect59ndash61 This type of polemic denouncing Jesus as drunkard is already attested inthe gospels cf Matt 1119 par Luke 734 See Joseph B Modica ldquoJesus as Glutton andDrunkardrdquo in Who do my opponents say that I am An Investigation of the Accusations
24 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor 53
not criticized in regard to virginal birth or for being a drunkard whereas aftersect57 no great concern for Muslim or Christian sensitivities can be attestedanymore
Most significant in further tracing this underlying source is that the transi-tion into this section sect37 but especially the conclusion in sectsect55ndash57 seeks toconvince the addressee that Jesus is a messenger servant and a prophet Atfirst sight this section would then seem to reflect Muslim sentiments100 butthis view has to be adjusted in sect54 (and also in sect44) Jesusrsquo words on thecross (Psalm 221) are briefly mentioned and then it is remarked ldquoIf despitethese true testimonies you come claiming that he is a Lord and a God willpeople not spit in your facerdquo101 A Muslim would certainly have difficultyarguing that Jesusrsquo words on the cross together with the previous argumentsare ldquotrue testimoniesrdquo in particular because a Muslim might not want to claimthat the Messiah was abandoned at the cross by God (much less died)102
It is therefore possible that some kind of Christian source underlies thisparticular section a source which held Jesus to be the Messiah and perhapsendorsed the virginal birth but not Jesusrsquo divinity Lasker and Stroumsathemselves speculate that Qiṣṣa contains Jewish-Christian material103
although perhaps other heterodox Christian sources could account for thiskind of argument Since other Christian material has been identified in Qiṣṣa
Against the Historical Jesus (ed Scot McKnight and Joseph B Modica LNTS 327 LondonTampT Clark 2008) 50ndash75
100 Cf Qurrsquoān 4157 575 1930 4359101 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 162 (Qiṣṣa) emphasis mine Earlier in sect44 it
was also remarked that it is a ldquoshameful thingrdquo to assert that the Messiah lied102 The Qurrsquoān 4157 denies that ldquothe Messiah Jesus the son of Mary the messenger of
Allahrdquo was crucified (but cf 355 1933ndash34)103 See Lasker and Stroumsa The Polemic of Nestor the Priest 120ndash21 They (following
Shlomo Pines) discuss the possibility that Qiṣṣa might resemble ldquoJewish-Christianrdquo thinkingin places Cf Shlomo Pines ldquoJudeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish TreatiserdquoPAAJR 35 (1967) 187ndash217 and idem ldquoThe Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries ofChristianity According to a New Sourcerdquo Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities 213 (1966) 1ndash73 Pinesrsquo theory however has not been left unchallenged seethe discussion in Alexander ldquoThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debaterdquo146ndash48 and John G Gager ldquoDid Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islamrdquo in The Ways thatNever Parted (ed Adam H Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed TSAJ 95 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 2003) 361ndash72 also Ernst Bammel ldquoExcerpts from a New Gospelrdquo NovT 10(1968) 1ndash9 repr in Judaica Kleine Schriften I (idem WUNT I37 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 1986) 239ndash46 Regardless the study of Jewish-Christian groups has become morefocused in recent years and generated more interest (and numerous publications) especiallyamong to Christian scholars see esp Oskar Skarsaune Jewish Believers in Jesus The EarlyCenturies (Peabody Hendrickson 2007) and Carlton Paget Jews Christians and JewishChristians in Antiquity esp 289ndash379 (ldquoThe definition of the term lsquoJewish ChristianrsquolsquoJewishChristianityrsquo in the history of researchrdquo)
54 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
specifically Christian hagiographical sources underlying sectsect133ndash134 it isprobable that Qiṣṣarsquos arguments are informed at least in part by christologi-cal debates (see esp sectsect25ndash32) If the author or initial compiler of this partic-ular source material was indeed a convert one would even have to expect tofind some of these heterodox viewpoints in the treatise Whatever the case itis clear that Qiṣṣarsquos overall polemic addresses Nicene-Chalcedonian or Mono-physite forms of Christianity and would seem to be rather ineffective againstconvictions that equally emphasize the distinction between God and Jesus (aseg in Arian Nestorian or probably in certain Jewish-Christian circles)
And so although ultimately not verifiable it would seem that a later(Jewish) compiler utilized earlier heterodox Christian material perhaps fromsomeone who had left or opposed orthodox Christianity104 and subsequentlyadded an introduction his own polemic and material derived from othersources Qiṣṣa would as such be a treatise specifically crafted to attackChristian convictions about Jesus This compiler appears to have had a lowview of Jesus (eg as a drunkard who was nursed by a harlot etc) but whoused source material that saw Jesus in a more positive light This source mate-rial was at least in Qiṣṣa understood to be authentic and effective and there-fore largely left unchanged As such a good amount of knowledge of theChristian texts and critique of Jesusrsquo divinity based on the New Testamentwould have come from this heterodox source rather than from an actualgospel text available to the author105
This theory then would account for the two portrayals of Jesus one wherehe is called Messiah106 albeit without being divine and one where Jesus is
104 This would be comparable to al-Ṭabarī who converted from Christianity to Islam andbrought much knowledge (and critique) of the Christian Scriptures and doctrines to his newreligion see David Thomas ldquoAbū l-Ḥasan lsquoAlī ibn Sahl Rabban al-Ṭabarīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online 2012) also idem ldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā l-Naṣārārdquo Christian-MuslimRelations (Brill Online 2012)
105 The use of canonical and apocryphal material should therefore probably be treatedwith caution as it could just testify to the accumulation of various arguments without neces-sarily denoting first-hand knowledge of these texts by the compiler This may also indicatethat Jewish awareness of Christian texts at the turn of the millennium and beyond where theyare based on and derived from QiṣṣaNestor may originate to a significant extent in innerChristian doctrinal debates and may therefore indicate that direct knowledge of ChristianScriptures within some Jewish circles was relatively sparse Limor sees this as a distinct pos-sibility and comments הוכחואוליבואיןלשעברכומרבידי)נערךאו(נכתבאכןהואאם
החדשה הברית את הכירו שיהודים לכך ldquoJudaism examines Christianityrdquo 111106 In fact the person(s) copyingarranging the Hebrew text seem to have felt awkward
about this at times and appear to mitigate this to some extend eg compare Qiṣṣa sect37 andNestor sect37 Nestor has ldquoyour Messiahrdquo whereas the Judeo-Arabic reads ldquothe Messiahrdquo(אלמסיח) cf Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 237 99 In Nestor Jesus is referred toas ldquoMessiahrdquo (משיח) in sect9 sect10 sect11 sect13 sect21 sect27 sect28 in sect15 and sect22 it is ldquoyour Messiahrdquo(משיחכם) In MS H-B in sect21 he ldquowhom you call Messiahrdquo ( משיחלוקוראיםאתםאשר ) is
24 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor 55
seen along more popular (or vulgar) polemic lines The composition con-cludes presumably reflecting the compilerrsquos view that Christians are eithershamelessly ignorant or liars and hypocrites since they endorse the mostblatant contradictions and even ignore Jesusrsquo own statements about himselfUltimately Christians have to be deemed deliberate polytheists and thus blas-phemers (cf sectsect44ndash46 sect106 sect165)
2 5 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor
The following sections have been chosen for further discussion based on theirrelevance to the areas of Jesusrsquo divinity incarnation and the Gospel ofMatthew They will be treated under three headings which also constitute themain thrust of the treatisersquos polemic stance 1) Jesusrsquo distinctiveness incomparison to God 2) Jesusrsquo exclusively human origins and 3) the inappro-priateness of the incarnation as a theological andor historical category
2 5 1 Jesusrsquo Distinctiveness
As seen from the outline the discussion of Jesusrsquo humanity with its physicalparticularities provides the main trajectory for the whole polemic QiṣṣaNestor use statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels comparisons withverses from the Hebrew Bible and ldquocommon senserdquo arguments to emphasizethat Jesus is merely human thus not God In this the imagined Christianinterlocutor is often challenged with a fair amount of ldquofalse dichotomyrdquoreasoning Texts from the New Testament and other apocryphal materialcomprise the main sources for this polemic thrust rather than the HebrewBible However some of the arguments engage the same passages Christiansuse to show that Jesus is divine eg Psalm 2 Psalm 110 or John 17
Six arguments will be considered here which are meant to show Jesusrsquoself-understanding ie that he understood himself to be human and distinctfrom God 1) The use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo 2) Jesusrsquo prayer at the cross3) the use of the ldquoMessanic Psalmsrdquo 4) the exchange with the so called ldquoRichYoung Rulerrdquo 5) the prayer in Gethsemane and 6) Jesusrsquo statements of beingldquosentrdquo It is perhaps not insignificant in particular for the study of the devel-opment of Jewish polemic that all the above arguments occur before sect57107
qualified for the first time as Jesus (ישו) whereas Qiṣṣa has here simply ldquothe Messiahrdquowithout any further qualification see ibid 231 96 (אלמסיח)
107 It is therefore quite possible that later Jewish arguments where they depended onQiṣṣaNestor drew from sources that originally were not exclusively Jewish and probablyeven Christian as was discussed in 24 The same can be observed in Ḥizzuq Emunah wherethe author took some of his polemic from unitarian Bible commentaries see chapter 8
56 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
2 5 1 1 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 2436 and Matt 1218 (sect39 sect57)
The first argument to be closer examined is QiṣṣaNestorrsquos understanding anduse of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo which until the pesent day is one of the mostdebated terms in the so-called ldquoQuest for the Historical Jesusrdquo In Matthewrsquosgospel the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo is used by Jesus in allusion to the vision in Dan713108 but seemingly also as a self-reference (see Matt 820 96 1119 1281613) though it is also used to refer to Jesusrsquo mission and the eschaton (cf1023 1232 1240 1337 1341 179 1712 1722 1811 1928 20182028 2427 2430 2437 2439 2444 2531 262 2624 2645 2664)Thus the extensive discussion in New Testament scholarship circles aroundhow this enigmatic term is to be understood ie whether it is a ldquomessianictitlerdquo Jesusrsquo self-reference used or perhaps an affirmation of possessinghuman nature etc109
108 In Matt 2430 2664 cf also Mark 1326 1462 Luke 2127 Ulrich Luz a leadingscholar in the field of Matthean studies has suggested that in the Gospel of Matthew ldquo[t]heexpression lsquoSon of Manrsquo refers to Jesusrsquo path as a whole from his earthly existence to hisfinal consummation At the end of this path Jesusrsquo words take on a Danielic tinge for it wasthe conclusion Daniel had prophesied When the readers of Matthewrsquos Gospel heard Jesusspeak of the Son of Man they heard reverberations from his other sayings with this titlerdquoidem The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge Cambridge University Press1995) 113ndash14 see also 112ndash16
109 For an overview and a most recent discussion of the term in particular in response toMaurice Caseyrsquos Solution of the Son of Man Problem see the various articles in Larry WHurtado and Paul L Owen eds lsquoWho is this son of manrsquo The Latest Scholarship on a Puz-zling Expression of the Historical Jesus (LNTS 390 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2011) see espAlbert L Lukaszewskirsquos summary ldquoIssues Concerning the Aramaiac Behind ὁ υἱὸς τοῦἀνθρώπου A Critical Review of Scholarshiprdquo 1ndash27 but more extensively Mogens MuumlllerThe Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo and the Development of Christology A History of Interpreta-tion (Sheffield Equinox 2008) and Delbert R Burkett The Son of Man Debate A History ofEvaluation (SNTSMS 107 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1999) Maurice Caseyin The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (LNTS 343 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2007) hasargued that the Aramaic expression ( א(נש)א(בר underlying the Greek gospel is the ordinaryterm for ldquomanrdquo Before him Geza Vermes had contended and not without causing strongreactions that ldquoSon of Manrdquo is simply a circumlocution for the personal pronoun ldquoIrdquo or ldquomerdquocf idem Jesus the Jew A Historianrsquos Reading of the Gospels (New York Macmillan 1974)177ndash86 (this was first proposed by him in 1965 and published in 1967 see LukaszewskildquoIssuesrdquo 7ndash9 Vermes was reviewing Lietzmannrsquos theory which itself was discussed modi-fied and rejected by Dalman et al see eg Adela Yarbro Collins and John Joseph CollinsKing and Messiah as Son of God Divine Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblicaland Related Literature [Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008] 156ff) The use of the term in theNew Testament is however much more complex not the least because of its possible apoca-lypic titular use (cf Dan 713) See also B Barry Levy ldquoWhy Bar-nash Does Not Mean lsquoIrsquordquoin The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed Barry Walfish vol 1 Jewish History 6 HaifaHaifa University Press 1993) 85ndash101
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 57
In Qiṣṣa sect39 where the argument appears for the first time110 (although notas a discussion of Matthew but of Mark) the expression ldquoSon of Manrdquo isinterpreted in a very literal sense so as to affirm that Jesus was in fact humanand not divine111
Qiṣṣa sect39 But he told you in the fourth of the five parts of [the Gospel of] Mark that whenthe apostles had asked him about the resurrection Christ said ldquoNo one knows that day andthat hour neither the son of man like myself nor any of the angelsrdquo Were he a God hewould not have presented himself as a son of man112
Nestor sect39 How could he be the Lord It has already been said in your books in the fourthchapter of the Book of Mark when his disciples asked him about the resurrection and theysaid to him ldquoWhen will that day comerdquo He answered and said to them ldquoBut of that day orthat hour no one knows not even angels of Hell [or heights]113 nor the son of man whoseblood is like himself no one knows that day except the Lord alonerdquo [Latin gloss] Nẹmon śitdẹ diẹ ẹlla ed ora ltnegt fịleos ominẹs nẹsi patri soluś114
עלתלמידיושאלוהוכאשרמרקוספרעלחומשיםבדבספריכםאמרווכברייהואואיךהשעהולאההואהיוםיודעאיןלהםויאמויעןההואהיוםיהיהמתילוואמהמתיםתחיית
110 Lasker and Stroumsa note that a similar argument based on the ignorance logion ismade in genizah fragment T-S Ar 1412 see Nestor the Priest 1147 Likewise IbnKammūna uses the logion in his Tanqīḥ (ed Perlmann) 89 In fact there are significant par-allels between Ibn Kammūnarsquos arguments and the argumentation in QiṣṣaNestor cf ibid86ndash92
111 In the following Qiṣṣa and Nestor will be given in the form of extracts Qiṣṣa textshowever will only be given in translation as they appear in Lasker and Stroumsarsquos criticaledition (I am not familiar with Judeo-Arabic enough to rightly appreciate Qiṣṣa as sourcematerial) The presentation of the Nestor material is not as straightforward First of all it wasalready noted that the ldquofour extant Hebrew manuscripts comprise three different recensionsrdquoLasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 193 One manuscript MS H-B has Latin glosses ofNew Testament passages two further manuscripts MS H-A and MS H-C have Greekglosses The fourth manuscript is MS H-J Lasker and Stroumsa remark that MS H-C oftenpreserves superior readings compared ldquoto those of MS H-A (based on the original Arabic andthe earlier Hebrew version)rdquo although ldquothe differences between these two manuscripts areessentially minorrdquo whereas the difference between the recension with the Greek and therecension with the Latin are usually more significantrdquo (194) Since MS H-J is not very trust-worthy two recensions of the Hebrew text respectively those with the Latin and the Greekglosses must be compared for every argument The translation of Nestor provided by Laskerand Stroumsa is based on MS H-B but unfortunately it also draws from all available Hebrewmanuscripts when the text is deemed corrupt which makes it somewhat problematic to useThe excerpts for Nestor provided here will be mostly of MS H-B andor MS H-A (as recon-structed and compared to MS H-C by Lasker and Stroumsa) which will be indicated whereappropriate At times this will lead to smaller adjustments in Lasker and Stroumsarsquostranslation
112 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 160113 In MS H-A the angles are ldquoin hellrdquo (reading (דומה rather than in heaven MS H-B has
ldquoheight(s)rdquo (רומה) see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1106 n 9 2119 n 10114 Ibid 1106
58 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
בלתיההוא)היום(היוםידעולאכעצמודמואדםבןולארומהמלאכיולאהבריותמכלההיא115סולוש פטרי נרי אומיניס פיליאוס אדיאה אילא מידיאי שית נימן לעז לבדו ליי
Jesusrsquo saying in Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) also known as ldquoignorancelogionrdquo functions as a warning to alertness perhaps against false prophetswho asserted that they could predict the parousia116 Yet the portrayal of theSon as someone who himself asserts that he lacks the full spectrum of divineomnipotence and who is grouped with angels easily can be understood as anexpression that he is not as divine as the Father Not surprisingly then thislogion was theologically problematic for Christian interpreters and thepassage is also a recurring point in Jewish polemic Arius used it117 and mostof the early church interpreters out of a commitment to the full divinity ofJesus paradoxically affirmed that the Son was not ignorant of the apocalyptictiming despite (and perhaps because of) the passagersquos assertion that thisknowledge belonged to the Father alone118 Pope Vigilius (in 553 CE) and
115 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 299 The vocalized Latin glosswhich is a peculiar version of Mark 1332 is given as reconstructed see ibid 1174 ldquoTheGreek gloss of Mark 1332 in MS H-A is preceded by a rendition of Matt 2424rdquo (1147)
116 See Ulrich Luz Matthew 21ndash28 (Hermeneia Minneapolis MN Fortress 2005) 212According to Luz Matthew is nevertheless ldquonot thinking less of Jesusrdquo since the evangelisthas already introduced and affirmed him as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo who alone knows the Father(cf Matt 1127 par Luke 1022) Thus in Matthewrsquos (and Jesusrsquo) understanding the ldquoknowl-edge of the timesrdquo has to be taken as an exclusive prerogative of the Father Luz points toZech 147 and 2 Bar 218 which in like manner state that it is God alone who knows theapocalyptic timing But Luz then remarks ldquo[t]hat the exalted Lord of the world Jesusbelongs to the angels and to the Father does not detract from the godhead that is unique toGod who alone is Lord of timerdquo (213) Luzrsquos disclaimer however effectively heightens theissue because it transfers Jesusrsquo limited knowledge (as that which distinguishes him from theFather) to the transcendent sphere (implied in the phrase ldquothe exalted Lord of the worldrdquo)
117 According to Jerome Comm Matt 42436 (CCSL 77231ndash32 FC 117277ndash78) Ariuswrote that ldquohe who knows and he who does not know cannot be equalrdquo (non potest aequalisesse qui nouit et qui ignorat) See also Athanasius C Ar 342ndash50 (NPNF2 4416ff) and espthe highly relevant article by Kevin Madigan ldquolsquoChristus Nesciensrsquo Was Christ Ignorant ofthe Day of Judgment Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 1332 in the Ancient LatinWestrdquo HTR 96 (2003) 255ndash78
118 See Luz Matthew 21ndash28 213 Cf eg Origen frg 487 (GCS 412200) AmbroseFid 516 193f (CSEL 78289f NFPN2 10309) Basil Ep 236 (FC 28167ndash68) Hilary InEvangelium Matthaei Commentarius 264 (PL 91057 SC 258196) Jerome Comm Matt42436 (CCSL 77231ndash32 FC 117277ndash78) Augustine Trin 112 23 Bede Exp in Ev SMatthaei 24 (PL 92104D) Strabo Glossa Ordinaria Evangelium Secundum Mattheum2436 (PL 114162) See also William D Davies and Dale C Allison The Gospel Accordingto Saint Matthew Volume III Commentary on Matthew XIXndashXXVIII (ICC Edinburgh TampTClark 1997) 377ndash79 See also Gregory of Nazianzus Orat 2918 (Third TheologicalOration) idem On God and Christ The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters toCledonius (trans F Williams and L Wickham PPS 23 Crestwood NY St VladimirrsquosSeminary Press 2002) 86 who identifies Christrsquos ignorance as belonging to his incarnation
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 59
especially Pope Gregory (in 600 CE) issued encyclicals addressing thispassage119 On this Luz makes the important comment that[a]ll in all however the history of interpretation shows that the vere homo has always beensubordinate to the vere deus Thus only in the modern period has v 36 been able to achievean actually positive meaning when the Sonrsquos ignorance was understood as part of Jesusrsquo soli-darity with human impotence120
The argument in QiṣṣaNestor presumes first of all that Jesus was speakingto his disciples about the resurrection which itself is a noteworthy interpreta-tion of Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) The verse quoted functions here in twodistinct ways first it is used to demonstrate that Jesus who is referred to asMessiahChrist (in Qiṣṣa) is not God (or Lord) Second Jesus in professinghis ignorance refers to himself as ldquoSon of Manrdquo121 The last line ldquowere he agod he would not have presented himself as a son of manrdquo which onlyappears in Qiṣṣa must then mean that Jesus purposely emphasized that he ishuman and not divine Nestor maintains the same by asking ldquoHow could hebe the Lordrdquo Where Qiṣṣa and Nestor argue this point from a reading ofMark (and Matthew) the Jerusalem Talmud (y Tarsquoanit 65b [2124]) incontrast dispels the assertion of divinity by someone who calls himself ldquoSonof Manrdquo (ie Jesus) with Numbers 2319122
In QiṣṣaNestor the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo is thus understood as Jesusrsquoadmission that he is human which subsequently is used with this sense in thefollowing sect57 sect105 and sect150Nestor sect57 (hellip) If you say that [Jesus] said everything which the Lord said to him and hetestified about himself that he was a man and that he was a servant and he did not call him-self anything in your book other than lsquoson of manrsquo then you too should accept his words
119 Vigilius in particular sought to address the proposition that Son was ignorant whichemphasized the disunion of the two natures in Christ see Denzinger and SchoumlnmetzerEnchiridion Symbolorum 144 (sect419) 162ndash63 (sect474ndash75) Gregory according to RaymondBrown ldquotended to interpret Mk 1332 as an accommodation of Godrsquos Son to human speechHe maintained that the Son of God in his human nature knew the time of the Parousia but hisknowledge did not come from his human naturerdquo (novit in natura non ex natura humanitatis)Raymond E Brown Jesus God and Man (New York Macmillan 1967) 78 n 59 (emphasisoriginal) cf idem An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah NJ PaulistPress 1994) 57ndash58 n 73
120 Luz Matthew 21ndash28 214 Though already Irenaeus Haer 2286 Origen CommMatt 55 and Athanasius C Ar 343 (NPNF2 4417) explained Jesusrsquo ignorance as indicatorof his human nature mdash and therefore as expression of his full humanity
121 The problematic ldquoneither the sonrdquo (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) which various Matthean manuscriptsomit is even heightened in QiṣṣaNestor by the addition ldquoof manrdquo (אדם) probably suppliedfrom the context of the verse eg from Mark 1326 or Matt 2430 39 44 Also in Qiṣṣaunlike in Mark the angels come second in sequence after the Son
122 See Peter Schaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud 106ndash111 esp 108ndash109
60 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
[and not deify him] It is further written in the third of the Book of Matthew ldquoBehold my ser-vant whom I upholdrdquo [Latin gloss] Ektsi serbo mẹo kontaina en illom123
עצמוקראולאעבדהואוכיאדםהואכיעצמועלוהעידדבריילואמראשרכלתאמרואםעבדיהןמטיאוסספרבשלישעודכתובכדבריואתהגםוהודהאדםבןאםכיבספרכם124אנילום קונטיינא מיאו סרבו אקצי בו אתמך
As previously mentioned sect57 concludes a thematic unit and the last argu-ments of this cluster seek to demonstrate that Jesus is a messenger (sect55) aprophet (sect56) and a servant (sect57) By referring to Matt 1218 which itselfquotes Isa 421 the argument introduces a further qualification of how theterm ought to be understood the ldquoSon of Manrdquo is a human servant and amessenger akin to the prophets
Thus QiṣṣaNestor consistently employ the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo to expressJesusrsquo limitations affirming that he is only a human an argument that will berepeated in all the following polemical treatises surveyed here125 ldquoSon ofManrdquo is thus not taken to be a messianic title or designation of honor at allWith this Qiṣṣa appears to stand in a trajectory that has very early ante-cedents for already some early Christian sources downplay the phrase ldquoSonof Manrdquo which might indicate that the term was already used in a similarpolemical fashion against those who held Jesus to be divine126
2 5 1 2 Jesusrsquo Words at the Cross Matt 2746 (sect45)
In sect45 Jesusrsquo prayer to God at the cross (Matt 2746 par Mark 1534) ispresented as evidence that he was not divine
123 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1110124 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2101 For the Latin gloss see 1175
MS H-A is essentially the same here125 In Nestor sect105 sect141 and sect150 we even find a pun on this term Jesus is there referred
to as the ldquoSon of Fleshrdquo ( הבשרבן ) which epitomizes the underlying issue which the wholepolemic is essentially advancing how could the lsquoGod of all fleshrsquo (Jer 3227) himself becomeflesh Or in other words how could the Creator ever become creature
126 See eg the Letter of Barnabas 129b (10) (ANF 1145 SC 172172) c 130 CEldquoBehold again Jesus who was manifested both by type and in the flesh is not Son of manbut [the] Son of Godrdquo (ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς οὐχὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τύπῳδὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς emphasis mine) also Tertullian Carn Chr 18 (ANF 3537CCSL 2905) ldquoIt was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human fatherrsquos seedlest if He were wholly the Son of a man He should fail to be also the Son of God and havenothing more than lsquoa Solomonrsquo or lsquoa Jonasrsquomdash as Ebion thought we ought to believe con-cerning Himrdquo (non competebat ex humano semine dei filium nasci ne sic totus esset filiushominis Non enim esset et dei filius nihilque ltingt se haberet amplius Salomone nec ampliusIona ltessgtet de Hebionos opinione credendus emphasis mine) For more see the discussionin Alois Grillmeier Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Band 1 ndash Von der Apostolis-chen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451) (3d ed Freiburg Herder 1990) 40ndash57 [notincluded in the 2nd rev English ed]
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 61
Qiṣṣa sect45 And if you say that God is Christ and that Christ is God then you lie For if Christwere a God he would not have appealed to another [God] nor to anyone else to help himwhen he met with suffering and illness as he said ldquoMy God my God why have you for-saken merdquo If Christ were God how could he appeal to another God to help him inhardship127
Nestor sect45 If you say that God is the Messiah and the Messiah is God you have lied and toldfalsehood since if the Messiah were God he would not have requested help from someoneelse in his time of trouble saying ldquoMy God my God why have You forsaken merdquo [Latingloss Dẹuz mẹuz dẹuz mẹuz kal dẹlikvẹśtẹ mẹ] If the Messiah was a truth-teller you takehim to speak falsehood when he said ldquoMy God my God why have You forsaken merdquo128
לאיימשיחהיהשאםאמרתםושקרכיזבתםייהואומשיחמשיחהואייכיתאמרוואםמיאוזדיאוזמיאוזדיאוזעזבתנילמהאליאלילאמרצרתובעתמאחרעוזרמבקשהיה
129עזבתני למה אלי אלי באמרו אותו הכזיבו נאמן המשיח אם מי קלדליקווישטי
That Jesus died powerlessly on the cross thereby demonstrating the unlikeli-hood that that he is God is a not a novel anti-Christian argument130 The argu-ment here however focuses on Jesusrsquo prayer to God on the cross His prayeris understood as an expression of the Messiahrsquos distinctiveness from Godwhich essentially accepts the Christian position that Jesus is the Messiah131 Infact on this assumption rests the force of the argument in Nestor since theMessiah ldquowas a truth-tellerrdquo ( נאמןהמשיח )132 The argument is thus not based
127 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 160128 Modified from ibid 1107 The translation follows MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa
prefer MS H-A here although they suggest to omit the negative (ולא) ldquoIf the Messiah was atruth-teller then you [do not] deny God and contradict him when he said lsquoMy God my Godwhy have you forsaken mersquordquo ( אליבאמרותכזיבוהובהאתםכפרתםולאנאמןהמשיחואם
שבקתני למה אלי ) see ibid 1107 n 7 and 2120129 MS H-B ibid 299 For the Latin gloss see 1174130 Porphyry is remembered in Lactantiusrsquo Inst 422 as saying ldquoWhy then did he not
come as God to instruct men Why did he make himself so lowly and weak that he could becondemned by men and afflicted with punishment Why did he suffer violence at the handsof weak mortal men Why did he not destroy these human forces with his power or avoidthem with his divinity Why did he not show his majesty at least at the brink of his deathAnd why was he led to judgment by someone weak condemned and guilty and killed as ifmortalrdquo Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect57 152 In QiṣṣaNestor the argu-ment that Jesusrsquo death demonstrates that he is not God is made in the later part in sectsect180ndash181 that he was cursed through death on the cross is found in sect104
131 A similar argument occurs in sect53 Lasker and Stroumsa note that ldquo[t]his argumentsseems to be at the background of al-Muqammaṣrsquos Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā in both the secondquestion (Cambridge MS T-S 8 Ka 41) and the eighteenth (Cambridge MS T-S NS 9126)rdquoNestor the Priest 1148
132 This argument in particular might reveal the non-exclusively Jewish character of theunderlying source In fact it is noteworthy that Nestorius () used the same argument ldquoCon-cerning this lsquoMy God my God why have you forsaken mersquo What then (is this) Does hespeak the truth or does he lie If he truly says he is left alone where then is the infinity ofGod And if he is not alone he has therefore liedrdquo see Luise Abramowski and Alan E
62 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
on the death of Jesus but on that fact that he prayed ldquoMy Godrdquo therefore isunderstood as the acknowledgment that the one praying even if he is theMessiah is in fact not God especially when he is explicitly eliciting Godrsquoshelp133
2 5 1 3 The Use of the ldquoMessianic Psalmsrdquo Matt 2241ndash46 (sect50)
The equating of God with the Messiah is again refuted in sect49 there with thehelp of Psalm 22 where the phrase ldquoagainst the Lord and His anointedrdquo isdrawn out to demonstrate that they are in fact ldquotwordquo134 According to thePsalm and thereby again assuming its Christian interpretation the Messiahand God cannot be understood as one but as two entities135
It is also implicitly accepted that Jesus is the Messiah who prays in thewords of Psalm 22 and of whom also Psalm 2 speaks The document underly-ing this section therefore allowed for Jesus as Messiah yet maintained thatthe Psalms demonstrates that the Messiah is distinct from God and not adivine-like being This is further supported by sect50 where the christologicallymost important psalm Psalm 1101 is considered136
Qiṣṣa sect50 If you say that He is one then you deny the Gospel the Psalms and the book ofPaul For it is written in the Gospel of John according to your express claim ldquoThe Lord saidto my Lord Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstoolrdquo You claim thenthat this Lord ascended and sat to the right of the other [Lord] Tell me then is it with hisbody and what is in it and with his human nature that he ascended and sat to the right of theLord For if one of the two Lords in his humanity ascended to the right of the other thenone would be to the right of the throne and the other to the left of the throne You previouslydepicted him as incarnated in humanity and [now you say that] the humanity [in which hewas incarnated] is on the right [of the throne] If you say ldquoHe is onerdquo then you deny yourbooks And if you say ldquoThey are twordquo then you deny Godrsquos unity taught by the prophets137
Goodman A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts Volume II Introduction Transla-tion Indexes (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1972) 118 The reference to Nestorin Qiṣṣa might therefore not be an accident
133 In this manner QiṣṣaNestor actually stress many other instances when Jesus waspraying as admission of his equality with humanity and dissimilarity from God especially insectsect52ndash54 See also sect95 sect108 sectsect139ndash141 sectsect156ndash157
134 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 161 108135 This shows that the author of this argument was aware that Psalm 2 was important to
Christians cf Hebrews 15 55 and Acts 1333 but also Matt 317 175 On the role ofPsalm 2 for the christological development see James D G Dunn Christology in the MakingA New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd edLondon SCM 1989) 35ndash36 et passim and Barnabas Lindars New Testament ApologeticThe Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London SCM 1961) 139ndash44
136 See Martin Hengel ldquolsquoSit at my right handrdquo and idem ldquolsquoSetze dich zu meinerRechtenrsquordquo
137 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 161
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 63
The same section in Nestor shows similarities but also differences Nestor sect50 (hellip) You said that he ascended to the firmament sitting on the right of the MostHigh Inform me did his body and his human nature ascend to the heavens in order to sit tothe right of God or not If you say yes you have made God united with human nature andthe human nature is on the right If you say He is one [God] you have contradicted yourbelief If you say they are two you have denied the Lord and the prophets and how can youmake him a God when it has already been made clear to you that [Jesus] is not God138
אישותווניהוגלשמיםעלהגופואםהודיעניעליוןלימיןיושבלרקיעעלהכיואמרתם(hellip)עלוהאישותלאישותנדבקהאלהותעשיתכברהיןתאמראםלאואוהאללימיןלשבתואיךובנביאיםבשםכפרתשניםתאמרואםאמונתכםתכזבאחדהואכיתאמרואםהימין
139אל אינו כי לכם ביררום וכבר אל תעשהו
The reference to ldquothe book of Johnrdquo is wrong as Psalm 1101 only appears inthe Synoptics in Matt 2241ndash46 Mark 1235ndash37 and Luke 2041ndash44140 Yetit is clear that the author continues the argument that the Messiah and God arenot identical Both Qiṣṣa and Nestor cite Psalm 1101 to make this pointhowever they progress somewhat differently Common to both is the use ofthe verse to contradict the claim that Christ is identical with God since thePsalm refers to two lords ie two individual entities Also both Qiṣṣa andNestor take the Christian reading of the Psalm as their point of departurenamely that ldquomy lordrdquo refers in the context of sect50 to the ascended JesusQiṣṣa then points to the heart of the problem ldquoTell me then is it with hisbody and what is in it and with his human nature that he ascended and sat tothe right of the Lordrdquo141
The Christian answer is also anticipated for if one of the two lordsascended to the right of the other then one would sit to the right of the thronewho ldquobearsrdquo humanity and ldquowhat is in itrdquo142 In other words not only would
138 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1108139 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa The Polemic of Nestor the Priest 2100140 Psalm 110 is also alluded to in 1 Cor 1525ndash28 (and Hebrews 13) and MS H-A refer-
ences this correctly ldquoFor thus said Paul in the book of your errorsrdquo ( פאוולושאמרכןכיטעותכם בספר ) Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2121
141 Cf Justin De resurr 9 who states that Jesus presented himself to the disciples afterthe resurrection to show them ldquothat it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heavenrdquo (ANF1298) The matter of Jesusrsquo bodily ascension was an issue already very early on cf also1 Cor 1535ndash57 Many other church interpreters affirmed Jesusrsquo resurrection ldquoin the fleshrdquoagainst Docetist Gnostic and Pagan viewpoints eg Irenaeus in Haer 3168 531 and Ter-tullian Res 51 See Bauer Leben Jesu 276 Caroline W Bynum ldquoImages of the Resurrec-tion Body in the Theology of Late Antiquityrdquo Catholic Historical Review 80 (1994) 215ndash37and eadem The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity 200ndash1336 (New YorkColumbia University Press 1995)
142 The latter phrase perhaps points to the physical content of Jesusrsquo intestines or to theanthropological lsquomake-uprsquo of a human ie to his human spirit and soul either of which aredifficult to imagine sitting on a heavenly throne
64 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
there be two (divine) beings but one would sit sit as ldquoembodied Godrdquo next toGod To deny this would be to deny the Christian Scriptures namely ldquotheGospel the Psalms [that is their Christian interpretation] and the book ofPaulrdquo This however contradicts the ldquounity taught by the prophetsrdquo Nestorargues here mostly against the union of the human nature with God143 ldquoyouhave made God united (נדבק) with human nature and the human nature is onthe rightrdquo The contradiction is not a contradiction with Scripture necessarilyas in Qiṣṣa but focuses more on the oneness of God ldquoIf you say He is one[God] you have contradicted your beliefrdquo
What is similar in Qiṣṣa and Nestor is their interpretation of Psalm 1101The verse can only be used in reference to God by assuming that only one ofthe two lords is divine This is of course based on the premise that God is oneand the inherent contradiction from the (later) Jewish point of view lies inthat the Christians apply this verse to Jesus in order to argue for his divinityThe fact that there are two means a priori that one cannot be God otherwisethe One God would be referred to as in effect two divine persons (which is theorthodox Christian position) Not only does this transgress the most importantarticle of Jewish faith that God is uniquely one (Deut 64) but in attributinghuman nature to God it also detracts from the ldquoothernessrdquo of God (נדבק)
Thus we have three christologically important Psalms interpreted in a waythat maintain that the Messiah and God are neither identical nor equal Andtherefore the Christian concept of identifying the MessiahChrist as divine isnot in accordance with Scripture
2 5 1 4 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash17 (sect51)
In sect51 the argument is then driven to a decisive challenge by referring toJesusrsquo own statement about himselfQiṣṣa sect51 How can you consider Christ as God when he himself told you explicitly that heis not divine Do you not know that a man said to him ldquoO righteous teacher teach me thatby which I can attain eternal liferdquo And he said in the Gospel in the thirtieth part of the bookof Matthew ldquoDo not call me lsquorighteousrsquo God alone is righteousrdquo If Christ were a God hewould not have denied his divinity and would not have called himself a human being nor
143 The Jewish rejection of the union of the divine and the human like many other para-doxes was embraced in Christian theology Especially after Athanasiusrsquo famous dictum ldquoforHe became man [human] so that we become God [deified]rdquo (Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἑνηνθρώπησενἵνα ἡμεῖς θεωποιηθῶμεν) Inc 543 (PG 25192B) incarnation itself was understood assalvific and developed along this trajectory (already seen in Irenaeus Haer 5 preface) Thiswas concomitant with the belief in theosis (or the deification of humanity) see Michael JChristensen and Jeffery A Wittung eds Partakers of the Divine Nature The History andDevelopment of Deificiation in the Christian Tradition (Madison NJ Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity Press 2007) and Norman Russell The Doctrine of Deification in the GreekPatristic Tradition (Oxford Oxford University Press 2004)
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 65
would he have responded to the man who said to him ldquoO righteous teacherrdquo by saying ldquoGodalone is righteousrdquo You claim that he said it about himself only because of his incarnationthrough Mary You thus render his soul and his nature unrighteous144
Nestor MS H-B is slightly different145
Nestor sect51 (hellip) And if you should say that (the) Messiah is God he would not have deniedhis divinity nor would he have called himself a human nor replied to the one who called himlsquorighteousrsquo by saying that only God is righteous And if you should say that he answered himin this matter (on account of being) incarnate [lit ldquounitedrdquo (with humanity)] you have there-fore considered him as being without righteousness146
היהולאאדםלעצמוקוראהיהולאהאלהותכופרהיהלאאלמשיחהיהתאמרואם(hellip)ככהלוהשיבשנדבקדברעלואמרתלבדוהצדיקהואייואומרצדיקקראולאשרמשיב147צדקות בלא וחשבתו שמתה ולכן
The paraphrase of Matthew 1916ndash17 which is conflated and expanded withelements taken from Mark 1017ndash18 (par Luke 1818ndash20)148 is used to sub-stantiate in Jesusrsquo own words that he is not divine In deflecting the adjectiveldquorighteousrdquo for himself and instead deferring to God alone Jesus is under-stood to deny that he is God or even like God
This particular argument appears already in much earlier polemics Por-phyry eg used it exactly in the same way149 The argument is even aware ofa Christian interpretation and reply to this polemic which is that Jesus isreferring to his humanity in this manner ldquobecause of his incarnation throughMaryrdquo In other words Jesus only deferred to God on account of his humannature150 This is then countered with the argument that Jesus in his humanitymust consequently have been less than righteous according to this verse If
144 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 161 MS H-A is for the most part similar toQiṣṣa here
145 See ibid 1108 n 11146 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1100147 Ibid 2100148 Only in Mark is Jesus addressed as ldquogood teacherrdquo (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ) here it is
even ldquorighteous teacherrdquo (Qiṣṣa) ldquogood and just teacherrdquo (MS H-B והישרהטוברבי ) orldquogood and righteous teacherrdquo (MS H-A והצדיקהטובמלמד ) which is an amplification andheightens the issue The argument does not interact with the rest of the pericope where Jesusaffirms the Decalogue
149 Apokritikos 34 ldquoWhy then if he is God did he deny he was God by stating lsquoNo oneis good but God alone Why do you call me goodrsquordquo Berchman Porphyry Against the Chris-tians sect166 193
150 This is a common explanation encountered in the writings of the church father so egAthanasius C Ar 343 (PG 26413ndash14 NPNF2 4417) in his explanation of the ignorancelogion ldquobut why though He knew He said lsquono not the Son knowsrsquo this I think none of thefaithful is ignorant viz that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of theflesh For this as before is not the Wordrsquos deficiency but of that human nature whose propertyit is to be ignorantrdquo emphasis mine But cf Justin Dial 1011ndash2
66 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Jesus spoke the truth he as human would have indirectly denied that he wasrighteous at least in the sense of having Godrsquos perfect righteousness Theargument of course is rendered more forceful by changing the wording fromldquogoodrdquorsquo to ldquorighteousrdquo (צדיק) nevertheless the Christian is left with thechoice of either accepting that Jesus denied being divine or that he under-stood himself as less than righteous (or good) ie that his human nature wasless than perfect Not surprisingly patristic writers had to react to this ratherformidable argument151
2 5 1 5 Jesusrsquo Prayer in Gethsemane Matt 2636ndash46 (sect53)
Another iconic scene from the New Testament Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane(Matt 2636ndash46 parr Mark 1432ndash42 Luke 2240ndash46) is discussed as a keypassage to show Jesusrsquo distinction from GodQiṣṣa sect53 Were Jesus God he would not have prayed to himself and fallen on his kneespleading with God and fasting He also said pleading with God ldquoIf it be your will removefrom the the cup of death But let it be as you please not as I please and by your commandnot by minerdquo It is made thereby clear that he is not a God but a human being subject to sad-ness and fatigue who fasts and prays to someone else152
Nestor sect53 And if the Messiah were God he would not have prayed to someone else and hewould not have bowed down on his knees and said ldquoPater meus remove from me this cup ofdeath by Your will and not my willrdquo He requested that God save him from the bitterness ofthe cup and he was poor and humiliated in his mourning his poverty and his serious illnessand he prayed and bowed on his knees And also he would not have requested from someoneelse to remove from him any pain or illness or the cup of death if he were God153
העברמיאוספטריואומרברכיועלכורעהיהולאלאחרמתפללהיהלאאלמשיחהיהואםומושפלעניוהיההכוסממרירותלהצילוהאלוביקשמרצוניולאברצונךהזההמותכוסממני
151 Cf eg John Chrysostom Hom Matt 631 (PG 58603 NPNF1 10387) JeromeComm Matt 31917 (CCSL 77169ndash70 FC 117219) Origen Comm Matt 1510ndash11 (GCS40373ndash80) Cyril of Alexandria Com in Luc 122ndash123 see R Payne Smith A Commentaryupon the Gospel according to St Luke Part II (Oxford Oxford University Press 1859) 565ndash72 and extensively Ephrem Commentary on the Diatessaron (trans Carmel McCarthy JSSSupplement 2 Oxford Oxford University Press 1993) XV sectsect1ndash11 229ndash235 See alsoUlrich Luz Matthew 8ndash20 (Hermeneia Minneapolis Fortress 2001) 511 n 21 ldquoWhile thetext was an effective argument against the Gnostics (the Father Creator and Lawgiver is byessence good cf Ps-Clement Hom 1811ndash3 Irenaeus Haer 4123) it appeared to agreewith the Arian view that the Father is good in essence the Son only per participationem(according to Thomas Aquinas Lectura no 1581) Countless authors take issue with itamong them Ambrose (In Luc 865ndash67 = BKV 121500ndash502) and the so-called Arian Opusimperfectum 33 = 806ndash7rdquo
152 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 162153 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1109
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 67
להעבירמאחרמבקשהיהלאוגםברכיועלוכורעומתפללהקשהובחולייוובעונייובאבלו154אל היה אם המות כוס ולא ומחלה כאב שום ממנו
Jesusrsquo prayer in and of itself specifically the desperation and weaknessdisplayed in it is understood to show that Jesus is exclusively human155 Thefact that Jesus prays to God addressing him as ldquoFatherrdquo on bended kneesdeferring to Godrsquos will makes it ldquothereby clear that he is not a Godrdquo LaterJewish polemic texts will make more of Jesusrsquo deferral to Godrsquos will therebyshowing that Jesus and the Father are not one entity with one will but here itsufficed to point out that the whole scene ought to be taken as a clear indicatorthat Jesus was utterly human156 It is then perhaps not surprising that thepericope about the so-called ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo and the Gethsemane prayerwill consistently re-occur in Jewish polemics as key passages to argue for the(exclusive) humanity of Jesus157
2 5 1 6 Jesusrsquo Statements of Being Sent Matt 1354ndash57 (sect55)
The last point that needs mentioning here is how QiṣṣaNestor interpretsJesusrsquo ldquosending sayingsrdquo In sect37 sect48 and sect55ndash57 it is maintained thataccording to the New Testament Jesus was a messenger and prophet158 In
154 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2100 The section in MS H-A cfibid 2121ndash22 is essentially the same but the Greek gloss is significantly longer quoting(though with some omissions and differences) Mark 1432ndash34 and 152 (conflated with Matt2711) connecting both passages with καί ὅτε ἐκρέμετον ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρὸν After Mark152 a paraphrase of Mark 1531ndash32 (par Matt 2741ndash42) follows cf ibid 1180
155 Likewise Porphyry is remembered as saying ldquoAnd yet he being in torment and antic-ipating the expectation of horrible things asked in prayer that his passion pass from him Andhe said to his closest friends lsquoWatch and pray that the temptation pass awayrsquo (Mt 2641 Mk1438 Lk 2246) Now these sayings are not worthy of Godrsquos Son not even of a wise manwho despises deathrdquo see Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect175 198 (emphasismine) The interjection that such a description is ldquonot worthyrdquo of God is also frequent inQiṣṣaNestor
156 Which may have been part of the reason why Matthew softens the Markan accountsee Reinhard Feldmeier Die Krisis des Gottessohnes Die Gethsemaneerzaumlhlung als Schluumls-sel der Markuspassion (WUNT II21 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1987) 9ndash49 also ErichKlostermann Das Matthaumlusevangelium (4th ed Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971) 20ndash21
157 In Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 sect10 and sect33 (see 45164519ndash20) Nizzahon Vetus sect184 and sect176 (see 549 5412) Even Boḥan (see 6419)Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 734) and Ḥizzuq Emunah I sect47 II sect19 and II sect24 (see 843848 and 8411)
158 In QiṣṣaNestor sect37 the argument is based on Psalm 26ndash7 in sect48 on a paraphrase ofJohn 536ndash38 in sect56 on Luke 1331ndash33 and Mark 64 in sect57 on John 537 1249ndash50 andMatt 1218 (citing Isa 421) In the New Testament Jesus is referred to as a prophet in Matt119 1357 2111 2146 (perhaps also 1041 145) Mark 64 615 Luke 424 716 26 391333 2419 John 419 44 614 740 52 917 Acts 323 737 though it is quite clear thatJesus is also ldquomore than a prophetrdquo (Luke 726) Jesus talks about being sent (by God) in Matt
68 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
particular in sectsect55ndash57 we find the argument that Jesus has to be understood asa human due to being a messenger and a servantQiṣṣa sect55 Do you not see that this MessiahChrist testified about himself that he is a messen-ger and a servant For he entered the city and stood in the midst of the crowd preaching andthey were astonished by him and said to each other in wonder ldquoWhere did that one get thiswisdom and these words Is this not the carpenterrsquos son whose motherrsquos name is Mary andwhose brothers are Simon Joseph Jacob and Judasrdquo For it is said ldquoA prophet is not humili-ated and demeaned except in his own cityrdquo159
Nestor sect55 Do you not know that he testified about himself as he said ldquoI am the servant ofGod and I am a prophet and messengerrdquo I must clarify his testimony for you as he testifiedabout himself when he went to a certain city sat with [the people of the city] for one dayadmonished them and said to them ldquoFear the Lord your Master and my Masterrdquo and theywondered about him They said ldquoIs this not the son of the carpenter whose motherrsquos name isMary and his brothers are with us and their names are Simon and Jacob in the city ofNazareth in the Galilee in the Land of Israelrdquo When he saw they recognized him and his lin-eage he said ldquoA prophet is not treated lightly or scorned except in his own cityrdquo [Latingloss] Non ẹśtẹ profẹta śẹni ontri ni ki iltngt patrẹa soa160
עידותולךלבארועליאניושליחונביאאניאלעבדואמעצמועלמעידהואכיתדעוהלאאליהםואומראותםומזהיראחדיוםעמהםוישבאחתלמדינהבבואועצמועלהעידאשרואחיומריםאמוושםהנגרבןזההלאואומריםעליותמהיםוהיוואדוניאדונכםייאתיראו
וייחוסוהכירוהוכיובראותוישראלבארץבגלילנצרתבמדינהויעקבשמעוןושמםאצלינואינטריניקיאישני)ביני(פרופיטאאישטינוןבמדינתואםכייתבזהולאהנביאיקללאאמר
161סואה פטריאה
Matt 1354ndash57 (parr Mark 61ndash4 Luke 422ndash24) stands in the background ofthe argument but some additional details appear in Nestor specifically thatJesus went ldquoto a certain cityrdquo and that he ldquosat with them for a dayrdquo Also thethe admonition to ldquofear the Lord your Master and my Masterrdquo appears to be aconflated reference to John 1017 Then both Qiṣṣa and Nestor rememberJesusrsquo siblings different to what is found in the respective New Testamentaccounts although Qiṣṣa is closer162 Yet in both the point is clear Jesus isrecognized as the ldquoson of the carpenterrdquo whose mother and brothers are
1040 1524 Mark 937 in particular in John (chs 5ndash18 passim) and that he came in orderto serve in Matt 2028 and Mark 1045 (cf also John 131ndash11) On Jesus as prophet see theoverview in Grillmeier Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Band 1 23ndash40 [notincluded in the 2nd rev English ed]
159 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 162160 Ibid 1109 and 1175161 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2100 MS H-A is very similar here
the Greek gloss is again significantly longer citing Matt 1354ndash57 ibid 1181162 Qiṣṣa sect55 (MS P) recounts four brothers Simon Joseph Jacob and Judas Nestor sect55
only two Simon and Jacob cf Matt 1354 (par Mark 61ndash4 though slightly different)James and Joseph and Simon and Judas Qiṣṣa sect79 (MS B Oxford MS Heb e 32 = Bodl2631 not in MS P) in comparison only references Jacob and Judah whereas Nestor sect79 (MSH-B) has three brothers here Jacob Simon (missing in MS H-A) and Judah
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 69
known by name an evaluation to which Jesus reacts with a saying thatimplies that he understood himself to be a prophet in some sense or at leastaffirmed that he was a charismatic teacher163 The critique against Jesus in thepericope is based on his origin on his family relations to his father motherand siblings However what is used here in the argument at hand is Jesusrsquoreply ie that he perceived himself as a prophet164 This in turn is interpretedas a concession since God alone is the one who sends (prophets) the one whois sent is consequently not God especially if he describes himself as aprophet In other words God alone sends he alone has the authority to do soThis is of course a legitimate issue that underlies all the sending statementsand in a way also the ldquoI have comerdquo sayings of Jesus especially if they wereto express the pre-existence of the person coming165 That Matthew and manyother New Testament passages show that Jesus was subordinate to the Fathereg expressed in his obedience was certainly not a trivial issue for earlychurch theologians166
As seen QiṣṣaNestor generally work on the basis of a strict paradigm ofopposites The treatise throughout uses various passages in the gospels in thisantithetical manner Jesus is sent God sends there is one God not two the
163 In Luke this is even more explicit cf Luke 726 1333 2419 On the topic of Jesusas prophet see the overview by James F McGrath ldquoJesus as False Prophetrdquo in Who do myopponents say that I am (ed McKnight and Modica) 95ndash110
164 Unlike in sect79 and sect107 where the argument is focused on Jesusrsquo origins see below 165 Recently Simon J Gathercole has argued (in particular against James Dunn) that
Jesusrsquo sending and ldquoI have comerdquo statements in the Synoptics can be understood as a claim topre-existence see idem The Pre-existent Son Cf Dunn Christology in the Making whoargues that the doctrine of preexistence has to be attributed to John see ibid 47
166 Subordinationism holds that the Son was ontologically lesser distinct and subordinateto the Father (though still divine) and some New Testament passages (which are also fre-quently discussed in polemical literature) have been advanced in support of this view egMark 1018 1332 John 335 526ndash27 1029 1316 1428 1 Cor 84-6 1528 Heb 107ndash9Origen has at times been considered one of the earlier representatives of heterodox subordina-tionism though this view has subsequently been revised and attempts have been made tomove Origen closer to the orthodox position see Earl Muller ldquoA lsquoSubordinationistrsquo Text inOrigenrsquos De Principiisrdquo StPatr 41 (2006) 207ndash12 though subordinationist tendencies arenoticeable in various theologians of the early church in particular before the councils ofNicea and Chalcedon see eg Justin 1 Apol 133 Arius of course is the classic representa-tive of (a kind of) subordinationism whose view Athanasius shrewdly and ultimately suc-cessfully attacked and condemned against the majority of Christian opinion which hadendorsed a form of subordinationism see eg Charles Kannengiesser Arius and AthanasiusTwo Alexandrian Theologians (Collected Studies 353 Aldershot Variorum 1991) in partic-ular chapter XII ldquoAthanasius of Alexandria vs Arius The Alexandrian Crisisrdquo first pub-lished in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (ed Birger A Pearson and James E GoehringPhiladelphia Fortress 1986) 204ndash15 See also Rowan Williams Arius Heresy and Tradi-tion (2nd ed London SCM 2001) 29ndash91 and Hanson The Search for the Christian Doc-trine of God
70 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Messiah is human not divine Jesusrsquo distinct humanity is thus asserted simplyby setting up a human-divine dichotomy Jesus is visible (sect5 sect32 sect90[Qiṣṣa] sect113 sect116 [Qiṣṣa] sect118 sect150 sect168 [Qiṣṣa]) whereas God is invis-ible God is self-sufficient Jesus prayed Thus he identified God as distinctfrom himself (sect45 sectsect52ndash54 sect95 [Qiṣṣa] sect108 sectsect139ndash141 sect156 [Qiṣṣa])and consequently made himself equal to other men (sect97 sect150) Anotherelement that fits into this dichotomy in QiṣṣaNestor in particular after sect57and often in conjunction with wine drinking is the emphasis on Jesus havingto sleep (sect5 sect60 sectsect81ndash82 sectsect84ndash89 sect91 [Qiṣṣa] sectsect95ndash96) This of coursedemonstrates Jesusrsquo limitation (and impropriety) but also stands in contradic-tion to Godrsquos nature who ldquodoes not sleeprdquo according to Psalm 1214 (sect89)167
This dichotomy as will become evident is common to most Jewish responsesto Jesus as encountered in the gospels and in fact it is this human-divinedichotomy that proved to be the major issue for the inner-Christian doctrinaldebates over Christology for the first few hundred years of the church
2 5 2 Jesusrsquo Human Origins (sect78 sect77 sect80 sect150 sect97)
The argument that Jesus had solely human origins is frequently encounteredin later polemics though it clearly has early antecedents in Jewish-Christianand heterodox groups168 In QiṣṣaNestor the nativity of Jesus is discussed in
167 In Bereshit Rabbah 8101 the distinguishing mark between God and Adam is in factsleep as Adam is made in the likeness of God and consequently so similar to God that theangels cannot tell who is who See Jacob Neusner The Incarnation of God The Character ofDivinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia Fortress 1988) 147 However this argumentthat God does not sleep in particular in Jewish polemics suppresses the passages in theHebrew Bible where God is said to be sleeping or resting cf Gen 22ndash3 Exod 2011 2312Deut 512ndash15 Job 1118ndash19 Psalms 37 48 76 919 1713 352 22ndash23 4423 26 594ndash5 681 7422 828 13213ndash14 Zech 213 Specifically the similarity of Isa 519ndash11 to Mark435ndash43 (which is the only narrative in the gospels where Jesus is said to be sleeping cf parrMatt 823ndash27 Luke 823ndash27) may mean that the evangelists did not want to portray thehumanity of Jesus but rather to link the sleeping God motif to Jesus (as the victor over theforces of chaos) see Bernard F Batto ldquoThe Sleeping God An Ancient Near Eastern Motif ofDivine Sovereigntyrdquo Biblica 68 (1987) 153ndash77 The gospel passage would then depict Jesusas an epiphany of God (idem 174ndash75) On this see also Daniel Johansson ldquoJesus and God inthe Gospel of Mark Unity and Distinctionrdquo (PhD diss University of Edinburgh 2012) andRichard Gloumlckner Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der WundertatenGottes in den Psalmen Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Verwandtschaft zwischenneutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen (Walberberger Studien der Albertus-Magnus-Akademie Theologische Reihe 13 Mainz Matthias-Gruumlnewald 1983) 67ndash69
168 Cerinthus is said to have taught that Jesus ldquowas the son of Joseph and Mary accordingto the ordinary course of human generationrdquo (γεγονέναι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίαςοἷον ὁμοίως τοῖς λοιποῖς ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποίς Harvey 1211 [ch 21]) see Irenaeus Haer1261 In the same context this teaching is associated with the Ebionites and Carpocrates cfalso Epiphanius Pan 303 who reports the same about the Ebionites ldquothat Christ is the off-
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 71
like manner mdash and in some detail mdash again by using the Christian texts asmain source and predominantly Matthew169 Strangely though Isa 714 andMatt 122ndash23 are not mentioned in QiṣṣaNestor it is nevertheless the beliefin the incarnation that is essentially disputed and rejected AccordinglyJoseph is repeatedly established as Maryrsquos husband and Jesusrsquo exclusivelyhuman parentage is maintained by advancing statements of the angel Gabriel(sect73 sect74 sect78 sect100 sect152) his parents (sect77 sect99 sect152) Matthew (sect78 sect80sect152) and the people of Nazareth (sect79 sect107) With this the author empha-sizes Gabriel Jesusrsquo parents and the evangelists as authoritative witnesses inorder to convince an (imagined) interlocutor of Jesusrsquo human origins
The numerous references to Gabriel in these arguments are telling sincethe archangel held a place of importance both in the Eastern church170 andalso played a role in Muslim thought171 His witness would as such bear noinsignificant weight within the Eastern Christian or Muslim society In sect73 itis only argued ex silencio that the angel Gabriel did in fact not say ldquoRejoiceO Mary you shall give birth to a Godrdquo172 but in sect78 (and also in sect100)Gabriel is quoted as positively testifying that Mary is really Josephrsquos wife
spring of a man that is of Josephrdquo in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book 1 (Sects1ndash46) (trans Frank Williams 2nd rev ed Leiden Brill 2009) 131 Also Justin remarks inDial 48ndash49 (cf ch 67) that some Christians argued that Jesus was ldquoman from manrdquo(ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἄνθρώπου PG 6580) See esp Georg Strecker ldquoThe Problem of JewishChristianityrdquo in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity Second German edition withadded appendicies by Georg Strecker (Walter Bauer ed Robert A Kraft and Gehard KrodelPhiladelpia Fortess 1971) 241ndash85 esp 276ndash84
169 QiṣṣaNestor appeal more often to Matthew though elements from Lukersquos gospel andapocryphal texts are also frequently encountered
170 See Gonzalo Aranda Peacuterez ldquoGabriel Archangelrdquo Coptic Encyclopedia 41135andash1137b also Abu al-Makarim The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbour-ing Countries attributed to Abucirc Ṣacircliḥ the Armenian (ed and trans BTA Evetts AnectodaOxoniensa Oxford Clarendon 1895) who lists 20 churches that bear the name of Gabriel(see index) However Abu al-Makarim wrote his Coptic history of churches and monasteriescomparatively late probably between 1117ndash1204 CE see Aziz S Atiya ldquoAbu al-MarakimrdquoCoptic Encyclopedia 123andash23b The angel Gabriel held also a position of relative importancein Jewish thought Darrell D Hannah has counted 39 occurrences of Gabriel in the Babylon-ian Talmud and a further 186 occurences in the Haggadic Midrashim see his Michael andChrist Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (WUNT II109Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1999) 97ndash98 n 23 (I wish to thank Dr Hannah for bringing this tomy attention)
171 According to Muslim tradition Gabriel revealed the Qurrsquoān to the prophet Muham-mad see eg Qurrsquoān 297 16102
172 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 166 Nestor expresses the exact opposite hereassuming that Gabriel did in fact say this ldquoin your erroneous booksrdquo (1113) However this iseffectively counterproductive as it undermines the manner in which the other figures are men-tioned as trustworthy witnesses in the context cf eg sect78 (sa) Qiṣṣa appears to preserve amore coherent argument here
72 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Qiṣṣa sect78 You can rightfully demand from me to present to you two trustworthy witnesseswhose testimony you cannot deny and who testify that Joseph is Maryrsquos husband It is writ-ten in the Gospel of Matthew that the angel Gabriel said to Joseph ldquoGo take your wife anddo not fearrdquo So you now have Gabriel Matthew and Luke who testify more than once thatJoseph is Maryrsquos husband173
Nestor sect78 Furthermore I will bring two trustworthy witnesses that Joseph was her husbandas it is written in the Book of Matthew that the angel Gabriel came to Joseph and said to himldquoTake your wife and do not be afraidrdquo [Latin gloss] Anbola atsepi[t] a maria oksori e nontimẹri Gabriel here testifies that Mary was the wife of Joseph and Matthew and Luke testi-fied in many places similarly that Joseph was the husband of Mary174
שהמלאךמטיאוסבספרכתובכאשרבעלההיהשיוסףנאמניםעדיםשניאביאךועודאוקאמריאאיציפיתאנבולאלאזתיראואלאשתךאתקחלוואמריוסףאלבאגבריאיל
בהרבההעידוולוקאומטיאוסיוסףאשתהיתהשמריםמעידגבריאלהנהטימיריאינוןסורי175מרים בעל יוסף כי ככה מקומות
By means of a paraphrase of Matthew 120 the audience is shown that Josephis Maryrsquos husband which is of course not disputed by Christians Howeverthe clear implication is that Joseph and Mary are to be understood as Jesusrsquobiological parents which practically side-steps the Christian claim of incarna-tion that is Mary solely conceiving by the Holy Spirit
Then the issue of conception is tackled by recalling a dialogue betweenMary and Augustusrsquo census registrars wherein she testifies that Jesus isJosephrsquos son which in this form does not occur in the New Testament or anyother Christian sources The author (or compiler) however clearly assumesthis to be authentic as this exchange is referred to a total of three times in thiscluster (in sect77 sect80 and sect99) It occurs first in sect77Qiṣṣa sect77 When Mary became pregnant with Jesus King Augustus sent [emissaries] to reg-ister all pregnant women Mary was found to be pregnant at the inn at Bethlehem and shewas asked ldquoBy whom are you pregnantrdquo and she said ldquoBy Josephrdquo So they registered her[as follows] ldquoMary and the child in her womb is by Joseph he carpenterrdquo So Mary testifiesthat Joseph is her husband and that she is pregnant by him176
Likewise in Nestor it is mentioned that ldquoMary has already admitted thatJoseph was her husband and that she had become pregnant by himrdquo177 Thisexchange between Mary and the census registrars can perhaps be related tothe apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter178 However it is not attested
173 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167 The translation here does not followMS P here but MS H-B see ibid 167 n 3
174 Ibid 1114 1175175 Ibid 2103 MS H-A is similar but has the Greek gloss Παράλαβε Ἰωσήφ τὴν
γυναῖκα σου μὴ φοβαῖσαι τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτὴν γεννηθὲν ἀπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐστίνibid 1183
176 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167177 Ibid 1114 emphasize mine178 Throughout this cluster the History of Joseph the Carpenter (ANF 8388ndash394) seems
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 73
in other sources and it appears to be unique to QiṣṣaNestor179 The clarifica-tion that Mary is Jesusrsquo mother is only a prelude to a full citation ofMatthewrsquos genealogy in sect80 which again is presented as proof that Joseph isin fact Jesusrsquo father180 The genealogy is concluded with some pointed obser-vations anticipating Christian objectionsQiṣṣa sect80 [hellip] Know that I did not ask you about the genealogy of Mary The genealogy ofMary is mentioned nowhere in the scriptures or in the Gospels But in the case of Jesus hisgenealogy appears in more than one place in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke and what iswritten there is contradictory Do you not know that when Jesus was thirty years old peopleknew him as ldquoJesus son of Joseph son of Matat son of Levirdquo This is the genealogy of Jesusand Joseph is his father as it is said in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke concerning Maryrsquosdeclaration on the day that King Augustus registered the name of people ldquoAnd they wrotedown that Mary is pregnant by Josephrdquo181
Nestor sect80 [hellip] Know that I will not ask you about Maryrsquos lineage because Mary does nothave a lineage neither in our entire Torah nor in your Gospel But Jesus has lineage throughJoseph They wrote [his lineage] in many places in their book and the lineages contradict
to be in the background cf sect77 sect78 sect79 sect99 and possibly also in sectsect73ndash74 The History ofJoseph the Carpenter was probably written in Egypt in the 4th or 5th century of whichBohairic Sahidic (both Coptic dialects) and Arabic recensions exist (the Arabic versionbeing a translation of the Coptic) For a recent overview see Alin Suciu ldquoNew Fragmentsform the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi Fabri Lignariirdquo Le Museacuteon 122 (2009)279ndash89 and Louis-Theacuteophil Leford ldquoAgrave propos de lsquoLrsquoHistoire de Joseph le Charpentierrdquo LeMuseacuteon 66 (1953) 201ndash23 For the texts and translations see Paul De Lagarde Aegyptiaca(Goumlttingen D A Hoyer 1883 repr Osnabruumlck O Zeller 1972) 1ndash37 and Forbes Robin-son Coptic Apocryphal Gospels (Texts and Studies 42 Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 1896) 130ndash159 220ndash35
179 In Toledot Yeshu (MS Vindobona) we find a somewhat similar exchange between theteachers of the law and Mary as part of an investigation of the rumors of illicit relationsbetween Mary and Joseph see Krauss Leben Jesu 68ndash69 91ndash92 cf also a similiar scene inThe Infancy Gospel of Thomas 15 (ANF 8303) In the History of Joseph the Carpenter ch 7it is mentioned that Joseph inscribed his name in the census list as ldquoJoseph the son of Davidrdquoand his spouse Mary as being from the tribe of Judah (the Coptic fragments add ldquoJesus histheir sonrdquo) but a dialogue is not mentioned A somewhat similar argument to that in QiṣṣaNestor was made by Emperor Julian who argued that Jesus and his ldquofather and motherrdquo regis-tered in the census but that is again different from an actual exchange between Mary and aregistrar see Against the Galileans 213A in The Works of the Emperor Julian 3378ndash79However the same exchange between Mary and the registrars is also mentioned in Vikkuaḥha-Radaq ldquo Since she had a husband one might think that she conceived by her husband orpossibly that she conceived by someone else Further when Herod registered all the womenin Bethlehem Mary was asked lsquoBy whom are you pregnantrsquo She answered lsquoI am pregnantby Josephrsquordquo see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 345 [f 17r]
180 MS H-A has the genealogy only in Greek MS H-C omits the genealogy altogethersee Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1114 n 7 The genealogy in Qiṣṣa (essentiallyMS P) does interestingly enough not include the four (Gentile) women mentioned byMatthew
181 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 168
74 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
each other Was not Jesus thirty years old and all the people testified about him that he wasthe son of Joseph the son of Matthat the son of Levi That is the entire lineage of Jesus Fur-thermore it is written in the Book[s] of Luke and Matthew that on the day that AugustusCaesar wrote the names of the women Mary testified [that Joseph was the father] and hewrote that Mary was pregnant by Joseph182
תורתינובכליחסלמריםאיןכימריםיחסלמריםאיןכימריםיחסאודותאשאלךלאכיודעבספרםכתבוהרבהבמקומות)מצ(יוסףמצדיחסישלישואולםשלכםגיליוןבעוןולא
יוסףבןשהואעליומעידיםהאנשיםוכלהיהשנהלבןישווהלאביחוסוזהדבריזהוסותריןאשריוםמריםשהעידהומטיאולוקאבספרכתובועודשלישויחוסוכלזהלויבןמתתבן
183מיוסף הרה שמרים וכתבו הנשים שמות קיסר אגוסתוס כתב
The argument clearly suggests familiarity with the differing genealogiespresented in Matthew and Luke184 which already from earliest times hadposed problems for Christian apologists185 It perhaps also shows awareness ofa Christian argument that ascribed one of the genealogies to Mary (and notJoseph) which is also why it is affirmed here that both genealogies belong toJoseph ldquoThis is the genealogy of Jesus and Joseph is his father as it is saidin the Gospels of Matthew and Lukerdquo186
182 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1115183 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2103 MS H-A is essentially the
same but has an extensive gloss that includes Matt 2711ndash13 and Luke 2270184 A similar argument is already found in Julianrsquos Against the Galileans see The Works
of the Emperor Julian 3395ndash7185 See Raymond E Brown The Birth of the Messiah (updated ed Yale Yale University
Press 1993) 57ndash95 esp the bibliography on pp 94ndash95 and Helmut Merkel Die Wider-spruumlche zwischen den Evangelien ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der AltenKirche bis zu Augustin (WUNT I13 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971)
186 Sources that argue that Luke provides Maryrsquos genealogy have been traced to the fifthand seventh century by Marie-Joseph Lagrange Eacutevangile selon Saint Luc (Paris V Lecoffre1921) 119ndash20 though also Marius Victorinus (4th century) in his Commentary on the Apoca-lypse suggested this see Bauer Das Leben Jesu 27ndash28 Yet the view that Luke providesMaryrsquos genealogy is perhaps even earlier already Irenaeus compared Mary to Eve by way ofLukersquos genealogy in Haer 322 (cf 392 3163) and also Justin Dial 45 and 100 assertedthat Mary was of the family of David Moreover Celsus wondered if Mary could ldquohave beenignorant of the fact that she had such a distinguished ancestryrdquo (Chadwick Origen ContraCelsum 93) thereby disputing that Mary had Davidic descent see Origen Cels 232 Alsothe Jerusalem Talmud y Ḥag 77d l 57 [227] and y Sanh 23c l 38 [694] polemicizesagainst a Mary [Miriam] ldquodaughter of (H)elirdquo ( בצליםעליברתמרים ) though the attributiontranslation and precise meaning of this particular passage in the Talmud has been debated cfR Travers Herford Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London Williams amp Norgate1903) 42 and Str-B 2155 Also based on the census record in the Babatha archive KlausRosen has argued that Maryrsquos registration indicates that she owned property in BethlehemLuke 21ndash5 therefore would imply that Mary was from the tribe of Judah otherwise therewould have been no need for a pregnant women to travel to be personally registered in acensus see Klaus Rosen ldquoJesu Geburtsdatum der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldischeSteuererklaumlrung aus dem Jahr 127 nCrdquo JbAC 38 (1995) 5ndash15 and idem ldquoZur Diskussionum Jesu Geburtsdatum Der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldische Steuererklaumlrung aus dem
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 75
Later in sect99 Luke 248 is cited to further corroborate Mary and Joseph asJesusrsquo parents Yet in addition earlier in sect79 (and again in sect107 cf alsosect152) the people of Nazareth are mentioned as witnesses that Jesus is Maryrsquosson On the basis of Matthew 1355ndash56 (par Mark 63) it is pointed out thatldquothey counted Jacob and Judah as his brothers and [said] that his marriedsisters live in their town in Nazareth of the Galilee in Palestinerdquo187 HoweverQiṣṣa does not remember that Matthew and Mark mention four brothers Thedetail of Jesusrsquo sisters being married is likewise not in the canonical gospelsbut can be found in the History of Joseph the Carpenter188
Thus Gabriel the census registrars Joseph Mary Matthew Luke and thepeople of Nazareth are cited to validate that Jesus is of human descent189
Overall QiṣṣaNestor clearly favor Josephrsquos parentage without insinuating anyillicit involvement as in the case of Toledot Yeshu190 The authorrsquos motivationis not merely to disprove the related Christian claim of incarnation but proba-bly also to dispel the notion that God would in some form impregnate a
Jahr 127 nCrdquo in Qumran und die Evangelien Geschichte oder Geschichten (ed WalterBrandmuumlller Aachen MM Verlag 1994) 41ndash58 see also Hannah M Cotton ldquoThe RomanCensus in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian κατrsquo οἰκίαν ἁπογραφήrdquo inSemitic Papyrology in Context A Climate of Creativity Papers from a New York UniversityConference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A Levine (ed L H Schiffman Leiden Brill2003) 105ndash22 The position that Luke relates Maryrsquos genealogy has been strongly assertedby Peter Vogt Der Stammbaum bei den Heiligen Evangelisten Matthaumlus (BS 123 FreiburgHerder 1907) see esp xiindashxvii 110ndash21 (for more proponents ancient and modern of thisviewpoint) and Joseph M Heer Die Stammbaumlume Jesu nach Matthaumlus und Lukas (BS1512 Freiburg Herder 1910) Raymond Brown has also noted that a ldquoconverse situationwith Matthew giving Maryrsquos ancestors (and Luke giving Josephrsquos) has minor support mdashperhaps Tertullian De carne Christi xxndashxxiirdquo see idem Birth of the Messiah 89 n 6
187 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167 (Qiṣṣa sect79) 188 MS H-B remembers Jacob Simon and Judah see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the
Priest 1114 and 2103 but likewise reports that Jesusrsquo ldquosisters are married [and live] inNazarethrdquo In the History of Joseph the Carpenter in chs 2 and 11 four brothers are recalledJudas Justus James and Simon Also mentioned are two married daughterssisters by thename LysiaAssia and Lydia who both live in Nazareth (ch 2 cf also ch 9)
189 Cf The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus ldquoI can see the genealogy of Jesus forhe was the son of Joseph along with his brothers Jacob and Joseph and Judah and SimonAnd his mother was Maryrdquo Varner Dialogues 44ndash45 (sect43)
190 See eg Krauss Leben Jesu 68ndash69 91ndash92 QiṣṣaNestor may in places faintly implyillicit relations in Nestor sect99a it is questioned which of the contradicting accounts designateJesusrsquo real father Joseph son of Hillel(H)eli (acc to Luke) or Joseph son of Jacob (acc toMatthew) or whether Jesus was the son of God (acc to Mark) but this is missing in QiṣṣaAlso in sect152 the third person statement in Matt 125 ldquoand he (Joseph) knew her not until shehad born a sonrdquo occurs in an altered form and is put into the mouth of Joseph as a first personstatement implying that Mary had sexual relations (which thus argues against the notion thatMary stayed a virgin) ldquoI have not known Mary since the day on which she conceived מיום) emphasis mine see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 183 127 280 109 rdquo(שהרתה
76 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
woman or grow as fetus in her mdash after all the priest Nestor is quoted as notbelieving ldquoin a god who dwelt in the filth and menstrual blood in the abdomenand wombrdquo191
In addition contradictions in the nativity narratives are also presented as ademonstration of the confused and unreliable accounts about the beginningsof Christianity The difference of Luke and Matthewrsquos genealogies has beenmentioned already but QiṣṣaNestor also finds inter-textual and rational con-tradictions eg in sect68 and sect115 the heavenly declaration at Jesusrsquo baptism isunderstood as contradicting the claims to human ancestry (cf also sect99a)192
In Qiṣṣa sect150 (cf also sect152) some of the issues seen as contradictory aresummarizedQiṣṣa sect150 (hellip) As for you you should be ashamed of yourself to speak lies about yourLord making him the vilest of people and the lowliest human being One time he is the son ofJoseph the carpenter and another time he is the son of Jacob and another time the son ofDavid At one time he says ldquoHe that has seen me has seen my father and I and my father arein the same staterdquo [cf John 149] and another time he says to the wife of Zebedee193 ldquoI andyour two sons are in the same staterdquo and then he tells Peter that he will was his feet and saysldquoThe son of man came to serverdquo194
The reference to the sons of Zebedee which most likely is based on Matt2020ndash23 par Mark 1035ndash40 first occurred in sect97Qiṣṣa sect97 Do you know that Zebedeersquos wife said to Jesus ldquoI would like you to place one ofmy sons at your right hand and the other at your left handrdquo And Jesus replied saying ldquoI andyour two sons shall drink from one cuprdquo How can there be a God who puts no distancebetween himself and human beings195
191 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167 (Qiṣṣa sect76) cf sect82 and sect111 see alsoQiṣṣa sect150
192 In sectsect68ndash69 the heavenly voice the Bat Qol at Jesusrsquo baptism in Luke 322 and Mark(Nestor only) is in fact interpreted as expressing Jesusrsquo divinity since it means that ldquoJesuswas the son of the Lordrdquo (MS H-B ייבןישוכי ) Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest1112 2102 The Christian audience is then challenged in Nestor sect69 to choose betweenstrict monotheism (viz Judaism) and ldquoLuke Mark John and Matthewrdquo (1112) In this par-ticular argument Nestor would seem to endorse the interpretation that the heavenly declara-tion means that Jesus is divine mdash which is rejected as incongruent with monotheism
193 Clearly referring to Matt 2020ndash23 and not Mark 1035ndash40194 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 182 MSS B and LD read here ldquoThe apostle
Matthew also contradicted himself more than once He said at the beginning of the genealogythat Jesus is the son of David son of Abraham and at the end of the genealogy [he said]lsquoJesus son of Jacob son of Eleazarrsquo And Jesus also contradicted himself more than once ashe said to Philip lsquoHe who has seen me has seen my fatherrsquo and then Jesus said to Zebedeersquoswife lsquoI and your son are onersquo and he said to Peter lsquoThe son of man did not come to beserved but to serversquo Jesus then contradicted his disciples for I see that he claims more thanonce that he is a human being I have explained it all to yourdquo (182 n 4)
195 Ibid Nestor the Priest 170
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 77
The same is found in Nestor sect97 though followed by a more explicitexplanation I see here that [Jesus] did not distinguish himself from or raise himself above the sons ofZebedaeus in any respect196
197דבר שום זבדיאוס בני על נפשו עילה ולא עצמו הפריש שלא רואה אני והנה
The polemic writer(s) who used and copied this passage were apparently notaware of the polemic potential of Matt 2020ndash23 (par Mark 1035ndash40)namely that Jesus deferred the decision to grant the diciplesrsquo request to theFather because it was not his ldquoto giverdquo (Matt 2023) which would haveworked well with the overall argument against Jesusrsquo divinity (this argumentoccurs in a later texts)198 This probably indicates that the compiler did nottake this argument straight from a (canonical) gospel text199 especiallyconsidering that this is not more than a paraphrase of Matthew
Both Qiṣṣa and Nestor take Jesusrsquo affirmation that he would share the cupwith the two brothers as concession that he is human Jesus acknowledges thatthe sons of Zebedee who are clearly human are on the ldquosame levelrdquo withhim Thus according to the argument he cannot be God He is too similar tohumanity to be divine (sect97) and the additional fact that he has come to serveshows that he cannot be God (sect150) Thus QiṣṣaNestor favor Jesusrsquoexchange with ldquothe wife of Zebedeerdquo as indicative of his humanity therebydisregarding the juxtaposition of John 149 including its interpretation ldquoHethat has seen me has seen my father and I and my father are in the samestaterdquo In other words although it is acknowledged that according John 149Jesus may have claimed divinity being in the ldquosame staterdquo as his father theexchange in Matt 2020ndash23 is given more credence The synoptic tradition isin this instance preferred over the Johannine text
2 5 3 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (sect74 sect76 sect82 sect111)
The second major thrust of Qiṣṣa asserts that the physicality limitations andlowliness of human existence are unbecoming and inappropriate for thedivine which is a problem that also vexed the old church (and has beendebated in Christian theological reflection ever since)
This particular trajectory is dominant in the whole polemic of Qiṣṣa it isshameful and repugnant to assert that God in the person of Jesus according to
196 Modified from Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1117197 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2104 MS H-A is almost the same
the Greek gloss however is a paraphrase of of Matt 2020ndash23 (perhaps with amalgamationsfrom Mark 1038ndash40) ibid 1184
198 Eg in Yosef ha-Meqanne sect15 (see 4517)199 Unless of course the text was misunderstood or deliberately altered
78 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
the Christian understanding is subject to human limitations and bodily func-tions that is in having to sleep (sect5 sect60 sectsect81ndash82 sectsect84ndash87 sect89 sect91 sectsect95ndash96) in having to eat and drink (sectsect5 sect28 sectsect59ndash60 sect91 sectsect95ndash96 sect142) inexperiencing fear (sect5 sect28 sect60 sect108 sect148) and in having to defecate andurinate (sect28 sect59)200
It is further foolish to say that God could be coerced mocked tortured andcrucified (sect5 sect7 sect20 sect32 sectsect60ndash62 sect75 sectsect102ndash104 sect119 sectsect142ndash143sect145 sect148 sect155 sect157 sect168) a point which is often reiterated201
Moreover it is inappropriate to believe that this unimpressive human couldbe God specifically since he was found in improper ldquoun-godlyrdquo situationsJesus was nursed by Salome a harlot (sect59 sectsect81ndash82 sect92 sect94 sect111)202 heslept in dirty places (sect81 sect87 sect91 sect111 sect142) he kept company with crimi-nals and sinners (sect5 sect150) he was in need of purification (sect60 sect114) whilesleeping he was kissed by a Samaritan harlot (sect86) he stole and rode on adonkey (sect109 sect111)203 and he fasted in admission of his need for repentance(sect110) Neither was he of high social standing (sect168) In addition Qiṣṣaascribes to him a rather questionable moral character Jesus was a (sleeping)drunkard (sect60 sectsect83ndash91 sectsect95ndash96)204 he was evil and a criminal (sect92 sect109sect112) and a liar (sect98)
200 This according to Jeromersquos commentary on Matthew (1517) was also a polemic usedby Porphyry ldquoAccording to the heretics and perverts all gospel passages are replete withscandals and even from this minor passage they slander the Lord saying that he experiencedphysiological processes They are of the opinion that all nutrients go into the stomach and areexcretedrdquo Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect96 168 In the second centuryValentinus had contented that Jesusrsquo digestion was such that he did not need to defecate seeClement of Alexandria Strom 3593 and Ismo Dudenberg ldquoThe School of Valentinusrdquo inA Companion to Second-Century Christian lsquoHereticsrsquo (ed Anti Marjanen and Petri Luoma-nen Leiden Brill 2008) 64ndash99 esp 73ndash74 cf Tertullian Marc 3101 (CCSL 1521)
201 Arguments that mention the crucifixion are in sect5 sect7 sect20 sect32 sectsect61ndash62 sectsect102ndash104and sect168
202 Salome is referred to by name as a midwifewet-nurse for Jesus (in MS H-B as Lucia)In sectsect81ndash82 she is designating as harlot perhaps conflating her with the account of the womanin Luke 7 In sect92 Salome accompanies the family to the temple in sect94 to Egypt In Christiansources Salome is mentioned in The Proto-Evanglium of James The History of Joseph theCarpenter and the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew In the Protoevangelium 20 it isSalome who empirically verifies mdash in the manner of doubting Thomas mdash that Mary is a post-natal virgin Rosenkranz thinks that sect81 shows more similarities to later traditions iePseudo-Matthew see Auseinandersetzung 290ndash91
203 Jews under Byzantine rule and Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were notallowed to ride on horses or camels (if at all) only on donkeys as a lesser beast of burden seeJames Parkes The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue A Study in the Origins of Anti-semitism (London Soncino Press 1934 rep London Athenaeum 1977) 114
204 In sect84 it is noted that Jesus slept in a boat (cf Matt 824 par Luke 823 Mark 438)in Qiṣṣa sect91 Jesus is said to have fallen asleep in the boat because he was drunk
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 79
In sect74 in a comparison of Adam with Jesus this anti-incarnational trajec-tory of Qiṣṣarsquos polemic against Jesus is graphically verbalizedQiṣṣa sect74 I say that Adam was closer to God than was Jesus because He said to Adam ldquoBerdquoand he came into being from clay his flesh and blood his hair and muscles and body AndHe breathed into him the breath of life and he became a human soul rational and livingwalking and talking And He gave him dominion over the birds of the sky the beasts of theearth and the crawling insects and He made every creature subordinate to him and placedevery creature beneath him In the case of Jesus on the other hand Gabriel came andannounced him as you claim and His mother carried him in the confinement of the womb indarkness filth and menstrual blood for nine months as Matthew claimed He [ie Jesus] suf-fered continued curses and disasters from the time he was in the motherrsquos womb until he wascrucified and died as you claim205
Nestor sect74 I see that Adam was more dear to God than Jesus since the Lord created himfrom matter and [Adam] was the work of His hands God made limbs for Adam caused hishair to grow breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and gave into his midst the holyspirit so that Adam became a living being He made him rule over the birds of the heavensand the animals of the earth and all that which He created [God] subjugated all to his will andgovernance and He made him rule and raised him up As to Jesus as you have written inyour book the Book of Matthew the angel Gufrieli came and gave Mary the good news andshe carried him in her womb for nine months in the oppression of her womb in the place ofdarkness and gloom and filth and menstrual blood as Matthew said206
היהידיוומעשהמחומרבראוייכימישויותרהשםלפנייקרהראשוןאדםכירואהואניהאדםויהיהקודשרוחבקרבוויתןחייםנשמתבאפיוויפחשיערבווצימחאיבריםבוועשהידותחתשםוהכלשבראמהכלועלהארץחיתועלהשמיםעוףעלוישליטהוחיהלנפש
באהמלאךגופריאילימטיאובספרבספרכםכתבתםכאשרוישוויגדלהווימשילהווממשלתווהטנופתוהאופלהחושךבמקוםהבטןבעוצרחדשיםטבבטנהותשאהומריםאתובישר
207מטיאוס אמר כאשר והנידות
The author points to Matthew as the source for the details of Maryrsquos preg-nancy but Nestor is less precise here introducing details taken from Lukenamely that Gabriel spoke to Mary (cf Luke 126ndash28) The argument itselfcompares Jesus to Adam whereas Adamrsquos creation was miraculous (recalledare Gen 27 and 128) Jesusrsquo origin birth and life are much moremundane208 Having thus established Jesusrsquo humanity and ldquounimpressivenessrdquocompared to Adam Qiṣṣa argues that the particularities of humanity are unbe-
205 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 166ndash67206 Ibid 1113 [ldquomade him greatrdquo is perhaps closer to ויגדלהו than ldquoraised him uprdquo]
MSS H-A and H-C part ways in this section with MS H-B the sequence of arguments isarranged differently MS H-A continues with Jesusrsquo baptism which in MS H-B appears muchlater see ibid 1113 n 5
207 MS H-B Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 2102208 The argument might address and reverse Paulrsquos description of Jesus as the second
Adam in 1 Corinthians 1545ndash49 and Romans 512ndash14 but equally contradicts the Qurrsquoān inSura 358ndash59 Jesus and Adam are said to be equal both are shown to be created by Godrsquosword
80 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
coming of the divine Specifically the concrete imagination and depiction ofJesusrsquo confinement in the womb ( הבטןעוצר ) is used as the most graphicimagery for this polemic which will be repeatedly used in several subsequentarguments and bears similarities to non-Jewish arguments The Christianassertion of the incarnation is thus understood so concretely that it comes tobe rejected as an impossibility precisely because of the imagination of therelated physical implications Incarnation is as such not rejected primarily onphilosophical grounds but on its concrete physical ramifications to claimthat God could dwell in the womb is simply inappropriate and repugnant bothhistorically and theologically209
In sect76 this ldquoconfinement in the wombrdquo theme is returned to although herewith a less graphic perhaps more metaphysical emphasis210
Qiṣṣa sect76 Do you not know that Nestor said ldquoI do not believe in a god who dwelt in the filthand menstrual blood in the abdomen and wombrdquo For Nestor examined the Torah which isfrom the words of Moses peace be on him and found written there ldquoThe God your God isdevouring firerdquo Then Nestor said ldquoHow can there be fire in a womanrsquos abdomenrdquo So he leftyour religion and declared his disagreement with you211
Nestor sect76 Nestor the righteous proselyte said ldquoI trust in the Lord the God of the heavensand the earth and I deny a god who dwelt in the filthy womb and the menstrual bloodrdquo Know
209 It is perhaps worthwhile asking if the the concept of incarnation was deemed theologi-cally controversial first because of the related implications viz God being confined or bornor having to defecate etc or because of a prior commitment to divine transcendence In otherwords did the felt ldquotaboordquo precede theological conviction and therefore may have eveninformed and directed doctrinal commitments and developments or was it the opposite Ormore simply why is incarnation a point of contention at all What is it precisely that makesthe idea of divine incarnation so radical
210 The argument against Jesusrsquo divinity in sectsect72ndash76 is broken up with sect75 a seeminglyrandom attack on disagreements over the timing of the piercing of Jesus by the legionary(although sect75 is linked to the last sentence in sect74 which mentions the crucifixion and Jesusrsquodeath) see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167 113 251 102 133 also RembaumldquoInfluencerdquo 159 This is noteworthy for two reasons 1) The original author of this sectionknows that there is a dispute over the time and manner of Jesusrsquo death (several importantmanuscripts of Matt 2749b show a significant textual variance suggesting that there was atradition in the early church that understood that the cause of Jesusrsquo death came from beingpierced by a spear see Stephen Pennells ldquoThe Spear Thrust (Matt 2749b vl Jn 1934)rdquoJSNT 19 (1983) 99ndash115 also Bammel ldquoExcerpts from a new Gospelrdquo 243 n 28 andBauer Das Leben Jesu 209 237) and 2) it is this pagan legionary who is confessing in Mark1539 (parr Matt 2754 Luke 2347) that Jesus is the son of God Could this section in Qiṣṣathen perhaps be a response to a Christian argument where the Roman soldier is employed aswitness of Jesusrsquo divine sonship (notice especially sect74 the phrase ldquoas you claimrdquo and sect78ldquoyou can rightfully demand from me to presenthelliprdquo) or is this sequence otherwise randomNestor is similar here though in addition the legionary is known by the name Longinus (cfthe Gospel of NicodemusActs of Pilate ch 16) In fact Origen responds to Celsus by appeal-ing to the centurion under the cross as a witness of the divinity of Jesus in Cels 236
211 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 167
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 81
that Nestor understood the Torah of Moses and knew that the Lord is exalted above everyGod may His name be blessed and He is a fire consuming fire Nestor furthermore said Howcan God be Jesus212
מטונףברחםששכןבאלוכופרוהארץהשמיםאלהיבייאניובוטחצדקגרנסתורויאמראשוהואשמויתאלכלעלנתעלהייכיוידעמשהבתורתמביןנסתורכיודעוהנידות213ישו אל יהיה איך נסתור עוד ויאמר אש אוכלה
As already mentioned in the beginning to this chapter it is in sect76 that Nestorwho would lend his name to the whole work is introduced as a Torah-heeding ldquorighteous proselyterdquo ( צדקגר ) from ldquoyour religionrdquo214 The ldquoconfine-ment in the wombrdquo argument is thus associated with this Nestor and expand-ed with a second more ontological argument which sees God as a ldquoconsum-ing firerdquo215
To understand God ontologically as fire would not necessarily fit with howthis term was understood in the Hebrew Bible216 but does reverberate withlater conceptualizations of God217 In particular fire imagery has been used in
212 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1114213 MS H-B ibid 2102 214 Some early Christian writers also have referred to their Nestorian adversaries as
ldquoJewsrdquo and while this is meant derogatorily it might indicate that both groups might haveother commonalities at least in the eyes of their opponents See Parkes Conflict 300ndash303and Rosenkranz Auseinandersetzung 268ndash270
215 In Nestor the phrase is expanded to (and interpreted as) ldquoa fire consuming firerdquo אש)אשאכלה ) which occurs in several relevant Jewish texts in b Yoma 21b where the Shek-
inah is described as ldquofire consuming firerdquo in Midrash Tanḥuma Yitro sec 16 ldquo[The Torah]was given out of fire consuming fire as it is written lsquoFor the Lord your God is a consumingfirersquo (Deut 424) lsquoon earth He let you see His great firersquo (Deut 436)rdquo ( הוכלתהאשמןונתנה
אשואתהראךועל־הארץאכלהאשאלהיךהכישנאמראש ) and also Prsquosiqta Rabbati 11(trans William G Braude Pesikta Rabbati 1215) ldquoAs the Holy One blessed be he is a fireconsuming fire ( אשאכלהאש ) as is written lsquoFor the Lord is a devouring firersquo (Deut 424)so shall they be a devouring fire (hellip)rdquo Also in early mystical Hekhalot literature in theMaase Merkava sect587 God is described as a ldquofire consuming firerdquo see Christopher Rowlandand Christopher R A Morray-Jones The Mystery of God Early Jewish Mysticism and theNew Testament (Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 312 Leiden Brill2009) 251 and Michael D Swartz Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism An analysis ofMaʻaseh Merkavah (TSAJ 28 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1992) 243 In later mystical textsthe ontological conceptualization of God as fire is more developed see eg the Zohar 150b
216 In the Hebrew Bible the term ldquoconsuming firerdquo ( אכלהאש ) is not in particular onto-logical as if God was composed of the prime element fire In Deut 434 it refers to Godrsquos(righteous) jealousy in other contexts eg Deut 93 or Isa 296 as his destructive (punitive)force (on behalf or against his people) Consequently his people should be aware of Godrsquosfierceness which is also how the author of Hebrews interprets the expression cf Heb 1229
217 Besides the above mentioned Jewish texts where אכלהאש is understood in moremetaphysical and ontological terms the idea was also important for Christians In fact it wasexactly the imagery of the burning bush which some Christian interpreters used to explain theco-existence of the human and divine nature in Jesus See here Aloys Grillmeier Christ in
82 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Christian circles to explain doctrinal positions and to conceptualize theTrinity218 In that sense appeal to a former Christian named Nestor demon-strates awareness that the christological debate within Christendom was not afully resolved matter219 Regardless the fire-imagery much like the idea ofbeing confined in the womb of a woman is employed to show that the ldquoother-nessrdquo of God cannot be confined or come in touch with all-too human ldquofactsrdquo
In sect82 the ldquoconfinement in the wombrdquo (here הרחםעוצר ) argument of sect74appears again however Qiṣṣa and Nestor differ here One manuscript MS H-B has an extremely graphic and detailed description of Jesus in the womb andhis delivery through the birth canal emphasizing the proximity to bowelmovements and sexual intercourseQiṣṣa sect82 It is most astonishing how is it that you who claim to be judicious and reason-able are not ashamed ashamed of yourself and embarrassed by me [ashamed] that you wor-ship a god who dwelt in the womb in the filth of menstrual blood in the confinement andimprisonment and darkness for nine months he lay in a donkeyrsquos manger and he was nursedat the breast of a harlot220
Christian Tradition Volume 2 From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great(590ndash604) mdash Part Four (trans OC Dean London Mowbray 1996) 365ndash67 who points toCyril of Alexandriarsquos Hom Pasch 173 (PG 77781 SC 434283) ldquoFor just as the fire wasmade endurable to the bush so also the Excellency of the Godhead to our naturerdquo (Ὥσπεργὰρ γέγονεν οἰστὸν τῷ θάμνῳ τὸ πύρ οὕτω καὶ τῇ καθrsquo ἡμᾶς φύσει τῆς θεότητος ἡὑπεροχή) and his Quod unus est Christus (PG 751291 LFC 47266) Similar is also John ofDamascus De Fide Orthodoxa 38 (PG 941013 NPNF2 952ndash53) cf also Justin Dial 59ndash60 127ndash28 This then might indicate that this objection ascribed to Nestor in sect76 had a possi-ble Sitz im Leben cf Nestoriusrsquo response in Godfrey R Driver and Leonard Hodgson Nesto-rius The Bazaar of Heracleides (Oxford Clarendon 1925) 156 In the Ethopian KebraNagast sect96 (13th c but disputed) the wood of the bush becomes even a symbol for Marysee edited by Carl Bezold Kebra Nagast Die Herrlichkeit der Koumlnige (Munich G Franz1909) 105
218 Eg Justin Dial 61 (ANF 1227 PG 6613ndash4) 128 (ANF 1264 PG 6773ndash6)Athanasius Decr 23 (PG 15455 NPNF2 4164) Augustin Symb 8 (CCSL 46190ndash91NPNF1 3371ndash72) Cf also the sun and ray imagery in Tertullian Prax 8 (ANF 3603 CCSL21167ndash8 ) and Apol 21 (ANF 334 CCSL 1124ndash5)
219 It might even indicate that Nestorianism was seen more favorably by Jewish contem-poraries compared to Chalcedonian Christianity
220 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 168 Cf Joseph Qimḥirsquos Sefer ha-Berit ldquoThegreat and mighty God Whom no eye has seen Who has neither form nor image Who saidlsquoFor man may not see Me and live (Exod 3320) mdash how shall I believe that this great inac-cessible Deus absconditus [ ונכסהנעלםגדולבאלאאמיןואיך ] needlessly entered the wombof a woman the filthy foul bowels of a female compelling the living God to be born of awoman a child without knowledge or understanding senseless unable to distinguish betweenhis right hand and his left defecating and urinating sucking his motherrsquos breasts from hungerand thirst crying when he is thirsty so that his mother will have compassion on him Indeedif she had not suckled him he would have died of hunger like other people If not whyshould she have suckled him He should have lived miraculously Why should she have
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 83
Nestor sect82 I wonder about you that you are not embarrassed to worship he who dwelled inthe oppression of the womb close enough to hear his motherrsquos flatuses when she moved herbowels like any other woman remaining in deep darkness for nine months How can you saythat any aspect of divinity dwells in such an ugly place If you say that there was no aspect ofdivinity in [that] place then you are saying that [Jesus] was like any other child and after heleft her womb through the [organ] which receives the penis and the semen since this is theplace from which he emerged with his mouth and nose pulling against the urethra close to theplaces from which the stench of excrement exits then he slept and nursed from his motherrsquosbreast221
אמונפיחותלשמועקרובהרחםבעוצרשכןאתלעבודתתביישלאאיךעליךאניותמיהשוםשישכוןלומרתוכלואיךחדשיםטובצלמותבחושךולהיותנשיםכשארלנקביהבצאתה
כןאםבמקוםאלהותצדשוםבוהיהשלאתאמרואםכמוהומכוערבמקוםאלהותצדיצאמקוםשמאותווהזרעהגידהכנסתדרךמבטנהצאתואחריילדיםכאשרשהואתאמר
משדיויונקישןוהיהשלצואההסרחוןשיוצאלמקוםוקרובהשתןכלידרךמשךוחוטמוופיו222אמו
Where Qiṣṣa only expands on sect74 Nestor drives the argument to the pinnacleof polemic223 mdash although the argument is essentially nothing but a meditation
suckled him for nothing that he should engage in all foul and miserable human practicesThus I do not profess this belief which you profess for my reason does not allow me todiminish the greatness of God be He exalted for He has not lessened His glory be Heexalted nor has He reduced His splendor be He extolled If I do not profess this faith whichyou profess I am not blameworthy I say to you further that if this belief is true the Creatorwould not hold me guilty for not believing in His deficiency and the reduction of Hisgrandeur and splendor (hellip) I do not in this respect believe in the diminution of His glory andgreatness (hellip) I may liken this for you to a human king who changed his garments shavedhis hair and put on filthy garb and dirty clothes so that he impaired his noble figure He thenwalked alone on the highways without dignity or majesty The people came and toldsomeone lsquoThis is the kingrsquo If he does not believe [it] the king canot hold it against himHow much more evident is this with respect to the King of kings the Holy One blessed beHe Who would dare to profess this belief which diminishes His greatness whereby Hecannot save His world except by humiliating Himself debasing His majesty and befoulingHis splendorrdquo Talmage The Book of the Covenant 36ndash37 [Hebr ed pp 29ndash30]
221 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1115222 MS H-B ibid 2103223 Inasmuch as there is a difference between Qiṣṣa and Nestor it seems clear that various
redactors shaped the argument to suit their respective contexts Likewise in MS H-B one candetect redactional activity The lines ldquoHow can you say that any aspect of divinity dwells insuch an ugly place If you say that there was no aspect of divinity in [that] place then you aresaying that [Jesus] was like any other childrdquo appear to be an interjection into an earlier argu-ment but it focuses the main issue underlying the entire confinement argument how can anyaspect of divinity become truly fully incarnate The argument (and a summary of otherthemes observed in QiṣṣaNestor) also appear in Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣvah (mid13th c) ldquo[a]ll physical characteristics were to be found in his body He [Jesus] was small atbirth like all infants There was no difference between him and other children He wasenclosed nine months in a vessel of blood and there developed When he was born he passedthrough the birth canal and had to be washed He had to nurse cried played slept awoke
84 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
on the full reality and radicalness of what the Christian concept of incarnationentails224
This ldquoconfinement in the wombrdquo argument which was first mentioned inthe introduction (sect5) then employed in arguments sect74 sect76 and sect82 is againand for a final time used and expanded in sect111 where not just the womb butalso the crib a mule a boat etc are questioned as appropriate receptacles forGodNestor sect111 I wonder that you do not pay attention to that which David and his son Solomonsaid David said to the Lord ldquoI will build You a houserdquo [The Lord] answered him ldquoWhathouse will you build for Me and what place can contain Merdquo Solomon said ldquoHeaven and thehighest heaven cannot contain You how much less this house which I have builtrdquo Isaiahsaid ldquoHeaven is my throne and the earth is My footstoolrdquo And you say that your God was
ate drank was hungry mdash he and his disciples mdash defecated urinated and flatulated Butbehold we find with Moses peace be upon him that he tarried forty days and forty nightsnot eating bread or drinking water when he was on the mountain and the spirit of God wasupon him How much more should we believe that he was not in need of elimination andother objectionable body functions Concerning Jesus if it were true that divinity were withinhim why was it necessary for him to eat and drink and perform other bodily functions More-over he slept but behold it is written lsquoThe Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleepsrsquoMoreover they were forced to smuggle him out of Egypt out of fear of the king and heremained there until he matured because of fear of the king He was likewise hidden manytimes ever after he had matured and returned to the Land of Israelhellip Many times he wasshocked and frightened out of fear of death He also prayed before the Creator to remove thecup of death but his prayers were not accepted He would also conceal and deny out offearhelliprdquo Robert Chazan ldquoPolemical Themes in the Milḥemet Miẓvahrdquo in Les Juifs au regardde lrsquohistoire Meacutelange en lrsquohonneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz (ed Gilbert Dahan ParisPicard 1985) 169ndash84 here 179 also idem Daggers of Faith 60 The sections which Chazandid not translate (in fact he softens the original) are too important to be excluded They aretherefore given in the appendix
224 Odo of Tournai (c 1060ndash1113) responded to a very similar argument see Schrecken-berg Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) 54 The Jew Leo tells Odo ldquoInone thing especially we laugh at you and think that you are crazy You say that God was con-ceived within his motherrsquos womb surrounded by vile fluid and suffered enclosure within thisfoul prison for nine months when finally in the tenth month he emerged from her privateparts (who is not embarrassed by such a scene) This you attribute to God what is most unbe-coming which we would not do without great embarrassmentrdquo see Irvin M Resnick OnOriginal Sin and a Disputation with the Jew Leo Concerning the Advent of Christ the Son ofGod Theological Treatises Odo of Tournai (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press1994) 95 Odorsquos answer then is ldquoGod fills all things and is everywhere whole Although hefills us and is whole even in us who are sinners he is untouched by the uncleanness of oursins but remains uncontaminated and pure He sees all things and nothing hurts him He seesdarkness yet remains untouched by the darkness since lsquolight shines in darknessrsquo (Jn 15) andlsquonight just like day will be illuminatedrsquo (Ps 13812 Vulg) The Most Pure sees sin and theMost Just sees our injustices since he justly orders every evil he sees The light of justice isnot extinguished by making sins visible just as the light of this world shines upon the sordidfleshly body but is not soiled by it Why then are you offended if God is conceived in a virginwhen he preserves his purity everywhererdquo (ibid)
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 85
carried by Mary in her womb for nine months and Salome Jesusrsquo nuresemaid whose namewas Lucia carried him all her days and [Joseph] and his mother carried him to Egypt and asmall donkey carried him and the cross upon which he was crucified carried him untilevening If Jesus was God then Solomon lied when he said ldquoHeaven and the highest heavencannot contain Yourdquo How can a womb or a nursemaid or a cross carry him225
Qiṣṣa asks in the last line of this particular argument instead ldquoHow couldthese things contain Him He whom the heavens and earth cannot containrdquo226
To claim that God was confinded in the womb of Mary when Solomonrsquostemple is insufficient as house for God is shown to be in contradiction withthe Hebrew Bible and the biblical conception of Godrsquos nature Thus the argu-ment is lifted from the taboo to a more theological level
Clearly the imagination of God being confined in the womb emerges as apowerful picture On the one hand its concrete and graphic description withits appeal to propriety and common sense makes it a potent easily usablepolemic On the other hand it also becomes the means by which a more theo-logical (or ontological) challenge against Jesusrsquo divinity can be conceptual-ized Matthew and Lukersquos nativity accounts which portray Jesus as the oneborn of the Holy Spirit are thus employed in a manner opposite to the author-ial intentions of the evangelists To be born of a woman (regardless of divineinvolvement) consequently declares Jesus to be shockingly and radicallyhuman
It is certainly possible that this more graphic imagination of the incarnationwas sufficiently troublesome for Christians to lead them to convert toJudaism if one follows the narrative of the introduction especially when oneconsiders how this particular point is a recurring theme in the overall argu-ment of QiṣṣaNestor But even in sect76 it is clear that also ontological consid-erations were a factor This would be more comparable with what is knownfrom church history where perhaps mostly scriptural and metaphysical con-siderations lead to differing views on the nature of God and Christology Assuch it is debatable if the graphic imagination of the incarnation by itself wassufficient reason to lead to conversion However QiṣṣaNestor still employedthis anti-incarnational argument as as a weighty and formidable polemicthroughout the treatise
This particular ldquoconfinement in the wombrdquo argument appears in fact inearlier and later polemics227 and it is quite evident that the weight of the this
225 Nestor has more details Qiṣṣa expresses almost the same however adds a boat asldquoreceptaclesrdquo for Jesus and does not mention the name Salome or Lucia Lasker andStroumsa Nestor the Priest 1120 cf 173
226 Ibid 173227 In Origen Cels 673 we read ldquoAnd if he did wish to send down a spirit from himself
why did he have to breathe it into the womb of a woman He already knew how to makemen He could have formed a body for this one also without having to thrust his own spirit
86 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
argument was felt by the Christian side very early on in particular becausethis polemic forced Christians to take the process of incarnation more seriousthan they themselves perhaps would have wanted to One subsequent responsein the Christian tradition was to obscure these all-too human facts of theincarnation ie either by denying the incarnation altogether or by emphasiz-ing the perpetual virginity of Mary andor that the birth of Jesus was com-pletely un-bloody
Incarnation and virginal birth in fact were rather sensitive issues from theearly Christian period onwards Justin Martyr as well as many other earlychurch interpreters dealt with polemics and objections against the incarna-tion which themselves played a role in the formation of doctrinal expressionsOn the one side Christian theologians had to assert the physicality of Jesusagainst those within and without that did not consider him as truly humaneg against Gnosticism or Docetism228 and on the other side they struggledagainst the notion that he was just human But in asserting Jesusrsquo humanityand at the same time holding to his divinity they and the gospel texts them-selves inevitably made Jesus offensive to a Jewish audience229
into such foul pollutionrdquo (Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum 386 cf also Cels 169 AlsoPorphyry according to Macarius Magnesrsquo Apokritikos 422 appears to argue in the sameway ldquoBut if anyone among the Greeks were so frivolous that he would assume that the godslive in these statues his idea would be a much purer one than those who believe that the deitycame down into the womb of the Virgin Mary and became an embryo And then when he wasborn he was placed in swaddling clothes For this is a place full of blood and gall and thingseven more disgusting than theserdquo Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect208 217 Inlike manner Emperor Julian in his Letter To Photinus appears to agree that a God cannot be inthe womb ldquoO Photinus you at any rate seem to maintain what is probably true and comenearest to being saved and do well to believe that he whom one holds to be a god can by nomeans be brought into a womb But Diodorus a charlatan priest of the Nazarene when hetries to give point to that nonsensical theory about the womb by artifices and jugglerrsquos tricksis clearly sharp-witted sophist of that creed of the country-folkrdquo The Works of the EmperorJulian 3188ndash89 Also Marcion took offense at this aspect of the incarnation in Carn Chr 4we read Tertullianrsquos challenge ldquoBeginning then with that nativity you [Marcion] so stronglyobject to orate attack now the nastiness of genital elements in the womb the filthy curdlingof moisture and blood and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same mireDraw a picture of the womb getting daily more unmanageable heavy self-concerned safenot even in sleep uncertain in the whims of dislikes and appetites (hellip) You shudder ofcourse at the child passed out along with the afterbirth and of course bedaubed with itrdquoErnest Evans Tertulliansrsquos Treatise on the Incarnation (London SPCK 1956) 13 This ofcourse cleary shows that from early on there were Christian interpreters such as Tertullianwho fully engaged with this objection and polemic something which should not be (yet oftenhas been) overlooked
228 See eg Tertullian Carn Chr 17ndash23229 Not surprisingly Zaccheus in his dialogue with Athanasius calls the idea that God was
in a ldquohuman wombrdquo blasphemy a sentiment that Qiṣṣa certainly shares with him cf VarnerDialogues 32ndash33 (sect22) On the abhorrence of this idea of God being in the womb see esp
25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor 87
Elements of Qiṣṣarsquos use of the New Testament in particular in the first partof the treatise might then be indicative of how opponents of Christian ortho-doxy (perhaps Jewish-Christians Arians or Nestorians) emphasized Jesusrsquohumanity in arguing against those who would endorse Jesusrsquo divinity Thesubsequent emphasis on the womb menstrual blood feces etc are conse-quently not merely polemics They essentially express something of theabhorrence and impropriety this doctrine of Jesusrsquo divinity and his incarnationposes for early Christians Jews and Muslims mdash of which some Christianstoday are not even aware230 The concrete imagination of the physical detailsof the incarnation stimulated by the particulars of the Christian tradition wasthen as is also now rather offensive to the contemporary sense of proprietyand the (largely) shared common conceptualization of God While Qiṣṣarsquosand Nestorrsquos arguments are certainly unbalanced in that they ignore the morecareful doctrinal explanations of Jesusrsquo divinity by patristic writers231 Jesusrsquoproximity to the facts of human life must also have been more than an embar-rassment to the early Christians
The kind of polemic leveled against Christianity in Qiṣṣa illustrates that itwas not only Augustine-inspired harmatology and soteriology that necessi-tated Mary to be more removed from the reality of sin The inappropriateaspects of the incarnation surely played a role in the emergence of apocryphalnativity texts long before any of the great doctrinal debates The taboo of thegraphic image that God in Jesus had been carried in the womb and was bornand the polemic that employed it in this manner must not have been aninsignificant stimulant to the various textual compositions around the nativityBefore Maryrsquos elevation to greater prominence in the fifth century the exten-sive nativity narrative in the popular Protoevangelium of James (c 150 CE)
Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate 350ndash54 (Appenix ldquoGod in the Womb and the Problemof Incarnationrdquo)
230 One could point here to various Christmas hymns that mention Maryrsquos womb eg thelyrics of Come all Ye faithful ldquoTrue God of true God Light from Light Eternal Lo he shunsnot the Virginrsquos wombrdquo or in Hark the Herald Angelrsquos Sing we find ldquoOffspring of theVirginrsquos womb veiled in flesh the Godhead see Hail the incarnate Deityrdquo This of coursestands in the tradition of Ephrem (4th c) who likewise referred to Maryrsquos womb in his hymnlyrics see eg his hymn 21 in Kathleen E McVey Ephrem the Syrian Hymns (MahwahNJ Paulist Press 1989) 175 ldquoHow indeed did that small womb of Mary suffice for Him(hellip) But who will dare to say that a small womb weak and despised is equal to [the womb]of the Great Being He dwelt [there] because of His compassion and since his nature is greatHe was not limited in anythingrdquo That is not to say that Christians and in particular the theo-logians of the church have been ignorant of the shock effect of the incarnation To the con-trary Ephrem in fact embraced it and also in the Te Deum which is constantly being used inChristian worship we sing ldquonon horruisti Virginis uterumrdquo
231 The composition and contexts of the gospels are also largely ignored in which depic-tions of Jesusrsquo humanity are juxtaposed with passages where the evangelists clearly want himto be understood as more than a mere human
88 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
serves as witness of such a reactionary move against the presence of ldquoincarna-tion taboordquo polemics Mary became a post-natal virgin precisely because itwas too challenging to imagine that God did come into the world through abirth canal being covered in blood and mucus and Salome had to testify thatthis was exactly not the case232 In like manner Mary was made Josephrsquossecond wife so that Jesusrsquo siblings were only half-brothers and sisters (orcousins) and thus had not to be carried by the same womb233 She became aperpetual virgin because it would have been too inappropriate to think thatJoseph had subsequent sexual intercourse with Mary and produced more chil-dren that would have ldquosharedrdquo the womb with Jesus234 Maryrsquos purity becameas such theologically contingent on Jesus precisely because he was believed tobe God incarnate (and that long before the christological debates of the fourthand fifth century) mdash precisely because God could not comfortably be associ-ated with the utter physicality of Mary235
In this QiṣṣaNestor have to be seen as important texts that preserve latermemories of this argument in all its graphic sharpness which are importanteven in inter-religious interactions and doctrinal reflection today
2 6 Summary
The Polemic of Nestor the Priest is a unique piece of literature within thecorpus of Jewish anti-Christian polemic It defied the established views of thatgenre and provides an important basis for much of the later medieval Jewishdefense against Christian advances236 Similarities to much earlier polemicand inner-Christian doctrinal disputes are evident and its amalgamation ofJewish and heterodox Christian arguments against the incarnation and Jesusrsquo
232 In chapter 20 of the Protoevanglium Salome verifies the perpetual virginity of MaryThe entire narrative seeks to address and bring coherence to the various issues with the nativ-ity accounts see Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal Gospels An Introduction (London TampTClark 2003) 65
233 Jesusrsquo siblings are portrayed as is half-siblings in from Josephrsquos former marriage seethe Protoevanglium 92 171ndash2 and 181 Later Jerome argued that Jesusrsquo siblings were hiscousins in Helv 14 (PL 23196ndash98 FC 5330ndash33) On this see esp the discussion in ArmandPuig i Tagraverrech Jesus An Uncommon Journey (WUNT II288 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck2010) 113ndash35
234 The argument that Mary was not a post-natal virgin is eg already discussed byEpiphanius in Panarion 78 (58)
235 Of course to argue that Mary was elevated from natural humanity in order to avoidthis kind of crude polemic requires that the early church proclaimed Jesusrsquo parthenogenesisand had a very high Christology
236 See Limor ldquoJudaism examines Christianityrdquo 111
26 Summary 89
divinity allow for a rare authentic look at the inter-religious debate of lateantiquity and the early medieval period in the Near East
QiṣṣaNestor is a not a defensive or purely reactionary text but boldlyadvances an assault at the heart of Christian orthodoxy by employing its ownscriptures and that largely without resorting to the fiercely fought-over battle-ground of the Hebrew Bible and its interpretation The New Testament oftenthe Gospel of Matthew and Christian apocryphal writings are the mainsources by which the assertion of divine incarnation and the divinity of Jesusare confronted The treatise does not shrink back from using christologicallyimportant passages to refute Christian dogma nor is it particularly timid inchallenging Christian exegesis and convictions by means of the Christiancanon itself It is thus not surprising that the kind of arguments seen in Qiṣṣaand Nestor were widely circulated and are encountered in later texts and eventoday
While the entire work shows clear marks of being a compilation of variousarguments and sources that over time were expanded and modified its mainstrategy is to point to various passages to demonstrate that Jesus himself didnot claim to be God and that the claim itself is heretical and non-rational Thefact that Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as distinctively human excludes himfrom being divine This emphasis on Jesusrsquo human nature allowed for the useof any material found in the New Testament (and other authoritative sourcesfor Christians) which depicted any notion of Jesusrsquo humanity by juxtaposinghis human limitations to claims of his divinity By appealing to and reinter-preting Christian texts passages in the Christian canon are effectively turnedagainst orthodox Christian convictions
Part of Qiṣṣarsquos survey of Christian Scriptures also includes the nativityaccounts and related passages These passages on the one hand are used toshow that Jesus had a human father and mother in order to confound the ideaof virginal conception and divine parenthood On the other hand the assertionof incarnation is traced to its inherent and most radical implications Thedescent of God is imagined in the most graphic and physical details andaccordingly God would have been confined in the womb of Mary and comein touch with the most basic functions of human existence Consequently thisidea is rejected as most inappropriate while at the same time the ldquoconfine-ment in the wombrdquo theme is liberally used in the overall polemic to challengeChristian convictions
90 Chapter 2 Qiṣṣa and Nestor
Chapter 3
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inJacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem
3 1 Introduction
The book of ldquoThe Wars of the Lordrdquo often just referred to by its Hebrewname Milḥamot ha-Shem or Milḥamot Adonay is one of the most importantJewish polemic compositions of the Middle Ages in Europe It has beendescribed as an ldquoepoch making workrdquo1 and has subsequently received consid-erable attention from various mostly Jewish scholars2 Though some of thehistorical context surrounding Milḥamot ha-Shem is uncertain the treatisewould appear to be written in 1170 in southern France or Spain3 whichconsequently would make it one of the first extant Jewish polemics composed
1 David Berger ldquoChristian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and ThirteenthCenturiesrdquo HTR 68 (1975) 287ndash303 here 298
2 The best text edition is by Judah Rosenthal Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot HaShem[ השםמלחמות ] (ed Judah M Rosenthal Jerusalem Mossad Ha-Rav Kook 1963) [Hebr]though it lacks a critical apparatus and relies on Posnanskirsquos previous work on Milḥamot ha-Shem Various studies and introductions on the work and author exist eg Chazan Fashion-ing Jewish Identity 98ndash103 282ndash90 idem ldquoThe Christian Position in Jacob ben ReubenrsquosMilhamot Ha-Shemrdquo in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism Essays in Honor of MarvinFox (vol 2 ed Jacob Neusner Ernest S Frerichs Nahum M Sarna Atlanta Scholars Press1989) 151ndash70 Krauss and Horbury Controversy 216ndash17 Trautner-Kromann Shield andSword 49ndash61 Rolf Schmitz ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten y su obra Milḥamot ha-Šemrdquo in PoleacutemicaJudeo-Cristiana Estudios (ed Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodriacuteguez Iberia judaica1 Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1992) 45ndash58 Carlos del Valle Rodriacuteguez ldquoJacob benRubeacuten de Huesca Polemista Su patria y su eacutepocardquo in Poleacutemica Judeo-Cristiana Estudios(ed Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle Rodriacuteguez Iberia judaica 1 Madrid Aben EzraEdiciones 1992) 59ndash65 Pinchas E Lapide Hebrew in the Church Foundations of JewishChristian Dialogue (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1984) 25ndash30 Judah M Rosenthal ldquoProle-gomena to a critical edition of Milḥamot Adonai of Jacob ben Reubenrdquo PAAJR 26 (1957)127ndash37 Rembaum ldquoInfluencerdquo 165ndash66 172ndash74 Posnanski Schiloh 141ndash43 Schrecken-berg Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) 238ndash43
3 Rosenthal argues for Spain as the probable place of composition (though he does notfurther specify where exactly) in contrast Netanyahu argues for southern France (Provence)See Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 128ndash29 and Benzion Netanyahu The Marranos of SpainFrom the late XIVth to the early XVIth century according to contemporary Hebrew sources(New York American Academy for Jewish Research 1966) 82 n 3
in Western Europe4 It is highly intellectual in character and perhaps was orig-inally en-titled ldquoThe Book of the Denier [of monotheism] and the Monotheistrdquo( ומיחד מכחד ספר )5
The author identifies himself as ldquoJacob ben Reubenrdquo who was probablyborn around 1136 in Spain6 but besides what the introduction of Milḥamotha-Shem mentions not much is known about him7 He writes that he had toflee northwards probably on account of the Almohad persecution where hesubsequently may have befriended a learned Christian scholar a priest withwhom he had several extensive exchanges over their respective faiths8 Theapparent product of these discussions is presented in Milḥamot ha-Shemthough some of the information definitely came from written Christiansources9 The author also appears to have known Latin and he is perhaps thefirst Jewish scholar to have translated Christian writings from Latin toHebrew amongst them portions of Gilbert Crispinrsquos treatise Disputatio10
4 Sefer ha-Berit was probably written around the same time but in comparison it is nottreating the New Testament so extensively as Milḥamot ha-Shem
5 Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 1276 Or alternatively in 1150 see Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 1287 Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal) 3 also Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo
127ndash128 It is possible that the same author penned another polemical work entitled היכלהשם (ldquoThe Temple of the Lordrdquo) see ibid 130 Nevertheless it has not been fully estab-lished that Jacob ben Reuben is the actual author of Milḥamot ha-Shem cf Chazan Fashion-ing Jewish Identity 98 n 25
8 See Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 128ndash29 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 49Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem 4ndash5 It is however not clear if these encounters aremerely a literary device (they are penned in ryhmes) see Chazan ldquoChristian Positionrdquo 160ndash61 There is also a dispute over the identification of the place to which Jacob ben Reuben fledRosenthal following Loeb et al argues for Gascogne in France which Berger and Rembaumalso seem to favor while Carlos de Valle Rodriacuteguez Chazan and Posnanski following Grossargue for Huesca in northern Spain See Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 128ndash129 Isodore LoebldquoPoleacutemistes Chreacutetiens et Juifs en France et en Espagnerdquo REJ 18 (1889) 43ndash70 219ndash42 here47 Berger ldquoChristian Heresyrdquo 298 Rembaum ldquoInfluencerdquo 165 Carlos del Valle Rodriacute-guez ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten de Huescardquo Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 99ndash100 PosnanskiSchiloh 141 also Heinrich Gross Gallia Judaica Dictionnaire geacuteographique de la Francedrsquoapregraves les sources rabbiniques (Paris L Cerf 1897) 144
9 Rosenthal has found textual indicators that Jacob ben Reuben wrote the work after hisreturn from exile see Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 129 see also ibid n 3 and Lasker ldquoJew-ish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo 101ndash102
10 David Berger has argued that ldquoit appears likely that the book shown to Jacob was a col-lection of [Christian] polemical and exegetical material taken from various authors which didnot always identify its sources and which occasionally contained inaccurate ascriptionsrdquo andthus must not necessarily have been Crispinrsquos Disputatio see idem ldquoGilbert Crispin Alan ofLille and Jacob ben Reuben A Study in Transmission of Medieval Polemicrdquo Speculum 49(1974) 34ndash47 here 37 This also makes it a distinct possiblity that Jacob ben Reuben mayhave learnt some anti-Christian arguments from Christian apologetical sources For the mostrecent edition of Crispinrsquos Disputatio see The Works of Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster
92 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
Most pertinently Milḥamot ha-Shem also contains a critique and translationof sections of the the Gospel of Matthew which could be some of the earliesttranslations of passages of Matthew in Western Europe11 It was as such oneof the first systematic critiques of the Christian faith based on its own scrip-tures in the European context and as a result became quite influential
Several Jewish writers eg Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ (the author of EvenBoḥan) but also Christian apologists such as Nicholas de Lyre (c 1270ndash1349) and the prominent Jewish convert Alfonso de Valladolid knew at leastsome of the arguments contained in Milḥamot ha-Shem12 In fact in 1334 deLyre a Franciscan friar and one of the most important Christian exegetes ofthe High Middle Ages even wrote a response to the chapter containing theNew Testament critique13
(ed Anna Sapir Abulafia and G R Evans Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8 London BritishAcademy Oxford University Press 1986) For Crispinrsquos role in the medieval discourse seeJeremy Cohen Living Letters of the Law Ideas of the Jew in medieval Christianity (Berke-ley University of California Press 1999) 179ndash85 Furthermore Posnanski has argued thatMilḥamot ha-Shem ldquowas patterned after the polemical anti-Jewish work Dialogus Petri cog-nomento Alphonsi ex Judaeo Christiani et Moysi Judaei (PL 157 535ndash672) of the Spanishphysician astronomer and moralist Petrus Alfonsi (d 1140) who was a convert to Christianityand a native of Huesca Spainrdquo Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 133 see also Posnanski Schiloh143 349 Petrus Alfonsi Dialogue against the Jews (trans Irven M Resnick FC MedievalContinuation 8 Washington DC Catholic University Press 2006) Although it is a possibi-lity that Jacob ben Reuben stayed in Huesca Rosenthal in contrast did not considerMilḥamot ha-Shem to be a response to Petrus Alfonsi nevertheless he sees some similarities
11 Berger points out that it ldquois clear at any rate that no complete Latin work was trans-lated into Hebrew before 1170 and thus Jacob may own the twin distinctions of being thefirst Jew to translate both a substantial passage of a medieval Latin work and sections of theLatin New Testament into Hebrewrdquo Berger ldquoGilbert Crispin Alan of Lille and Jacob benReubenrdquo 36 The translation of the gospel text is however not very careful and appears tohave been based on the Vulgate see Judah Rosenthal ldquoThe Translation of the Gospel accord-ing to Matthew by Jacob ben Reubenrdquo [ ראובןבןליעקבמתיעל־פיהבשורהשלתרגום ]Tarbiṣ 32 (196263) 48ndash66 [Hebr] It is however not certain that Jacob ben Reuben trans-lated Matthew himself or whether he relied on earlier material cf ibid 50ndash51
12 See Bernhard Blumenkranz ldquoNicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reubenrdquo JJS 16 (1965)47ndash51 rep idem Juifs et Chreacutetiens Patristique et Moyen Age (London Variorum 1977)chapter XVII (no pagination) Alfonso and Shem Ṭov however mistakenly held JosephQimḥi to be the author of Milḥamot ha-Shem see Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 135 also theintroduction to Rosenthalrsquos edition of Milḥamot ha-Shem xviindashxxi Another Jewish authorwho used Milḥamot ha-Shem appears to be Moses of Tordesillas
13 Lukyn Williams summarizes some of de Lyrersquos treatise entitled Contra quendamJudaeum impugnatorem evangeli secundum Mattheum (Against a Certain Jew whoDenounced the Gospel according to St Matthew) in Adversus Judaeos 412ndash415 On de Lyresee also Jeremy Cohen The Friars and the Jews The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism(2nd ed Ithaca NY Cornell University Press 1983) 170ndash195 esp 185ndash187 The treatisede Lyre responds to addresses the same passages contained in chapter 11 however thearrangement of New Testament passages is sequential (unlike in Milḥamot ha-Shem) Both de
31 Introduction 93
Milḥamot ha-Shemrsquos impact especially in light of the historical develop-ment and medieval debates can therefore not be underestimated
3 2 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem
The relations and religious debates between Jews and Christians particularlyin Spain in the twelfth and thirteenth century have received great scholarlyattention14 This is partly due to the fact that in this period the three greatmonotheistic religions lived mostly peacefully together The historical andcultural context but also the factors that lead to a change of this situationtherefore hold great interest for the present
Jews had lived in Spain since Roman times After the Muslim conquest ofthe Iberian peninsula in the early eight century Jews fared depending on thelocal ruler moderately well They had limited rights yet were equal to Chris-tians Both were officially marginalized as dhimmi and suffered heavy taxburdens but they were allowed to practice their religion relatively unimpeded
Lyrersquos and ben Reubenrsquos texts have been briefly compared by Blumenkranz in his articleldquoNicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reubenrdquo He concludes that de Lyre did not have a full text ofMilḥamot ha-Shem before him but a treatise inspired by it ldquoIl semble assureacute drsquoabord queNicolas de Lyre nrsquoa pas eu entre les mains le livre Milḥamot Adonaiuml de Jacob ben Ruben Iles vrai pourtant que le Traiteacute de poleacutemique antichreacutetienne qursquoil avait devant les yeux eacutetaitfortement inspireacute par la XIe Porte de lsquoBatailles de Dieursquo de Jacob ben Reubenrdquo (51) JoshuaLevy also has compared the two texts in his ldquoSefer Milhamot Hashem Chapter Eleven TheEarliest Jewish Critique of the New Testamentrdquo (PhD diss New York University 2004)255ndash265 but following Cohen comes to the opposite conclusion cf Cohen The Friars andthe Jews 186 n 4 cf also the introduction to Rosenthalrsquos edition of Milḥamot ha-Shem xxn 55
14 Just to name a few Anna Sapir Abulafia Religious Violence between Christians andJews Medieval Roots Modern Perspectives (New York Palgrave 2002) eadem Christiansand Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London Routledge Press 1995) YitzhakBaer A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (2 vols Philadelphia Jewish PublicationSociety of America 1971) David Berger Jewish-Christian Debate Mark R Cohen UnderCrescent and Cross The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton Princeton University Press1994) Robert Chazan Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe (Cambridge UniversityPress 2010) idem The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000ndash1500 (CambridgeCambridge University Press 2006) idem Daggers of Faith idem Fashioning JewishIdentity idem Medieval Jewry in Northern France A Political and Social History (Bal-timore The John Hopkins University Press 1973) Jeremy Cohen The Friars and the JewsHyam Maccoby Judaism on Trial Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages(London Associated University Presses 1982) Solomon Grayzel The Church and the Jewsin the XIIIth Century (vol 1 New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1989)Roth Conversos Kenneth R Stow Popes Church and Jews in the Middle Ages Confronta-tion and Response (Aldershot Ashgate Publishing 2007) Edward A Synan The Popes andthe Jews in the Middle Ages (New York Macmillan 1965)
94 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
though without being allowed to proselytize With the establishment of theArab Emirate of Al-Andalus in 755 the whole of southern Spain flourishedculturally and economically especially in the tenth century ushering in whathas been called the first ldquoSiglo de Orordquo (The Spanish Golden Age)15 Toledoin particular became one of the major cultural focal points of the whole regionand an important center for learning16 Jews prospered and were heavilyinvolved in commerce the sciences and politics in Al-Andalus Compared tothe rest of Europe Jews in Iberia were generally better integrated in societyand less likely to encounter violent persecutions17
On the level of daily life friendly and cordial relations between ordinary Christians and Jewswere the norm rather than the exception Even though that was true also of medieval Europein general contrary to what we are led to believe in uniformed ldquohistoriesrdquo of Jews it was noton so large or significant a scale as was the case in Spain This convivencia [peaceful co-exis-tence] included also the clergy archbishops and bishops monasteries and convents localpriests mdash all were constantly involved in business and social relations with Jews18
In 1066 however a first major persecution of Jews occurred in Granada whena Muslim mob lynched some 1500 families19 The situation became moreoppressive for the Jewish population with the arrival of the Almoravid aMoroccan Berber militia with more radical religious convictions They hadcome to Iberia at the behest of the Muslim princes of Al-Andalus the taifa tocombat the slowly advancing Christian reconquista in which some Jews werefighting even on the side of the Christians20 Due to the increasing pressure of
15 The exact nature of this period is disputed not least for ideological reasons MariacuteaRosa Menocal envisioned the Siglo de Oro as an age of great inter-religious tolerance see herThe Ornament of the World How Muslims Jews and Christians created a Culture of Toler-ance in Medieval Spain (Boston Little Brown amp Company 2002) others eg Mark Cohenhas assessed her view as a ldquomyth of an interfaith utopiardquo see Crescent and Cross 3ndash14
16 See Roth Conversos 372ndash76 and esp idem ldquoNew Light on the Jews of MozarabicToledordquo AJSR 11 (1986) 189ndash220
17 Cohen Crescent and Cross xviii xix 22 163 16918 Roth Conversos 1019 Norman A Stillman The Jews of Arab Lands A History and a Source Book (Philadel-
phia The Jewish Publication Society 1979) 55ndash59 211ndash225 Cohen Crescent and Cross165ndash166 Lewis The Jews of Islam 45ndash46 54
20 See eg Roth ldquoNew Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledordquo 219 Beginning in theeighth century the reconquista (the Christian reconquest of Iberia) slowly pushed south-wards gaining more territory and seeing its completion in 1492 But already by the middle ofthe 12th c a large part of the Iberian peninsula was in Christian hands on June 16 1212 theAlmohads suffered a crucial defeat at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa to the Crusader armywhich reduced Muslim control in Iberia to the south In 1492 with the fall of the Emirate ofGranada Muslim forces were completely driven out from the Iberian peninsula by the armiesof the Catholic Monarchs Isabella I and Fernando II See eg Joseph F OrsquoCallaghan Recon-quest and Crusade in Medieval Spain (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 2004)50ndash123
32 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem 95
discrimination and persecution but also attracted by Christian rulers withpromises of freedom and privileges if they were to help colonize northernIberia Jews began to leave the Muslim-controlled territories and movednorthwards into Christian areas21 At the same time the reconquista broughtmore areas and the Jewish population therein under the control of Christianrulers22 Jews and Christians henceforth came to live in closer proximity
With the overthrow of the Almoravid dynasty by the Almohads an AfricanBerber dynasty with even more extreme religious views Jewish life took aturn for the worse in southern Spain By the middle of the 12th century theAlmohads had taken control of the southern Iberian peninsula and enactedmuch harsher laws persecuting religious minorities violently Because ofthese religious pressures Jacob ben Reuben may have moved to northernSpain or southern France which at the time was still ldquopart of a linguistic andcultural composite that stretched horizontally from the northern areas of theIberian peninsuala through the south of France and onto the Italian pen-insulardquo23
However Christian anti-Jewish legislation (in particular that of the FourthLateran council)24 growing anti-Jewish sentiment amongst the Christian pop-ulace and the financial demands of Christian rulers would gradually andincreasingly worsen the life of Jews in Iberia At the same time Christiansbegan to proselytize Jews The establishment of the two mendicant orders theFranciscans in 1209 and the Dominicans in 1215 played a significant role inthis25 Having done away with the earlier moderate Augustinian view of toler-ation of Jews these orders took on a much more aggressive missionarystance26 Raymond (Ramoacuten) de Pentildeafort in particular distinguished as papalpenitentiarius and charged with the codification of medieval canon law (LiberextraDecretales Gregorii IX) had a leading role As an extremely prominent
21 Jonathan S Ray The Sephardic Frontier The Reconquista and the Jewish Communityin Medieval Iberia (Ithaca NY Cornell University Press 2006) 15ndash35
22 Toledo eg was conquered by Alfonso VI of Castile in 108523 Chazan The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 78 see also 78ndash9024 The Fourth Latern Council convened in 1215 at the behest of pope Innocent III see
esp Schreckenberg Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) 400ndash33 Its anti-Jewish legislation amongst other things had significant financial ramifications as it limitedusury on Jewish loans given to Christians forced Jews to refrain from taking interest on loanstaken out by Crusaders and levied taxes on Jewish property formerly owned by Christians Italso legislated that Jews (and Muslims) had to dress differently so as to be distinguishablefrom the Christian population and forbade Jews from holding public office or appearing inpublic during Easter
25 How great of a role the Mendicants played is debated cf Cohen The Friars and theJews with Chazan Daggers of Faith 157ndash79 also John Y B Hood Aquinas and the Jews(Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 1995) xndashxii 106ndash111
26 See Cohen The Friars and the Jews 19ndash50 see esp Roth Conversos 3ndash47
96 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
figure in the Dominican order in Aragon and beyond he influenced Jaime I topass anti-Jewish legislation in Aragon which included the establishment ofthe inquisition in Tarragona in 124227 In the same year Dominicans weregiven royal authority to deliver evangelistic sermons in synagogues makingtheir attendance compulsory for Jews an edict which was renewed in 126328
De Pentildeafort was furthermore instrumental in forcing a public debate betweenJews and Christians that took place in the royal palace in Barcelona in 1263The debate was primarily between Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman better knownas Nachmanides (or Ramban) and Pablo Christiani a baptized Jew who hadbecome a Dominican friar and was very actively and aggressively involved inproselytizing his former co-religionists29 Christiani attempted to discreditNachmanides and prove from the Talmud and Midrash mdash and not just theHebrew Bible mdash that Jesus was the Messiah which was a novel strategy thatbecame a tool in Christian proselytization until the end of the Middle Agesand beyond (and is not infrequently encountered today)30 The so-calledldquoBarcelona Disputationrdquo however would only be one of the various publicdebates in the Middle Ages31 The Jewish party which was often forced toparticipate was generally not allowed to prevail and had to fear for them-selves and the well-being of the communities they represented32
27 See Cohen The Friars and the Jews 103ndash108 163ndash69 Roth Conversos 206 andJean Longegravere ldquoRaymond of Pentildeafortrdquo Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages 21213ndash14 Pentildeafortas the compiler of canon law was however intimately acquainted with pope Calixtus IIrsquos(1119ndash24) Sicut Iudaeis decree which affirmed Jewish privileges and stipulated that no forceshould be used against Jews See Solomon Grayzel ldquoThe Papal bull Sicut Iudeisrdquo in Studiesand Essays in Honor of Abraham A Neumann (ed Meir Ben-Horin Bernard D Weinryb andSolomon Zeitlin Leiden Brill Philadelphia Dropsie College Press 1962) 243ndash80
28 See Cohen The Friars and the Jews 82ndash83 However soon after the renewal of thedecree this was mitigated to a voluntary attendance cf Baer History 1155ndash56
29 See Cohen The Friars and the Jews 108ndash22 and Chazan Daggers of Faith 70ndash85See also Baer History 1152ndash56 but esp Robert Chazan Barcelona and Beyond The Dis-putation of 1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley University of California Press 1992) HansGeorg von Mutius Die christlich-juumldische Zwangsdisputation zu Barcelona (Judentum undUmwelt 5 Frankfurt P Lang 1982)
30 This strategy was first noticed with Peter Abelard and Alain de Lille in the twelfthcentury cf Cohen The Friars and the Jews 24ndash25 28ndash31 cf also 51ndash76 122ndash28 TheJewish strategy to use the New Testament in polemics is in some respect reciprocal to thisdevelopment Christians used the ldquoJewish canonrdquo to undermine Judaism Jews used theldquoChristian canonrdquo
31 The best known of these forced debates is the ldquoDisputation of Parisrdquo in the court of theFrench King Louis IX see the short summary in the chapter on Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 42For more see Maccoby Judaism on Trial
32 Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 334ndash35 It was also de Pentildeafort who askedThomas Aquinas ldquoto compose a work that would help missionaries in Spain convert the Jewsand Moslems there and he responded by writing the massive Summa Contra GentilesrdquoHood Aquinas and the Jews 37
32 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem 97
In this period numerous Christian texts were written to further the mission-ary task of converting the Jews Raymond Martini (Ramoacuten Martiacute) a Domini-can friar who had been charged by de Pentildeafort with the study of Hebrew inorder be able to read and evaluate the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish writ-ings published his massive Pugio Fidei (ldquoThe Dagger of Faithrdquo) in 127833
Martini in fact had achieved a high proficiency in Hebrew and wasextremely well-read in Hebrew literature The Pugio Fidei was meant to be aninstruction manual for the friars to convert Jews and Muslims citing andusing many Jewish sources such as the Talmud Midrashic works and otherearly Jewish literature in their original language Another prominent Jewishconvert Alfonso de Valladolid formerly known by the name of Abner ofBurgos composed several anti-Jewish polemic works mdash which he wrotemostly in Spanish34 Thus the need for Jewish anti-Christian polemic apolo-getics and scholarly defense became increasingly pressing and the manyJewish apologetic-polemical works from this time period testify to the newchallenges35
As for Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem is one of the earliest of thepolemic works of this period It reflects a rather sophisticated debate whichwould serve as a blueprint for the later polemic debate and many of its argu-ments appeared in subsequent polemic works
3 3 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem
Milḥamot ha-Shem is arranged into twelve chapters or ldquogatesrdquo (שערים) Thefirst chapter contains doctrinal discussions of the Trinity incarnation and thevirgin birth based on reason 36(שכל) In this part up to chapter 10 it is always
33 Williams Adversus Judaeos 241ndash55 Cohen The Friars and the Jews 129ndash69 OnMartini see also Bernard Suler ldquoMartini Raymondrdquo EncJud (2007) 13584ndash85
34 For Alfonso de Valladolid see Zvi Avneri ldquoAbner of Burgosrdquo EncJud (2007) 1264ndash65 Roth Conversos 190ndash92 Robert Chazan ldquoAlfonso of Valladolid and the New Mission-izingrdquo REJ 143 (1984) 83ndash94 also Schreckenberg Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13ndash20 Jh) 377ndash78
35 See Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 317ndash3836 On the philosophical argumentation and use of reason in the Jewish-Christian debate
see Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics xxindashxxiv 9ndash11 25ndash43 and idem ldquoJewish Philo-sophical Polemic in Ashkenazrdquo in Contra Iudaeos (ed Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa TSMJ10 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1996) 195ndash214 A comparable overview of Islamic philosophi-cal polemics is unfortunately not available but see David Thomas Christian Doctrines inIslamic Theology (Leiden Brill 2008) idem Early Muslim Polemic against ChristianityAbū ʻĪsaacute al-Warrāqrsquos lsquoAgainst the Incarnationrsquo (Oriental Publication 59 Cambridge Univer-sity of Cambridge Press 1996) and Jean-Marie Gaudeul Encounters and Clashes Islam andChristianity in History (2 vols Rome Pontificio istituto di studi arabici e islamici 2000)
98 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
the Christian who begins and attempts to present rational proof for the Trinitywhich the Jew subsequently rejects as irrationalEveryone who has understanding of knowledge and reason (knows about) the faith of theseChristians and their worship mdash for they worship three powers mdash that their worship is notright and that their faith does not recognize the acknowledged truth since they say that theCreator who made them was born of a womanrsquos belly and brought forth on a birth-stool and(that) he accepted the judgment of the cross by his own will in order to save the souls of thecreated ones from going down to the pit [or hell] and this is known to everyone who hasunderstanding that this is such folly that the ear cannot listen and the eye is heavy fromseeing but the mouth is obliged to speak of their assertions and words to the many among thesons of our people who do not have deep insight37
שאיןרשויותשלששעובדיםועבודתםהאלההנוצריםאמונתכיולהשכללדעתמביןלכלישנולדבראםאשרהבוראכיבאמרםנכרתהאמתמהכרתאמונתםואיןמיושרתעבודתם
למעןנפשוברצוןצליבהדיןוקיבלבניםבמשברוהובאאשהמבטן הנבראיםנפשותהצילוהעיןלשמועיכולההאוזןשאיןעדרוחורעותהבלשהואמביןלכלידועוזהשחתמרדתיורדהשכלשאיןעמנומבנילרביםודבריםטענותיהםלספרחייבהפהאךמראותכבדה
38ליבותם במעמקי
In the first chapter likewise the incarnation is rejected as irrational and blas-phemous echoing some of the arguments already encountered in QiṣṣaNestor39
When you say that the Creator may he be blessed who is in every aspect greater than anymind or heart can conceive that he was completely enclosed in the deep darkness of thewomb and confined in the blackness of the belly and that he was like (all other) infants thatare not able to see light then (it must be said that) this matter is a shame to speak of andforbidden to listen to and as for me far be it from me to sin against the Lord with my tongueand to bring such matter over my inadequate lips40
נסגר כולו עליו להרהר יכולים והלב שהמחשבה צד מכל הוא כאשר יתברך שהבורא באמרך לאמרו הוא גנאי הזה והדבר אור ראו לא כעוללים ויהי הבטן באפלת ונכלא הרחם במחשכי
41שפתי דל על הזה הדבר מהעלות בלשוני ליי מחטא לי חלילה אנכי לשמעו פלילי ועוד
Chapter 2 deals with the Pentateuch and the question of Jesusrsquo fulfillment ofthe Law a topic already encountered in QiṣṣaNestor The following chapters3ndash10 contain exegetical refutations of christological interpretations ofpassages in the Hebrew Bible discussing in order Psalms Jeremiah IsaiahEzekiel the Minor Prophets Daniel Job and Proverbs42
37 Translation modified from Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 5038 Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal) 439 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect74 sect76 sect82 sect111 (see 253)40 This and subsequent translations are my own if not otherwise stated41 Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal) 1342 Interestingly this sequence is neither following the arrangement of the books in the
Hebrew Bible nor of that in the Old Testament
33 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem 99
These first ten chapters of Milḥamot ha-Shem are presented as a dialoguebetween the ldquoDenierrdquo (מכחד) and the ldquoAffirmerrdquo of monotheism 43(מיחד)
The dialogue is written in an elevated style of rhymed prose perhaps reminis-cent of the intellectual and rational character of the exchange between Jacobben Reuben and his discussion partner the priest As in other dialogue litera-ture one party (here the ldquoDenierrdquo) is asking questions to which theldquoAffirmerrdquo gives a response Yet unlike in some dialogues in Christian litera-ture the opponent in Milḥamot ha-Shem is not merely a ldquostraw manrdquo orproxy for a lengthy monologue44 rather this ldquodenier of monotheismrdquo is givenample opportunity to voice his position coherently and quite exhaustively thedialogue appears as such rather authentic45 It would thus seem that Jacob benReuben sought to carefully present the Christian position at least how heunderstood it
In chapter 11 the dialogue format ends The chapter is a shift from the pre-vious part of the book as it is now the ldquoAffirmerrdquo who asks the questionswhile the ldquoDenierrdquo does not appear at all46 A translation and interpretation ofselected passages from the Gospel of Matthew are given which are then usedas a means of a general critique of Jesusrsquo divinity and the Trinity This secondpart of Milḥamot ha-Shem is thus more than just a defense against Christianideas and exegesis Not surprisingly Jacob ben Reuben begins the chapterwith a cautious disclaimer47 The last chapter argues that the Messiah has notyet come mostly employing aguments form Saadia Gaonrsquos Emunoth ve-Delsquooth48 and others49
The New Testament specifically the Gospel of Matthew is hence mostlyencountered in chapter 11 The larger part of Milḥamot ha-Shem either arguesagainst Christian doctrine from reason or by offering exegetical commen-taries of passages from the Hebrew Bible that are considered to be Christianmisinterpretations
43 This term could perhaps be translated as ldquoUnitarianrdquo although this would be (decep-tively) anachronistic
44 An example of this would be Anselm of Canterburyrsquos ldquodiscussion partnerrdquo Bodo in hiswork Cur Deus homo whose (somewhat comical) task it is to affirm and usher alongAnselmrsquos argument
45 See Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 10046 See ibid 28347 See below in 3448 Saadia Gaon (882ndash942 CE) was a prominent and influential leader and scholar of the
Babylonian Jewry in the geonic period see Abraham Solomon Halkin ldquoSaadiah (ben Joseph)Gaonrdquo EncJud (2007) 17606ndash14 Emunot ve-Delsquoot (ldquoBeliefs and Opinionsrdquo) is the first prin-cipal philosophic treatment of Jewish theology see Saadia Gaon The Book of Beliefs andOpinions Translated from the Arabic and the Hebrew by Samuel Rosenblatt (ed SamuelRosenblatt Yale Judaica Series 1 New Haven Yale University Press 1948 rep 1976)
49 Rosenthal ldquoProlegomenardquo 132ndash33
100 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
3 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem
Jacob ben Reubenrsquos treatment of the Gospel of Matthew in chapter 11 ofMilḥamot ha-Shem is the main research interest of this study50 FortunatelyJoshua Levy has recently prepared an updated critical edition of the chapterwith a translation into English51 Levy states that his goal was to ldquoexplore howtwo Jewish authors understood the Gospel of Matthew and the way in whichChristians used it to support fundamental Christian doctrinerdquo52 His goals areas such quite close to those of this study Levy identified three main polemicthrusts in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos use of Matthew[T]he issues he addresses most often are central to Christianity Jesusrsquos divine nature Jesusrsquosdivergence from the religion of the Israelites and the Trinity Jacob contends that whenMatthew is read and understood properly no aspect of Christian doctrine can be believedJesus cannot be seen as divine Jesus repeatedly violates the laws he claims to fulfill andJesusrsquos statements lead a careful reader to question the validity of the Trinity It is simply notpossible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christian beliefs53
Of these three aspects only the charge against Jesusrsquo divinity and the critiqueof the Trinity are of interest here
Jacob ben Reuben himself is rather cautious and aware of the danger ofusing the New Testament as basis of his critique He opens the chapter with adisclaimer[T]he All-Knowing Witness knows that I did not intend to argue with them or speak againstthem Rather I intended to be a conscientious witness for the diligent ones and to conceal itfrom the eyes of the worthless and reckless Additionally with regards to this chapter Godknows that it was not my intention to mention anything Indeed my friends forced me and
50 In 1980 Hans-Georg von Mutius has briefly presented the Jewish exegesis of theGospel of Matthew in an article entitled ldquoEin Beitrag zur polemischen juumldischen Auslegungdes Neuen Testaments im Mittelalterrdquo He concludes that Jacob ben Reuben was one of thefirst to have shown that the New Testament was unfamiliar with the doctrine of the TrinityldquoSein Verdienst aber ist es den Nachweis gefuumlhrt zu haben daszlig dem Neuen Testament dastrinitarische Dogma noch unbekannt war und daszlig zwischen dem Jesusbild der kirchlichenDogmatik und demjenigen der Evangelien eine Differenz bestehtrdquo (240)
51 Joshua Levy ldquoSefer Milhamot Hashem Chapter Eleven The Earliest Jewish Critiqueof the New Testamentrdquo (PhD diss New York University 2004) supervised by RobertChazan Levy consulted eight manuscripts ibid 18ndash25 He has judged MS Moscow RussianState Library Guenzburg Collection 418 Italy (16th c) as the best and most reliable manu-script Levyrsquos critical edition is different from Rosenthalrsquos in places and therefore ought to beconsulted for his apparatus I wish to thank Dr Levy for graciously allowing me to cite soextensively from his unpublished work
52 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo v The other Jewish author investigated by Levy is Shem ṬovIbn Shaprut and his polemical treatise Even Boḥan Levy compares Milḥamot ha-Shem withEven Boḥan noting many similarities and finding that Shem Ṭov relied heavily on Milḥamotha-Shem see ibid 116ndash76 esp the table on pp 139ndash42
53 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 7
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 101
urged me and beseeched me to mention something of it Therefore I have mentioned a few ofthe errors of their book and their foolishness I have revealed only a tenth of a tenth because Iwas afraid Please do not incriminate me or mention my name in connection with this for it isgood to fear the Lord our God and to adhere to him for eternity54
לזריזיםמסורהעדותלהיותאםכיעליהםלדברולאעמהםלהתווכחלאכי]יודע[ועדהיודעכללממנולהזכירבלביהיהלאכייודעההזהמהשערוגםופוחזיםריקיםמעיניולהעלימה
משגיותקצתממנוהזכרתיכןעלקצתוממנולהזכירוהשיאוניוהביאוניהכריחוניחבריוהנההאשימנילבלתימאתכםואנאיראתיכיגליתילאהמעשרמןומעשרוממעוותםספרם55הימים כל בו ולדבקה אלהינו ה את ליראה היא טובה כי לרעה זאת על שמי הזכיר ולבלתי
The author presents himself here as a reluctant expert of the content of Gospelof Matthew at least as it pertains to its polemic potential How much of thispolemic originated with him is not easy to determine many of the argumentsare similar to those in earlier Christian apologetical literature though othersare more novel Although he cites arguments from Nestor ha-Komer in thelatter part of chapter 11 the treatment of some of the passages in the Gospelof Matthew is distinct from QiṣṣaNestor The phrase להזכיר(hellip)הזהמהשער
קצתוממנו and the urging of Jacob ben Reubenrsquo friends perhaps suggests thatthat chapter existed already as an independent treatise or as a draft56
Regardless Jacob ben Reubenrsquos disclaimer makes it clear that he is awarethat the rational critique of Christian doctrines and the critique of Christianexegesis of the Hebrew Bible are a different matter from criticizing Christian-ity on the basis of the Gospel of Matthew He appears to consider the latter aspotent which subsequently could have severe ramifications if employed in adebate57
3 4 1 Outline of Chapter 11
The New Testament passages are usually cited by Jacob ben Reuben at somelength thereby attempting to consider the context and literal meaning of apassage58 On the other hand it also becomes evident that Matthewrsquos overallintention is not taken into account and that the passages are limited to what is
54 The translation is slightly modified from Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 5755 Ibid 26ndash27 Cf Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal) 14156 The issue is if ldquogaterdquo (שער) means ldquotractaterdquo here (it cannot mean ldquochapterrdquo as ben
Reubenrsquos friends hardly could have urged him to cite from it and at the same time include itin Milḥamot ha-Shem) or whether it refers to the Gospel of Matthew (cf ממנוהזכרתיכןעל
וממעוותםספרםמשגיותקצת ) as Rosenthal has suggested see idem ldquoThe Translation ofthe Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reubenrdquo 50ndash51 It is however noteworthythat Nicholas de Lyre appears to have encountered chapter 11 as separate treatise (see discus-sion above)
57 In our time the fatwā issued against Sir Salman Rushdie serves as reminder that criti-cizing a religion by means of its sacred Scriptures can be dangerous business
58 See Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 284 cf also 127ndash40
102 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
polemically expedient (nor would one expect this necessarily)59 The actualdiscussion of many passages is often quite short while others evidently aremore central to the author and his critique in particular Jesusrsquo prayer inGethsemane
The passages from the Gospel of Matthew that are cited and discussed inMilḥamot ha-Shem chapter 11 are given below in the order they appearMatt 11ndash16 Jesusrsquo GenealogyMatt 313ndash17 Jesusrsquo BaptismMatt 41ndash11a Jesusrsquo TemptationMatt 533ndash39 Jesus on the Law of Swearing Oaths and the lex talionisMatt 539ndash40 Jesus on Turning Onersquos CheekMatt 543ndash44 Jesus Speaking on Enemy LoveMatt 1125ndash27 Jesus Prayer to the FatherMatt 121ndash8 Jesus on Keeping the Sabbath (incl allusion to Matt 517)Matt 81ndash4a Jesusrsquo Healing of the Lepers (contradicting Matt 127)Mark 519ndash20 Retelling of Exorcism (par Matt 828ndash36 contradicting Matt 84a)Matt 1032 Jesusrsquo open Confession (contradicting Matt 81ndash4a )Matt 2636ndash40 45 Jesus in GethsemaneMatt 2118ndash19 Jesusrsquo Cursing the Fig TreeMatt 2816ndash19 Jesus on the Kingdom and AuthorityMatt 1521ndash25 Contradictions Arising Juxtaposing Matt 1811ndash13 and 1310 12ndash15Matt 1230ndash32 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit
This is followed by partially citing some selected arguments from QiṣṣaNestorQiṣṣa Nestor sect29ndash30 Questions concerning the Hypostatic UnionQiṣṣa Nestor sect37 Jesus is a MessengerQiṣṣa Nestor sect40 God is Judge Jesus is SentQiṣṣa Nestor sect52 Obscure ReferenceQiṣṣa Nestor sect53 Jesus Begging on his Knees (in prayer)Qiṣṣa Nestor sect55 and sect57 Jesus is a Messenger and Distinct from God
The arguments based on QiṣṣaNestor which ben Reuben explicitly attributesto Nestor60 will not be considered here again the main point he takes fromthem is that Jesus saw himself as a messenger distinct from God61
59 This observation alone brings into doubt Levyrsquos assessment that ldquoJacob contends thatwhen Matthew is read and understood properly no aspect of Christian doctrine can bebelieved (hellip) It is simply not possible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christianbeliefsrdquo (sa) Since Jacob ben Reuben was evidently (and explicitly) selective about the pas-sages he presented Levyrsquos claim is too sweeping Surely ben Reuben also recognized that itwas ldquopossible for the Gospels to be used as support for Christian beliefsrdquo
60 See Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 53ndash55 76ndash77 84ndash8561 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect44 sect55 and sect57 see also 2516 Interestingly Jacob ben Reuben
only cites Nestor up to sect57 which might be further evidence for a literary seam at this pointin QiṣṣaNestor
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 103
It further [follows] that he testified about himself lsquoI am a servant and prophet and I am amessenger from Godrsquo Another time he said to the nation lsquoSee the Lord my God and yourGodrsquo He further said lsquoFor I have not spoken from my heart but [from] the God who has sentme the God [who serves as] a mouth to manrsquo62
לעםאמראחרתופעםמהאלהיםושליחאנכיונביאעבדכיעצמועלמעידשהואועודאמרועודואדוניכםאדניייאתוראו פההשםשלחניהאלאבלמלבידברתילאכי
63לאדם
The study will focus on the arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity for which thediscussion of the following eight passages is relevant Matt 11ndash16 Matt313ndash17 Matt 41ndash11a Matt 1125ndash27 Matt 2636ndash40a (Mark 1432ndash37a40bndash41) Matt 2118ndash19 Matt 2816ndash19 and Matt 1230ndash32 The otherpassages are meant to demonstrate that Jesus contradicted the Mosaic Law orhimself Though Jacob ben Reuben does not fully explicate this eitherscenario implies that Jesus could not have been God for God cannot contra-dict his previous words (ie the Law of Moses) nor himself (as Jesus did)64
Many of the passages discussed here as well as those which are not consid-ered because they fall outside the range of this study will also be encounteredin later polemic works partially because of their dependence on Milḥamot ha-Shem
3 4 2 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Matt 11ndash16
After the introduction Jacob ben Reubenrsquos begins by citing Matthewrsquosgenealogy (Matt 11ndash16) which is then followed by various questions andcommentsAnd here indeed is truthfully the beginning of their New Testament I asked him about thisWhy does [the New Testament] mention Tamar the wife of Judah and not mention one ofthe wives of Abraham Isaac or Jacob Why does it mention Rahav the whore Ruth theMoabite and the wife of Uriah and not mention one of the other wives except for [thesewho] are flawed And how can you testify thus about your God Here you note his shortcom-ing for you recall those who are flawed and leave out the others who are worthy and just65
62 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 7863 Ibid 5464 The issue with Jesus and the Mosaic Law is thus related to the debate about the incar-
nation and Jesusrsquo divinity in that they both in some respect concern the immutability andtranscendence of God Of course to Christians Godrsquos transcendence and immutability couldnever be as absolute and exclusive (in an Aristotelian sense) as for Jews or Muslims if theman Jesus is taken to be God incarnate at least at some level God would be immanent andmutable And if Jesus is understood to introduce changes to the Law mdash any change for thatmatter mdash than he would stand for a move away from the transcriptions of what is consideredGod-given orthodoxy Whereas God cannot contradict himself Jesus is thus understood asboth contradicting himself and previous revelation
65 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 59
104 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
יהודהאשתתמרהזכירלמהזהעללוואשאלהחדשהעדותםראשיתבאמתהואכןוהנהואשתהמואביהורותהזונהרחבהזכירולמהויעקביצחקאברהםמנשיאחתהזכירולא
אתםואיךפסולתבהןשהיהבעבוראלהאםכיהאחריםמנשיאחתהזכירולאאוריההפגומותאלהאתזכרתםכי66עליועוןכמזכיראתםוהנהאלהותכםעלזהעדותמעידים67והישרות הכשרות האחרות והנחתם
Jacob ben Reuben highlights the four women in Jesusrsquo genealogy and inparticular Rahab ldquothe whorerdquo (הזונה) and Ruth ldquothe Moabitessrdquo68 He ques-tions how the ldquoflawedrdquo women ( פסולתבהןשהיה ) could be mentiond in Jesusrsquogenealogy yet the more admirable women were omitted69
Chazan felt that the argument here is directed at the ldquostorytelling style ofthe Gospel urging that in a general way it is morally deficientrdquo70 Yet Jacobben Reuben primarily argues here that 1) this ancestral flaw is unbecoming fora contender of divinity (ldquoHow can you testify thus about your Godrdquo) and 2)it is presumably deliberate of Matthew to ldquonote his shortcomingsrdquo ( עוןמזכירעליו lit ldquosininiquityrdquo) Levy comments here that ldquoplacing these women inJesusrsquos genealogy does not make his lineage holier Jesusrsquos past makes himmore pedestrian and less specialrdquo71 This however would ignore to someextent the context of the genealogy and Matthewrsquos intention After all Jesusis introduced as ldquoJesus Christ son of David son of Abrahamrdquo ( בןקרישטישו
אברהםבןדיד )72 which is then directly linked to the virgin birth in fulfillment
66 Lit ldquoHere you remember sin on himrdquo William Horbury suggested that this may hint atthe disgraceful title הנדה בן ממזר in Toledoth Yeshu
67 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 2968 Hans-Georg von Mutius discusses the Jewish exegesis of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-
Shem noting that also in Midr Tehillim 49 Davidrsquos Moabite ancestry is made an issue seeldquoBeitragrdquo 233 He further remarks that Jacob ben Reuben certainly would have been awarethat Ruth according to the text of Targum Ruth 315 was held to be ldquoStammutter des Mes-siaskoumlnigsrdquo ibid 233ndash34 n 8
69 The same argument is raised in Even Boḥan (see 641) In fact Shem Ṭov seems tolargely depend on Milḥamot ha-Shem here The very same argument also appears in muchearlier Christian sources in Ambrose of Milanrsquos commentary on Luke Exp Luc 317 weread ldquoFor many wonder why Matthew considered the inclusion of the commemoration ofTamar into the Lordrsquos genealogy a notorious woman in the opinion of many why also Ruthwhy also of that women who was Uriarsquos wife who when her husband was killed moved inwith David while especially Sarah and Rebecca and Rachel holy women where nowherementionedrdquo Plerique etiam mirantur cur Thamar mulieris famosae ut illis uidetur Matthaeusconmemorationem in dominica generatione contexendam putauerit cur etiam Ruth cur eiusquoque mulieris quae Vriae uxor fuit et occiso marito in Dauid nuptias commigrauit cumpraesertim Sarrae et Rebbecae et Rachel sanctarum feminarum nusquam fecerti mentionem(CCSL 1484)
70 Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 285 Levy agrees here with his doctoral supervi-sor see idem ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 143
71 Ibid 14372 Ibid 27
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 105
of Isaiah 714 (Matt 122ndash23)73 It would seem therefore more likely thatJacob ben Reuben did not want to question merely the style of the gospel butto emphasize Matthewrsquos authorial intention perhaps Matthew wanted todeliberately show that Jesus was lesser than God (although Matthew clearlyheld Jesus to be very special) Also in interpreting this in the sense that thereis ldquosin on himrdquo ( עליועון ) Jacob ben Reuben may have further intended to cri-tique the claim of Jesusrsquo sinlessness and consequently the notion of originalsin and penal substitution74
Thus the question is raised if Christians understand their own scripturesproperly His argument however is presented in a rather non-offensivemanner Where he could have been more explicit or derogatory he merelypoints out the apparent oddity of the genealogy and directs the Christian toquestion Jesusrsquo ancestry For example Jacob ben Reuben could have madethe case that the four women are a possible indicator to Jesusrsquo illegitimatebirth after all Mary is the fifth woman mentioned in Matthewrsquos genealogy(Matt 116)
The discussion here also differs from the discussion of the genealogy ofMatthew in QiṣṣaNestor There the four women are not mentioned at all andthe main critique in the subsequent comment is that Jesusrsquo lineage points toJoseph and not to Mary in fact her lineage is missing altogether in the
73 Perhaps Matthewrsquos inclusion of the four somewhat disreputable women in Matthewrsquosgenealogy was meant to address polemics attempting to disqualify Jesus as Messiah whichRaymond Brown has called a ldquocryptic apologeticrdquo Brown Birth of the Messiah 71ndash72These four women in the Davidic line would as such demonstrate that even if the circum-stances of Jesusrsquo birth were questionable this should not rule out Jesus as Messiah Cf thediscussion in Luz Matthew 1ndash7 83ndash85 also W D Davies and D C Allison The GospelAccording to Saint Matthew Volume I Commentary on Matthew The Gospel According toSaint Matthew IndashVII (ICC London TampT Clark 2004) 170ndash75 and Marshall D JohnsonThe Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special Reference to the Setting of the Genealo-gies of Jesus (SNTSM 8 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1969) 153ndash79 Morerecently Thomas P Osborne has proposed the interesting idea that the inclusion of the fourwomen has to be interpreted in light of the Mosaic law for if the Law had been applied intheir cases David after whom the whole genealogy is modeled would never have been bornsee idem ldquoLes femmes de la geacuteneacutealogie de Jeacutesus dans lrsquoevangile de Matthieu et lrsquoapplicationde la Torahrdquo Revue theacuteologique de Louvain 41 (2010) 243ndash58 On this see also the impor-tant study by Jason B Hood The Messiah His Brothers and the Nations (Matt 11ndash17)(LNTS 441 New York TampT Clark 2011) who surveys most if not all current interpreta-tions of these four (Tamar Rahab Ruth and Uriah[rsquos wife] see 89ndash138) and concludes thatthey have to be understood as ldquofour righteous praiseworthy Gentilesrdquo (159) which advancesMatthewrsquos conclusion in Matt 2816ndash20 that ldquothe nations become righteous and faithfulthrough submission and obedience to Judahrsquos royal sonrdquo (loc cit)
74 A topic that is also regularly discussed in the polemical discourses of the period seeeg Joel E Rembaum ldquoMedieval Jewish Criticism of the Christian Doctrine of Original SinrdquoAJSR 78 (198283) 353ndash82
106 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
gospels The argument in QiṣṣaNestor thus wants Joseph to be understoodas Jesusrsquo biological father75
Interestingly of the eight manuscripts of Milḥamot ha-Shem Levy con-sulted two append a discussion of Maryrsquos family line here76
Furthermore every daughter can [be] from the tribe of her father or from another tribe exceptfor the daughter who inherits [her fatherrsquos land] because of the land that ldquocannot be trans-ferred to another triberdquo (Numbers 369) Who will prove to us that she (Mary) was a daughterwho inherits the land Furthermore if she was a daughter who inherits the land who willprove that she was from the family of the son of David and [therefore] able to marry [into]one of the remaining families of Judah77
הנחלהבעבורנחלהירושתמבתהוץאחרלשבטאביהמשבטלהיותיכולהבתכלכיועודבתהיתההיאאםועודנחלהיורשתבתהיתהשהיאלנויוכיחומיאחרלמטהתסורשלא
משפחתמשארלאחדלהנשאיכולהכידודביתממשפחתשהיאיוכיחמינחלהיורשת78יהודה
The underlying argument disputes how Jesus could claim Messianic ancestrywhen only Jesusrsquo human father was known to be a descendant of David Howcould Jesus rightfully be considered the Messiah if Christians understand himas only biologically related to Mary79 Mary ought to have her own estab-lished Davidic genealogy which was an issue evidently encountered veryearly on in the Christian tradition The solution was to simply affirm thatMary was indeed from the house ldquoand seedrdquo of David80 This howevercreated the curious situation that the members of the same family clan wouldhave come to marry each other which already Eusebius of Caesareaexplained by alluding to Numbers 365ndash9 Accordingly Mary was able tomarry Joseph because she did not have any brothers and was as suchrequired to marry ldquowithin the familyrdquo and tribe to preserve the ancestral nameand inheritance This is then the argument which Milḥamot ha-Shem addres-ses as doubly insufficient Von Mutius proposes that he came to know aboutEusebiusrsquo assertion through the Latin version of Rufinus with which hisChristian dialogue partner would have been familiar81 However it is debat-able if this addition which only occurs in two manuscripts has its origin in
75 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect80 (see 252)76 In MS Vienna National Library Hebrew 119 and MS Oxford Bodleian Library 2146
(Venice 1625)77 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 59 n 4578 Ibid 29 n 10579 This has also been discussed by v Mutius ldquoBeitragrdquo 23480 See the discussion and footnotes in 252 above81 Mutius ldquoBeitragrdquo 234 See Eusebius Hist eccl 1717 ldquoAnd the lineage of Joseph
being thus traced Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him sinceaccording to the law of Moses intermarriages between different tribes were not permittedFor the command is to marry one of the same family so that the inheritance may not passfrom tribe to triberdquo (NPNF2 192)
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 107
Jacob ben Reuben Not only is it missing in the other manuscripts but theargument against Jesusrsquo messianic qualifications does not seem to fit with therest of the arguments made in chapter 11 It does however also appear inEven Boḥan82
3 4 3 Jesusrsquo Baptism Matt 313ndash17
After recounting Matt 313ndash17 Jacob ben Reuben commentsWe see that at the time of [his] baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon him but that beforethe baptism it was not in him How do you say that he himself was made from the Holy Spiritthat entered into the womb of his mother For if he was [created] from [the Holy Spirit] whywould he need another [spirit] at the time of baptism83
שהואאמרתםואיךבוהיהלאהטבילהקודםאךהקדשרוחעליוירדהטבילהבשעתנמצאהטבילהבשעתנצרךמדועממנוהיההואאםכיאמובמעישנכנסהקדשמרוחנעשהעצמו84לאחר
The argument juxtaposes the descent of the Spirit at Jesusrsquo baptism with thevirginal conception by the Spirit Jacob ben Reuben questions this from bothsides if the Holy Spirit descended on him because ldquobefore the baptism it wasnot in himrdquo why then the virginal conception And if the virginal conceptionby the the Holy Spirit were true ldquowhy would he need another at the time ofbaptismrdquo Levy understands the argument as a critique of the TrinityIf Jesus is God the Holy Spirit should have been within him in utero We see here that a spiritdescended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism (hellip) The Christians claim that Jesus was cre-ated by the Holy Spirit in Maryrsquos womb However another spirit descended at the time ofbaptism This only makes sense if the procreative spirit and by implication Jesus was notpart of the Trinity85
While Jacob ben Reubenrsquos comment can perhaps serve as a critique of theTrinity Levy appears to read too much into the rather terse argument86 First
82 See 64183 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 6084 Ibid 3185 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 8186 First Levyrsquos initial line ldquoif Jesus is God the Holy Spirit should have been within him
in uterordquo (italics original) is an interpretive decision that is not necessarily implied in theargument Likewise his comment ldquo[t]his only makes sense if the procreative spirit and byimplication Jesus was not part of the Trinityrdquo not only may misconstrue Jacob ben Reubenrsquosargument it is also not taking into account the Christian understanding Christian doctrineaffirms that the the Second Person of the Trinity ie the logos became incarnate not theHoly Spirit Further the man Jesus Christ still can be ldquoendowedrdquo or ldquoinhabitedrdquo by the theThird Person of the Trinity If the ldquoprocreative Spiritrdquo is understood here as the Holy Spiritone could posit a contradiction yet it is not a valid critique of the Trinity as Christians under-stand it but cf Hermas 565 Also Levyrsquos further comment is not necessarily implied byJacob ben Reubenrsquos argument ldquoJacob accepts that Jesus was divinely conceived which leads
108 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
one needs to decide if Jacob ben Reuben understood Jesus as being made fromthe Holy Spirit or by the Holy Spirit ( ממנומרוחנעשה ) Levy seems tosuggest that Jacob ben Reuben understood Christians to hold that Jesus wasmade out of the Holy Spirit In other words the Spirit that entered Maryrsquoswomb comprised the ldquostuffrdquo Jesus was generated from If so then this couldperhaps be seen a veiled critique of the Trinity Nevertheless the argumentwould then be based on the false assumption that Christians believed Jesuswas the Holy Spirit incarnate in which case it would be indeed redundant tobe filled with the Spirit again87 On the other hand Jacob ben Reuben maysimply have questioned how it could be that one who was made by the HolySpirit was later in need to be filled with the Holy Spirit again ( נצרךמדוע )which is not a straightforward critique of the Trinity It would mostly questionJesusrsquo character and by implication how Christians could think of him asdivine if he was potentially morally deficient88
him to assert that the descent of the Holy Spirit after Jesusrsquos baptism indicates that there wassomething wrong with the procreative spiritrdquo Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 89 see also 100
87 The early church interpreters dealt extensively with the issue of Jesusrsquo baptism and thequestion of why Jesus was baptized see Everett Ferguson Baptism in the Early ChurchHistory Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2009)esp 113ndash31 See also Davies and Allison Matthew 1ndash7 321ndash23 and Robert L Wilken ldquoTheBaptism of Jesus in the Late Fathersrdquo StPatr 11 (1972) 268ndash77 Already in Matthew 314ndash15 the issue is raised which shows that Jesusrsquo baptism was felt to be problematic from the thefirst century onwards (cf Justin Dial 884) In the second century Origen suggested thatJesus needed to be baptized to remove the stain () of his birth ldquoEvery soul that has beenclothed with a human body has its own lsquostainrsquo But Jesus was stained [through birth] throughhis own will because he had taken on a human body for our salvationrdquo Hom Luc 144 (GCS4986 FC 9457 see context) Jerome reports in Pelag 32 that the Hebrew gospel used bythe ldquoNazarenesrdquo included an exchange between Jesus and his family in which he explicitlydenied being in need of baptism ldquoBehold the mother of our Lord and His brethren said toHim John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins let us go and be baptized by him But Hesaid to them what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him Unlesshaply the very words which I have said are only ignorancerdquo (NPNF2 6472 emphasis mine)In contrast Ephrem affirms Jesusrsquo full humanity ldquolsquoJesus was about thirty yearsrsquo when hecame to be baptized This [was cause of] confusion for Marcion For if he had not assumed abody why should he have approached baptism A divine nature does not need to be baptizedDoes not the fact that he as thirty years old also disclose his humanityrdquo Commentary on theDiatessaron (ed McCarthy) IV sect1a 83 (emphasis mine) cf Irenaeus Haer 39 Even morecomparable to the Jewish argument above is a dialogue transmitted by Hegemonius (4th c)who reports that the Manichaeans suggested that Jesusrsquo baptism indicated that Jesus hadsinned see Acta Archelai 59 ldquoManes said lsquoTherefore did Christ sin because he was bap-tizedrsquordquo Mark J Vermes Acta Archelai (MaS 4 Turnhout Brepols 2001) 139 [the criticaltext can be found in Charles H Beeson Hegemonius Acta Archelai (Leipzig J C Hinrichs1906) 87] A similar argument also occurs in The Discussion of St Silvester in GeorgiusCedrenusrsquo (died c 1100) Historiam Compendium where Doeg the fifth Jew objects that theChrist should not be in need of baptism see Williams Adversus Judeaos 342
88 This is in fact how Nizzahon Vetus understood Jacob ben Reubenrsquos argument see
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 109
3 4 4 Jesusrsquo Temptation Matt 41ndash11a
Jacob ben Reuben then moves to discuss Jesusrsquo temptation AccordinglyJesus was led into the desert by ldquothe Spirit of Satanrdquo ( שטןברוח )89 which isfollowed by a translation of Matt 41ndash11 albeit without mentioning the angelswho served or fed (διακονεῖν) Jesus afterwards90 He then commentsWhat kind of praise is this to a divinity that he could fast for 40 days and 40 nights and thenbe famished Indeed Moses who was a prophet and not a god fasted for 40 days and 40nights and when he descended ldquofrom the mountain a ray of light was upon his facerdquo Furtherhow can he have responded to Satan ldquoMan does not live by bread alone rather man lives byall the utterances of Godrdquo If so he should have been able to satisfy himself by all of his [own]utterances or [even by eating] wood or stones91
ולאנביאשהיהמשהוהלאנרעבכךואחרלילהומיוםמבצומולאלוההזההשבחומההשטןאלהשיבאיךועודפניואורקרןההרמןירדכאשרלילהומיוםמצםאלוה לאכיאופיומוצאבכללהשביעלוהיהכןאםייפימוצאכלעלכיהאדםיחיהלבדוהלחםעל
92באבנים או בעצים
The argument is not finished here but moves into a discussion of Jesusrsquounderstanding of the Law where Jacob ben Reuben references severalpassages from the Hebrew Bible that demonstrate that it is permissible to testGod (Exod 41 1 Kings 1824 2 Kings 58 Mal 310 Judges 637 39)93 Theconclusion he wants to be drawn though this is not explicit is that Jesusrsquoresponse to Satan was not in accordance with the Hebrew Bible and Jesusrsquounderstanding of the Scriptures was evidently insufficient
What stands out in the argument above is that Jesus is less impressivewhen compared to Moses Where the latter descended from the mountain afterhis fast without making any mention of being hungry mdash instead Moses waseven radiant mdash Jesus in contrast was ldquofamishedrdquo 94(נרעב) Chazan notes that
543 Cf also Qiṣṣa sect60 ldquoHe was sullied by sins until Yaḥuā ibn Zacharia the Baptist cameand cleansed himrdquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 164 (cf also sect114) HoweverLevy is vindicated by Shem Ṭov who understands this passage as a critique of the Trinity see644 Also the idea expressed in Talmud and in the Toledoth Yeshu accounts that Jesus as בןwas illegitimate would correspond to this argument see Schaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud פנדרא
89 Levy ldquoChaper 11rdquo 31 6090 In QiṣṣaNestor sectsect142ndash145 the angels are also not mentioned but the account there is
more apocryphal and merely narrates the temptation scene without adding any kind ofcomment or argument see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 180ndash82 164 125ndash26275ndash78 108 129ndash30 On this cf Nestorius fr 24 (Loofs 333) and Theodore of MopsuestiaHom catech 1525
91 Slightly modified from Levy ldquoChaper 11rdquo 6192 Ibid 3293 See ibid 33ndash34 62ndash6394 The same argument is already raised by Ephrem ldquoWhy then does [Scripture] not indi-
cate concerning Moses or Elijah that they were hungry but it is written concerning out Lordthat he was hungry [This was] so that [Scripture] might confound those who say that the did
110 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
ldquoJacob juxtaposes the Exodus report on Moses atop Mount Sinairdquo thusimpliying ldquoa sense of disjuncture between the New Testament and the HebrewBiblerdquo95 Consequently Moses has to be understood as greater than JesusMore so if Jesus were God he should not feel hunger at all Furthermoreaccording to Jesusrsquo own appeal to Deuteronomy he should have been able tonourish himself either on his own divine utterances or by causing the trees tobear fruit or by changing the stones into food ( באבניםאובעצים ) Levy makesthis even more explicitIf Jesus were divine he should have said lsquoMan lives by all of my utterancesrsquo As a divinityJesus should have referred to himself appealing to the word of God is an indication that Jesuswas not divine96
Since Jesus did not do any of this he cannot be God thus the Gospel ofMatthew portrays him as merely human Jacob ben Reubenrsquos argument looksimpressive but he also misses or purposely neglects Matthewrsquos point alto-gether Jesus who is clearly marked out at this stage as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo(Matt 43 6) and who later is being served by angels (Matt 411) is chal-lenged to act independently from God Also the Christian understanding ofthe two natures of Christ is completely ignored97 This is not to detract fromthe fact that this pericope posed difficulties for the early church interpretersTheir explanation of the temptation often downplayed the physical aspects ofthe narrative and made the temptation less acute for Jesus98
3 4 5 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Matt 1125ndash27
Right in the midst of discussing Jesus relationship to the Law we find acritique of the Trinity based on Matt 1125ndash27
not assume a body (hellip)rdquo Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed McCarthy) IV sect7 86 Inter-estingly Theodore of Mopsuestia turned this comparison around ldquoThere is an important dif-ference between Jesus on the one side and Moses with Elijah on the other Neither Moses norElijah was tempted after the fasting period On the contrary Christ fasted and was put on trialby the devil It was not granted to Moses and Elijah to be tempted speculates Theodore ofMopsuestia for they were chosen for smaller services but the Saviour who came to defeatdeath and to annul the previous decision had to be temptedrdquo Veselin Kesich ldquoThe Anti-ocheans and the Temptation Storyrdquo StPatr 7 (1966) 496ndash502 here 499 cf Theodore ofMopsuestia In Evangelium Lucae Commentarii Fragmenta 4 (PG 66720)
95 Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 284ndash8596 Levy ldquoChaper 11rdquo 9097 See the discussion under 54498 See Klaus Peter Koumlppen Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter Besonderer
Beruumlcksichtigung der alten Kirche (BGBE 4 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1961) also KesichldquoThe Antiocheans and the Temptation Storyrdquo and idem ldquoHypostatic and Prosopic Union inthe Exegesis of Christrsquos Temptationrdquo St Vladimirrsquos Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965) 118ndash37See also Luz Matthew 1ndash7 153ndash55
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 111
And if he is God when you said how he confessed before his Father and indeed [when] yousay that everything that is the Father is the Son and everything that is the Son is the Fatherand the Holy Spirit this is evidence of a lie by you If everything was delivered to him by hisFather it follows that he lacks knowledge by himself for there is nothing in his speech or hislanguage except for what his Father teaches him99
שהואמהכלכיאומריםאתםוהלאאביולפנימתודההיהאיךאמרתםכאשראלוההואואםואםפניכםעלשקרעדותמעידזהנמצאוהרוחהאבהואהבןשהואמהוכלהבןהואהאבמהאךולשונובפיוכלאיןכימעצמוידיעהמחוסרשהואנמצאמאביואליונמסרדברכל
100אביו שלמדו
Jacob ben Reuben wants to show that Jesusrsquo confession (מתודה) to the Fatherindicates that there is a distinction between Jesus and the Father More so thecontent of the prayer demonstrates to ben Reuben that Jesus has been givenknowledge 101(ידיעה) which he presumably did not have in himself Matt1127a is thus understood to mean that a special kind of knowledge from theFather was imparted to Jesus (v 27b) What Jesus teaches about the Fatherconsequently has been given to him ( אביושלמדו ) It follows that the trinitari-an belief ldquothat everything that is the Father is the Son and everything that isthe Son is the Fatherrdquo is false If everything that belongs to the Father belongsto the Son and vice versa then there should be no need for the Father to giveanything to the Son Jesus should ldquoby naturerdquo know what God knows
But once again the Christian understanding of the two natures of Christ isnot taken into account102 In fact Jacob ben Reubenrsquos argument at least inthis chapter of Milḥamot ha-Shem would only ldquoworkrdquo against Modalistic
99 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 65100 Ibid 37ndash38101 The translation of Matt 1127 does not use ידיעה but הכיר ldquoNo one recognized the
Son except for the Father and the Father recognized no one except for the Sonrdquo ( אדםושוםהבןאםכיאדםשוםהכירלאוהאבהאבאםכיהבןהכירלא ) Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 37
Cf ldquonemo novit Filium nisi Pater neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filiusrdquo (Vg) and ldquoκαὶ οὐδεὶςἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸςrdquo(NA27) In Matthewrsquos gospel the verb ἐπιγινώσκω denotes recognition or perception ofsomething cf Matt 716 20 1127 1435 and 1712 It is thus debatable if Jesus is speakingin Matt 1127 of a god-given knowledge which he previously did not possess Rather itseems more likely that he is saying that he is the only one who recognizes and perceives theFather clearly something which he alone is able and willing to reveal to others (καὶ ᾧ ἐὰνβούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι) Jesus would thus actually stand on the side of God morethan on the side of man This is also how the early church understood the passage see LuzMatthew 8ndash20 164ndash70 See also William D Davies and Dale C Allison The Gospel Accord-ing to Saint Matthew Volume II Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIIIndashXVIII (ICCLondon TampT Clark 2004) 281ndash87 see esp the extensive bibliography on the passage 297ndash302
102 The evangelists probably intentionally seeks to compare Jesus with Moses in Matt1125ndash30 by means of Exod 3311ndash23 Num 121ndash8 and Deut 349ndash12 see Dale C AllisonThe New Moses A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1993) 218ndash33
112 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
Docetist or MonoMiaphysite Christologies which means that his argumentultimately falls short in the later European context Even if Jesus was ignorantand received divine knowledge this would pose no immediate difficulties to aChalcedonian understanding of Jesus nor does it necessarily contradict trini-tarian thinking
3 4 6 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash37a 40bndash41 par Matt 2636ndash40a 45
Next to Jesusrsquo attitude to the Law the most extensively discussed passage inthe whole of chapter 11 is Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane Already in QiṣṣaNestor the Gethsemane scene was recognized103 but for Jacob ben Reuben thepassage becomes central in his critique of Christianity He utilizes the peri-cope to make a whole set of arguments against the belief in the divinity ofJesus
He starts by citing the passage which is closer to the text of Markrsquos gospel(Mark 1432ndash37a 40bndash41) than to Matthew (Matt 2636ndash40a 45) mdash thoughthe translation is dissimilar to both104
103 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect53 and sectsect139ndash141 (see 2515) cf also the discussions in Yosefha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20) Nizzahon Vetus sect176 (see 5412) Even Boḥan sect53(see 6419) and Ḥizzuq Emunah (see 843 and 8411) Matt 2639 is also briefly mentionedin a Muslim polemic In a work attributed to Al-Ghazālī (1058ndash1111 CE though it is dis-puted if he is the author) titled Al-radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat lsquoĪsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīl (ldquoThe fittingrefutation of the divinity of Jesus through what is evident in the Gospelrdquo) the argument ismade that Jesus expresses here that his will and Godrsquos will are different (the same argumentdoes not occur in this form in Milḥamot ha-Shem but in later Jewish works) See RobertChidiac Al Ghazali Une Reacutefutation excellente de la diviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ drsquoapregraves lesEgravevangile (Bibliothegraveque de lrsquoEcole des Hautes Eacutetudes Sciences religieuses 54 Paris Leroux1939) 23 (f 19r) The English translation of this passage (though only a paraphrase) can befound in J Windrow Sweetman Islam and Christian Theology A Study of the Interpretationof Theological Ideas in the two Religions Part 2 Volume 1 (London Lutterworth 1955)277 the German in Franz-Elmar Wilms AlndashGhazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu (LeidenBrill 1966) 76 See also Maha El Kaisy-Friemuth ldquoAl-Ghazālīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations(Brill Online 2012) idem ldquoAl-radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat lsquoĪsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīlrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online 2012) and idem ldquoAl-radd al-jamīl Ghazālīrsquos or pseudoGhazālīrsquosrdquo in The Bible in Arab Christianity (ed D Thomas Leiden Brill 2007) 275ndash95
104 Matthew appears to be weaker than some of the drastic language of Mark ldquoἐκ-θαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖνrdquo (Mark 1433) (cf ldquoλυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖνrdquo in Matt 2637)where Jesus falls on the ground to pray ldquoἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆςrdquo (Mark 1435) he only fallslsquoon his facersquo ldquoἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦldquo (Matt 2639) In Mark Jesus prays ldquoAbbaFather All things are possible for Theerdquo (ἀββα ὁ πατήρ πάντα δυνατά σοι Mark 1435)which does not appear in Matthew In Mark we read the plea ldquoRemove this cup from Merdquo(παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾿ ἐμο Mark 1436) in Matthew we find the perhaps lessdesperate ldquolet this cup pass from merdquo (παρελθάτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο Matt2639) On this see also Luz Matthew 21ndash28 393ndash94 The passage in Milḥamot ha-Shem issimilar to the Gospel of Mark in that the three disciples are named (though Peter is referred tohere as Simon Kepha cf Mark 1433) then Jesus likewise fell to the ground and the disci-
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 113
And it came to pass that when Jesus and his disciples came to Gethsemane he said to his dis-ciples ldquoSit here while I go and prayrdquo Three went with him Simon Kepha James and JohnHe began to shake and he was very afraid He said to them ldquoMy soul is saddened to [thepoint of] death Support me in thisrdquo He passed from there And he fell to the ground and heprayed saying ldquoMy Father may you pass the cup of death from me but it will not happenapart from your willrdquo He returned to his disciples and found them sleeping they did notknow to how to respond to Jesus He said ldquoReturn it is the time that the Son of Man will begiven to the hand of the wickedrdquo105
לתלמידיוויאמרשמניםגיאעדתלמידיועםישובאכאשרויהיה אלךעדבזהלישבומאדומתפחדמרעידלהיותויחלויוחנןויעקבכיפהשמעוןהשלשהעמווילכוואתפללאליהםויאמר ויתפללארצהפניוויפולמשםויעבורבזהליהשענומותעדנפשיעצבהויאמר תלמידיואלוישבברצונךאםכייהיהלאאבלמעליהמותכוסהעבראתהאבי
ויאמרדברישואללהשיבידעוולאישניםוימצאם בידאדםבןינתןאשרהעתהיהשבו106מרעים
Jacob ben Reuben begins his critique by pointing out that Jesusrsquo prayer to theFather by itself demonstrates that Jesus is not God According to Job 2228Jesus ought to be able to just decree what he desires yet he prays and begs(להתחנן)If this your messiah is a divinity before whom did he pray and who required him to beg Isit not written ldquoYou will decree and it will be established to yourdquo [Job 2228]107 And it iswritten ldquoYou do and you say and it is establishedrdquo108
כתובוהלאלהתחנןהצריכוומימתפללהיהמילפניאלוההואמשיחכםזהואם ותגזר109ומקיים ומדבר ועושה אומי וכת לך ויקם אומר
The second argument moves from the absence of divine authority in Jesus tothe weakness of his human existence Ben Reuben wonders how Jesus asGod could experience fear which is an argument that is heightened by histranslationNow he shakes and is afraid Who has seen a divinity like this that shakes and is afraid Yourespond to us about this [by saying] that the flesh shook but that the soul was on the level ofdivinity If so why did he say to his disciples ldquoMy soul is saddened to [the point of] deathrdquo
ples did not know how to reply (cf Mark 1440b) The most intriguing difference is that Jesusldquobegan to shake and he was very afraidrdquo ( מאדומתפחדמרעידלהיותויחל emphasis mine)This however might originate in the Latin for the Vulgate reads for Mark 1433 ldquoet coepitpavere et taedererdquo
105 Modified from Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 69106 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 43 Cf the last line to Jacob ben Reuben Milḥamot ha-Shem
(Rosenthal) 150 מרעים ביד אדם בן ינתן אשר העת הגיע כי ויאמר 107 In other words Job 2228 should have been fulfilled by Jesus Perhaps there is an
implicit contrast with Moses and Jewish pious figures here Cf Irving Jacob The MidrashicProcess Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press 1995) 183ndash84 where Job 2228 is applied to Moses and Honi ha-Malsquoagel
108 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 70109 Ibid 43
114 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
Furthermore there is no madman or simpleton in the world who does not know that sadnessdoes not apply to flesh unless felt in the soul It is impossible for one to suffer and the othernot to suffer110
עלאותנומשיביםואתםונפחדנרעדשהיהכזהאלוהראהומיומתפחדמריעדהיהועתהלתלמידיואמרלמההואכןואםהאלהותבמדרגתהיתההנפשאבלנרעדהיהשהבשרזה
אםלבשרעצבוןשאיןידעשלאבעולםופתימשוגעשאיןועודמותעדנפשיעצבה111נכאב אינו והאחר נכאב האחד להיות אפשר-ואי הנפש בהרגשת
Jacob ben Reuben expresses his surprise over how Jesus could actually beafraid even be seen as someone shaking with fear which is an argumentalready made by Celsus112 To him it is unthinkable to say that God couldexperience fear113 He also is acquainted with a Christian response to thisobjection that this is only a matter of Jesusrsquo flesh (human nature) and that hissoul was nevertheless tranquil114 This he quickly counters with Jesusrsquo own
110 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 70111 Ibid 44112 In Origen Cels 224 ldquoAfter this he [Celsus] wants to argue that the things that hap-
pened to Jesus were painful and grievous and that it was impossible for him to prevent thembeing so even if he had desired saying Why then does he utter loud laments and wailingsand pray that he may avoid the fear of death saying something like this lsquoO Father if this cupcould pass by mersquordquo (Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum 88 italics original) see alsoWilliams Adversus Judeaos 87
113 Jesusrsquo fear was already an issue in QiṣṣaNestor (see sect5 sect28sect 60 sect108 sect148) and itis also a frequent point of debate in other polemical works
114 This (Christian) answer would be in line with the so-called logos-sarx understandingof Jesus which resurfaces also in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne sect9 (see 4513) and Nizzahon Vetussect176 sect178 sect181 (see 5410 12 13) cf also Saadia Gaon The Book of Belief and Opinions(ed Rosenblatt) 109 As such the logos is seen to take the place of the soul in Jesus thusbeing clothed in a human shell (sarx) devoid of a human soul which in its more extreme formwas professed by Apollinarius of Laodicea (c 310ndashc 390 CE) Thus Jesusrsquo inner being (hisldquosoulrdquo) would have been unaffected This particular understanding of Jesus ultimately fellinto disfavor because it meant that Jesus was not fully human lacking a human soul See egKelly Early Christian Doctrines 289ndash309 In fact Sefer ha-Berit shows a superior but ulti-mately similar understanding in this respect to Milḥamot ha-Shem ldquoI ask you about the fol-lowing matters Was the Divinity which became incarnate in Maryrsquos womb itself the soul[נשמה] of Jesus or did he have another soul like other mortals If you say that he had no soulother than the Divinity which became incarnate though there was in the flesh a life force[ חיותנפש ] other than the Divinity ie the blood which is [also] in beasts and fowl then theDivinity did not enter a man but an animal Furthermore since he had no rational soul[נשמת־אדם] other than the Divinity to whom did the Divinity shout when he shouted MyGod my God why have you forsaken me (Ps 222) How is it that he could not save himselfand that he shouted to another If you say that he had like other mortals a spirit whichascends on high in addition to the Divinity which dwelt in him then Jesus is like any otherman in his body and soul He is neither God nor the son of God but the divinity adhered[דבק] to him This passed on and his spirit and soul went to Paradise or Gehenna like thesouls of the righteous or the wicked This Jesus is neither God nor the son of God by virtue ofthe Divinity which entered himrdquo Talmage The Book of the Covenant 38ndash39 [Hebr ed pp
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 115
words His ldquosoul is saddened to the point of deathrdquo and moreover soul andflesh cannot be divided in such manner anyway fear is a holistic experienceIn other words Jesus really experienced fear it follows that Jesus is passible
This then would be the first instance in chapter 11 where ben Reubenengages in some sense with a more Christian understanding of Jesus115 Itshows some awareness that certain features of Jesusrsquo life were understoodaccording to his human nature (הבשר) and some according to his divinenature Jesusrsquo fear is attributed to the flesh ( נרעדהיההבשר ) while Jesusrsquo soulwas presumably unaffected since it was part of divine nature ( היתההנפשאבל
האלהותבמדרגת ) In this respect Jacob ben Reubenrsquos response is very aptBased on a close reading of the text (Mark 1434 par Matt 2638) he pointsout that Jesusrsquo soul cannot be attributed to his divine nature since Jesus statedthat his ldquosoul is saddened to the point of deathrdquo Jesus really was afraid Infact early church interpreters had in like fashion emphasized this verse andin particular the suffering of Jesusrsquo soul to counter Docetist tendencies and toemphasize that Jesus was truly human116 However Jacob ben Reubenrsquos
30ndash31] Thus Joseph Qimḥi likewise seems to suggest that incarnation can only be under-stood along the logos-sarx trajectory ie the Divinity as ldquoenfleshedrdquo in the form of Jesuswhereas his second option that the Divine aspect ldquostuck tordquo [דבק] a fully human Jesus doesnot allow one to deduce that Jesus as person was equal with God in other words that whichis vere homo for Qimḥi cannot be vere Deus Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq essentially repeats the sameargumentation here ldquoI ask further Did he pray for the salvation of his flesh or of his divinityIf you say the flesh then his prayer was of no avail If you say the divinity divinity needs nosalvation I ask you further When he was shouting for salvation could he save himself ornot If you say that he could he is to be considereda fool for whoever can save himself doesnot shout for salvation by someone else If he could not save himself and shouts he is to beconsidered a weakling Now since you say that his divine nature united with the flesh all ofhim [including] his divinity weakened He cannot be partly weak and partly strong since hewas of compound nature I ask you further If he had a soul like the soul of other humanbeings then Jesus and his soul are to be considered human There is no difference betweenhim and anyone else for the divinity which entered him had already parted [from him] Jesusis no God for the divine nature had departed and the body remained inanimate like othercorpses If however you say that Jesus had no soul other than his divine essence thenaccording to your words his divine essence was seeking aid Yet it is not fitting to say thatthe divinity seeks aid since He aids others and not vice versa Heaven forbidrdquo see TalmageldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 338 [f 13v]
115 Cf Sefer ha-Berit which offers a different argument instead ldquoFurther how [could] hepray to his father that that he might not die saying You are my father If it is possible take thecup of death from me Let this be only in accord with your will [cf Matt 2639] Now if heprayed with respect to the [salvation of his] flesh his prayer was not accepted he was not tobe considered a righteous man (hellip) Further if he prayed with respect to [his] divinity theDivinity needs no help from others (Heaven forbid) but is a help to othersrdquo Talmage TheBook of the Covenant 77 [Hebr ed pp 64ndash65]
116 Eg Ephrem wrote ldquolsquoMy soul is sorrowfulrsquo he said and was not ashamed for he wassincere he who hid nothing beneath deceptive appearance [This was] to show that he had
116 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
riposte is ultimately insufficient to engage with a full exposition of the doc-trine of the two-natures of Christ Of course that is not to say the passage waseasy to deal with for Christians to the contrary117 Even if one assigns allhuman emotion and aspects of passability to Jesusrsquo human nature on a ratio-nal level Jacob ben Reubenrsquos objection ultimately stands While the doctrineof the two-natures ldquoprotectsrdquo the divine nature from the attribution of anychange or limitation Jesus as one person still experienced fear118 The fre-quent discussion of the Gethsemane pericope in Jewish polemic works isthus by no means unwarranted
The third argument is that Jesus is unable to help himselfFurthermore he testifies about himself that he does not possess the ability to save his fleshand his soul because he said in his prayer ldquoIf you are able pass the cup of death from meBut whatever will happen will only happen according to your willrdquo It follows that the abilityand the will [belong] to the Father not to him But you say that he and his Father are equal119
אמרשכןנפשואתולאבשרואתלאלהושיעבידוהיכולתשאיןעצמועלמעידשהואועודבתפילתו נמצאברצונךאםכייהיהלאאבלמעלימותכוסהעבריכולכלאתהאבי120שוים ואביו שהוא אומרים ואתם לו לא לאביו והרצון שהיכולת
This by implication means Jesus lacks divine ability Jesusrsquo request to theFather shows that he does not have the capability to save himself ldquoIt followsthat the ability and the desire [belong] to the Father not to him But you saythat he and his Father are equalrdquo The argument is essentially very similar tothe first as it again points out that Jesus lacks divine attributes ie divinepower Accordingly the Christian belief in the Trinity is understood as clearlywrong Father and Son are not equal
The fourth argument Jacob ben Reuben attaches to this pericope is linkedto the difference between Jesusrsquo and Godrsquos will If Jesus as God wanted tosave mankind why does he appear so reluctant to carry it outIt is indicated in your teaching that Jesus willingly received all of these misfortunes for thesake of saving his children Now if Jesus willingly accepted [them] what [for] are the suppli-cations that he entreated If it was not his intention to accept all of this why did he not savehis body For he said to the disciples ldquoThe soul is realized121 but the flesh is weakrdquo It fol-lows that he lacked the strength to sustain his flesh We have seen from Hananiah Mishael
clothed himself with weak flesh and was united to a soul capable of sufferingrdquo Commentaryon the Diatessaron (ed McCarthy) XX sect1 292 See also Justin Dial 992 1038 IrenaeusHaer 3222 Origen Cels 29
117 For the history of interpretation of the entire pericope and the divergent Christianunderstanding of the passage see esp Luz Matthew 21ndash28 398ndash409
118 On this see esp Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7312)119 Modified from Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 70120 Ibid 44121 This is Levyrsquos rendering of מקויימיתהרוח Perhaps better would be ldquoconfirmedrdquo
ldquoestablishedrdquo or ldquofirmrdquo the Vg has promptus here
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 117
and Azariah in the oven [that] ldquoTheir hair on their heads was not singed their clothes werenot damaged and the smell of fire had not passed over themrdquo This one did not save his bodyeven from hunger or from any misfortune or grief For when the first misfortune descendedupon him he died immediately122
מהקבלברצונוואםבניואתהושיעלמעןברצוןישוקיבלהאלההצרותכלכיבפירושונמצאאתהציללאמדועזאתכלאתלקבלבדעתוהיהלאואםמתהנןהיהאשרהאלההתחנוים
לתלמידיואמשכךגופו בשרולתמוךכחלוהיהשלאנמצאחלשוהבשרמקויימיתהרוחלאוסרבלתהוןאתחרךלאראשהוןשעראשרהאשבכבשןועזריהמישאלמחנניהוראינובהגיעכיויגוןצרהמכלולאמרעבאפיגופואתהציללאוזהבהוןעדתלאנורוריחשנו
123מת מיד אליו הראשונה
Jacob ben Reuben starts out by interacting with the Christian teaching(בפירוש) that ldquoJesus willingly received all of these misfortunes for the sake ofsaving his childrenrdquo124 He attacks this belief with the question why Jesus ifit was his intention to be a savior entreated God to deliver him from hisdestiny Moreover how can Jesus be said to willingly accept suffering if he isdepicted by Matthew to be reluctant at first This then primarily underminesChristian soteriology Christian belief is consequently at odds with ChristianScripture which of course raises the further question whether other aspects ofChristian belief are likewise inconsistent
Not surprisingly the next question though more polemical in characteraddresses Jesusrsquo divinity if Jesus did not want to endure the passion why didhe not just miraculously save himself This is interpreted as a further indica-tor that he lacked divine ability Jesusrsquo remark to Peter (Mark 1438 par Matt2641) ldquothe soul is realized (fulfilled) but the flesh is weakrdquo ( מקויימיתהרוח
חלשוהבשר )125 was evidently understood to mean that Jesus ldquolacked thestrength to sustain his fleshrdquo which again proves that Jesus is not God If Godldquowas insiderdquo Jesus would not need to call on the Father to make his flesh fall
122 Modified from Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 71123 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 46124 In chapter 1 of Milḥamot ha-Shem the Christian elaborates on the reason for the incar-
nation ldquoHe [God] saw and knew and understood everything that was under the sun (even)before it existed and he realized that there is no possibility to rescue the world from thehands of Satan other than to pass through the womb of a young woman mdash who was a virginwhile she was pregnant with him and even after he came out her virginity was not ruined mdashand he saw that there was no (other) right thing (he could do) to save the world (hellip)rdquo mytranslation based on the text of Rosenthalrsquos edition 11 The ldquoJew argues that God could savehumanity in a less demeaning manner The Christian states that the incarnation was for apurpose achievable in no other way God need not have redeemed humanity but once hedecided to do so there was no other way than through incarnation All of this recallsAnselmrsquos discussions in Cur Deus homo discussions that may have influenced or been influ-enced by Gilbert Crispin and Odo of Tournairdquo Daniel J Lasker ldquoJewish-Christian Polemicsat the Turning Pointrdquo 171
125 The Latin reads here ldquospiritus quidem promptus est caro autem infirmardquo (Vg) theGreek ldquoτὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενήςrdquo (NA27)
118 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
in line with his wishes This is particularly evident when one compares Jesusto Hananiah Mishael and Azariah (Daniel 31ndash30) Whereas they were savedby God ldquothis one did not save his body even from hunger or from any mis-fortune or grief For when the first misfortune descended upon him he diedimmediatelyrdquo The contrast between these three and Jesus shows that Jesuswas lesser than they while it also implies that God did not answer Jesusrsquoprayer
As a result Jesus cannot be taken to be divine since he hungered experi-enced human grief and pain but more so because he was ultimately power-less and in the end not even saved from his ordeal
3 4 7 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Matt 2118ndash19
The Gethsemane discussion is followed by briefly recounting Jesusrsquo cursingof the fig tree in Matt 21 Jacob ben Reuben adds a single questionIf he is a divinity how did he not know from his place that there was no fruit there126
127פרי שם שאין ממקומו ידע לא איך אלוה הוא ואמ
The polemic potential of this scene in the gospels had already been noticed byearlier and later polemics128 The same argument in fact is found in an earliertext attributed to Al-Ghazālī (on Mark 1112) Jesus did not know about theabsence of figs on the tree since God is all-knowing Jesus is evidently notGod129 Also the discussion in much earlier Christian commentaries showsthat the entire passage was understood to be problematic in particular becauseof the display of Jesusrsquo hunger (which ben Reuben does not address)130
Then Jacob ben Reuben adds to the already established argument anotherwhich is meant to show that Jesus is inconsistent Then after he went there needlessly why did he get angry at the tree and curse it and cause itto wither Indeed he command lsquoLove your enemies and do good to your foes pray for himand bless your godrsquo This tree did not sin towards him at all and did not send for him to mock
126 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 72127 Ibid 46128 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410) and Even Boḥan sect13 (see 6416)129 See Chidiac Une Reacutefutation excellente de la diviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ 18 (ff 14vndash
15r) J Windrow Sweetman Islam and Christian Theology 21 274 and Wilms AlndashGhazālīsSchrift Wider Gottheit Jesu 71ndash72
130 See the Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed McCarthy) XVI sect1 243 but cf also thealternate explanations Ephrem gives for the passage ibid sectsect2ndash5 243ndash45 In sect3 he writesldquoThe fact that he was hungry can be attributed to the body that is whenever the [divine]power wished it But how could he who was informed concerning the hidden things of theheart have looked for fruit at an inopportune time Understand therefore that it was notbecause of hunger that he cursed the fig treerdquo (244 emphasis mine) In Christian tradition thefig tree was often interpreted to symbolize Israel see Luz Matthew 21ndash28 21ndash22
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 119
him saying lsquoCome to me and eat my fruitrsquo why did your messiah punish it in this way Hecontradicted his actions with every pressure that came upon him He was unable to maintainconsistencyrsquo131
צוההואוהלאויינשהואותווקללהעץעלכעסלמהבחנםשםשהלךואחרי אויביכםאהבוולאמאומהאליופשעלאאשרהעץוזהאלהיכםאתוברכועליווהתפללולשונאיםוהטיבולאמרבולהתלוצץבעדושלח וסתרככהמשיחכםאליושלםמהעלפריילאכולאליבא132אחת דרך אל לעמוד יכול ואין אליו הבא אונס כל על מעשיו את
Jesusrsquo self-contradiction and the discrepancy between his words (cf Matt544) and deeds are understood as undermining his character and by implica-tion any claim of divinity There is however no indication here that benReuben also meant to object to the churchrsquos attitude toward the Jews inas-much as the symbolism of cursing a fig tree and the connection to Jesusrsquocommand to love onersquos enemies could be understood this way133 It mayperhaps be a veiled attempt to point out that it is not just Jesus who is incon-sistent when it comes to enemy love but that is by no means certain
3 4 8 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Matt 2816ndash20a
Immediately after this ben Reuben cites Matt 2816ndash20a and then raises thequestionAnd now how did he say ldquoKingship of the heavens and the earth has been given to merdquoWho gave [the kingship] to him You said that he is God and Lord How can you say that hisFather is the giver [of kingship] Indeed you have said that he and his Father are equal134
אמראיךועתה ואיךואדוןאלוהשהואאמרתםלונתנהומיוארץשמיםמלכותלינתונה135שוים ואביו שהוא אמרתם והלא הנותן הוא אביו כי תמארו
Having earlier questioned Jesusrsquo limited knowledge here Jesusrsquo limitedauthority is in view The argument inevitably is directed against the Trinity136
If Jesus was given kingship (מלכות) by the Father it was consequently notinherent to him It follows that the Father and the Son are not equal one is the
131 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 72132 Ibid 46133 Citing Deut 2419ndash20 (Lev 199ndash10) Ephrem explained that the cursing of the tree
occurred because ldquothe owner of the tree did not obey the Law but spurned itrdquo since ldquohe hadleft [nothing] for the orphan and widowsrdquo Commentary on the Diatessaron (ed McCarthy)XVI sect1 243 but cf also the alternate explanations he gives for the passage ibid sectsect2ndash5243ndash45 The fact that Ephrem so thoroughly discussed the passage shows that he clearly feltthe need to address various objections and interpretations
134 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 73135 Ibid 48136 Though it may relate to a more Johannine understanding since it focuses on the rela-
tionship of Jesus with God as ldquoFatherrdquo and ldquoSonrdquo cf ldquothe Father and the Son are equalrdquo( שוים ואביו שהוא אמרתם הלא ) to John 1038 147ndash10 see also 345 above
120 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
giver the other the recipient of authority This then touches the issue of howJesus could be subordiante to the Father if he is supposedly equal to him137
3 4 9 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1230ndash32
After once more discussing Jesusrsquo statements as incosistent and self-refuting(comparing Matt 1521ndash25 to Matt 1811ndash13 and 1310 12ndash15) Jacob benReuben returns to discuss the Trinity He provides a translation of Matt1230ndash32 (parr Mark 328ndash29 Luke 1210) where Jesus explains that sinningagainst the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and then asksNow tell me since you say that the Father and the Spirit are one entity and of equal intendSo here is a person who mocks the Father the Son and the Spirit and he does not think inhis heart that any one of these three is a divinity Now the Father and the Son forgive him butthe Spirit does not forgive him Now how does the forgiveness of the Father and the Sonprofit this one when the Spirit does not forgive him Or what harm will come to him sincethe two forgive when the third does not forgive him Where will his soul be in heaven or inhell If it is in heaven it follows that the Holy Spirit lacks the strength to take vengeanceupon him If it is in hell it follows that the Father and the Son lack the strength to save him Ifthe three of them are one it follows that a piece [of the Trinity] forgives and a piece does notforgive138
עלהלעיגאדםוהנהשוהורצוןאחדישותוהרוחהאבכיאומריםשאתםאחריליאמורועתהלופפרווהבןהאבוהנהאלוהיהיהאלהמשלששאחדבלבומחשבואינווהרוחוהבןהאבלוישהיזקמהאולוכפרלאשהרוחוהבןהאבכפרתלזההועילמהועתהלוכפרלאהרוחבגהינםאועדןבגןנפשותהיהואיפהלומכפראינוהשלישי]אם[אוהשניםלושכפרואחדשאיןנמצאבגהינםתהיהואםממנולהנקםהקדשלרוחכחשאיןנמצאעדןבגןתהיהאם139מכפר אינו וקצתו מכפר קצתו נמצא אחד שלשתם ואם להושיע ולבן לאב לבי כח
A hypothetical situation is given in which a person blasphemes against theTrinity the Father and the Son forgives yet the Holy Spirit according toJesusrsquo words does not140 It follows that the persons of the Trinity are at odds
137 A similar argument appears in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq where it is assumed that Jesusquoted Psalm 28 ldquoFurther when He said lsquoAsk of Me and I will give the nations for yourinheritancersquo if he [Jesus] referred to the flesh the nations were not his inheritance For in histime he neither ruled nor governed but was persecuted by his enemies and fled to Egyptwhere he was detained for thirty years There he learned most of the Egyptian arts When hereturned from there he worked those deeds which are described in your books Now it isknown to all who are learned in the Torah of Moses that all the signs and wonders Moses per-formed by the Egyptians [also] mdash with the exception of that of the lice which they could notduplicate However if he said lsquoI will give the nations for your inheritancersquo with reference tohis divinity such a notion is unacceptable For all the world is in His possession since He isCreator and [the Father] could not say lsquoI shall giversquo except concerning that which [the Son]did not haverdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 338ndash39 [f 13vndash14r]
138 The translation has been modified cf Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 75ndash76139 Ibid 51140 A similar but also more elaborate argument appears in Nestor sect28a (not in Qiṣṣa)
34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem 121
with themselves and appear not to be ldquoone entity ( אחדישות ) and of equalintend ( שוהרצון )rdquo The blasphemer is either destined for heaven in whichcase the Father and Son are stronger than the Holy Spirit or if the blasphe-mer were to go to hell the Father and Son would be weaker and lesser thanthe Spirit Jacob ben Reuben sees a discrepancy with the Christian creedwhichever way the situation is resolved The three persons of the Trinitycannot be equal when Jesus makes an apparent qualitative distinction betweenthem in Matthew 12 mdash which indeed is a fascinating argument It followsthat Christian belief and Jesusrsquo words are inconsistent
Interestingly the passage is not part and parcel of the Muslim polemic tra-dition141 at least as far as I can tell nor does this particular polemic argumentexplicitly appear in earlier Christian discussions or treatments142 Although
ldquoInform me now what you would say about a man who cursed the Father and the Son and theHoly Spirit calculating that God is not the Father and the Messiah is not the Son and after-wards he was sorry for what he said and it took place [He now says] lsquoTruly You [God] arethe Father and the Messiah is the Sonrsquo but he did not regret the curse with which he cursedthe Holy Spirit It is written in your erroneous book that lsquohe who curses the Father can be par-doned and he who curses the Son can be pardoned when he regrets [his previous actions] buthe who curses the Holy Spirit cannot be pardoned either in this world or in the world tocomersquo [omitting Latin transcription] Tell me What good will the pardon of the Father andSon do this man of the Holy Spirit did not pardon him Why should this man fear the HolySpirit if these two substances [קיניינין] and the Messiah pardon him Where will his soul gosince the Holy Spirit does not pardon him If God is angry at him for cursing the Holy Spiritthen I can show you that the Spirit is more precious to the Lord than the Messiah sincepardon is mentioned for cursing the Messiah but is not mentioned for cursing the Holy SpiritIf you say the three are one where did this man go mdash the man who was pardoned by part ofthe divinity and not pardoned by another part Now be careful with your words because theyare contradictoryrdquo Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 1103ndash104 see also 1145 and297ndash98 116ndash17 Rembaum has suggested that the passage is not based on Matt 1232 but onthe apocryphal Gospel of Thomas 44 see idem ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval JewishAnti-Christian polemicsrdquo 69
141 According to Accadrsquos exhaustive list Matt 1230ndash32 is not used in Muslim polemicscf Accad ldquoThe Gospels in the Muslim Discourserdquo 209
142 For the history of interpretation see Davies and Allison Matthew 8ndash18 348ndash49 LuzMatthew 8ndash20 206ndash209 also Eugegravene Mangenot ldquoBlasphegraveme contre le Saint-Espritrdquo Dic-tionnaire de theacuteologie catholique (1905) 2910ndash16 Nicholas de Lyre as already mentionedabove takes note of this argument see Williams Adversus Judaeos 414 On the other handThomas Aquinas does not discuss this particular question in Summa theologiae II-II Q 14which perhaps indicates that he was unfamiliar with this particular objection Yet one indica-tor that this argument may have been encountered earlier is some of the church interpretersrsquoinsistence that blasphemy against the Spirit ought to be understood as blasphemy against thewhole Trinity and that the blasphemy against the Son which is forgivable only speaks ofJesusrsquo humanity Aquinas eg writes ldquoFor the earlier doctors viz Athanasius (Super Matthxii 32) Hilary (Can xii in Matth) Ambrose (Super Luc xii 10) Jerome (Super Matth xii)and Chrysostom (Hom xli in Matth) say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally toutter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential
122 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
the argument here does not take into account the context of the passage143 it isquite impressive and recurs in a similar form in many subsequent polemicworks144
3 5 Summary
Robert Chazan who has discussed the content of chapter 11 of Milḥamot ha-Shem in Fashioning Jewish Identity145 has categorized Jacob ben Reubenrsquosattack as comprisingcharges of inconsistency between it [viz the New Testament] and the Hebrew Bible acceptedby both sides as the word of God charges of internal inconsistency within the New Testa-ment charges of inconsistency between the New Testament material and widely knownChristian doctrine charges that the New Testament material is offensive to reason andormoral sensitivity The targets of this attack include the New Testament narrator in this casethe author of the Gospel of Matthew and Jesus as the central figure in the Gospel The resultis a comprehensive assault on the writings Christians hold sacred with the obvious implica-tion that a faith based on such flawed literature must be a false faith and a thorough attack onthe central figure of the Christian faith whose deeds and words are found wanting146
This summary is helpful although when it comes to criticizing the divinity ofJesus Jacob ben Reubenrsquos ldquoassaultrdquo is not as comprehensive as Chazandescribed it Admittedly the discussion of the Law or any discussion ofinconsistencies was deliberately excluded147 The above passages however
name applicable to the whole Trinity each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy or the per-sonal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity in which sense blasphemy against the HolyGhost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Manrdquo loc cit (trans by the Fathersof the Engl Dominican Province New York Benziger 1947)
143 On the one side it ignores that the ldquoblasphemy against the Spiritrdquo in the context ofMatt 1222ndash23 is understood as interpreting divine activity ie the healing of a demon pos-sessed as demonic On the other side from a trinitarian point of view it can be argued thatthe entire Trinity decides to forgive (passivum divinum Matt 1231) namely sins against theFather or Son but not so with sins against the Spirit Notice however that in the Gospel ofThomas 44 the Synoptic text is expanded with ldquoHe who blasphemes against the Father willbe forgivenrdquo which purposely creates a trinitarian distinction
144 This parable like story of a person cursing the Trinity is also heavily featured in subse-quent polemical texts see Yosef ha-Meqanne sect41 (see 4514) Nizzahon Vetus sect223 (see547) Even Boḥan sect29 (see 6412) yet not in Ḥizzuq Emunah II sect16 (see 847)
145 See Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 283ndash290146 Ibid 284147 The most interesting of these is the charge that Jesus stated according to Matt 1524
that he was ldquoonly sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israelrdquo which according to benReuben is not in line with his practice to only speak in parables so that his Jewish audiencedoes not understand him (Matt 1310ndash13) see Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 48ndash49 73ndash74 Thisis however not a critique of the text but of the person of Jesus
35 Summary 123
which comprise roughly half of chapter 11 are more a critique of the belief inthe divinity of Jesus rather than an attack on the Gospel of Matthew Rarelyis the text or its author made an issue148 it is the person of Jesus and the beliefof the Christian in light of the text that is targeted and not so much theintegrity or authority of the Christian text Chazan acknowledges this as wellfor ldquoJacobrsquos criticisms focus far more fully on Jesus than on Gospel narra-tionrdquo149 Thus Chazanrsquos ldquoobvious implicationrdquo is not that obvious In factnowhere in chapter 11 is the Gospel of Matthew discussed as ldquoflawed litera-turerdquo In the arguments examined it is not the text that is questioned but theperson of Jesus in regard to Christian belief If anyone is ldquoassaultedrdquo a termwhich is probably too strong for much of Jacob ben Reubenrsquos terse argu-ments it is the Christian who believes Jesus to be divine150 In fact it wouldbe counterproductive for Jacob ben Reuben to discredit the Gospel ofMatthew where it works in favor of his argument151
Jacob ben Reuben uses the Gospel of Matthew in at least two areas oneargues against Jesusrsquo use and understanding of the Law while the otheraddresses Jesusrsquo divinity In order to object to the Christian claim of Jesusrsquodivinity Jacob ben Reuben highlights the limitations of Jesusrsquo human natureJesus does not appear to have a respectable background (Matt 11ndash16) and isperhaps of questionable character (Matt 313ndash17) Unlike Moses he hungersand appears to lack the ability to nourish himself (Matt 41ndash11 2118ndash19)Jesus even expresses his dependence on God (Matt 1125ndash27 Matt 2636ndash4045) Most pertinently Jesus is afraid and lacks strength saving power andproper intention (Matt 2636ndash45 par Mark 1432ndash41) He also has limitedknowledge and is inconsistent (Matt 2118ndash19) This then also disputes theTrinity the Son and the Father are evidently not equal The Son even has to
148 The Gospel of Matthew is only once made an issue and that in regard to the functionof the four women in Jesusrsquogenealogy see 343 above But even there the emphasis is thatldquoyour Godrdquo is morally deficient
149 Chazan Fashioning Jewish Identity 285150 It needs to be kept in mind that Jacob ben Reuben is not writing for Christians The
authorrsquos introduction to the chapter is specific about its purpose ldquoI did not intend to arguewith them [= the Christians] or speak against them Rather I intended to be a conscientiouswitness for the diligent ones and to conceal it from the eyes of the worthless and recklessrdquo(sa) Whatever argument ben Reuben advances it is to primarily assure the conscientiousJewish believer of the falsehood of the Christian religion It is as such not an attempt toldquoassaultrdquo Christianity at all rather to defend against the assaults coming from the Christianside in particular against those friars and converts who were well-versed in Judaism
151 Chazan acknowledges this in regard to Milḥemet Miṣvah where Rabbi Mersquoir ldquoiswilling to acknowledge the veracity of the Gospel accounts of the historical rejection andcondemnation of Jesus by the Jews Rather than a heinous sin this is viewed by Rabbi Meiras decisive proof of the falsity of the faith based on the life and experience of Jesusrdquo ChazanDaggers of Faith 56
124 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
receive knowledge and kingship from the Father (Matt 1125ndash27 Matt 2816ndash19) in fact he lacks universal knowledge (Matt 2118ndash19) According toJesusrsquo own statement the Trinity would be in disunity with itself (Matt1230ndash32)
When it comes to arguing against the divinity of Jesus it is noteworthy thatmost of the arguments used in chapter 11 are not found in the same form inQiṣṣaNestor152 Milḥamot ha-Shem seems in comparison more refined andthus provided the blueprint for later polemic works Jacob ben Reuben infact directs his arguments precisely against the paradox of how the man Jesuscould be understood to be divine especially if he is portrayed as limited andsubordinate to God by Matthew153
On the other hand Jacob ben Reuben does not attempt to engage with anykind of developed understanding of the incarnation and the two natures ofChrist154 Jesus is simply understood as ldquoGodrdquo In fact the fully developeddoctrine of the two-natures of Christ is well-equipped to respond to most ofhis objections A regular medieval friar or member of the clerus presumablywould have had no difficulty countering ben Reubenrsquos arguments Though itshould not be overlooked that they only would have been able to do sobecause this doctrine was shaped precisely by questions such as presented inMilḥamot ha-Shem And this should be taken seriously a Jewish reader of theGospel of Matthew questions here how Jesus in his frail humanity can beunderstood as divine in particular when his limitations inabilities prayeraddress and different intentions mark him out as lesser than God Christiandoctrine might be able to engage with these arguments but it is less able to
152 In particular the scene in Gethsemane in QiṣṣaNestor (in sect53 sect108 and sectsect139ndash141)is much more basic and less developed Also Matt 1125ndash27 Matt 1230ndash32 Matt 2118ndash19and Matt 2818ndash19 are not discussed in QiṣṣaNestor One wonders if Jacob ben Reuben actu-ally had a long version of QiṣṣaNestor First he only uses QiṣṣaNestor arguments in therange of sectsect29ndash57 Second he did not thread into his discussion a number of polemical argu-ments found in QiṣṣaNestor in particular where QiṣṣaNestor treat the same topic as benReuben as in the case of Matthewrsquos genealogy More so the genealogy in Milḥamot ha-Shemis dissimilar from that in QiṣṣaNestor sect80 Unlike QiṣṣaNestor Jacob ben Reuben discussesthe four women and his version is also significantly closer to Matthew The genealogybegins (hellip) דודבןקרישטישותולדותספרזה and finishes with ישוממנהנולדאשרהוא
קרישטו הנקרא see Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 27 29153 Although Matthew is depicting Jesusrsquo distinction and subordination to the Father
when it comes to Matthewrsquos authorial intent it is clear that Jesus is portrayed not just as anordinary man To conclude that Jesusrsquo subordination to the Father signifies his mere humanitywould be to misread Matthew who eg clearly emphasizes Jesusrsquo special character as well(as ldquoGod with usrdquo and ldquoSon of the living Godrdquo etc)
154 Hans-Georg von Mutius has also argued that Jacob ben Reuben appears to not prop-erly understand the Trinity since he stresses only the equality and unity of the three personsof the Trinity yet does not account for how the doctrine rather dialectically transcribes theproperties of each individual person see idem ldquoBeitragrdquo 235
35 Summary 125
respond to the paradox and offense that God is believed to have become apowerless fearfully praying man Of course this has always been the majortheological issue for Christianity and ben Reubenrsquos argument is thus ratherpertinent
Jacob ben Reubenrsquos arguments must be seen as an important step in Jewishanti-Christian polemics in the European medieval context exerting greatinfluence on subsequent polemical works Rather than just arguing defen-sively against the christological interpretations of the Hebrew Bible here anattack is mounted against Christianity based on Christianityrsquos own scriptureswhich seemingly was more accessible than the arguments in QiṣṣaNestor
126 Chapter 3 Milḥamot ha-Shem
Chapter 4
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inJoseph ben Nathanrsquos Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
4 1 Introduction
The social and religious pressures Jews encountered in medieval Christendomand the proximity to an emerging Christian society lead to the production ofmore apologetic-polemical works in Europe Following Milḥamot ha-Shemother comparable treatises appeared though not all featured the Gospel ofMatthew And relatively soon after Jacob ben Reubenrsquos treatise anothermajor critique of Jesusrsquo divinity that utilizes gospel texts appeared in SeferYosef ha-Meqanne1
ldquoThe Book of Joseph the Zealousrdquo is an invaluable source for the polemicdebates between Jews and Christians in France from 1220 to 1260 CE2 Thework is largely a collection of disputations and hence provides access to thepolemic arguments used by French rabbis in the 12th and 13th centuryThough Yosef ha-Meqanne is mostly known for its account of the ldquoParis Dis-putationrdquo of 12403 it alsocontains a very large collection of christological passages which were discussed and refutedby the Jewish disputants What strikes the reader of the book is the great degree of freedom in
1 The work was initially called Teshuvot ha-Minim (ldquoAnswers to the Hereticsrdquo) seeLapide Hebrew in the Church 31 For more on Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne see Krauss andHorbury Controversy 150ndash53 218 TrautnerndashKromann Shield and Sword 90ndash101 ZadocKahn ldquoEacutetude sur le livre de Joseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo REJ 1 (1880) 222ndash46 3 (1881) 1ndash38 IsaacBroydeacute ldquoNathan ben Joseph Officialrdquo JE (1901ndash1906) 7269ndash270 Posnanski Schilo 145ndash46 Heinrich Graetz Geschichte der Juden Von den aumlltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart(4th ed 11 vols Leipzig Oskar Leiner 1897 repr Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchge-sellschaft 1998) 6373ndash78 Ephraim E Urbach ldquoEacutetude sur la litteacuterature poleacutemique aumoyen-agerdquo REJ 100 (1935) 49ndash77 see 58ndash67
2 See Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 91 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne was composedsome time before 1269 but the exact date is debated see Erwin I J Rosenthal ldquoJuumldischeAntwortrdquo in Studia Semitica Volume 1 Jewish Themes (ed Erwin I J Rosenthal Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 1971) 241ndash42 n 64 first published in Kirche und Syna-goge (ed Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch 2 vols Stuttgart Klett1968 repr Munich dtv 1988) 1361ndash62 n 64 and esp Kahn ldquoJoseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo 227ndash34
3 Hyam Maccoby provides a paraphrase of Rabbi Josephrsquos account in Judaism on Trial153ndash62 as his account of the Paris Disputation ldquois turgid and would be unreadable in a literalEnglish translationrdquo (20) For more see below
the discussions The Jew did not avoid the challenge On the contrary he was always ready toaccept it This fact is especially surprising since it was compiled after the Fourth LateranCouncil of 12154
The composer Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan (surnamed ldquoOfficialrdquo) relates anumber of debates primarily of his extended family with Christians whichincludes the names of the disputants and the places where these encountersoccurred Accordingly the various members of the ldquoOfficial familyrdquo wereengaged in religious discussions not only with friars but also several eminentdignitaries of the clergy eg the Abbot of Cluny the bishops of MeauxAngoulecircme Angers Poitiers and Sens and perhaps even Pope Gregory X5The principal participants in these controversies were the talmudist Nathanben Meshullam of Melun (12th century) and his son Joseph (I) ben Nathanwho is not the author but his rather bold grandfather6 The author RabbiJoseph (II) ben Nathan like his father before him appears to have been a kindof business official at the court of the archbishop of Sens ldquowho was knownfor his sympathy with the Jewsrdquo7 The proximity to the bishop and hisfamilyrsquos personal history must have given Rabbi Joseph unique access toChristian thinking and this familiarity with Christianity is evidenced by theauthorrsquos knowledge of Latin and ecclesiastical texts
The polemic arguments in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne are largely exegeticaldiscussions and are arranged according to the Hebrew Bible which suggeststhat it was envisioned as a polemical handbook The main focus of these dis-cussions is the more conventional refutation of christological and allegoricalinterpretations of passages in the Hebrew Bible However in one of the chap-ters of Yosef ha-Meqanne we also find a lengthy list of arguments based onthe New Testament These discuss various contradictions in the New Testa-ment and argue against the divinity of Jesus the Trinity and the perpetual vir-ginity of Mary which will be further explored below
4 Judah Rosenthal ldquoOn lsquoSefer Yosef HaMeqanersquo with the Publication of a New CriticalEditionrdquo Immanuel 2 (1973) 68ndash72 here 70
5 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 151 n 76 Lapide Hebrew in the Church 31 states that Joseph (I) ben Nathan is the grand-uncle
of the author but cf Krauss and Horbury Controversy 150 152 and Kahn ldquoJoseph le Zeacutela-teurrdquo 229 234ndash46
7 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 46 and Krauss and Horbury Controversy 151ndash52 The surname ldquoOfficialrdquo אופיסיאל) or (אופציאל has been related to this administrativeposition though it also could indicate that Rabbi Nathan and his son were official representa-tives of the Jewish community to the bishop cf Krauss and Horbury Controversy 151Graetz Geschichte 6376 and Kahn ldquoJoseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo 243ndash44 Sens is about 100 kilo-meters southeast of Paris and most of the places mentioned in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne arealso southeast or southwest of Paris
128 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
4 2 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
Already from the short introduction it should be evident that Jews and Chris-tians were in close contact in thirteenth century France In fact the Jewishpresence and influence there was already coming to decline at the end of thethirteenth century and it is a rather intricate task to retrace it8
Unlike on the Iberian peninsula the Jewish communities of northernFrance (generally speaking the region north of the river Loire)9 lived underChristian rule from the early medieval period onwards10 These communitieswere smaller than those in the Mediterranean regions and also fewer in par-ticular since the north of Europe was generally speaking more sparsely popu-lated than the south
ldquoIn the Carolingian period from 750ndash1000 the Jewish population contin-ued to grow because of immigration and proselytizing and various laws guar-anteed the Jews full equality and protectionrdquo11 With the waning of the Caro-lingian dynasty the Jewish communities in France had to arrange themselveswith the growing influence of local barons and feudal lords but also with theascendancy of the Capetian kings The respective communities were oftenunder different jurisdictions and the policies of each realm could differ fromplace to place and from ruler to ruler
Within the larger society Jews were mostly a tolerated but also resentedminority who were protected by secular or church authority Partly out ofnecessity these local Jewish communities were self-governed highly orga-nized and showed remarkable internal cohesion Robert Chazan summarizesthis period
8 A large number of studies and summaries of Jewish life in medieval France are avail-able the more pertinent are Robert Chazan The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom130ndash53 idem Medieval Jewry in Northern France William C Jordan The French Monar-chy and the Jews From Philip August to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia University ofPennsylvania Press 1989) and Anna Sapir Abulafia ChristianndashJewish Relations 1000ndash1300(Harlow Pearsons 2011) 61ndash87
9 This region is also referred to as Zarfat צרפת) originally only the Icircle-de-France) animportant cradle of the Ashkenazic Jewry not the least for the influence of the writings of itsmost illustrious scholar Solomon b Isaac of Troyes better known as Rashi (1040ndash1105) ForRashirsquos influence see Menahem Banitt Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter (Tel AvivTel Aviv University 1985) and Esra Shereshevsky Rashi the Man and his World (NewYork Sepher-Hermon 1982 repr Northvale NJ J Aronson 1996) On the Hebrewnaming of individual regions in Europe and their delineation see Martin Przybilski Kultur-transfer zwischen Juden und Christen in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters (Quellenund Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 61 (295) Berlin Walter de Gruyter2010) 72ndash74
10 See Bernhard Blumenkranz ldquoFrancerdquo EncJud (2007) 7146ndash7011 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 41
42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 129
Through the late tenth century and on through the eleventh century then northern FrenchJewry continued to develop benefitting from the general progress of western European civi-lization and making its own contribution to that progress Already tightly allied with the pow-erful feudal barony the Jews were involved involving themselves ever more heavily in theburgeoning urban commerce and had begun to develop viable institutions of self-governmentBy the end of the eleventh century north French Jewry was sufficiently mature to produce itsfirst figure of renown R Solomon b Isaac of Troyes [Rashi] Relatively unscathed by theanti-Jewish outbreaks of the First Crusade French Jewry proceeded into the twelfth centuryin a Spirit of growth12
Yet the eleventh century was not only a period of prosperity and peacefulblissTwo local persecutions in Limoges at the end of the tenth and in the early 11th century maybe connected with the general persecution which raged through France from 1007 for at leastfive years Launched by the clergy it was rapidly supported by King Robert II the Pious(996ndash1031) then propagated by the general Christian population The pretext for the riotswas the accusation that the Jews of Orleacuteans had joined in a plot against Christians with Sultanal-Ḥākim who had indeed destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem Thusthe object of universal hatred the Jews of France were then if the sources are correct eitherexpelled from the towns put to the sword drowned in the rivers or put to death in some otherfashion the only exceptions being those who accepted baptism When one of the Jewish nota-bles of France Jacob b Jekuthiel intervened with Pope John XVIII (1004ndash09) the latter senta legate to France to put a stop to the persecutions Those Jews who had been forced to acceptbaptism immediately returned to Judaism13
Also the watershed of the first Crusade at the end of the eleventh century didnot leave the French Jewry untouched Unlike in Germany however thepersecutions were limited to a few localities in 1096 the Crusaders massacredthe Jewish population of Rouen the capital of Normandy sparing only thosewho accepted conversion14 Jews were also attacked in other places such asMetz in the east and Monieux in the south15 During the Second Crusade(1147ndash49) violence against the Jewish communities was mostly preempteddue to the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux the principal author of thiscrusade16
12 Chazan Medieval Jewry in Northern France 2913 Blumenkranz ldquoFrancerdquo 7149 Also See Rengstorf and Kortzfleisch Kirche und Syna-
goge 1111ndash13 see also Robert Chazan ldquo1007ndash1012 Initial Crisis for Northern-EuropeanJewryrdquo PAAJR 3839 (1970ndash1971) 101ndash17
14 See Norman Golb The Jews in Medieval Normandy A social and intellectual history(Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1998) 117ndash18 also idem ldquoNew Light on the Per-secution of French Jews at the Time of the First Crusaderdquo PAAJR 34 (1966) 1ndash63
15 See Golb The Jews in Medieval Normandy 124ndash3016 Also during the Third Crusade (1189ndash1192) the leadership of the church intervened on
behalf of the persecuted Jews of France See Chazan The Jews of Medieval Western Chris-tendom 53ndash54
130 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
In the twelfth and thirteenth century the time period most directly relevantto Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (and also for subsequent texts examined here)three major issues determined the fate of the Jews of France money politicsand Christian piety
In particular the close financial relationships between Jews and local rulerswhich was initially of mutual advantage eventually proved to be disastrousWhereas before Jews were engaged in all manner of enterprises during thecourse of the twelfth century there was a significant shift towards moneylending17 This however gave cause to increasing feelings of animosity fromthe Christian populace which in addition were fanned by religiously moti-vated ressentiments18 Although the nobility of France was always in need offresh capital (in particular because of the Crusades) and had greatly benefittedfrom the lending services and taxation of ldquotheir Jewsrdquo they eventually werenot willing or able to protect Jewish communities any longer
Specifically the ascent of the the Capatian kings and the increase of theirpower over the French feudal lords proved to be detrimentalThe history of the Jews in medieval France is inexorably linked to the efforts of the Capetiankings of France to expand their royal remit beyond the Icircle-de-France with Paris at its centre tothe other areas which we now call France (hellip) Control over Jews and the income they deliv-ered through taxation was one of the markers of the extent of royal authority When PhilipAugustus expelled the Jews from his kingdom in 1182 only the Jews of Icircle-de-France wereaffected when Philip IV did the same in 1306 Jews throughout France had to leave theirhomes19
King Louis IXrsquos reign from 1226 to 1270 during which Rabbi Josephcomposed Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne saw an extraordinary increase in thepossessions and political power of the French crown Already his grandfatherPhilip Augustus (ruled 1179ndash1223) had wrested much of northern andwestern France from the hands of the English crown Likewise his son LouisVIII (ruled 1223ndash26) was able to increase royal power by procuring Avignon
17 See Chazan The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 132ndash3318 This includes the highly irrational myth of ritual murder of Christian children by Jews
(see also 52) One of the more severe incidents occurred in Blois a town in northern Francebetween Orleans and Tours In 1171 thirty-one Jews were burnt to death following ritualmurder charges by order of Count Theobald of Blois The remaining Jews were held captiveby the count Nathan ben Meshullam a principal character in the religious dialogues in SeferYosef ha-Meqanne was heavily involved in the aftermath of this incident One of his dialoguepartners the Archbishop of Sens William Whitehands (Guillaume aux Blanches Mains) thebrother of Count Theobald mediated between the Jewish community and his brother SeeRobert Chazan ldquoThe Blois Incident of 1171 A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organiza-tionrdquo PAAJR 36 (1968) 13ndash31
19 Abulafia ChristianndashJewish Relations 61 See also Jordan The French Monarchy andthe Jews
42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 131
shortly before his death20 Languedoc was gained in the aftermath of the Albi-gensian Crusade (1209ndash1229)21 Then in 1242 the royal army decisivelycrushed a coalition of southern nobility aligned with the English king Thismeant that the Jews who lived in these areas came under the direct control ofthe Capetians Whereas the Jewish population previously was able to evadeall too oppressive legislation by local rulers through migration the significantexpansion of the jurisdiction of the king of France made this henceforth moredifficult
The Capetian kings in fact followed a rather exploitative policy in theirtreatment of the Jewish population Their anti-Jewish legislation was partlymotivated by the need for capital and partly by religious fervor PhilipAugustus had the homes of the Jews in his realm ransacked in 1180 Thentwo years later all Jews in his domain were expelled and their property con-fiscated Yet having come to the conclusion that it was more beneficial tohave Jews in his realm rather than sending them to his neighbors Philip re-admitted Jews to his territory in 1198 He subsequently regulated the money-lending business in 1206 and 1219 ultimately serving his own interests22 Butalready his more pious son Louis VIII removed the official endorsement ofJewish moneylending in 1223 Also Louis IX (or rather the queen regent)23
took more aggressive measures against Jewish moneylending when theseizure of Jewish debts was ordered in 1227 and 122824 A steady stream of
20 After a short reign of three years Louis VIII suddenly died in 1226 His son Louis IXborn in 1214 was twelve years old at the time Due to his young age his mother Blanche ofCastile ruled in his place perhaps until 1234 Much of the significant increase in royalpower but also anti-Jewish legislation must therefore be attributed to her and her councilorssee Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 128ndash41
21 However the French crown did not gain full control over Languedoc till the early 14thcentury The south of France was a dense conglomerate of principalities with a very differentculture and history than the north Louis IXrsquos Jewish legislation only began to be enforced inLanguedoc in 1245 Both Archbishop and the Viscount of Narbonne resisted Capetian influ-ence and prevented the full application of royal legislation At the time Narbonne was one ofthe largest cities of Languedoce with a significant well-integrated and well-organized Jewishcommunity The reluctance of its rulers towards the Capetians made it even more so into aldquohaven for migrantsrdquo (165) See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 162ndash68 alsoTrautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 43ndash45 and Jean Reacutegneacute ldquoEacutetude sur la condition desjuifs de Narbonne du Ve aux XIVe siegraveclerdquo REJ 55 (1908) 1ndash36 221ndash43 58 (1909) 75ndash105200ndash25 59 (1910) 58ndash89 61 (1911) 1ndash27 248ndash66 63 (1912) 75ndash99
22 See Abulafia ChristianndashJewish Relations 6723 Although the queen mother is portrayed in the ldquoParis Disputationrdquo in a somewhat miti-
gating role the fact that the numerous earlier anti-Jewish legislation was decreed under her defacto regency suggests she had little scruple to draw financial gain from the Jewish communi-ties of France See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 157 also Chazan Medieval Jewry inNorthern France 101ndash104 idem The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 148ndash49
24 See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 128ndash32
132 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
subsequent royal ordinances mandated further seizures renewed earlier legis-lation and eventually outlawed usury altogether25 This legislation hadobvious financial benefits for the Capetians but this remission of debts alsosolicited favors for the French crown from many of those who were indebtedto Jewish lenders
Yet in King Louisrsquo case the principal root for this exploitative and restric-tive anti-Jewish legislation is found in the religious convictions of themonarchThe personal piety of Louis IX as well as that of his mother was legendary in medievalChristendom His entourage was heavily flavored with ecclesiastical personnel often devotedmembers of the new and influential Dominican and Franciscan orders his major goal was apolitical realm that would encourage the widest possible fulfillment of Christian ideals26
These ideals were not taken lightly by Louis and his legislation shows theextend of his devotion to his faith and his willingness to enact the previouslyoften unheeded wishes of the churchLouis took the duty of a Christian prince to defend Christendom and safeguard the fabric ofChristian society very seriously He was a devotee of the Virgin Mary and went on two ill-fated crusades in 1248 and 1270 He legislated against prostitution and supported the work ofthe new papal inquisition against heresy which was especially active in the newly conqueredregions in the south His royal policies were in other words infused by his Christian outlookIt is not for nothing that he was remembered as Saint Louis he was canonised in 129727
Louis felt responsible for the spiritual state of his realm Where other rulershad overlooked endorsed or exploited the practice of moneylending Louisand his mother sought to eradicate usury which they considered reprehensi-ble28 The seizures of Jewish debt and the repeated attempts to outlaw usuryeventually culminating in the general expulsion of Jews from France in 1306testifies to the desire to uproot the practice altogether Louisrsquo overall ldquohopeeven expectation was that the Jews would take up and limit themselves tomore honorable occupationsrdquo29 In this they were only following the lead of
25 See Chazan Medieval Jewry in Northern France 100ndash24 The topic of usury is exam-ined in Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword The frequency of these ordinances attests to thewide-spread practice and social impact of moneylending but also that Capetian power onlygradually and reluctantly was followed and enforced in the principalities of France
26 Chazan Medieval Jewry in Northern France 101ndash10227 Abulafia ChristianndashJewish Relations 7828 This view was based on Deuteronomy 2319ndash20 which initially had been used to
endorse moneylending between Christians and Jews See Chazan Medieval Jewry in North-ern France 58ndash62 and James W Parkes The Jew in the Medieval Community A Study ofhis political and economic Situation (Judaic Studies Library 2nd ed New York Hermon1976) 360ndash69 On Louis IX see also Margaret Wade Labarge Saint Louis Louis IX MostChristian King of France (Boston Little Brown 1968)
29 Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 135
42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 133
the church as papal legislation increasingly and persistently began to focus onrelegating Jewish life30
With the passage of time ecclesiastical concern over Jewish lending broadened considerablyFrom an initial focus on Church objects Church revenues and crusaders ecclesiastical lead-ership began to exhibit concern with the broad population of Christian borrowers and theharm Jews might inflict upon them31
With Louis the clergyrsquos disapproval of usury fell not on deaf ears Also otherpreviously ignored long-held demands of the church were increasinglyenforced under his ruleThe regulations of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) interpreted as the compulsory wearingof the Jewish badge were at first imposed in Languedoc Normandy and Provence (by coun-cils held in 1227 1231 and 1234) a royal decree enforcing this in the kingdom of Francewas not promulgated until 126932
Moreover during Louisrsquo reign severe persecutions of Jews took place in 1236in the western provinces in Brittany Anjou and Poitou although theseregions were not under the direct authority of the king33
Louis IX did not only take action against moneylending which had becomea major element of Jewish economic life in the 12th and 13th century He alsomoved against a major aspect of Jewish religious life the Talmud34 AfterLouis and his mother had been made aware of the Talmud and received theaccusation that it contained anti-Christian blasphemies they ordered a trial inParis The ensuing ldquoParis Disputationrdquo which is recalled in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is a pivotal event in the medieval inter-religious encounter betweenthe church and the Jews35
30 An exhaustive list of all anti-Jewish papal legislation can be found in SolomonGrayzel The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1198ndash1254 (Vol 1) and SolomonGrayzel and Kenneth Stow The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1254ndash1314 (Vol2 New York Jewish Theological Seminary in America 1989)
31 Chazan Medieval Jewry in Northern France 6132 Blumenkranz ldquoFrancerdquo 715233 See ibid 7150 34 See esp Ḥaim M Merḥavia Christianityrsquos Image of the Talmud The Attitude to the
post-biblical Literature of Israel in the Christian World of the Middle Ages (500ndash1248)[ בימי־הבינייםהנוצריבעולםהמקראשלאחרישראללספרותהיחסהנצרותבראיהתלמוד
)500ndash1248( ] (Jerusalem Bialik 1970) [Hebr]35 Both sides penned an account of the dispute which allows for a unique view of this
debate The Jewish perspective is edited by Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan (see below) the Chris-tian account Extractiones de Talmut is attributed to a Dominican friar Theobald (Thibaut)and first was published by Isidore Loeb ldquoLa controverse de 1240 sur le Talmudrdquo REJ 1(1880) 247ndash61 2 (1881) 248ndash70 3 (1881) 39ndash57 See also Judah M Rosenthal ldquoTheTalmud on Trial The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240rdquo JQR 47 (1956) 58ndash76 145ndash169 Maccoby Judaism on Trial 163ndash67 Cohen The Friars and the Jews 65ndash69 alsoKrauss and Horbury Controversy 153ndash61 see esp 153 n 18
134 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
The direct cause of the dispute was a papal letter sent to the bishops andrulers of England France and the Iberian peninsula urging them to confiscatethe Talmud on account or their alleged anti-Christian passages In the twelfthcentury Peter Abelard and Alain de Lille already had become aware of theTalmud and its importance and subsequently attempted to utilize it for theproselytization of Jews But in particular the denunciations of Nicholas Doninof La Rochelle a Jewish convert to Christianity fueled this new negativeview of the Talmud36 In 1238 Donin travelled to Rome to successfully insti-gated the pope to condemn the Talmud While the papal wish was not heededby most King Louis IX zealously followed Gregory IXrsquos directive Thus onthe 24th of June 1240 after having ordered the confiscation of copies of theTalmud earlier in March which were handed over to the Dominicans andFranciscans a tribunal was arrayed at the royal court in Paris overseen by thequeen-mother The Christian delegation was represented by Nicholas Doninand others amongst them also the archbishop of Sens Walter Cornutus37 theJewish side by four of the most prominent rabbis of France Yechiel of Paris(who was Rabbi Josephrsquos teacher) Moses of Coucy Judah of Melun andSamuel ben Solomon of Chacircteau-Thierry Nicholas Donin argued amongstother things that the Talmud contained blasphemous anti-Christian andimmoral passages and therefore ought to be banned a polemical attack whichthe Jewish side naturally sought to dispel The dispute was conducted in Latinand can be reconstructed sufficiently well38 Although the rabbis seeminglywere able to courageously argue against the accusation leveled against theTalmud the result was that 24 cart-loads filled with Jewish books were pub-licly burned in 1242 This first condemnation of the Talmud was officiallyrepeated in 1248 by Pope Innocent IV (after having first decreed that copies ofthe Talmud were to be returned) and was renewed by Louis IX in 125339 TheTalmud would remain the target of Christian attacks and censorship for cen-turies to come
36 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 154 Largely through the actions of DoninChristians came to believe that the Talmud contained heretical and anti-Christian passagesbut also that it prevented its readers from correctly reading the Hebrew Bible thus keepingthem from converting to Christianity This attack on the Talmud and post-biblical rabbinicauthoritative tradition in general was also (conveniently) unrelated to the exegetical contro-versies over the meaning of passages in the Hebrew Bible or from debating Christian doc-trine See esp Robert Chazan ldquoThe Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239ndash1248)rdquo PAAJR 55 (1988) 11ndash30
37 Rabbi Joseph unlike his father Nathan appears to not have had religious debates withthe bishop of Sens see Krauss and Horbury Controversy 152 155
38 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 155ndash160 Maccoby Judaism on Trial 19ndash38Cohen The Friars and the Jews 60ndash76 Rosenthal ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo 216ndash23 [1336ndash42]Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 45ndash47 Krauss and Horbury Controversy 153ndash61
39 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 161
42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 135
It is precisely amidst this turbulent climate of increasing anti-Jewish legis-lation and religious pressures that Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne was composedand it thus bears witness to the various encounters of the Jews of France withthe Christian rulers and clergy The exegetical arguments compiled in SeferYosef ha-Meqanne and the discussion of the New Testament therein musthave been an important consolation in the every day struggles with progres-sively more inhospitable neighbors and against the mounting pressuresexerted by the French crown and ecclesial authorities
4 3 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
Besides several fragments there are two main manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne MS 712 Bibliothegraveque Nationale Paris (MS Paris) and MS 187Stadtbibliothek Hamburg (MS Hamburg) Of the two only the former iscomplete and contains the section that discusses New Testament passagesThe Paris manuscript of the book presents an extensive criticism of the New Testament in itslast eight pages It contains forty Hebrew quotations from the New Testament of one to eightverses each and eleven quotations from the Latin Vulgate in Hebrew transliteration of whichnine are from the New Testament one (unidentified) quotation is apparently from a patristicsource and one is an abbreviated and simplified phrase from the Athanasian Creed40
In 1970 Judah Rosenthal published his critical edition of the entire polemictreatise for which he mainly used MS Paris41 Following Ephraim Urbachrsquosstudy he also considered a further manuscript MS Or 53 Biblioteca Nazio-nale Centrale Roma Collezioni Vittorio Emanuele (MS Rome)42 which like-wise contains a critique of the New Testament43 Yet concluding that thisparticular section is not related to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne he published itseparately from his main edition of the treatise44 In fact the discussion of the
40 Lapide Hebrew in the Church 3141 See Rosenthal ldquoOn lsquoSefer Yosef HaMeqanersquordquo 68 and Berger Jewish-Christian De-
bate 380 Rosenthalrsquos edition is the main source text for this study Judah Rosenthal SepherJoseph Hamekane ndash Auctore R Joseph b R Nathan Official (saec XIII) Ex manu scriptisedidit et notis instruxit Judah Rosenthal [ המקנאיוסףספר ] (Jerusalem Meqiṣe Nirdamim1970) [Hebr] The manuscripts are described in the introduction 29ndash31
42 See Angelo di Capua ldquoCatalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca VittorioEmanuelerdquo in Cataloghi dei Codici Orientali di alcune Biblioteche drsquoItalia (Vol 1 Florence1878) 146 no 8
43 Cf Urbach ldquoEacutetudes sur la litteacuterature poleacutemique au moyen-acircgerdquo 51ndash56 This manu-script is very complex and includes several distinct compositions see below
44 See Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 379ndash80 also Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 30MS Rome 53 has been divided into various sections three (labelled A1 A2 and B) are rele-vant to this study A1 (ff 13vndash19v) in Judah Rosenthal ldquoA Jewish Criticism of the New Tes-tament from the Thirteenth Centuryrdquo [ היגהמאהמןהחדשההבריתשליהודיתבקורת ] in
136 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
New Testament in MS Rome (A1) is quite different to the respective sectionin Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne and shows more similarities to Nizzahon Vetus45
David Berger has therefore argued that MS Rome shares a common sourcewith Nizzahon Vetus46
This means that Rabbi Joseph ben Nathanrsquos entire critique and use of NewTestament passages in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne has been preserved only in asingle manuscript Still MS Paris is probably a transcription of the originalcopied soon afterwards and should therefore be reliable47
Studies in Jewish Bibliography History and Literature in honor of I Edward Kiev (edCharles Berlin New York Ktav 1971) 123ndash39 [Hebr section] A2 (ff 21rndash25v) in JudahRosenthal ldquoA Religious Debate between a Sage named Menahem and the Dominican FriarPablo Christianirdquo [ פאבלוהדומיניקאניוהנזירהמומרוביןמנחםבשםחכםביןדתיויכח[כריסטיאני in Hebrew Contemplation in America Studies on Jewish Themes Vol 3 הגות]
באמריקהעברית ] (ed Menahem Zohori Tel Aviv Yavneh 1974) 361ndash74 and parts of B(ff 35rndash43v) in Judah Rosenthal ldquoSections of a Debaterdquo [ ויכוחפרקי ] in Shalom BaronSaloWittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume mdash Hebrew Section [ חלקndashבארוןשלוםלכבודהיובלספר[עברי (ed S Lieberman and A Hyman vol 3 Jerusalem American Academy for JewishResearch 1974) 3353ndash95 Some further folios (1rndash2v 3rndash8v 9v 11rndash12v 31rndash35r 62vndash63v though I am not certain the folio references given by Rosenthal are accurate) have beenpublished see Judah Rosenthal ldquoWords of a Debate from Sefer ha-Meqannerdquo [ ויכחדברי
המקנהספרמתך ] Qobez al Yad 8 (1975) 295ndash323 [Hebr] also Urbach ldquoEacutetudes sur la lit-teacuterature poleacutemique au moyen-acircgerdquo 51ndash56 A2 has been further scrutinized by Chazan andRembaum who showed that it consists of several separate compositions see Robert ChazanldquoA Medieval Hebrew Polemical Melangerdquo HUCA 51 (1980) 89ndash110 and Joel E RembaumldquoA Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscriptrdquo AJSR 5 (1980) 81ndash99 New Testa-ment passages are cited and discussed extensively in A1 and B In A2 (f 22a) four gospelpassages are discussed (Matt 116 1352ndash58 1353ndash58 2816ndash19) which have parallels inSefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Nizzahon Vetus and B (see 541 and 5414)
45 See Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 379ndash80 esp n 21 Yet very perplexinglyBerger has decided to refer to the first part of MS Rome as a ldquoversionrdquo of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (380) although its New Testament section is not the same as that of MS Paris(which is why Rosenthal treated it separately) The fact that MS Paris MS Rome (A1) andthe main version of Nizzahon Vetus (MS T) have differing New Testament sections and thatMS Rome (B and also A2) have New Testament critiques similar to Nizzahon Vetus SeferYosef ha-Meqanne and also Milḥemet Miṣvah requires further investigation which unfor-tunately is not possible here
46 Consequently Berger consulted MS Rome for his critical edition of Nizzahon Vetuswhich is why MS Rome does not receive a separate chapter here He has argued that it is aldquovirtual certaintyrdquo that MS Rome predates Nizzahon Vetus see idem Jewish-ChristianDebate 375 In contrast Albert Ehrman has argued that Nizzahon Vetus preceded MS Romebut his argument has not found much support cf Albert Ehrman ldquoWhen was the lsquoSeferNitzakhonrsquo writtenrdquo HTR 71 (1978) 154ndash57 and Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 375
47 So Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 29 and Kahn ldquoJoseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo 223ndash24 This ofcourse assumes that the New Testament section (in MS Paris) originally was a part of SeferYosef ha-Meqanne which by no means is certain As previously mentioned MS Hamburglacks this section entirely and MS Rome (A1) has a different New Testament section
43 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 137
4 4 Overview of the Use of the NT in Yosef ha-Meqanne
As already indicated Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is a rich source and containsmuch more than a discussion of New Testament passages Nevertheless werestrict ourselves here to the latter
In the introduction Rabbi Joseph provides a list of all the biblical passagesdiscussed in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne starting with the Pentateuch and finish-ing with Daniel48 A second list gives an overview of the arguments based onthe New Testament passages including a headline for each argument49 Onlythose passages that relate to Jesusrsquo divinity will be discussed50
OriginalNT passageTranslation
נתעלה לא אשה ילוד בן אמיוהנן גדול
Matt 1111a(Lat)
sect1 A son born to a woman is not greater than John
John 22ndash4מלך ארטקלין בנשואי ב(Lat)
sect2 The wedding of the architriclinus
ירושלים לירושלים אמר גירושלים
Matt 2337sect3 He said to Jerusalem ldquoJerusalem Jerusalemrdquo
Matt 1119aיין ושותה בשר האוכל ד(Lat)
sect4 The eater of meat and drinker of wine
Symbolumיחד והבשר שהנשמה כמו הQuicunque51
sect5 Just as the soul and flesh are one (body)
Matt 2638 41מות עד נשמתו כאבה ו(Lat)
sect6 His soul suffered unto death
Matt 820להם יש מקום החפרפירות ז(Lat)
sect7 The moles have a place
Symbolumנזרע לא האב חQuicunque
sect8 The Father is not begotten
Matt 1231ndash32sect9 He who sins against the Fatherלו יתכפר באב החוטא ט will be forgiven
Matt 2639צלוב כשהיה לאב שצעק י(Lat)
sect10 He called out to the Father when he was being crucified
John 47ndash15 23ההולכת בשמרנית פגע יאJohn 1413ndash14
sect11 He met the Samaritan woman
48 The list of contents is in Ms Paris ff 3andash4b in Rosenthalrsquos edition on pp 7ndash13 Thereare some minor typos in the index (pp 12ndash13) which I have corrected to match the text
49 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 12ndash13 also Lapide Hebrew in the Church 32ndash3450 Which are those those marked in bold in the list which are twenty-two sections in total
and represent half of the whole chapter51 For sect5 and sect8 see the discussion in 4513
138 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
OriginalNT passageTranslation
Matt 920sect12 Your Lord defiled (himself)ושקרן היה טמא אדוניכם יב and was a liar
ואמר עצמו הלל יגיודע אדם בן
Matt 1337 vsJohn 854
sect13 He praised himself and said the ldquoSon of Manrdquo knows
Matt 1517sect14 Everything that goes into aאדם בפה שיכנס מה כל יד manrsquos mouth
Matt 2022ndash23לשתות אתם היכולים טו(Lat)
sect15 Are you able to drink
בעל יוסף הוליד יקופא יו
52חריא Matt 116 18 21sect16 Iacob[ia] begat Joseph
husband of Mary
Matt 125 (Lat)sect17 After the angel had testifiedהמלאך והלך שהעיד אחר יז and gone
Matt 913sect18 I did not come for the piousהחסידים בעבור באתי לא יח Mark 327 ()sect19 There was a robber who wentלגהינם כשירד היה גזלן יט
down to hell אומרים אתם היאך כ
אלוה שהוא Deut 1815ndash17sect20 How can you say that he is God
Matt 116 (Lat)sect21 Joseph the husband of Maryמרים של אישה יוסף כא Matt 213ndash14sect22 And it happened when the angelsהמלאכים שבו כאשר ויהי כב
returnedMark 15sect23 Then all the inhabitantsירושלים יושבי יצאו אז כג
of Jerusalem came outההר מן ישו ברדת כד
עם הלכו Matt 81ndash4sect24 After Jesus came down
the mountain the people cameMatt 96sect25 When Jesus spoke to the ownerהשדה לבעל ישו שאמר כה
of the fieldMatt 818ndash20sect26 And Jesus crossed the Euphratesפרת נהר ישו ויעבר כוMatt 818ndash20sect27 The foxes have burrowsחפורות יש לשועלים כז לבעל האות עשה אם כח
השדה Matt 96sect28 If he performed a sign to the
owner of the field53
אלך הסופר לו שאמר כטאחריך
Matt 821ndash25sect29 When the scribe said to him ldquoI will go after yourdquo
Matt 2816ndash20sect30 And they found him on theהגליל בהר וימצאוהו ל mountains of Galilee
52 Maria rhymes with חריא (ldquoexcrementrdquo) see Kurt Schubert ldquoDas christlich-juumldischeReligionsgespraumlch im 12 und 13 Jahrhundertrdquo Kairos 19 (1977) 161ndash86 esp 171
53 Or ldquodemon possessedrdquo
44 Overview of the Use of the NT in Yosef ha-Meqanne 139
OriginalNT passageTranslation
Matt 101 9ndash10sect31 And Jesus called his disciplesלתלמידיו ישו ויקרא לאMark 914f 19fsect32 And Jesus came to his disciplesלתלמידיו ישו ויבא לב
כורע איש אליו ויבא לגברכיו על
Mark 1017ndash21(Matt 1916ndash21)
sect33 And a man came to him falling on his knees
Luke 1222ndash24תדאגו אל לתלמידיו ויאמר לד(Matt 625ndash26) John 826
sect34 And he told his disciples ldquoDo not to worryrdquo
John 47ndash9sect35 And he came to Samaria and heויעף שומרון ויבא לה was weary
John 21ndash4sect36 And there was a weddingבגליל חופה ויעש לו in Galilee
Matt 123 2639יוסף הוצרך מה מפני לז2028
sect37 Why was Joseph requiredhellip
Matt 2746sect38 The Father Son and Spiritשלשתן והרוח והבן האב לח are three
Luke 2334sect39 In the hour of his deathלו מחל מיתתו בשעת לט he forgave him
John 525ndash30sect40 When the hour will come thatשהנקברים השעה שתבא מ those who are buried [hear him]
Matt 1231ndash32sect41 The sinner against the Fatherלו יתכפר באב החוטא מא will be forgiven
nonesect42 The first Adam when [God]שנפח הראשון אדם מב breathed
Passion (andהיהודים לו עשו מה מגExodus 3430b)54
sect43 The thing which the Jews did to him [are they acc to his knowledge and will]
Quotations from the Gospel of Matthew represent the majority of the NewTestament passages though they are not identified as such Seven of them arein Latin spelled with Hebrew letters though the ldquoLatin is frequently distortedin the Hebrew transliteration which represents phonetically a (northernFrench) dialect pronunciationrdquo55 The passages are mostly presented as ananthology though they are thematically related In fact the section containingthe New Testament mostly critiques Jesusrsquo divinity and the Trinity but a fewarguments are directed against Maryrsquos perpetual virginity of and other topics
54 Jesus cannot save himself from the cross yet people were afraid of Moses55 Lapide Hebrew in the Church 32 As in Nestor the use of ldquoChristian vernacularrdquo is to
demonstrate the competence of the debater see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 132
140 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
How much of this section is Rabbi Josephrsquos own argument and how much isderived from other sources is hard to tell Although the list would suggest thesections are assembled randomly there is perhaps logic to the arrangement Inparticular the arguments in the first part of the chapter appear to be linked toeach other sectsect1ndash4 dispute Jesusrsquo superiority sectsect5ndash10 dispute Trinitariandoctrine and sectsect11ndash13 argue against Jesusrsquo moral integrity56 Afterwards thearguments become more spurious and less related some arguments are evenrepeated (eg sect9 and sect41) and parallels to a variety of sources are evidentRabbi Joseph himself indicates that much of his material in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne came from other Jewish scholars of whom he mentions some fortyby name57 Also the relationship to Milḥamot ha-Shem is not clear butconsidering that Rabbi Joseph was familiar with so many other Jewish schol-ars and their writings it would seem probable that he had come acrossMilḥamot ha-Shem58
For the sake of better access and comparability but also because the bulkof arguments appear more random the following discussion will be arrangedaccording to the Gospel of Matthew Although this will undo the originalsequence of the arguments attempts will be made to take note of the contex-tual arrangement All twenty-two arguments will be included and the Hebrewnumbering will be maintained as reference guide The study will be based onRosenthalrsquos critical Hebrew text59
4 5 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
The twenty-two sections that discuss the Gospel of Matthew in relationship toJesusrsquo divinity recapitulate some of the argumentative strategy of Qiṣṣa
56 The inner coherence of this section coincides with a concentration of Latin quotes inthe first ten sections which might indicate that they came from a common composition Theopening section also serves as an introduction see 4511
57 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 24 also Kahn ldquoJoseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo 3ndash1058 Lapide Hebrew in the Church 31 has noted that in the New Testament section ldquo[o]nly
two passages in Matthew (81ndash4 2816ndash19) are cited by both Milḥamot ha-Shem of Jacobben Reuben and the Paris manuscript of Joseph the Zealous but the differences between themmake it quite clear that the latter had no knowledge of the earlierrdquo Lapidersquos assessment is notentirely correct as the discussion of Matt 1231ndash32 in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (see 4513) isalmost the same as in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 349) While it is not possible to assertain ifRabbi Joseph had direct knowledge of Milḥamot ha-Shem his argument is sufficiently similarto attest that he had at least encountered that particular argument
59 The New Testament section in MS Paris is on folios 39andash43a in Rosenthal JosephHamekane 125ndash37 Each of the twenty two arguments is referenced with the section number-ing retained from the overview (see above) and a separate title numeration eg 451 Alsosectsect26ndashsect27 are fused into one argument (see 456)
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 141
Nestor and Milḥamot ha-Shem By far the most frequently encountered argu-ment is that Jesus is not God though this often is only implied
4 5 1 Jesusrsquo Mission Matt 116 18 21 (sect16)
Unlike in other polemic works the genealogy of Jesus is not much discussedin Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Instead the annunciation is used to advanceseveral arguments against the purpose of Jesusrsquo comingIacob[ia] begat Josef the husband of [M]ary When his mother Mary was enaged to Josephbefore they were one flesh she was found to be pregnant [Matt 116 18] And the angel saidto her ldquoHe will save Israel from their sinsrdquo [cf Matt 121] And in another place he says ldquoIf Ihad not come they would not have sinnedrdquo [cf John 1522] It is clear that he contradicted hiswords [here] and it is also clear that [this] is a lie [since] he did not save [Israel] And [what]if [he saved] a few of them It is clear that Moses saved the whole [of Israel] and thereforehe (should) be made King Messiah60
נמצאתאחדלבשרהיוטרםליוסףמריאאמוכשנתארסהחריאבעליוסףהולידיקופיאבאתילאאםאומרהואאחרובמקוםמעונותיוישראלאתיושיעהואהמלאךלהאמרהרהmdashמקצתםעלואםהושיעשלאכחשהריועודדבריוסתרהריחטאולא הושיעמשההרי
61המשיח מלך יעשה וכן הכל
The passage clearly is based on Matthew though the angel is talking to Maryinstead of Joseph which is perhaps a common mistake (it also happens inNestor sect74) according to Matt 121 Jesus has come to save Israel howeverthis 1) contradicts his own statement in John 1522 and 2) it is not true sincehe did not save all of Israel
The first argument sees a contradiction in that Jesus is said to have come tosave sinners (Matt 121) whereas Jesus himself says that before he camenobody could effectively be considered a sinner (John 1522) The secondargument is a comparison to Moses who is hailed as greater than JesusMoses brought all of Israel out of Egypt whereas Jesus failed to convince butmore crucially to save the majority of Jews which is an empirical argument62
Thus the existence of Jewish communities within Christendom exposesJesusrsquo salvific mission as failure which probably was a stinging argument Itimplies that Jesus at the very least is as a ldquolesserrdquo Messiah The fact that
60 This and the subsequent translations into English are my own61 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 12962 This argument probably aims at the heart of the Dominican and Franciscan endeavor to
convert Jews It is comparable to the Christian argument that the long experience of Jewishdispersion in particular under Christian dominance demonstrates Godrsquos preference for Chris-tianity This effectively reverses the ldquohistorical argumentrdquo that the ldquovictory of Christianityrdquodemonstrates its superiority (in that the temple was destroyed and that Jews were scatteredthroughout the world) Instead early Christianity and in particular medieval Christendomhad not been able to convince the majority of Jews living amongst them of the truth ofChristianity
142 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
Jesus is shown to contradict himself and effectively even lies would furtherdisqualify him both in therms of being a Messianic contender and as a divinebeing (cf 459)
In the subsequent sections Matthewrsquos nativity account is referenced twiceSeveral arguments are presented that are directed against less central doc-trines but are somewhat related to above argument Starting with sect17 Maryrsquosperpetual virginity is criticized by means of Matt 125 Then in sect18 it isagain argued from Matt 913 that Jesus only came for sinners he thereforemust not have come for Abrahamrsquos descendants sect19 takes issue with the ideaof hell and Jesusrsquo victory over Satan in hell sect20 with the fact that peoplewere able to speak to Jesus while at Sinai Godrsquos presence was too overbear-ing to endure which shows that Jesus can really only be a human ( בןמשמע
אשהילודודםבשראדם )63 In sect21 Rabbi Joseph returns to Matt 116 in orderto repeat his argument against Maryrsquos perpetual virginity64
4 5 2 Jesusrsquo Birth Matt 123 2639 and 2028 (sect37)
Although the genealogy is not further discussed in Yosef ha-Meqanne thebirth of Jesus and the surrounding context still receive some attention And further [based on] what is written for them why was Joseph required to be with her old[as he was]65 as if he was her husband According to what is written for them she was to bestoned [as] a harlot but (then) he was ordered to be with her and when the Jews saw this theywere not stoning [her] Yet this is a lie because there is no [such thing as] stoning on accountof harlotry except for a girl that is [already] engaged [cf Deut 2223ndash24]
mdashבעלהכעיןעמהישןלהיותיוסףהוצרךמהמפנילהםכתובועוד שאשהלהםשכתובלפיעלסוקליןשאיןהואשקרוזהיסקלותלאהיהודיםוכשיראוהעמהלהיותונצטוהתסקלזונההמאורסה נערה אם כי זנות
And they also say that Isaiah prophesied about him ldquoBehold the virginmaiden is pregnantrdquo[Isa 714] And if he said this [indeed] about him [= Jesus] why [then] did he make him[=Joseph] father
אב לו עשה מדוע נאמר עליו ואם הרה העלמה הנה עליו נבא שישעיה שאומרים ועוד
63 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 130 cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (Rosenthal) 60ndash61 There itis argued that according to Deut 1815ndash17 (cf Acts 322 737) Jesus could only be lesserthan God as he is designated as a ldquoprophet like Mosesrdquo
64 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 130 Accordingly Joseph had intercourse with Maryafter the birth of Jesus (cf Matt 116) ldquoOne needs to reply [If] he still has not tried to be herhusband then why is he called her husband It should have said lsquothe fianceacutee of Maryrsquo [andnot husband] So how is it that [you] are telling lies in you prayers when [you] say that noman ever came to [be with] herrdquo ( היהאישהנקראולמהלבעלהנסיתלאעדייןלהשיבויש
עליהבאלאשמעולםאומריםשכןבתפלתםשקרמספריםוהיאךמריםשלארוסלומרלו )Cf Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 29 59 and Nizzahon Vetus sect88 and sect154 (see 541)
65Or perhaps ldquoto sleep with herrdquo
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 143
Moreover we find nowhere in ldquoyour Torahrdquo that he is [actually] called lsquoImmanuelrsquo onlylsquoJesusrsquo nor do we find that his is remembered by that name
שהוזכר מצינו לא שם ובאותו ישו אם כי אל עמנו שנקרא תורתכם בכל מצינו לא ועוד
It is [indeed quite] a ldquomiraclerdquo that all the things that are in flesh and blood [= humanity] are[likewise] in Jesus66 [since] he clearly said ldquoLet this cup pass from me for it is not in mywillrdquo [cf Matt 2639 par Mark 1436] while he was among his enemies and they tormentedhim But if he is [really] God who can cancel out his will Also he said that he only came inorder to receive sufferings and to give his soul [as] ransom for many [cf Matt 2028] yetafter this he said ldquoLet this cup pass from merdquo It is clear that [these two passages] are contra-dicting each other And it is written ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie and a lsquoson of manrsquothat he should change [his mind]rdquo [Num 2319]
אמרשהריבישוישודםבבשרשישהדבריםשכלהיאנפלאת כיזהכוסממניהעברועודרצונולבטליכלמיהואאלוהיםואםאותומיסריןוהיואויביוביןכשהיהברצוניאיננו
כוסממניהעבראמרכךהאחרלרביםפדיוןנפשווליתןהצרותלקבלאלאבאשלאשאמר67ויתנחם אדם ובן ויכזב אל איש לא וכתוב זה את זה סותערין שהניהם הרי זה
Initially the argument appears to interact with more of a folk story aboutJesus68 but soon turns to Matthew and questiones the identity of Jesus asImmanuel (Matt 123) Moreover Josephrsquos role is under scrutiny in particularwhy he was necessary at all If Jesusrsquo birth was indeed miraculous accordingto Isa 714 why not relate a nativity account without a father figure
Then a second argument is launched relating to Jesusrsquo will where Matt2639 is used to point out Jesusrsquo inefficacy This is again similar to the firstand third argument in the discussion of the Gethsemane pericope in Milḥamotha-Shem (see 346)69 and part of this argument also occurs in NizzahonVetus70 The fact that Jesus did not want to die is linked with the incarnationin form of a sarcastic outburst ( ישודםבבשרשישהדבריםשכלהיאנפלאת(בישו since Jesus is seen as frail human with a human will distinct fromGod from the Jewish viewpoint his humanity cannot be understood as amiracle in the true sense Jesus very obviously was human In other words torecognize a human as human cannot be considered a miracle The comparisonto Matt 2028 although it is more of a paraphrase introduces then a contra-diction if Jesus really came to give his life as ransom he should not have
66 In other words all the things pertaining to humanity are applicable to Jesus67 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 13568 Matthew and Luke do not explicitly mention the possibility that Mary could be stoned
(though one could see this implied by Matt 119) and neither is this detail mentioned in TheProtoevanglium of James The Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew The Gospel of the Nativityof Mary The History of Joseph the Carpenter nor The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of theSaviour Perhaps this confuses the story of John 83ndash11 with Mary
69 See Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 44 70 However here in sect37 Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethse-mane is envisioned as occurring during Jesusrsquo passion ldquowhile he was among his enemies andthey tormented himrdquo
70 Cf Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect168 181 118 [Hebr section] see 5412
144 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
asked God to deliver him from his suffering Jesus is consequently seen assomeone who changes his mind does not have the will power to carry out amission and is unable to bring about what he desires mdash which disqualifieshim in as divine contender Thus the section uses three passages fromMatthewrsquos gospel from nativity to passion to critique Jesus and Christianbelief
4 5 3 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Matt 213ndash14 (sect22)
A recurring theme in Yosef ha-Meqanne is the topic of Jesusrsquo fear71 In sectionsect6 (see 4519) Jesusrsquo experience of dismay in Gethsemane is already a topicthough the discussion there is on a more theological level directed against theTrinity Here however the argument focuses specifically on Jesusrsquo flight toEgyptMoroever it is written for them ldquoAnd it came about after the angels [or messengers] had leftto seek out Jesus behold one angel appeared [to Joseph] in a dream and he said to himlsquoTake your boy and his mother and go flee to Egypt and stay there [until] it is [again] said [toyou] lsquoGo arise [cf Matt 213] [for] soon the cursed Jews are to seek the boy and [want] todestroy himrsquordquo So Joseph fled to Egypt [cf Matt 214] Now why would that be If he is Godwhy would he be afraid of any man And the angels of God did they fear any man when theycame to carry out [their] mission openly No human had the power to harm them as it wassaid in [the passage concerning] Lot ldquothey struck the men who were at the door of the housewith blindnessrdquo [Gen 1911] And there in [the passage on] Elisha ldquoAnd Elisha prayed to theLord lsquoPlease strike this people with blindnessrsquo and He struck them with a blindness asElisha had askedrdquo [2 Kings 618] And there ldquoAnd [the king Jeroboam] stretched out hishandhellip and said lsquoSeize himrsquo But his hand became rigidhellip and he could not draw it backrdquo[1 Kings 134]
ואמרבחלוםנראהאחדמלאךהנהישולבקשהמלאכיםשבוכאשרויהילהםכתובעוד(שםושבלמצריםברחולךאמוואתהנעראתקחלו [עד עתידיםקוםלךאומר]עוד)
למההואאלהיםאםלמהכךוכללמצריםיוסףויברחולאבדוהנערלבקשיהודיםארוריםשליחותןלעשותכדיאדםמשוםיראולאכשבאואלהיםמלאכיוהלאאדםמשוםיראהיה
בלוטשנאמרכמולהזיקן]אדם[שוםבידכחהיהולאבגלוי הביתפתחאשרהאנשיםואתבאלישעוכןבסנווריםהכו בסנויריםהזההגויאתנאהךויאמרייאלאלישעויתפללאלישעכדברבסנויריםויכם וכן [המלך(וישלח ותיבשתפשוהולאמרhellipידו]אתירבעם)72אליו להשיבה יכל היה ולאhellip ידו
The text is quite interesting in particular curious is the reference to thecoming of ldquothe cursed Jewsrdquo ( יהודיםארוריםעתידים ) It would seem that theauthorpolemicist considers this descriptor as belonging to the actual gospel
71 For the possible influence of Toledoth Yeshu on the notion of Jesus as someone ldquoon therunrdquo see William Horbury ldquoThe Trial of Jesus in Jewish Traditionrdquo in The Trial of JesusCambridge Studies in honour of CFD Moule (ed Ernst Bammel Studies in Biblical Theo-logy 213 London SCM 1970) 103ndash121 (here 112ndash12 115 n 40)
72 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 130
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 145
text73 The argument questions why God would command Joseph to flee withhis family The implication is that if Jesus and his mission were so importantin redemption history why did God not protect them God had worked onbehalf of various people in the Hebrew Bible so why not in behalf of JosephThe same is true for Jesus if he were God why would he be afraid ofanything ( אדםמשוםיראהיהלמההואאלהיםאם )74 It is further argued thatthe angels themselves should be powerful enough to defend those under theirprotection escape is not necessary75 The same set of arguments has beenused by Celsus a good thousand years earlier76
4 5 4 Jesusrsquo God-given Judgment Luke 1222ndash24 par Matt 625ndash26 (sect24)
The next argument to be considered is based on Jesusrsquo sermon in Luke 12(par Matt 625ndash26) which focuses on the subordination of Jesus to God
73 The notion that Jews were cursed was common in Christendom and related to Matt2725 (cf 1 Thess 215ndash16) the cursing of Cain (Gen 411) and the accusation of deicide Itis already found in the Apostlic Constitutions 625 (ANF 7461) in Athanasius Ep fest 6[Easter 334] (NPNF2 4521) Jerome In psalmos 108 [Homily 35] (CCSL 78213 FC48262) Augustin Faust 1211 (PL 42259 NPNF1 4187) and Agobard (d 840) in hisletter to the Bishop of Narbonne entitled ldquoOn Being Wary of Eating and Associating withJewsrdquo (De cavendo convictu et societate Iudaeorum) (CCCM 52231ndash34) Closer to the timeof Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is Peter Abelardsrsquos (1079ndash1142) letter to Louis VII (PL 189365ndash67) denouncing the Jews as accursed See also Hood Aquinas and the Jews 62ndash76 BernhardBlumenkranz Les Auteurs Chreacutetiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaiumlsme (EacutetudesJuives 4 Paris Mouton 1963) Lisa A Unterseher The Mark of Cain and the Jews Augus-tinersquos Theology of Jews and Judaism (Gorgias Dissertations 39 Early Christian Studies 9Piscataway NJ Gorgias 2009) and Jeremy Cohen ldquoThe Jews as the Killers of Christ in theLatin Tradition from Augustine to the Friarsrdquo Traditio 39 (1983) 1ndash27 For an overview ofthe (controversial) debate over the origins of Christian anti-Semitism see Nicholas De LangeldquoOrigins of Anti-Semitismrdquo in Anti Semitism in Times of Crisis (ed Sander L Gilman andSteven T Katz New York New York University Press 1991) 21ndash37 also John G GagerThe Roots of Anti Semitism Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity(Oxford Oxford University Press 1983) 11ndash34 Marcel Simon ldquoChristian Anti-Semitismrdquoin Verus Israel A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire(Oxford Oxford University Press 1986) 202ndash33 repr in Essential Papers on Judaism andChristianity in Conflict From Late Antiquity to the Reformation (ed Jeremy Cohen NewYork New York University Press 1991) 131ndash173 and James Parkes Conflict of Churchand Synagogue A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (London Soncino 1934)
74 Cf the same argument in Nizzahon Vetus sect159 (see 542)75 Though the angels sent to rescue Lot only lead him away from the city cf Gen 191776 Cf Origen Cels 166 ldquoWhy also when you were still an infant did you have to be
taken away to Egypt lest you should be murdered It is not likely that a god should be afraidof death But an angel came from heaven commanding you and your family to escape lest bybeing left behind you should die And could not the great God who had already sent twoangels on your account guard you His own son at that very placerdquo (Chadwick OrigenContra Celsum 60) cf also Cels 161 Justin Dial 1023 Williams Adversus Judaeos 84
146 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
It is also written to them ldquoAnd he said to his disciples lsquoDo not worry about what you shalleat and what you shall wear Is the soul not more than to eat and the body more than to dressNotice the ravens they are not sowing or harvesting yet the Creator sees them Are you notmuch morersquo [cf Luke 1222ndash24 par Matt 625ndash26] But [just as] I am hearing I am judginghis judgement rightly which is not seeking my own will but the will of the one who sent me[cf John 530]rdquo From [the fact that he had to] hear [Godrsquos judgement first] it is clear that thetwo do not have the same will
להםכתובעוד לתלמידיוויאמר למאכלאלאהנפשאיןתלבשוומהתאכלומהתדאגואלשכןכללאאתםאותםרועהוהצורוקוצריםזורעיםשאינםהעורביםהשגיחולמלבושוהגוףmdashששלחנימירצוןאלארצונימקבששאיניישרמשפטושופטשומעואני שאיןמשמעהרי77שוה שניהם רצון
The main argument is clearly spelled out ldquothe two do not have the same willrdquo( שוהשניהםרצוןשאיןמשמעהרי ) Jesusrsquo submission deference and relianceon the Creator serves to demonstrate that they have different volition Jesusultimately ought to be understood as distinct subordinate and lesser thanGod which also puts the Trinity into question This kind of argument whichpoints out Jesusrsquo expressions of his own will over against Godrsquo will hasalready been encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem in the discussion of the Geth-semane pericope (see 346) and also in Qiṣṣa sect40 a similar argument is made(also based on John 530)78
More curious is the quotation of Luke 1222ndash24 (par Matt 625ndash26) as it isessentially superfluous for the argument rests entirely on John 530 RabbiJosephrsquos sources could have already have joined Luke to John and he simplymay have thought they belonged together but this still begs the question whythese two passages were joined in the first place Perhaps Jesus is associatedwith the ravens to underline his ldquocreaturelinessrdquo and dependency on God Asthey dependent on God for their existence Jesus has to depend on communi-cations from the Father
4 5 5 Jesus was Sleeping Matt 821ndash25 (sect29)
Matthew 8ndash9 is frequently referenced in Yosef ha-Meqanne and its respectiveparallel sources (MS Rome Nizzahon Vetus)79 This might indicate that thisparticular portion of Matthew was available to whoever penned the originalargument In fact the arguments in sectsect24ndash29 are all based on Matt 8ndash980 In
77 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 13478 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 160 238 cf also QiṣṣaNestor sect53 (see
2515) and ibid 162 109 2100 For other similarities to QiṣṣaNestor see also RembaumldquoInfluencerdquo 167 175ndash76
79 Cf 545 and the following arguments in 456ndash980 Also sect7 sect12 and sect18 use Matt 820 Matt 920 and Matt 913 respectively (see 457
and 4510) Moreover sect24 cites Matt 81ndash4 sect25 uses Matt 91ndash5 sectsect26ndash27 use Matt 818ndash20 sect28 Matt 96 and sect29 uses Matt 821ndash25 Of all of these only sect7 quotes a verse from
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 147
sect29 it is argued that Jesusrsquo words and actions disqualify him from beingdivineAnd it is also written for them in the same passage where the scribe said ldquoI will follow yourdquo[that] one of his dicsciples said to him ldquolsquoLet me first to bury my fatherrsquo Jesus said to himlsquoLet the dead bury [him] come after mersquo He entered as boat and behold there was a greatstorm on the sea and the boat was thought to [or about to] break but Jesus was sleeping andhis disciples came and woke him uprdquo [cf Matt 821ndash25] For from this [passage we learnabout] a great evil that is that he should say to his disciple lsquodesist from burying your fatherrsquoWhy there is no greater good deed than burying even those dead who are not onersquos relativesand this is certainly the case with regard to onersquos own father And also it says he was asleepIt is written ldquoSee the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleepsrdquo [Ps 1214]
הסופרלושאמרמקוםבאותולהםכתובועוד מתלמידיואחדלואמראחריךאלךאביאתשאקברעדהניחני ישולוענה והנהבספינהנכנסאחריובאמתיםלקברהנח
רעהישוכיויעוררוהותלמידיוויבאוישווישןלהשברחשבהוהאניהביםגדולהסערהלתלמידושאמרמזוגדולה נכריםמתיםמלקברגדולהמצוהאיןוהלאאביךמלקברהנח81ישראעל שומר יישן ולא ינום לו הנה וכתוב ישן שהוא אמר כי ועוד אביו שכן וכל
Two arguments are advanced here the first is is a critique of Jesusrsquo heartlessattitude towards the man who desires to bury his father before followingJesus which is understood as an outrage and great evil and certainly at oddswith Jewish (or Christian) customs82 The second is against Jesusrsquo divinitySince God does not sleep and Jesus is reported to have slept in the boat Jesusconsequently cannot be not divine This latter argument was already encoun-tered in QiṣṣaNestor sect84 sect89 and sect91 and will be repeated in later polemicworks83
Matthew in Latin Perhaps this section of Matthew (81ndash920) was available to the respectiveauthor (in Hebrew) which could then account for the frequent use of this passage Alterna-tively these arguments must have been purposely arranged though loosely according to theorder of the pericopes found in Matthew (in which case the authorcompiler would appear tohave know that these passages were all from the same general section of the Gospel ofMatthew)
81 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 132ndash3382 While this is not necessarily prescribed in the Torah it is nevertheless a strong tradition
and expectation that one buries the dead see eg m Persquoah 11 m Ket 111 Markus Bock-muehl has argued against Martin Hengel and E P Sanders that Matt 822 is not an attack onthe Torah (as a transgression of the command to honor ones parents Exod 2012 Deut 516)but has to be interpreted as Jesus requiring a special duty to him which is even more impor-tant than caring for the burial of a deceased relative See idem Jewish Law in Gentile Chur-ches Halakha and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh TampT Clark 2000)23ndash48 esp 31ndash32 47 See also Luz Matthew 8ndash20 19ndash20 and Davies and Allison Matthew8ndash18 56ndash58 who briefly discusses how early (and modern) church interpreters try to softenJesusrsquo statement here
83 In QiṣṣaNestor sect84 the scene where Jesus is sleeping in the boat is mentioned whilesect89 also refers to Psalm 1214 See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 169 115 254ndash55 103 135
148 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
4 5 6 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 818ndash20 (sectsect26ndash27)84
The next four arguments which are likewise all based on verses in Matt 8ndash9point to Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo as indicative of the fact thatJesus is only human This of course follows a trajectory already encounteredin QiṣṣaNestor (cf 2511) but in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne different NewTestament passages are used to argue the pointldquoAnd Jesus went across the Euphrates and a scribe came and said to him lsquoRabbi I willfollow you to the place where you will gorsquo Jesus answered him lsquoThe foxes have burrows andthe bird[s] of heaven have nests but I mdash the lsquoSon of Manrsquo mdash have no ground to lay myheadrsquordquo [Matt 818ndash20] Now if he is God why does he call himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo
לוויאמרסופרויבאפרתנהרישוויעבר לוענהתלךאשרהמקומותאלאחריךאלךרביישו ראשילהשיםקרקעליאיןאדםבןואניקניםישהשמיםולעוףחפורותישלשועלים85אדם בן עצמו קרא למה הוא אלוהים ואם
Though Matt 818ndash20 is in the background the context appears obscure atfirst as Jesus is envisioned to have crossed the Euphrates (and not the lake inGalilee) This might indicate however that this particular argument originallywas based on a Latin source and that the compiler had no in-depth familiaritywith the canonical Matthew86 Nevertheless the argument works well with theimmediately preceding section (sect25 see 458) as it provides a second prooftext that Jesus calls himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo The question ldquoWhy does he callhimself son of manrdquo is thus meant to show that Jesus understood himself tobe human which is how this terms is understood by all of the polemical textssurveyed in this study
84 While the table of contents in Rosenthalrsquos edition of Yosef ha-Meqanne lists thissection as two arguments respectively it is in fact only one short argument on this seeRosenthal Joseph Hamekane 132
85 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 13386 The identification of the body of water as Euphrates would appear to be based on the
Latin trans fretum (ldquoacross the straightchannelseasrdquo for the Greek πέραν ldquoacrossrdquo [fromsomething]) which perhaps is homonymous with Euphrates The same also can be seen in theparallel passage in MS Rome (A1) f 14a ldquoIt is written for them in another place that Jesussaw scores [of people] surrounding him and he went across the River Euphrates and a scribecame to himhelliprdquo ( ויבאפרתלנהרמעברוילךסביבותיוכתותישוויראאחרבמקוםלהםכתוב
לוויאמראחדסופר ) The Latin for Matthew 818 reads here videns autem Iesus turbasmultas circum se iussit ire trans fretum (Vg) And also in MS Rome (A1) the discussion ofMatt 818ndash20 follows Matt 96 but the argument is more extensive The same passage is alsoused in Nizzahon Vetus sect168 ldquoIt is further written in their book of Mark lsquoWhen Jesus sawgreat multitudes about him he crossed the Euphrates River And a certain scribe came andsaidhelliprsquordquo ( פרתלנהרמעברוילדרבותסביבותיוכיתובישוויראמרקושבספרלהםכתובעוד
ויאמראחדסופרויבא ) see Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate 180 118 [Hebr section] Itwould appear that this was either a well known argument andor that one of these texts (or acommon source) was the origin of this argument
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 149
4 5 7 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 820 (sect7)
Matt 820 is also discussed in an earlier section which stands separately fromthose in sectsect24ndash29 Unlike the arguments in that section Matthew 820 isquoted in Latin and is used to point out the lowly condition of his humanity87
Vulpes foveas habint vul[u]qres coeli niqos [nidos] Fili[us] homini[s] non habet reclinetcaput suu[m] Explanation Moles have holes that provide cover for them birds have a part ofthe sky for their nests [yet] the ldquoSon of Manrdquo did not have for himself ubi [or anywhere onwhich] to rest his head That [means that] he was so poor that he had no place for himself torest his head or to live
פירושmdashשואוקבוץריקלנישאביץנוןאומוניפיליניקוצילווולקרישאבינטפואבישוולפוש[חפירותחפו( מקום]חפרפרות) לוהיהלאאדםבןקיניהםהשמיםלצדעופותלהםישצל
88בו ולדור ראשו לכפות מקום לו היה שלא כך כל עני שהיה ראשו יכוף אפא
The argument is not very elaborate and simply states that Jesus as ldquoSon ofManrdquo is poor and as such it is not necessarily an argument against Jesusrsquodivinity per se though it lends further support to understand the term ldquoSon ofManrdquo as an exclusively human identification It is eg left unsaid that Jesusrsquopoverty is in stark contrast with God or other prominent figures of the Frenchclergy
4 5 8 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 96 (sect25)
Another ldquoSon of Manrdquo saying here Matt 96 is employed89 Three uses of theterm ldquoSon of Manrdquo in this part of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne are as suchderived from Matt 8ndash9 two of which are based on Matt 96 The argument insect25 is very terse and is consists of a single short lineAnd it also written for them that Jesus said to the owner of the field who was lying on his bedldquoArise go so that you may know that the son of man is ruling on the earth [and] forgivingsinsrdquo Then Jesus said to the owner of the field Take your bed and go to your home [cf Matt96] mdash he clearly calls himself a ldquoSon of Manrdquo here90
87 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect102 see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 171 119 259105 138
88 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 12789 Cf the table in 44 Before Matt 818ndash20 is cited in sectsect26ndash27 a similar argument is pre-
sented based on Matt 96 in sect25 After sectsect26ndash27 Matt 96 is used again in section sect2890 It is not clear why the paralytic of Matt 96 (parr Mark 210ndash11 Luke 524) is identi-
fied as ldquoowner of the fieldrdquo ( השדהבעל ) The argument also appears also in Nizzahon Vetusthere the paralytic is designated as השידהבעל (ldquodemon possessedrdquo) cf Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect168 316 Berger sensibly suggests that השידהבעל might be a corruptionof השיתוקבעל (ldquoparalyticrdquo) cf also Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 132 n 1 (sect25) Thearguments in Yosef ha-Meqanne sectsect25ndash28 are very similar to MS Rome (A1) f 13bndash14a seeRosenthal ldquoJewish Criticismrdquo [ יהודיתבקורת ] 125 There the respective passage reads
השידיםלבןישושאמר (ldquoJesus spoke to the son of the demonsrdquo) but one line below the man
150 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
אדםבןכיתדעלבעבורלךקוםהמטהעלהשוכבהשדהלבעלישושאמרלהםכתובועודשקראהריmdashלביתךולךמטתךשאהשדהבלעלישואמראזהטאותסולחבארץ91משול92אדם בן עצמו
Even though Jesus forgives which in the Christian reading often signifies adivine perogative93 Jesus calls himself here a ldquoSon of Manrdquo ( אדםבן ) Byimplication Jesus must have understood himself as a mere human Incontrast the medieval exegesis of Matt 96 mostly explained the verse bymeans of the communicatio idiomatum as affirmation that Jesus is equal toGod the Father94
4 5 9 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 96 (sect28)
The second time Matt 96 is used it is argued that Jesus contradicts himselfand has to be understood as a liarMoreover if he performed this sign for the owner of the field (or demon possessed) [inorder] to make known his power and might why did he say to the owner of the field (ordemon possessd) ldquoIn order that you may know that the son of man is rulingrdquo [cf Matt 96]Why did he answer [him then with] a lie since he said ldquoI have no ground to lay my headrdquo
השדהלבעלאמרלמהוגבורתוכחולהודיעהשדהלבעלהזההאותעשהאםועוד למען95ראשי להשים קרקע לי אין שאמר שקר ענה למה מושל אדם בן כי תדע
That Jesus is a liar (שקרן) is also argued in sect12 (see 4510) and sect16 (451)though the argument here simply reasons that if Jesus as the ldquoSon of Manrdquo isindeed ruling ( מושלאדםבן )96 then it should follow that he has the authorityto appropriate for himself a place to sleep Moreover if Jesus is divine heshould ldquoownrdquo everything anyway As such Jesus must be understood to belying here If he indeed has no place to lay his head then he is ultimately notruling (nor could he be divine) And vice versa if he were ruling then hemust be lying inasmuch as he would have a place top lay his head Jesusrsquolimitation in regard to his physical existence stands as such in contradiction to
is called השידיםבעל (ldquothe demon possessedrdquo) This is also found in the ldquoBasle Nizzahonrdquosee William Horbury ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo JTS 34 (1983) 497ndash514 see 509 repr and revin Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (idem Edinburgh TampT Clark 1998)243ndash61 (256)
91 MS Rome (A1) has שולט (control command) here92 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 13293 See Hilary In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius 86 (PL 9961 SC 254200) In the
early church the pericope was also related to the Trinity see Luz Matthew 8ndash20 29ndash3094 See Muumlller The Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo 87ndash9295 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 13296 Matt 96 in Greek reads ldquoἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπουrdquo
(NA27) the Latin ldquoquoniam Filius hominis habet potestatemrdquo (Vg) מושל corresponds thusto ἐξουσία or potestas
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 151
his claims Since Jesus owns very little he cannot be compared to the Onewho owns everything
4 5 10 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman Matt 920 (sect12)
Also in sect12 Jesus is accused of being a liar which is based on a discussion ofJesusrsquo encounter with the hemorrhaging woman of Matt 920 Already in theimmediately preceding section a woman is featured the Samaritan of John 4in an argument against Jesusrsquo divinity97
Here in sect12 it is reasoned that Jesus actively defiled himself in his meet-ing with the woman of Matt 9Your Lord was unclean and a liar The woman hemorrhaging for 12 years came before himand he touched her clothing and healed her according to your words Consequently he madehimself unclean and transgressed the words of the Torah
כןאםלדבריכםורפאהבלבושהונגעלפניובאהשנהיבשלנדהושקרןהיהטמאאדונכם98תורה דברי על ועבר עצמו טמא
Already in the preceding section we find a somewhat different reading fromthe canonical accounts There the Samaritan woman initiates the conversationwith Jesus asking if he wants something to drink (cf John 47)99 Here wefind another reversal instead of the woman touching Jesus (cf Matt 920) itis actually Jesus who touches her clothing100 This reading is certainly polemi-cally expedient and perhaps not accidental but that does not necessarilymean the texts were deliberately altered by Rabbi Joseph as he seems to thinkthis is part of Christian Scripture (לדבריכם) Whatever the case Jesus is
97 Accordingly Jesus should not have directed the woman to worship the Father (cf John423) but him this then shows that Jesus and the Father are distinct see Rosenthal JosephHamekane 128 The Samaritan woman appears in three separate arguments in sect11 in sect35and sect38 see Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 128 134 and 136 In sect35 it is questioned whyJesus if he was God would be tired and in need of something to drink ( למההואאלוהיםאם
למיםוצמאנתיעף ) A Christian response is given ie that this is speaking of his human body( מדברהבשר ) which then is countered with a question ldquoWas it [then] not [so] that the wholetime while the Holy Spirit was in him that he did not exert himself and did not grow tiredrdquo( יגעולאיעףלאבתוכוהקדששרוחזמןכלהלא ) In other words (resolving the double nega-tive) it is questioned how Jesus could grow weary while the Holy Spirit was in him cf4513 and 4519 also Nizzahon Vetus sect181 sect176 and sect178 (see 5410 12 13)
98 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 12899 This however may simply be based on the Vulgate which reads for John 47 venit
mulier de Samaria haurire aquam dicit ei Iesus da mihi bibere which can be read either as ldquohesaid to herrdquo or as ldquoshe said to himrdquo
100 Also here the Vulgate can in fact be read as Jesus touching the woman as the verbtetigit can be masculine or feminine and likewise the pronoun eius cf Matt 920 (Vg) eccemulier quae sanguinis fluxum patiebatur duodecim annis accessit retro et tetigit fimbriam ves-timenti eius
152 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
understood to actively defile himself therefore he is someone who trans-gresses the Law Jesus by implication cannot be considered divine since helacks upright behavior
4 5 11 Jesus and John the Baptist Matt 1111a (sect1)
The entire section on the New Testament in Yosef ha-Meqanne begins with anintricate rhyme leading into a quote of Matt 1111 in LatinIt is written for them in the Gospel [omitting wordplay] Inter nato[s] mulier[um] non sur-rexit maior (dirsquo) Ioanne Baptista(l) [cf Matt 1111a] [That means] A son born by a womanis not greater than John the Baptist Jesus according to [their own] words was born by awoman for a mulier is a married woman And the mother of Jesus according to them wasnot deflowered
ופסיוןבצערשגיוןנגעגליוןבעוןלהםכתוב שוררשיתנוןמוליארנטואינטרנקיוןיוכלולאלדבריהםישומטבילמיהנןגדולנתעלהלאאשה]מ[נולדבןmdashבשטישטליהאןדימאיור
101נבעלה לא לדבריהם ישו ואם בעולה היא מולייר כי מאשה נולד היה כן אם
The rhyme which starts off the argument and the whole gospel critiquesection is based on the translation of the word ldquogospelrdquo ( גליוןעון ) By itself עוןגליון is already a polemic wordplay on the Greek euangelion and means some-thing like ldquoscroll of wickedness or ldquomargin of perversionrdquo102 The term iscoupled with ופסיוןבצערשגיוןנגע ([in the gospel] ldquoheit touched caprice ingrief and passionrdquo) and Hos 85 נקיוןיוכלולא (ldquoWill they never be capable ofpurityrdquo) The end-rhyme connects the ideas of sheetscroll (גליון) caprice(שגיון) passion (פסיון) and (im)purity (נקיון) This gives us a sense of theauthorrsquos views of the New Testament as containing heretical ideas in thatGod is understood to suffer and that Jesus and Christians are impure (ie notLaw-abiding) if not foolish people
Having thus set the tone for his New Testament critique Rabbi Josephgoes straight into a Latin paraphrase of Matt 1111 The argument that followsis not explicit and could be read in two ways
The first would be to take Matt 1111 and apply it straight to Jesus sinceJesus is born by a woman he is consequently not greater than John and thusonly human103
The second way is more intricate but contextually more likely In thisreading Matt 1111 is understood as support of Maryrsquos perpetual virginitybased on the Christian conviction that Jesus is indubitably greater than John
101 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 125 Notice that the abbreviation for Jesus is differenthere than in other sections ישו cf ישו
102 See Lasker Jewish Philosophical Polemics 175 n 24 but also Zellentin RabbinicParodies 151ndash52
103 Cf the discussion in Davies and Allison Matthew 8ndash18 251ndash52 A similar argumentis raised and refuted in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones 1601ndash3
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 153
Since he was born by a woman (אשה) one can therefore argue that thiswoman cannot be a mulier that is a woman that is not a virgin (בעולה) Itfollows that Mary must have been a (perpetual) virgin ( נבעלהלאלדבריהם )104
In the next argument (sect2) this interpretation is then challenged by quotingJohn 24105 where Jesus himself calls Mary a mulier106 Mary thereforecannot be a perpetual virgin and by implication Jesus is not greater than Johnthe Baptist he is merely human Thus two major doctrinal teachings of thechurch are challenged Jesus is less than a prophet and Mary is not avirgin107 mdash Jesusrsquo divinity and the incarnation are at stake If this second
104 Thomas Aquinas lists in his Catena Aurea (Matt 1111) the following comment byRabanus Maurus (c 780ndash856) ldquo(hellip) What need to recount one by one the praises of John theBaptist ldquoI say verily unto you Among them that are born of women etcrdquo He says womennot virgins If the same word mulier which denotes a married person is anywhere in theGospels applied to Mary it should be known that the translator has there used lsquomulierrsquo forlsquofeminarsquo as in that ldquoWoman behold thy sonrdquo [John 1926]rdquo S Thomas Aquinas CatenaAurea Commentary on the Four Gospels mdash Vol I Part II (2nd ed ed John Henry[Newman] and James Parker Oxford JGF amp J Rivington 1864) 412 I could not locatethis passage in Rabanus Maurus Expositio in Matthaeum (IndashIV) (ed Bengt Loumlfstedt CCCM174 Turnhout Brepols 2000) but a similar comment appears in Anselm of Laonrsquos (c 1050ndash1117) Enarrationes in Matthaeum 11 (PL 1621350) cf also Cyril of Jerusalemrsquos Catechesis36 (PG 33436 FC 61112) It is also noteworthy that Jerome warned of the potential diffi-culty of Matt 1111 ldquoSo then John is put ahead of those born by women and who come fromintercourse with a man But he is not put ahead of him who was born of the Virgin and theHoly Spiritrdquo (CCSL 7780 FC 117131)
105 In sect36 a paraphrase of John 21 3ndash4 is also employed and it is once more questioned(as in sect2) why Jesus designated his mother as a non-virgin ( אישבעולת ) see RosenthalJoseph Hamekane 135 The wedding at Cana is also mentioned in MS Rome (A1) f 14b butthe discussion is more extensive there and focuses on the fact that Jesus calls Mary ldquomotherrdquowhich is something impossible to say if he were God and then proceeds to discuss Maryrsquosvirginity and Isa 714 In fact Yosef ha-Meqanne sectsect36ndash37 is much terser than the argumentin MS Rome (A1) ff 14rndash15v see Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criticismrdquo [ יהודית בקורת ] 126ndash7
106 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 125 The paraphrase of the wedding at Canaincludes an additional detail Mary tells Jesus that they have neither bread nor wine (but cfJohn 23) Yet Jesus only turned water into wine This then is used to argue that Jesusapparently is unable to provide food (out of nothing) ( להםלתתיכולתלוהיהלאזהלפי(לאכל which contradicts the (Christian) aphorism ldquoper potentia[m] non per natura[m]creator fecit creatura[m]rdquo Consequently Jesus cannot be understood as equal to the CreatorldquoThus your god does not have the ability in himself to create created things ( כןאם
בריותלבראותיכולתבואיןאלוהותכם ) This argument is continued in sect3 (see 4518) TheLatin rhyme is reminiscent of a poem by Adam of St Victor (early 12th c) ldquoPotestate nonnatura fit creator creaturamrdquo see Richard C Trench Sacred Latin Poetry (3d ed LondonMacmillan 1874) 113 also Margoth E Fassler Gothic Song Victorine Sequences andAugustine Reform in twelfth-century Paris (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993)206ndash10 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne appears to interact with contemporary French theologicalthought (see also the footnote under 4513)
107 The perpetual virginity of Mary is criticized also in sect17 and sect21
154 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
reading is correct and it would seem so then the argument is quite sophisti-cated and presupposes a good knowledge of the New Testament
4 5 12 Jesus on Gluttony Matt 1119a (sect4)
This section is thematically linked to the previous arguments (see above) as itrelates back to the wedding in Cana (sect2) and it is again based on Matt 11 עוד)
שםכתוב ) And as already observed in sect1 one of Jesusrsquo own statement isusedIt is also written there Qui manducat caro [carnem] e[t] vinum bibit luxurios[us] est Expla-nation The one who eats meat and drinks wine is a glutton and transgressor Yet he ate meatand drank wine at the wedding of the architriclin[us]108
בשרהאוכלפירושmdashאישטאשלוקשורביביתוינוםאיקרומנדקוטקישםכתובעוד109ארטקלין בנשואי יין ושתה בשר אכל והוא עבירות ובעל זולל יין ושותה
Not only is Jesus lesser than John and lesser than the Creator he must also beunderstood as a glutton and sinner inasmuch as Jesus calls those who eatmeat and drink wine gluttons and sinners But since he did the same at thewedding at Cana he himself must be a glutton This is of course an artificial(and superficial) argument but it is definitely related to the previous sectionsIt is quite evident that the author did not understand Matt 11 or perhaps didnot have full access to the gospel text otherwise he probably would not haveused a line of Jesusrsquo rebuttal of the very polemic that is being employed here(cf Matt 1116ndash19)
4 5 13 Quicunque and Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1231ndash32 (sect9)
Rabbi Joseph bases the subsequent arguments on the Athanasian Creed(Quicunque vult) which he appears to knows by that name (קילקונקיבט) In sect5Rabbi Joseph argues in a surprisingly direct fashion that the crucifixion ofJesus would denote the death of God After quoting a line from theAthanasian creed in Latin that ldquojust as the soul and the flesh are one man soGod and Man is one Christrdquo (sicut anima et caro unus est homo ita Deus ethomo unus est Christus) Rabbi Joseph simply states that this would conse-quently mean that ldquowhen the flesh was killed also the Divinity was killedrdquo
108 The author believes that the wedding at Cana was in fact the wedding of ארטקליןמלךwhich Rosenthal relates to the term architriclinus (ldquohead stewardrdquo) see Joseph Hamekane125 n 1 (sect2) cf John 29 (ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος Vg architriclinus) These type of differencesto the canonical texts mdash there are more (cf 453 456 and also sect2) mdash seem to suggest thatthe author did not have full access to the New Testament or that there was a deliberatechange of the text
109 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 126
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 155
( האלהותנהרגהבשרכשנהרגכןאם )110 The simile (sicuthellip ita) is understoodvery literally the soul (הנשמה) as representing divinity and the flesh as repre-senting humanity which creates a rather Apollinarian reading of the creedalstatement whereby Jesus is seen as being composed of the divine (soul) andthe flesh111 However this interpretation of the creed is most certainlycontraire to Athanasiusrsquo understanding In a second step Rabbi Josephproceeds to the Gethsemane pericope and continues to argue that Jesusrsquo expe-rience is incompatible with divine existence (see 4519)
Then in sect8 Rabbi Joseph quotes a line which is again related to the creedldquoThe Father is unbegotten the Son is begotten the Holy Spirit proceeds frombothrdquo (Pater ingenitus Filius genitus Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque proce-dens)112 Based on this the argument is made that the Son came to exist afterthe Father ( לבןקודםהאבכןאם ) and furthermore that there was once a timewhen the Father was without the Spirit ( רוחבלאהיהשהאבעתהיהכןאם )113
Although this critique is based on a misunderstanding of the term genitus(ldquobegottenrdquo) it inadvertently retraces some of the issues discussed in eg theArian controversy114
Then in sect9 Rabbi Joseph turns to the Gospel of Matthew again to rein-force this argument from the New Testament
110 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 126111 Already in Milḥamot ha-Shem this quasi logos-sarx Christology was encountered (see
346) The same understanding is also evident in Nizzahon Vetus sect176 sect178 sect181 (see5410 12 13) and interestingly also Celsus understood this to be the Christian position cfCels 669
112 The same argument occurs in Nizzahon Vetus sect165 see Berger Jewish-ChristianDebate 178 But pace Berger and Lapide this is not directly referring to the AthanasianCreed cf Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 315 and Lapide Hebrew in the Church 211n 65 The respective line in the creed reads ldquoPater a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitusFilius a Patre solo est non factus nec creatus sed genitus Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filionon factus nec creatus nec genitus sed procedensrdquo The phrase ldquoPater ingenitus Filiusgenitus Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedensrdquo stems from Alcuin of York (735ndash804 CE)who was responsible for the revision of the Vulgate and who used it in his explanation of theAthanasian Creed see his De symbolo 509 (41) (PL 1011271) Also Anselm of Laon(c 1050ndash1117) uses the phrase in his Sententie see Franz Bliemetzrieder Anselms von LaonSystematische Sentenzen (Muumlnster Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1919) 8 (fol86d) Anselm like Alcuin before him was a very influential theologian in northern Franceand beyond and was a rival of Peter Abelard (1079ndash1142) He was also the teacher ofWilliam of Champeaux the bishop of Chacirclons-en-Champagne who was a supporter of PopeCallixtus II and friend of Bernard of Clairvaux The fact that Rabbi Joseph is citing a linewhich probably originated with Alcuin and was repeated by Anselm of Laon grounds hisanti-Christian critique in the contemporary historical context of northern France Not onlydoes it demonstrate that there was close contact to the educated French clergy it also showshow Jewish debaters offered a tailor-made response to Christian arguments
113 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 127114 See Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God 106ndash22
156 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
It is also written there there is forgiveness for the sin [of blasphemy] against the Father andthe Son but there is no forgiveness for the sin against the Holy Spirit [cf Matt 1231ndash32] Itfollows that [these two] do not have the [same] holiness as this [one] and they [also] do nothave the [same] power unless [of course] they are not one entity
אםמחילהלואיןהקודשברוחהחוטאאבלמחילהלוישובבןבאבהחוטאשםכתובעוד115אחד דבר אינם אם כזה זה כח ואיך כזה זה של קדשות אין כן
This is the first discussion of Matt 1231ndash32 The second discussion is placedat the end of the whole chapter (see 4514 below) and both are quite similarto Milḥamot ha-Shem The different responses by the members of the Trinity(two forgive one does not) demonstrate the disjunction between them Theyare as such not one entity nor are they equal
It is evident that this particular argument on the blasphemy against theSpirit was used within a greater argument that sought to dispute the Trinityboth on doctrinal (Quicunque vult and Anselmrsquos Sententie) and scripturalgrounds (Matt 2638 and 1231ndash32)116 This seeks to meet the Christian sideon their turf and demonstrates more deliberation of the related issues than anoutright objection based on impropriety (eg God in the womb)
4 5 14 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1231ndash32 (sect41)
At the end of the chapter in sect41 the above argument is repeated117 but in amore extensive mannerAnd it is also written for them ldquoThe one who sinned against the Father it will be forgivenhim and likewise if one sinned against the Son but the one who sinned against the HolySpirit will not be forgivenrdquo [cf Matt 1231ndash32] This would mean that there are two powers[ruling the universe] And if so [what if] someone has cursed the Father and the Son and theSpirit and he repents and is forgiven by the two but [since] whoever sins against the Spiritand repents shall not be forgiven mdash what happens in this case what will be the judgment andverdict of such a person since the two forgive him but the third will not forgive Wherewould this one go since one part of the divinity has forgiven him yet the other part has notforgiven him From this one can deduce that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are notone
להםכתובועוד לאהקודשברוחהחוטאאבלבבןהחוטאוכןלויתכפרבאבהחוטאיתכפרונתחרטוהרוחוהבןהאבשקיללמיכןואםהןרשויותדשתימשמעכןאםלויתכפר
זהשלודינומשפטויהיהמהכןאםיתכפרלאונתחרטהרוחשקללמיאבלשניהןעללו
115 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 127116 The gospel text however does not mention the Father but the polemicists bring out
the implication expressed on the Christian side eg by Augustine Serm 7114 (24) see espWilliam Horbury ldquoThe Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Boḥanrdquoin Matthew 19ndash28 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to SaintMatthew (W Davies and Dale C Allison ICC London TampT Clark 2004) 729ndash38 (here732ndash3)
117 Perhaps this is a secondary addendum to the overall composition
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 157
לוכפרלאומקצתולוכפרהאלהותשמקצתוזהילדואנהכפרלאוהשלישיכפרוששניהם118אחד אינם והרוח והבן שהאב להשיב יש מכאן
The scenario of a person sinning against all three persons of the Trinity andthe question of such a personrsquos fate is the same as already encountered inMilḥamot ha-Shem (see 349) The additional point made in Yosef ha-Meqanne is that Matt 1231ndash32 actually promotes a kind of heretical dualismor ditheism ( רשויותדשתימשמע )119 This presumably either criticizes a dithe-ism of Father and Son which relates more to the classic understanding (andcritique) of ldquotwo powers in heavenrdquo or it is perhaps directed against thedistinction between Father and Son on the one side and the Spirit on theother In the following section (sect42) several more questions related to theSpirit are collected and listed which ultimately all are directed against Jesusrsquodivinity and the Trinity120
The argument here clearly attempts to deconstruct the Trinity in demon-strating the inherent paradox from the side of the Son but also from the sideof the Spirit If the Son is effectively not equal to the Father and neither theSpirit the whole construct of the Trinity is undermined The argument if notthe whole chapter not only seeks to disprove Jesusrsquo divinity this is alreadyassumed but also challenges the doctrinal superstructure of the Christian con-viction that God is triune And so what started with a critique of Jesus in sect5and sect6 turned into a rather intricate argument against the Trinity in sect8 and sect9(and also in sectsect41ndash42)
4 5 15 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 1337 (sect13)
After the discussion of the hemorrhaging woman in sect12 (see 4510) whichargues that Jesus defiled himself Jesusrsquo integrity is attacked again This isdone by juxtaposing the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo (cf 456ndash9) in Matt 1337 withJohn 854He praised himself and said [the] ldquoSon of Manrdquo sows the good seed [Matt 1337] Yet inanother place he is saying ldquoI will not praise myself for my praise is nothingrdquo [John 854]
118 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 137119 See Marcus Jastrow A Dictionary of Targumim Talmud and Midrashic Literature
(London W C Luzac 1886ndash1903 repr Peabody Hendrickson 2005) 1499 and esp AlanF Segal Two Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism(Leiden Brill 1977) who describes this particular heresy as ldquointerpreting scripture to say thata principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to Godrdquo (x empha-sis original) This is essentially similar to Daniel Boyarinrsquos argument about the Son of Man inDaniel 7 see The Jewish Gospel 56ndash59 Alan Segal has been critiqued by James F McGrathand Jerry Truex ldquolsquoTwo Powersrsquo and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheismrdquo JBS (2004)43ndash71
120 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 137
158 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
ואמרעצמוהלל אומרהואאחרובמקוםהטובזרעיזרעאדםבן הלוליכיעצמיאהלללא121ריק
Jesus is presented as praising himself which is achieved by taking the termldquoSon of Manrdquo in Matt 1337 as a self-reference to Jesus Since this ldquoSon ofManrdquo is sowing good seed Jesus is understood as praising himself This islinked to a paraphrase of John 854 where Jesus claims that he is not praisinghimself which then would stand in contradiction to Matt 1337 Not only canJesus be characterized as potentially proud he is also someone who contra-dicts himself
It is however evident that this is a rather contrived argument On the oneside it is quite a stretch to understand Matt 1337 as Jesus (proudly) praisinghimself On the other side the canonical text of John 854 is not a statementbut a conditional clause ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory is worthlessrdquo
4 5 16 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 (Matt 1916f) (sect33)
Since Yosef ha-Meqanne is focused mostly on disputing Jesusrsquo divinity it isnot surprising that the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo is also discussed though theactual argument is rather shortAnd it is also written for them ldquoA man came to him falling on his knees and he said to himlsquoOh good [one] what must I do to inherit the life of the world to comersquo He said to himlsquoWhy do you call me good No one is good but God alone Do you not know the command-ments ldquoDo not murder do not commit adultery etcrdquorsquo He said lsquoAll these I have keptrsquo Andhe loved him very much And he said to him lsquoStill [one] more [thing] you have to do Giveall you own to the poor and you will have your treasure in heaven and come follow mersquordquoAnd now why was he so strict about being called good if he is God And moreover why didhe not command him to have himself baptized since that is such a choice commandment oftheirs Instead in [practicing] righteousness he promised him the life of the world to come
להםכתובועוד לוויאמרברכיועלכורעאישאליוויבא העולםחיישאנחלאעשהמהטובלוויאמרהבא תרצחלאהמצותיודעאינךלבדואלהיםאםכיטובאיןטובתקראנילמהלואמרוכותנאףלא לוויאמרמאדויאהבהושמרתיאלהכל יותרלעשותלךישעדייןאםטובשקראוהקפידלמהועתהאחריולךבשמיםאוצרךויהילענייםלךאשרכלתן
אלאלהםהמובחרתהמצוהשהיאעצמואתלהטבילצוהולאלמהועודהואאלוהים122הבא העולם לחיי הבטיחו בצדקה
The quote is actually based on Mark and not Matthew123 Jesusrsquo strictresponse to why he was addressed as good much like in the various manu-scripts of QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514) serves as demonstration that Jesus
121 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 128122 See ibid 134123 The man is said to be kneeling before Jesus (cf Mark 917) and it is further remarked
that Jesus loved him (cf Mark 921) which is not mentioned in Matthew (and likewise alsonot in the parallel section in QiṣṣaNestor the argument must have been derived fromelsewhere)
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 159
did not consider himself as divine though this is not fully verbalized (QiṣṣaNestor make much more of the passage) A second very astute question isthen meant to challenge the practice of baptism and the role of salvation bybaptism over against the keeping of Torah Rather than commending baptismJesus extols the virtues of keeping the Law for the attainment of righteous-ness124
4 5 17 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Matt 2022ndash23 (sect15)
Next is a challenge of Jesusrsquo divinity by means of Matt 2022ndash23 which isthematically related to the preceding sect14 (both deal with eating)He also said ldquoPotestis bibere calices [calicem] cum [quem] ego [bibiturus sum]rdquo [Matt2022 par Mark 1038] Explanation ldquoAre you able to drink what I will drinkrdquo And theyanswered ldquoYes we are ablerdquo He said ldquoFrom what I drink you will drink but I am not ableto appoint you [seats] not to my right and not to my left for it belongs to him [for whom]my Father decreed itrdquo [Matt 2023 par Mark 1040] It follows that he is not able carry outhis [own] will and again it becomes apparent that the Son and the Father are not one
שאשתהכמולשתותאתםהיכוליםפירושmdashאיגוקוםקליצסביבריאישטיטפוטאמרעודכילשמאליולאלימינילאלהושיבכםיכלתילאאךתשתומשתייתיאמריכולנוכןענווהם
125אחד אינו והאב הבן כי נראה ועוד רצונו לעשות יכל אינו כן אם עליו אבי שגזר לאותו
The exchange over the position of the sons of Zebedee is also used in QiṣṣaNestor sect97 and sect150 (see 252)126 Here however the argument emphaziseswhat was missing in QiṣṣaNestor which is to point out that Jesus seeminglylacked the authority to bring about what he was asked Since Jesus does nothave the power to bequeath the privileges of heaven to his disciples it followsthat the Son and the Father are not one Jesus is consequently lesser than GodThe passage was also difficult for many early church interpreters because ldquoitappeared to be a trump card in the hand of the Ariansrdquo127 It is remarkable that
124 Cf the similarity to Nizzahon Vetus sect184 (see 549)125 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 128ndash29126 See ibid 137 Cf the Arian argument in Panarion 6919 and 6958 on Matt 2022ndash23
ldquoDo you see (hellip) how he has no authority independent of the Fatherrsquos who has the authorityto give it to anyone he choosesrdquo The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III(Sects 47ndash80 De Fide) (trans Frank Williams Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36Leiden Brill 1994) 376 also Shlomo Pines The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries ofChristianity 13 n 35
127 Luz Matthew 8ndash20 544 Luz points here to Ambrose Fid 55 (CSEL 78238 NFPN2
10291f) ldquolsquoHowrsquo they say lsquocan the Son of God be the only true God like to the Fatherwhen He Himself said to the sons of Zebedee lsquoYe shall drink indeed of My cup but to sit onMy right hand or on My left is not Mine to give to you but to those for whom it has beenprepared of My Fatherrsquorsquo This then is as you desire your proof of divine inequality thoughin it you ought rather to reverence the Lordrsquos kindness and to adore His grace if that is youcould but perceive the deep secrets of the virtue and wisdom of Godrdquo
160 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
the much earlier Arian argument is almost completely preserved in Yosef ha-Meqanne128
4 5 18 Jesusrsquo Lament over Jerusalem Matt 2337 (sect3)
Continuing from the wedding at Cana pericope (sect2) where Jesusrsquo inability toprovide bread is understood as indicator of his inequality with the Creator (see4511) Rabbi Joseph proceeds to question how Jesus could be understood asdivineHe said to Jerusalem ldquoJerusalem Jerusalem I spoke in order to gather you under my feet likea hen her chicksrdquo [cf Matt 2337] But is it not written ldquoHe spoke and it wasrdquo [Ps 339] andldquowhatever the Lord desires he does in heaven and on earthrdquo [Ps 1356]
לירושליםאמר ירושליםירושלים לאפרוחיהכתרנגולתרגליתחתלאוספךאמרתי129ובארץ בשמים עשה] יי [חפץ אשר כלו ויהי אמר הוא כי והכתיב
The passage itself may have been used by a Christian to argue for the pre-existence of Jesus inasmuch as Jesus appears to identify himself with Godrsquosrole in salvation history130 But Rabbi Joseph reasons here that the Creatorspeaks and it happens Jesus in contrast lacks the power to bring about hisintentions A New Testament passage that was used in support of Jesusrsquo divi-nity is thus turned into its opposite Rabbi Joseph effectively advances twoarguments first Matt 2337 is never something omnipotent God could reallydeclare and second in saying this Jesus cannot be understood as God131 Putanother way God in his omnipotence can simply decree Jesus is evidentlynot able to do so132 It is clear that Rabbi Joseph is maintaining that this sort ofsaying is not suitable talk for someone who is considered to be equal toomnipotent God
4 5 19 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2638 41 (sect6)
The first time the Gethsemane pericope is used in Yosef ha-Meqanne is insupport of an argument against the Trinity that began in sect5 (see 4513)where it followed a discussion of a line of the Athanasian Creed ldquoJust as thesoul and the flesh are one man so God and Man is one Christrdquo (sicut anima et
128 See 921 and 922129 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 126130 See Luz Matthew 21ndash28 161 n 34 See esp Gathercole The Pre-existent Son 210ndash
21 for a discussion of Matt 2337 in relationship to the development of Christology and howthe verse can be understood as a claim to the pre-existence of Jesus
131 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 43 69132 The New Testament passage was perhaps deliberately modified (אמרתי) to make this
point stronger In fact already in the previous section additional words are put into Maryrsquosmouth on which the rest of the argument was based
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 161
caro unus est homo ita Deus et homo unus est Christus) Rabbi Josephfollows this up with Matt 2638 41When he was [about to be] crucified he said ldquotristim [est] anima mea usque [ad] mortemetc caro promptus estrdquo Explanation ldquoMy soul is as loathing [even] to death and the flesh isirritable and agitatedrdquo And they are saying [with this] that the soul [of Jesus] is in fact theDivinity as it is written ldquoThe spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lordrdquo [Prov 2027] Conse-quently the god[head] of the created one is agitated
פירושmdashאישטפרוםנטושקרואיץמורטםאושקאמיאהאנימאטרישטםאמרכשנצלבדכתיבהאלהותהואהנשמהכיאומריםוהםורוגשתרוגזתוהבשרמותעדנשמתיכאיבה
133רגש הנוצר אלהות כן אם אדם נשמת אלהים נר
This argument is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) where also the factthat Jesus said his soul was perturbed is in focus Likewise Jesusrsquo soul istaken to be the locus of divinity ( האלהותהואהנשמהכי ) This of coursewould mean that Jesusrsquo divine aspect would have shared even caused theseemotions of fear and distress ( רגשהנוצראלהותכןאם ) While the argument ismore sophisticated as it rests on a line from the Athanasian Creed (see4513) Matt 2638 and Proverbs 2027 it still has a distinct ldquoApollinarianflavorrdquo Also the argument is not harvesting the polemical potential of theGethsemane passage any further as done in Milḥamot ha-Shem though thenext argument below (sect10) advances the argument more
4 5 20 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2639 (sect10)
The second use of the Gethsemane pericope follows very soon after in sect10It is also written there that he cried to the Father when he was crucified ldquoPater mi si possi-bil[e] est transeat[un] a mi calis [calix]rdquo [cf Matt 2639] Explanation My father if it ispossible let my ordeal stop It follows that he was not able to remove the ordeal from himselfbut [only] his father Consequently they are not one entity
טרנשיאוןאישטביילשאיפויישמייפאטירצלובכשהיהלאבשצעקשםכתובעודלהסיריכלהיהלאכןאםmdashשליהצרההפסקלהיותיכלאםשליאבפירושmdashאמיקליש
134אחד דבר אינם כן אם אביו אם כי ממנו הצרה
This passage is already discussed with a different emphasis in QiṣṣaNestorsect53 (see 2515) In Qiṣṣa it was argued that Jesusrsquo prayer demonstrated thathe was just human The argument of Jesusrsquo inability is closer to Nestor Jesusrsquorequest to God demonstrates his own inability Consequently Jesus is not God(Nestor) which then means that Jesus and God are not one (Yosef ha-Meqanne) While this is an argument against the Trinity the premise is thatGod in his omnipotence can help himself Jesus however is seen to lack thisdivine attribute he is consequently not God
133 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 126134 Ibid 127ndash28
162 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
4 5 21 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2746 (sect38)
Jesusrsquo fear and display of physical needs is also used in another attack on theTrinity Several strands from the entire chapter are bundled perhaps provid-ing a kind of summaryThey are saying that the Father and the Son and the Spirit that these three are one The Fatherand the Spirit should be able to be one entity since [both] do not eat nor drink nor sleep norgrow weary nor get scared But the Son clearly eats and drinks and sleeps and gets wearyand scared as when he was [for example] in the boat or when he got weary and asked of theSamaritan woman to give him [to drink] from the well135 He [also] got scared when he saidldquoMy God My God why have you left merdquo [Matt 2746]
אוכליםשאינםאחדדברלהיותיכוליןוהרוחהאבאחדשלשתןוהרוחוהבןשהאבאומריםהואשהריומפוחדויעףוישןושותהאוכלהואהריהבןאבלומפוחדיםויעפיםוישניםושותים
ונתפחדהמעייןעללשתותלשומרוניתכששאלויעףבספינהכשהיהוישןושתהאכל136עזבתני למה אלי אלי כשאמר
According to Rabbi Joseph Jesusrsquo exclamation on the cross shows his fearwhich among many other things is unbecoming for the divine God is in nono need of nourishment nor can he be scared become weary or grow tiredBut not so Jesus his humanity effectively prevents him from being identifiedas divine which is an argumentative strategy already encountered in QiṣṣaNestor As can be observed throughout this kind of polemical tradition andnot just in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne humanity and divinity are understood asstrictly exclusive which is the underlying assumption of this argumentativestrategy Any human trait observed in Jesus therefore becomes an indicatorthat he is not divine Here it is the fact that Jesus is afraid that disqualifieshim This use of Matt 2746 is different from earlier sources Jesusrsquo fear ishighlighted instead of using the content of Jesusrsquo prayer as sign of his disjunc-tion or distinction from God137
135 This account of the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman does not correspondto what is seen sect12 (cf 4510) Here in sect38 it is actually Jesus who initiates the conversa-tion Moreover John 4 is used in an argument in sect35 where it is again Jesus who initiates thedialogue This probably indicates that this particular argument came originally from a differ-ent (Latin based) source In fact the arguments in the range from sectsect30ndash33 and from sectsect35ndash36 occur in the exact same order and with very similar content in Nizzahon Vetus sectsect182ndash84and sectsect185ndash186 though Nizzahon Vetus is perhaps more elaborate than Yosef ha-MeqanneThen sect38 is also mirrored in the first part of Nizzahon Vetus sect188 (see 545) On this seeBerger Jewish-Christian Debate 189ndash94 127ndash31 [Hebr section] and also his comments320ndash21
136 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 136 Cf MS Rome (A1) f 17a Rosenthal ldquoJewishCriticismrdquo 130 which has the same argument though it is not as terse as in Yosef ha-Meqanne
137 See QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512) where neither Jesusrsquo death nor his fear are dis-cussed (cf 4519)
45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 163
4 5 22 Jesus Commissions his Disciples Matt 2816ndash20 (sect30)
The final argument considered here uses Jesusrsquo words to the disciples in Matt2816ndash20 to argue against the possibility that he could be divineAnd his disciples went and found him on the mountain of Galilee and some of them wor-shipped him but there were also some who did not believe in him And he said to them ldquoSeethe kingdom of heaven and earth has been given me go and teach all nations a baptism in thename of the Father and the Son and the lsquoImpure Spiritrsquordquo [cf Matt 2816ndash19] Who gave himthat kingdom You say ldquothe Fatherrdquo mdash But are the two not equal in might and one is notgreater than the other in anything And moreover he said ldquoSee I am with you until the endof the worldrdquo [Matt 2820] but [he did not say] until the world to come
להםויאמרהאמינוהושלאמהםוישמקצתםלווישתחווהגלילבהרוימצאוהותלמידווילכוהטומאהורוחוהבןהאבבשםטבילההגויםכלולמדולכווארץשמיםמלכותלינתונההנה
mdashהאבתאמראםהמלכות138אותולונתןמי מזהגדולזהלאבגבורהשויןשנהיןוהלא139הבא לעולם לא אבל העולם סוף עד עמכם הנני שאמר ועוד דבר משום
The argument is put in the form of rethorical questions if not imaginarydialogue Jesusrsquo commission of his disciples and the trinitarian baptismalformula is used mdash not without a polemical outburst ( הטומאהרוח ) mdash to ques-tion the veracity of the Trinity If Jesus has been given authority from theFather then it follows he is not equal to God140 The argument is strikinglysimilar to the use of Matthew 28 in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 348) where thesame type of questions are used though it is somewhat more extensive hereaccording to Rabbi Joseph Jesus should have said that he was with the disci-ples until the ldquoworld to comerdquo ie forever and not just to the end of thisworld This effectively would mean Jesus is limited and temporal hence hecannot be God
In the following section sect31 Jesusrsquo comission of the disciples is thenrelated to the earlier comission in Matthew 10 where the disciples are giventhe power to drive out ldquothe Impure Spiritrdquo ( הטומאהרוח ) from the land This
138 Perhaps better אותה cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 348) and also Nizzahon Vetus sect182(see 5414)
139 Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 133140 The difficulty of this passage was also seen by Christian interpreters Bede eg writes
in his commentary on Matthew 27 (PL 92130) ldquoThis He speaks about [his] humanity whichHe took according to which lsquoHe was made a little lower than the angelsrsquo [Heb 29]rdquo See alsoLuz Matthew 21ndash28 625 ldquoThe ancient church understood this claim to power [in Matt2818] on the part of the risen Jesus in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity The resultingdifficulty was that the power over creation cannot be bestowed at a certain point in time tosomeone who lsquoalways had [the power] because he is from the Father and by nature (φύσει)Godrsquo Cyril of Alexandria also explains that ἐδόθη (lsquowas givenrsquo) was spoken only οἰκο-νομικῶςhellipκαί ἀνθρωπινώτερον (lsquocorresponding to the plan of salvationhellip and humanlyspeakingrsquo) The Chalcedonians solved the problem by saying that v 18b is speaking in partic-ular of the human nature of the Son of God that after his death is finally united with theLogosrdquo
164 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
juxtaposition with Matt 2816ndash19 does not receive any further discussion it isonly pointed out that the disciples were not to take along a staff breadclothes or sandals141 This perhaps functions as a veiled critique of thereliance and display of earthly possessions by the church of medieval Chris-tendom But in the next section (sect32) Rabbi Joseph points to Mark 914ndash1719ndash20 (par Matt 1714ndash17) where the disciples are seen to be unable to exer-cise divine power He includes in his quote of this passage Jesusrsquo frustrationwith the disciples in asking how long he has to be with them (Mark 919)which he then turns into an argument referring back to Matt 28 ( אלוהדרךכי
אדםבניעםלדור )142 Thus Jesusrsquo promise of his presence and authority isquestioned by the disciplesrsquo inability to exercise this authority In other wordsJesusrsquo promise of being with the disciples until the end of the age is contra-dicted by their lack of divine authority which perhaps implicitly can beextended to the contemporary followers of Jesus in Rabbi Josephrsquos timeThough Matt 2818ndash20 does not promise the authority to heal or exorcisedemons and the argument is anachronistic in that it relates an earlier commis-sion of the disciples to a later sending the (original) author of this argumentstill has created an impressive linking of Matt 2818ndash20 Matt 101 9ndash10 andMark 914ndash20 which requires considerable knowledge of the New TestamentA further question is attached to this section namely how Jesus is not able toknow how long the demon had possessed the boy for God does not need toask questions ( שאל למה הוא אלוהים אם )
4 6 Summary
The discussion of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne is mainlyconcerned with critiquing the assertion of Jesusrsquo divinity but in particular theTrinity With this Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne stands in the trajectory of earlierworks and Rabbi Josephrsquos arguments against Jesus are in places similar toMilḥamot ha-Shem and QiṣṣaNestor His arguments also share the samephilosophical assumption with previous works ie that it is effectively impos-sible for God to become human For Jesus to be divine he would have toportray and exercise all attributes of divinity without the presence of any kindof limitation The intricacies of the Christian dogma of Jesus namely being atthe same time truly divine and truly human appear to be rudimentarily appre-ciated but by not engaging with any kind of deeper Christian reasoning thisview is essentially ignored (which is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem) The inter-pretation of the Athanasian Creed in this context is clearly misconceived
141 See Rosenthal Joseph Hamekane 133142 Ibid cf also Nizzahon Vetus sectsect182ndash3
46 Summary 165
which results in a reading closer to Arian and Apollinarian views of Jesus (see4513)143
While many of the presented arguments are very terse and have more thecharacter of an abbreviation some sections clearly show some in-depthknowledge of Christian scripture and familiarity with Christian theologicalthought (in sect5 and sect8 see 4513) whereas in other places an argument can bemore contrived (in sect13 see 4515) Especially Matt 9ndash11 Matt 1231ndash32and Matt 2638ndash39 play a prominent role in the polemical argumentation
Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan presents Jesus as self-contradictory and all-toohuman individual Like others before him he emphasizes depictions of Jesusrsquohumanity against the notion that he could be divine Jesusrsquo humanity has to beseen as altogether incompatible with divine nature Moreover Rabbi Josephseeks to demonstrate that the Son and the Father are not equal eg byshowing that Godrsquos will and Jesusrsquo will are distinct and different Jesus isbeholding to Godrsquos will yet clearly has also his own intentions He is alsopowerless to bring about his own will both in terms of actualizing it and inthat he is not acting independently from God Also the pericope on the blas-phemy against the Spirit (Matt 1231ndash32 see 4513ndash14) much like inMilḥamot ha-Shem serves to show that there is a qualitative differencebetween the Spirit on the one side and Father and Son on the other In RabbiJoseph ben Nathanrsquos view Jesus is therefore only human mdash in fact he is toohuman to qualify in any way as divine More importantly the notion of theTrinity is understood as contradicting the New Testament record and Jesusrsquoown life and sayings and this is achieved without any rational or metaphysi-cal argument though it clearly looms in the background (see 4519)
143 This view is also reflected in Nizzahon Vetus sectsect181 176 178 and sect145 (see 541012 13) and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) The particular understanding expressed in Yosefha-Meqanne and Nizzahon Vetus is of course not identical with Apollinarianism or Arianismproper since both of these views are still distinctly Christian and maintained that Jesus playeda highly elevated and significant role in redemption history
166 Chapter 4 Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne
Chapter 5
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus
5 1 Introduction
Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan usually referred to by its latinized name NizzahonVetus1 is one of the more comprehensive Jewish polemic anthologies avail-able2 The bulk of its arguments come from the twelfth and thirteenth centurythough some appear to be much older in particular those that are similar toQiṣṣaNestor3 Like Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne this work is a collection of argu-ments focusing on the refutation of christological interpretations of passagesfrom the Hebrew Bible which also includes a section on the New TestamentThe basic structure and various arguments that appear in this ldquoBook of OldConfutationrdquo4 have very clear parallels in QiṣṣaNestor Milḥamot ha-Shem
1 The work is distinguished by the epithet ldquooldrdquo (Hebr yashan Latin vetus) from SeferYosef ha-Meqanne which was also known by that title and a further work Yom ṬovLipmann-Muumlhlhausenrsquos Sefer Niṣṣaḥon a later and influential collection of polemics inspiredby Nizzahon Vetus A third treatise written by Rabbi Mattityahu unrelated to NizzahonVetus has also come to be known under the name Sefer Niṣṣaḥon See Ehrman ldquoWhen wasthe Sefer Nitzaḥon writtenrdquo 154 n 2 and idem ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahon A Thirteen CenturyDefense of Judaismrdquo (PhD diss New York University 1974) 2ndash3 n 7 also BergerJewish-Christian Debate 32ndash35 There are also other texts which were known by the nameNiṣṣaḥon which indicates that this title was understood more as a genre On this see HorburyldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo 502ndash504 (1983) 249ndash51 (1998) and Krauss and Horbury Contro-versy 227
2 This is also the reason David Berger has used it as a means to introduce the whole topicand the range of themes seen in the Jewish-Christian debate in the Medieval period in hisJewish-Christian Debate
3 See William Horbury review of David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in theHigh Middle Ages JTS 34 (1983) 329ndash37 esp 334 336ndash37 also Rembaum ldquoThe Influenceof Sefer Nestor Hakomerrdquo 181ndash83
4 The meaning of Niṣṣaḥon (נצחון) is interpreted by various authors differentlyldquopolemicrdquo ldquovictoryrdquo ldquodebaterdquo or ldquoconfutationrdquo have been employed see Ehrmann ldquoTheSefer Nitzahon A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaismrdquo 10ndash11 The translation ldquoconfuta-tionrdquo follows Oliver Rankinrsquos suggestion (based on Steinschneiderrsquos work) see Oliver SRankin Jewish Religious Polemic (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1956 repr New York Ktav1970) 49 and Moritz Steinschneider Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the EighteenthCentury With an Introduction on Talmud and Midrash mdash A historical essay from theGerman of M Steinschneider (London Longman Brown Green Longmans amp Roberts1857) 317 n 25
and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne5 Similar arguments to those in Nizzahon Vetusare also found in MS Rome6 Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣvah7 theldquoBasle Nizzahonrdquo8 Moses ben Solomonrsquos Talsquoanot9 and other subsequentpolemical works It might therefore seem redundant to include it in this studyyet Nizzahon Vetus is one of the most important Ashkenazi polemics avail-able and therefore cannot be overlooked10
Nizzahon Vetus was compiled by an anonymous author who most likelylived in France or Germany in the thirteenth or early fourteenth centurythough the exact origin and dating has been debated11 More recently HanneTrautner-Kromann has suggested in her book Shield and Sword Alsace-Lor-raine as the place of composition since it is an area where the French andGerman language historically have overlapped She bases this on the observa-tion that Nizzahon Vetus compiles the arguments used by French speakingpolemicists for a German audience mostly indicated by the use of several
5 However it is important to note here (again) that the New Testament section in Yosefha-Meqanne (MS Paris) cannot be the source of what is compiled in Nizzahon Vetus (that isin the NT section) as there is only a partial overlap (see the respective footnotes under 452456 458 and 4521) In the few places where the same arguments are discussed Yosef ha-Meqanne appears to be much terser and more of an abbreviation of what is presented in MSRome (A1) This might indicate that MS Rome (A1) and also Nizzahon Vetus give access tothe original (or better earlier) argument which may or may not have significance for thedating of each respective compilation depending on if the New Testament section was origi-nal to each composition
6 See the previous discussion under 43 see also below 537 See the discussion under 158 See Horbury ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo 500ndash501 (1983) 247ndash48 (1998)9 According to Berger the non-philosophical sections in Talsquoanot (ldquoObjectionsrdquo) are actu-
ally verbatim copies from Milḥemet Miṣvah see idem Jewish-Christian Debate 37 n 106He further notes that ldquomost of the remaining material in this section of Talsquoanot is found in theRome ms version of Yosef ha-Meqanne and in NVrdquo (ibid) but Daniel J Lasker ldquoJewishPolemics against Christianity in Thirteenth-Century Italyrdquo in Ḥazon Naḥum Studies inJewish Law Thought and History (ed Yaakov Elman and Jeffrey S Gurock New YorkYeshiva University Press 1997) 251ndash63 has argued contrary to this that this is not originalto Talsquoanot and only a later anthology of Milḥamot ha-Shem and Yosef ha-Meqanne (see p254) The treatise remains largely unpublished see Krauss and Horbury Controversy 232For the philosophical section see Stanislaus Simon Moses ben Salomon von Salerno undseine philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit den Lehren des Christentums (Ohlau i Schl HEschenhagen 1931)
10 The other important Ashkenazi polemical treatise is that of Yom Ṭov Lipmann-Muumlhlhausen also called Niṣṣaḥon see Krauss and Horbury Controversy 223ndash25 also FrankE Talmage Introduction to Sefer HaNizzahon Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen (ldquoKun-tresimrdquo Texts and Studies 59ndash60 Jerusalem Hebrew University Dinur Center 1983ndash84)[Hebr] The text is being edited by Ora Limor and Limor Ora and Israel I Yuval as SepherHa-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen A Critical Edition Forthcoming
11See Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 17 33ndash35 See also below
168 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
German words12 Regardless of origin this anthology certainly would havebeen read in the Ashkenazi communities of northern France and Germany
Next to the precise context of the author equally uncertain is the dating ofNizzahon Vetus Leopold Zunz suggested in his short description of the worka date of 1240ndash126013 Isidore Loeb felt it was inspired by Yosef ha-Meqanneand therefore belonged to the second half of the thirteenth century14 EphraimUrbach has dated it to the fourteenth century15 Haim Ben-Sasson has dated itto the twelfth and thirteenth century16 Albert Ehrman has placed it in the firsthalf of the thirteenth century17 while David Berger has dated the work moreconservatively to the late thirteenth or the early fourteenth century18 While a
12 In Nizzahon Vetus sect33 (Tuumlrschwell) sect51 (Zeichnisse) sect64 (Taufe) sect224 (Krippe)sect231 (Stillmess and a prayer in German) and sect236 (Beichte) Though it must be said thatbilingual French and German speakers were certainly not just confined to Alsace-Lorraine cfTrautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 102 esp n 43 and Berger Jewish-Christian Debate35 It should not be overlooked that some German terms already appear in MS Rome (Bf 35r) see Rosenthal ldquoSections of a Debaterdquo 374 (Tuumlrschwell Schwelle Dorpel) cf alsoNizzahon Vetus sect33 The use and origin of these German words has been debated already byUrbach ldquoEacutetudes sur la litteacuterature poleacutemiquerdquo 72 On the other hand the ldquoKing of Francerdquo( צרפתמלך ) ldquoParisrdquo (פריישא) and ldquoOrleansrdquo (אורלינשא) appear in a parable which is usedto answer a Christian objection that without the temple Jews are unable to atone for sins cfBerger Jewish-Christian Debate sect214 208 146 [Hebr] which is also found in MS Rome(B f 43r) (as פריש and (אורלינש also Rosenthal ldquoSections of a Debaterdquo 392 The ldquoKing ofFrancerdquo appears again in another parable in Nizzahon Vetus sect233 (here against the argumentthat even if Christians are mistaken in worshipping Jesus as God it is nevertheless givinghonor to God) whereas in MS Rome (A2) f 24r it is the ldquoKing of Spainrdquo see Rosenthal ldquoAReligious Debaterdquo 70 and esp Berger 338 These kinds of parables that use a king as pro-tagonist are not uncommon to rabbinic literature
13 See Leopold Zunz Zur Geschichte und Literatur Erster Band (Berlin Veit 1845) 8614 See Isidore Loeb ldquoLa Controverse religieuse entre les Chreacutetiens et les Juifs au moyen
acircge en France et en Espagnerdquo RHR 17 (1888) 311ndash37 18 (1888) 133ndash56 here 32915 See Urbach ldquoEacutetudes sur la litteacuterature poleacutemiquerdquo 6016 See Haim H Ben-Sasson A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge Mass Harvard
University Press 1976) 55617 Albert Ehrman has argued in his dissertation that ldquoit is almost a virtual certaintyrdquo that
Nizzahon Vetus was compiled before 1236 (Emperor Fredricks IIrsquos imperial edict) seeEhrman ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahonrdquo 5 a claim which he subsequently has presented with somemodifications in the already mentioned article Against Urbach and effectively againstBerger he argues based on historical and content observations that Nizzahon Vetus predatesMS Rome 53 and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne which in his judgment ldquowas written in Germanysometime between 1220ndash42rdquo cf idem ldquoWhen was the Sefer Nitzaḥon writtenrdquo 155 Bergerargues the exact opposite see below
18 See Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 33 (esp n 90) Berger following Urbach andPosnanski has made a good case that the content of at least certain sections of MS Rome (inparticular section B) predate Nizzahon Vetus with ldquovirtual certaintyrdquo and subsequently worksldquoon the assumption that that the material preserved in R served as a source for our workrdquo(375) He is careful to point out that MS Rome is not necessarily a direct source of Nizzahon
51 Introduction 169
more definitive date would have been desirable it ultimately has no bearingon the content of Nizzahon Vetus discussed below
Trautner-Kromann has further suggested that ldquothe systematic structure ofthe work and its didactic tone give it the clear appearance of a textbook forJews countering Christian doctrine and polemicizing against Christiansrdquo19
Yet BenndashSasson has cautioned that not all of Nizzahonrsquos arguments couldhave been used in actual debates as some of them are quite sharpSometimes it is clear that the arguments were intended as guides and patterns for laterdebaters and it is reasonable to assume that they sometimes record only what the Jew wouldhave liked to say to Christians had he been free to fully express his view for it is unlikely thatsome of the recorded arguments were actually voiced to Christians with impunity20
In fact the arguments in Nizzahon Vetus often exhibit some ldquoAshkenazichuzperdquo and sarcasm directly attacking various Christian beliefs and conven-tions such as baptism21 And so while Nizzahon Vetus certainly was meant toinform and strenghten the recipients for private and public encounters withChristians in France Germany and beyond it is difficult to say if the argu-ments contained in it were employed liberally This is all the more the casewhen it comes to the New Testament22
5 2 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus
Following the ldquoParis Disputationrdquo of 1240 and the burning of the Talmud thesituation for the Jewish communities of France did not improve To thecontrary anti-Jewish ressentiments and Christian religious fervor continued tonourish a climate of periodic harassment violence and financial exploitationwhich finally culminated in Philip IVrsquos banishment of all Jews from his
Vetus but contains similar material an observation with which Horbury concurs This is sig-nificant insofar as Berger consulted MS Rome (esp sections A1 and B) to edit NizzahonVetus In his estimate MS Rome bears testimony of a common source with Nizzahon VetusHorbury in his study of the ldquoBasle Nizzahonrdquo which is related to MS Rome agrees withBergerrsquos view and finds that MS Rome (at least parts of it) and the related ldquoBasle Nizzahonrdquois ldquoa composition indepted to material also used in NVrdquo idem ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo 511(258) In other words there is no direct relationship between Nizzahon Vetus and MS Romebut both draw independently on a common source which predates both
19 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 103 see also 102ndash10420 Ben-Sasson History 555ndash5621 See Berger Jewish Christian Debate 20ndash21 and Jeremy Cohen ldquoMedieval Jews on
Christianity Polemical Strategies and Theological Defenserdquo in Interwoven Destinies Jewsand Christians through the Ages (ed Eugene J Fischer Studies in Judaism and ChristianityMahwah NJ Stimulus Foundation Paulist Press 1993) 77ndash89 esp 82
22 See David Berger ldquoMissionrdquo 589ndash91
170 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
kingdom accompanied by the confiscation of all their possessions andoutstanding debts in 130623
In the latter half of the thirteenth century before the expulsion two factorsin particular further amalgamated the mounting pressures experienced by theJews of France
The first is the appearance of new anti-Jewish motifs bearing witness to theincreasing suspicion of Jewish malevolence towards Christians which alsogave cause to additional violence against Jews24 This included the accusationof the ritual murder of Christians the so called blood libel25 the poisoning ofwells and also accusations of host desecration26 In 1288 thirteen Jews were
23 This general expulsion followed earlier precedent In 1182 Philip August expelled theJews from the Icircle-de-France other local expulsions followed in 1240 Jews were expelledfrom Brittany in 1288 from Gascony in 1289 from Anjou and Maine in 1290 from Englandin 1294 from the county of Nevers See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 178ndash238 Chazan Medieval Jewry in Northern France 191ndash205 Graetz Geschichte 7243ndash45Jews were readmitted to France in 1315 but only some reluctantly returned which was againfollowed by violence and persecutions see Friedrich Battenberg Das Europaumlische Zeitalterder Juden Von den Anfaumlngen bis 1650 (2 vols 2nd ed Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buch-gesellschaft 2000) 191ndash95 For the last decades leading up to the expulsion see ChazanMedieval Jewry in Northern France 154ndash90
24 Some of these motifs were in fact not new Already in 1144 the Jews of Norwich wereaccused of the ritual murder of a boy which perhaps was based on a misunderstanding of theJewish practice of the burning of an effigy of Haman for the Purim festivities already attestedin late antiquity see Elliot Horowitz ldquolsquoAnd It is Turned Aroundrsquo Jews against their Enemiesin the Festivities of Purimrdquo [ הפוריםבחגיגותשונאיהםמוליהודיםהואנוהפוך ] Zion 59(1994) 129ndash68 [Hebr] Cecil Roth ldquoThe Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accu-sationrdquo Speculum 8 (1933) 520ndash26 and more controversially Israel Jacob Yuval TwoNations in Your Womb Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the MiddleAges (Berkeley University of California Press 2006) 164ndash70 Also in 1171 in Blois thirtyJews were burned for ritual murder charges (see 42) Then in 1247 a similar ritual murderaccusation lead to the death of ten Jews in Valreacuteas in Dauphineacute see Bernhard BlumenkranzldquoDauphineacuterdquo EncJud (2007) 5441ndash43 The ritual murder charge has been a hotly contentedissue in recent research see John M McCulloh ldquoJewish Ritual Murder William of NorwichThomas of Monmouth and the Early Dissemination of the Mythrdquo Speculum 72 (1997) 698ndash740 also David Nirenberg review of Israel Jacob Yuval Two Nations in Your Womb AHR112 (2007) 562ndash64 and Kenneth R Stow Jewish Dogs An Image and Its Interpreters mdashContinuity in the Catholic-Jewish Encounter (Stanford Stanford University Press 2006)
25 That is the alleged need for Christian blood in Jewish rituals See Haim H Ben-Sasson Yehuda Slutsky and Dina Porat ldquoBlood Libelrdquo EncJud (2007) 3774ndash80
26 See Robert C Stacey ldquoFrom Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration Jews and theBody of Christrdquo Jewish History 12 (1998) 11ndash28 and Miri Rubin ldquoDesecration of the HostThe Birth of an Accusationrdquo in Christianity and Judaism Papers read at the 1991 SummerMeeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (ed Diana WoodStudies in Church History 29 Oxford Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society1992) 169ndash85 also eadem Gentile Tales The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews(New Haven Yale University Press 1999)
52 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus 171
martyred in Troyes for the alleged ritual murder of a Christian27 Two yearslater a woman in Paris supposedly stole a consecrated host to redeem a tokengiven to a Jewish pawn broker which he then allegedly tried to destroy Theman was subsequently tried and condemned to death28 King Philip IV whowould expel the Jews of France a few years later appears to have given somecredence to this story which may have influenced his increasingly negativeattitude towards the Jews in his realm29
The second factor which compounded the situation of the Jews of Europeare the efforts of the church to convert the Jews of France and on the Iberianpeninsula30 This campaign which was driven by various individuals in theDominican and Franciscan orders began in the south of France moved toCatalonia and then into northern France31 At times this included the practiceof coercing whole communities of Jews to listen to Christian sermons a strat-egy which was also endorsed and recommended by the pope and lead to somecompulsory debates32 The not infrequent discussions between Jews andChristians on matters of religion became thus less amicable certainly less vol-untary whereas the new Christian arguments used in these debates furtherincreased the need for apologetical guidance33 One of the important witnessesof these encounters is Rabbi Mersquoir ben Simeon who was involved in variousdisputations with high clergymen in Narbonne at the time one of the largesttowns in southern France34 His Milḥemet Miṣvah contains numerous records
27 See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 190ndash91 Chazan Medieval Jewry inNorthern France 180ndash81
28 See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 191ndash94 Chazan Medieval Jewry inNorthern France 181ndash82 See also Friedrich Lotter ldquoHostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunder-faumllschung bei den Judenverfolgungen von 1298 (lsquoRintfleischrsquo) und 1336ndash1338 (lsquoArmlederrsquo)rdquoin Faumllschungen im Mittelalter Teil V Fingierte Briefe Froumlmmigkeit und Faumllschung Reali-enfaumllschungen (6 vols Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 33V Hannover Hahn1988) 5533ndash83 esp 536ndash38
29 See Jordan The French Monarchy and the Jews 19430 This has been well-investigated by Robert Chazan Daggers of Faith and Jeremy
Cohen The Friars and the Jews See also Berger ldquoMission to the Jewsrdquo and 32 RecentlyRobin Vose has argued that this campaign was perhaps not as important to the missionaryorders as previously thought see Robin Vose Dominicans Muslims and Jews in the Medi-eval Crown of Aragon (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth Series 74Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2009) also Lasker ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Chris-tianityrdquo 6
31 See Chazan Daggers of Faith 432 See ibid 39ndash4833 See ibid 49ndash8534 See esp Stein Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth Century Narbonne 8ndash22
also Robert Chazan ldquoAnti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the JewishResponserdquo PAAJR 4142 (1973ndash1974) 45ndash67 and Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword73ndash84 See also the summary by Ram Ben-Shalom ldquoBetween Official and Private Dispute
172 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
of disputes over issues of doctrine and usury amongst them an account of aDominican missionary preaching in the synagogue of the city35 andexchanges with various bishops in the middle of the thirteenth century36
Similar debates also occurred in the north of France in the second half of thecentury37
The missionary orders were also active in Germany In 1278 PopeNicholas III ordered the Dominicans and the Franciscans to preach to theJews of Germany and Austria a request which his predecessor Nicholas IVhimself a friar renewed in 128838 This is then perhaps also what gaveimpetus to the compilation of Nizzahon Vetus for a German speaking Jewishaudience Previously the Jews of medieval Germany had fared much worsethan their French compatriots during the first Crusade in 1096 the Jewishcommunities of the Rhineland in Speyer Worms Mainz Trier MetzCologne Xanten and other towns suffered religiously inspired genocidalviolence Although mitigated by various bishops and the German EmperorHenry IV nevertheless several thousand Jews were murdered or driven into amartyrrsquos death and whole communties were plundered and massacred39 TheJewish communities in the Rhineland were attacked also during the SecondCrusade In the thirteenth century Jews initially enjoyed relative security inGermany partly on account of being under the royal protection of the Germanemperors as serfs belonging to the royal chamber (servi camere Hofjuden)which in turn allowed the emperors to levy hefty protection taxes40 Yet there
The Case of Christian Spain and Provence in the Late Middle Agesrdquo AJSR 27 (2003) 23ndash71esp 35ndash39 47ndash51
35 See Robert Chazan ldquoConfrontation in the Synagogue of Narbonne A ChristianSermon and a Jewish Replyrdquo HTR 67 (1974) 437ndash57 The Dominicans and Franciscans areknown to have had prospering convents in Narbonne at the time see Richard W EmeryHeresy and Inquisition in Narbonne (New York Columbia University Press 1941 reprNew York AMS 1967) 127ndash30
36 These disputations must have occured in the wake of a civilian revolt against the arch-bishop Pierre Amiel see Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 44 and esp Emery Heresyand Inquisition 77ndash113 The various disputations recorded by Mersquoir ben Simeon much likethose in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne testify to the frequent religious disputations in this period
37 See Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 17 esp n 37 also Chazan Medieval Jewry inNorthern France 149ndash53 and idem Daggers of Faith 44ndash45 103
38 See Zvi Avneri ed Germania Judaica Band II Von 1238 bis zur Mitte des 14Jahrhunderts (2 vols in 3 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1968) 1xxxiii and Grayzel and StowThe Church and the Jews 2142ndash45 171ndash72 also 165ndash67
39 For more see eg Shlomo Eidelberg The Jews and the Crusaders The HebrewChronicles of the First and Second Crusade (Madison The University of Wisconsin 1977)and more recently Jeremy Cohen Sanctifying the name of God Jewish Martyrs and JewishMemories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 2004) butalso Yuval Two Nations in Your Womb esp xviindashiii 135ndash204
40 See Friedrich Lotter ldquoGermanyrdquo in Medieval Jewish Civilization An Encyclopedia
52 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus 173
were still numerous local attacks and at the end of the thirteenth century vio-lence against Jews became more widespread and severe41 In 1298 Jews of146 villages and towns in the regions of Franconia Swabia Hessia andThuringia became victims of anti-Jewish riots in the wake of concoctedcharges of host desecration42 and during the rebellion of 1336ndash1338 manymore Jews lost their lives in persecutions But the most severe violence camewith the arrival of the Black Death in Europe in 1347 The Jews of Europeand especially those in German speaking realms were blamed to have causedthe plague by poising wells Thousands were massacred and driven away somuch so that in the middle of the fourtheenth century no larger Jewish com-munities were left in the cities of Germany43 If Nizzahon Vetus was indeedwritten for the benefit of the Jewish communities of Germany it would haveto be in use before the middle of the fourteenth century and perhaps wasprompted by the first papal letter in 1278 urging the friars to engage Jews inthe German speaking realms
5 3 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus
Nizzahon Vetus became accessible for a wider audience through the publica-tion of Johann Christoph Wagenseilrsquos Tela Ignea Satanae (ldquoSatanrsquos FieryDartsrdquo) in 168144 This protestant scholar and erudite Hebraist had come inthe possession of a manuscript of Nizzahon Vetus which he published with aLatin translation in his extensive collection of Jewish polemic works45
Wagenseilrsquos fervor had driven him to seek out Jewish polemic texts in manyplaces even as far as North Africa so as to ldquofill his quiver with Satanrsquos fierydartsrdquo to enable himself and others to more effectively convert Jews46 He
(ed Norman Roth New York Routledge 2002) 296 also Guido Kisch The Jews inMedieval Germany A Study of their Legal and Social Status (Chicago The University ofChicago Press 1949) 107ndash59
41 See Lotter ldquoGermanyrdquo 298ndash99 also Avneri Germania Judaica Band II 1xxxiv42 See Avneri Germania Judaica Band II 1xxxv43 See Battenberg Das Europaumlische Zeitalter der Juden 112144 Johann C Wagenseil Tela Ignea Satanae (Altdorf Joh Henricus Schoumlnnerstaeligdt
1681 repr Jerusalem Akademon 1965 1968 Farnborough Gregg 1970 JerusalemL Achim 2001) Tela Ignea Satanae proved to be an immensely influential work as the Latintranslations therein made Jewish anti-Christian arguments accessible to a large audience inparticular Rabbi Isaac of Trokirsquos polemic Ḥizzuq Emunah made great impact (see chapter 8)
45 Nizzahon Vetus is found in part II of Tela Ignea Satanae (1681) pp 1ndash260 (in the orig-inal there are four parts in two volumes)
46 See Graetz Geschichte 10279 also 277ndash80 On Wagenseil see also Peter BlastenbreiJohann Christoph Wagenseil und seine Stellung zum Judentum (Erlangen H Fischer 2004)Although Wagenseil was comparatively positive-minded towards Jews it is interesting that
174 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
based his Nizzahon Vetus edition on such a find a single manuscript fromStrasbourg which was subsequently lost47
At the beginning of the twentieth century Adolf Posnanski also collated alarge and critically edited corpus of Jewish polemic texts though certainlywith a different motive than Wagenseil part of which was also an annotatededition of Nizzahon Vetus However most of the collection was never fullypublished and remains shelved at the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem48
Mordechai Breuer and David Berger almost simultaneously and independentfrom each other prepared each a critical edition of Nizzahon Vetus49 Bothbased their editions on Wagenseilrsquos text and both consulted and relied onPosnanskirsquos unpublished material50 They also compared the New Testamentsection in T with MS Rome51 Following Posnanski both Breuer and Berger
he perceived these Jewish texts as darts or arrows ie as attacks on his Christian convictionswhereas from a Jewish point of view their primary function would have been to defendagainst Christian attacks
47 Commonly referred to as T (for Tela Ignea Satanae) though it is not clear if Wagen-seilrsquos edition is faithful to his Vorlage see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 374 n 2
48 See David Simonson ldquoEine Sammlung polemischer und apologetischer Literaturrdquo inFestschrift fuumlr Aron Freimann zum 60 Geburtstage (ed Alexander Marx and HerrmannMeyer Berlin Soncino-Gesellschaft der Freunde des juumldischen Buches eV 1935) 114ndash20
49 David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages fully publishedin 1979 by the Jewish Publication Society of America (based on his 1970 PhD dissertation atColumbia University ldquoThe Nizzahon Vetus A Critical Edition with a Translation and Com-mentary on the First Partrdquo) and Mordecai Breuer Sefer Niẓẓaḥon Yashan (NiẓẓahonVetus) mdash A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic [ ישןנצחוןספר ] (Ramat Gan Bar-Ilan Univer-sity 1978) [Hebr] A further albeit unpublished study of the text was prepared by AlbertEhrman ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahon A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaismrdquo (PhD diss NewYork University 1974) See also William Horbury review of David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages JTS 34 (1983) 329ndash37 Trautner-KromannShield and Sword 102ndash16 and Krauss and Horbury Controversy 246ndash47
50 See Berger Jewish Christian Debate 373ndash82 and Breuer Sefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan 9ndash13 Ehrman based his study on T only see idem ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahonrdquo 3ndash8 In his thoroughreview of Bergerrsquos editorial work William Horbury has pointed out that Bergerrsquos editiondepends mostly on only two sources which are essentially T and a defective manuscriptMS 147 Staatsbibliothek Muumlnchen (MS Munich) which only contains some 40 of what isfound in T Except for five pages in MS Munich the New Testament section is essentiallypreserved only by Wagenseilrsquos text see Horburyrsquos review in JTS 334 The New Testamentcritique in Nizzahon Vetus besides its parallels in MS Rome is consequently mostly wit-nessed by only one now lost manuscript that was edited and published by a Christianscholar see ibid 332
51 Berger esp in the New Testament section consulted also the quotations of NizzahonVetus preserved by Sebastian Muumlnster however without giving proper consideration to thevariants present in Muumlnsterrsquos works so Horburyrsquos review and critique in JTS 332ndash34 cfBerger Jewish Christian Debate 377 Already Urbach noted that a significant part of MSRome (B) is mirrored in Nizzahon Vetus ldquoUne lecture superficielle suffit deacutejagrave agrave en montre laparenteacute avec Nizzahon vetus et en comparant les deux eacutecrits de plus pregraves on constante que
53 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus 175
have also re-arranged T In both editions the arguments are layed out after thesequence of books in the Hebrew Bible with an addendum of arguments dis-cussing New Testament passages52 Nevertheless Horbury has cautioned thatldquoeven after the editorrsquos [Berger] many detailed improvements to the textsome of the material before us might reflect a date appreciably later than thatof the author of NVrdquo53 This is of course more relevant to a study of thedevelopment of arguments rather than of the arguments themselves
5 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus
The section that deals with the New Testament is located in the latter part ofNizzahon Vetus In Bergerrsquos edition the arguments are given in sectsect154ndash245 inBreuerrsquos edition in sectsect172ndash212 Besides these sections some verses of theGospel of Matthew are also discussed in sectsect1ndash153 the first part of NizzahonVetus dealing with the Hebrew Bible Bergerrsquos edition will be given prefer-ence here largely on account of his critical apparatus translation and exten-sive notes
90 de leurs mateacuteriaux son communs et cette communauteacute va tregraves souvent jusqursquoagrave une con-cordance litteacuteralerdquo idem ldquoEacutetudes sur la litteacuterature poleacutemiquerdquo 73 but cf Horbury ldquoTheBasle Nizzahonrdquo 498 and 511 who amongst other things cautions that this percentage isprobably too high Further Urbach argued that (at least parts of) MS Rome came from a dis-ciple of the son of a Hungarian proselyte to Judaism (who may have lived during the secondhalf of the 12th c) If this indeed the case this proselyte may have been an important sourcefor at least some of the New Testament critique in Nizzahon Vetus see idem ldquoEacutetudes sur lalitteacuterature poleacutemiquerdquo 72ndash77 This of course would be comparable to QiṣṣaNestor and it isalso a well-known phenomenon for Jews who convert to Christianity to provide insightsabout their former religion see Limor ldquoJudaism examines Christianityrdquo 111ndash12
52 Breuer has also arranged the arguments in his edition in order of the books in the NewTestament and their chapter and verse sequence (thereby completely dissolving the order ofT which itself had suffered from a dislocation of the folios of an early manuscript seeBerger Jewish-Christian Debate 388 but cf also Horburyrsquos review in JTS here 334)Breuerrsquos Matthew section contains most of the arguments based on the Gospel of Matthewwhich is in sectsect172ndash189 pp 132ndash43 His New Testament section is entitled Be diligent instudying Torah so that you might be able to answer Epicurus ( כדיתורהללמודשקודהוי
לאפיקורוסשתשיב ) Some of the arguments that employ New Testament passages and attimes more apocryphal and other material have been relegated by Breuer to two further sec-tions Questions for the Christians ( הנוצריםאלשאלות ) pp 155ndash79 and Answers for theChristians ( הנוצריםאלתשובות ) pp 181ndash94 The result is a very different Nizzahon Vetusversion compared to Wagenseilrsquos edition (Altdorf)
53 Horburyrsquos review in JTS 334 It needs to be pointed out again that similarities betweenBergerrsquos (and Breuerrsquos) Nizzahon Vetus and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne must be approachedvery carefully as all involved editors consulted the various sections of MS Rome a fact whichmay account for some of the presence (or absence) of textual parallels
176 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
The following table will list all passages (and allusions) which refer to theGospel of Matthew discussed in Nizzahon Vetus in the order they appear inBergerrsquos edition which is listed under a title for the respective passage andand a short summary of the argument The order follows Bergerrsquos edition(rather than Breuer) Due to the topic limitations namely the use of theGospel of Matthew and arguments directed against the divinity of Jesus onlysome of the arguments will be discussed in more detail (those in bold seebelow)
Title amp Summary of the ArgumentNT PassageBerger54
Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross the Son did not aid the Father in creation therefore the Father did not help theSon on the cross
Matt 2746sect5
Jesus came for sinners not for the righteous the righteous patriarchs are therefore not in hell (sheol)
Matt 911sect23
Jesusrsquo Genealogies Jesus was either Josephrsquos son or one cannot prove that he had royal lingeage
Matt 12ndash16sect28
The Sermon on the Mount Christians contradict their Scriptures since Jesus did not come to abolish the Law
Matt 517ndash19sect71
Jesusrsquo Genealogies Jesus was either Josephrsquos son or one cannot prove that he had royal lingeage
Matt 12ndash16sect7255
ldquoI came not to send peace on earthrdquo Isaiah 96 does not refer to Jesus since he said he was not a peace-bringer
Matt 1034sect85
Jesusrsquo Genealogy unless Joseph is Jesusrsquo father you cannot prove that he had royal lingeage
Matt 116sect88
Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Jesus was not saved by God
Matt 2746sect96
Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross by praying Psalm 22 Jesusadmits that he is a sinner therefore he is not God
I he were God he also would not need to pray in this manner
How did divinity reside in Jesus as incarnate Spirit oras addition to his humanity
Matt 2746sect145
54 Cf the sections in Tela Ignea Satanae (Akademon reprint) see Berger Jewish-Christ-ian Debate 385ndash88
55 See 545
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 177
Title amp Summary of the ArgumentNT PassageBerger
Jesusrsquo Genealogies why is Joseph called the husband of Mary Why is his lineage traced through Joseph and not Mary
Maryrsquos genealogy was evidently not known and she was not of royal descent Also the two genealogies contradict each other
Matt 11ndash16 17
Luke 321ndash31
John 145ndash46
sect154
The Sermon on the Mount Jesus did not come to abolish the Law Since Jesus did not abandon ritual washing (baptism) he did not abrogate circumcision
Matt 517sect157
The Sermon on the Mount according to Jesus Christians should keep Torah
Matt 518sect158
The Escape to Egypt if Jesus were God why did he have to flee Not even angles are afraid (cf sect205)
Matt 213ndash14sect159
Jesusrsquo Baptism What sort of God needs to be purifiedeven three times (at conception Johnrsquos baptism and when the Holy Spirit descended)
Matt 35ndash6
Matt 313 16ndash17
sect160
Jesusrsquo Temptation Why would God need food at all And why did Jesus become hungryHow could Satan ever tempt Jesus if he were God
Matt 41ndash11asect162
Jesusrsquo Genealogy Jesus is evidently Josephrsquosfirstborn son
Matt 124bndash25sect163
Jesus heals a Leper Jesus appears ambivalent towards the Law while he tells the man to show himself to the priest he also permits people to transgress the Law
Matt 81ndash4sect16656
The Relatives of Jesus Mary had other sons and daughters (she consequently was not a virgin)
Matt 1353ndash58sect167
Jesus as Son of Man based on these passages it is evident that by calling himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo Jesus affirms that he is exclusively human (and not God)
Matt 96
Luke 952ndash5313bndash14 58 (par Matt 818ndash20)
Matt 2639 2028 2818
sect168
Jesusrsquo Prayer of Thanksgiving since Jesus offered thanks to God he was not God
Matt 1125ndash30sect170
56 Cf sect28 sect71 sect157 sect158 where Jesus is said to uphold Torah Thus sect166 wouldappear to reflect another polemical strand (andor polemical source) concerning Jesusrsquo atti-tude towards keeping Torah (likewise in sect169 sect170 sect172 but cf sect190)
178 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
Title amp Summary of the ArgumentNT PassageBerger
Plucking Grain on Sabbath Jesus permits work on theSabbath
Matt 121ndash7a 10ndash12sect171
Following Jesus Why does Jesus tell the man he should refrain from burying his father since there is nogreater obligation
The Calming of the Storm Jesus slept in the boat but God does not sleep (Ps 1214)
Matt 821ndash22 1922
Matt 823ndash26
sect172
Jesus and the Canaanite Woman Jesus said he came to save Israel nevertheless he also caused them to stumble and to be blind
Matt 1521ndash28sect174
Jesus in Gethsemane since Jesus fearfully prayed to God he cannot be God
Mark 1432ndash42(par Matt 2636ndash46)
sect176
Jesus on the Eschaton the Son is ignorant of certain things he consequently must not be equal to God who was before him
Mark 1324ndash34a(par Matt 2429ndash33 36)
sect177
Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Why did Jesus cry out on the cross mdash after all the crucifixion was according to his will
Mark 1533ndash34(par Matt 2745ndash46)
sect178
Jesus and the Fig Tree Why was Jesus hungry Did Jesus not know about the presence of figs Was Jesus angry with the tree although he said to love ones enemies
Mark 1111ndash14a(par Matt 2117ndash19a)
sect181
Jesusrsquo Commission of the Disciples Who gave authority to Jesus Jesus will not be with the disciples till ldquothe world to comerdquo
Matt 2816ndash20sect182
The Rich Young Man Jesus affirmed that eternal life comes from keeping the Law
Mark 1017ndash21(par Matt 1916ndash21)
sect184
The Parable of the Sower Jesus is devious because heusually speaks in parables
Matt 1246 131ndash4 8ndash13 14bndash15a 16
sect18757
Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Jesusrsquo fear and need to sleep proves he is not God and that there is consequently no Trinity
John 45ndash7Matt 2746 824ndash25
sect188
57 Here the argument is made that Matt 1247ndash1318 shows that ldquoon this occasion he didnot speak in a devious mannerrdquo because Jesus unlike his practice elsewhere actuallyexplained his parable to the listeners see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 193 Teaching inparables (or with metaphors etc) is thereby understood as something ldquodeviousrdquo a verdictwhich can only be understood as polemically motivated
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 179
Title amp Summary of the ArgumentNT PassageBerger
Jesusrsquo Miracles the miracles performed by Jesus do not compare to those in the Hebrew Bible
John 27ndash9
Matt 1419ndash20
Luke 714ndash15
John 1144
Matt 423
Matt 1425 et par
Matt 42
sect193
Jesus on the Eschaton Jesus excludes himself from being divine
Jesusrsquo Sending Statements Jesus is sent by and depends on God They are thus two
Mark 134 32(par Matt 243 36)
John 1423ndash24John 530ndash31
sect194
Jesus and Peter Jesus confesses to Peter that he rebelled against God
Matt 2621
Matt 1620
sect197
Sign of Jonah Jesus could only have been dead for three days and two nights
Matt 1240sect201
Moving Mountains by Faith since Christian can not perform such miracles they evidently do not believe inGod
Matt 1720sect203
Jesus prays for Peter if Jesus were God why would he need to pray
Escape to Egypt Jesus fled from Herod just like otherprophets
Jesus in Nazareth Jesus calls himself a prophet and a servant of God
Luke 2231ndash32
Matt 1357
Matt 1218
sect207
Jesus predicts his betrayal the fact that the ldquoSon of Manrdquo is betrayed in the ldquohand of sinnersrdquo shows that he is an actual human being
Mark 1441(par Matt 2645)
sect215
The Sermon on the Mount Why do Christians ignore the Sabbath and circumcision
Matt 517ndash18sect221
The Blasphemy against the Spirit Why does one who sinned against the ldquoImpure Spiritrdquo not find forgivenessif all three (members of the Trinity) are one
Luke 1210(par Matt 1231ndash32)
sect223
180 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
Title amp Summary of the ArgumentNT PassageBerger
The Sermon on the Mount Jesus and his Law
Jesusrsquo Rejection by the Jews Jesus was crucified because he made himself out to be God
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman salvation comes from the Jews
Matt 539
John 1033
John 422
sect232
Jesus proclaims Woes on the Pharisees Jesus implicitly called himself a camel here (obscure)
Matt 2323ndash24sect23458
The list of arguments reveals that the passages and arguments against Jesusrsquodivinity are often similar to those found in already examined texts thoughthey are usually more extensive in Nizzahon Vetus The discussion below willrearrange the arguments according to the sequence of the Gospel of Matthewand will combine appropriate sections in Bergerrsquos edition under a singleheading59 We begin with the genealogy of Jesus a preferred topic in everytext surveyed so far
5 4 1 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Matt 11ndash17 25 (sect154 sect88 sect28 sect72)
In contrast to Yosef ha-Meqanne discussions of Jesusrsquo genealogy and hisnativity occur frequently in Nizzahon Vetus However essentially the sameargument is repeated which is that Jesus is really Josephrsquos biological son60 In
58 Cf also sectsect197ndash200 sect217 sect232 sect235 where more obscure (or peculiar) details andarguments are presented Other arguments clearly are related to Toledoth Yeshu accountseg sect202 and sect205 That these type of arguments were included by the medieval compilereither indicates that their apologetic-polemical function was deemed more important than use-ability in debates or that the compiler simply was not familiar enough with Christian texts tojudge that these passages did not come from the New Testament
59 The Hebrew text will be given as reconstructed by Berger the English translation willoften be slightly adapted to give a more literal translation The customary citation of theHebrew text is abridged in this chapter and only reproduces the more relevant lines In con-trast to many other texts of the apologetic-polemical genre in particular those examined inthis study Bergerrsquos edition of Nizzahon Vetus is easily accessible and well-edited
60 There is a (rhetorical) exception to this in sect180 where after a citation of Luke 243ndash48we read the question ldquoWho then was this father that his mother mentioned If she meantJoseph then how can Jesus be called God On the other hand if she was referring to hisfather in heaven then it follows that he was his sinner for he angered his Creatorrdquo seeBerger Jewish Christian Debate 188 The argument sets up a false dilemma question eitherJesus had a human father in which case he could not be divine or God is his father but thenaccording to the passage he has disobeyed his heavenly father It is clearly assumed here thathaving human parents excludes someone from being divine This argument also appears inMS Rome (A1) f 14r see Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criticismrdquo 125
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 181
sect28 sect72 sect88 sect154 and sect163 it is reasoned that although Christians professthat Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph two genealogies trace theDavidic line to Joseph who is called ldquothe husband of Maryrdquo This thendemonstrates that Jesus is Josephrsquos son otherwise Maryrsquos genealogy shouldhave been provided mdash which Christians nevertheless do not known Twoimplications follow though not always explicitly Jesus had only humanparents mdash he therefore is exclusively human61 mdash and Mary could not havebeen a virgin (whether pre- or postnatally)62
Nizzahon Vetus sect154 is representative for this kind of argument andincludes a full citation of Matthewrsquos genealogy of Jesus (Matt 11ndash17)63
Besides the comparison with Luke 321ndash31 which bears little significance tothe question of Jesusrsquo divinity which is why it is likewise omitted here64 themain thrust of the argument seeks to demonstrate that Jesus was actuallyJosephrsquos sonIt is written in those lsquosinful notationsrsquo which they call Evangelium that Jesusrsquo line of descentcomes from kings Thus they say that so-and-so begat so-and-so until ldquoMattan begat Jacoband Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary ( מריםשלאישה ) of whom was born Jesus whois called Christus [Matt 115ndash16] Now this is how we answer them If she had not yet hadsexual relations nor was even married to her husband then why is he called her husband65
( אישהנקראלמהלבעלהנשאתולאנבעלהלאעדייןאםלהםמשיביןאנווכך )66 It shouldhave said lsquothe betrothed of Maryrsquo thus they would not be stating a lie in their prayers whenthey say that he never had any relations with her Moreover if they want to inform us that heis from a royal family why was his genealogy related to that of Joseph who was [allegedly]not his father and with whom he had no [blood] relationship at all ( רוציםהםאםועוד
היהולאאביוהיהשלאיוסףלתולדותתולדותוהעבירלמהמלכיםממשפחתשהואלהודיעינוקורבהשוםעמולו ) Rather than relating and retracing the genealogy of Joseph he [= the
gospel author] should have recounted Maryrsquos by saying so-and-so begat so-and-so until
61 In Nizzahon Vetus sect220 it is argued that ldquoJoseph had relations with her in the normalmanner and she bore his childrdquo Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 215
62 This is made explicit in Nizzahon Vetus sect145 (cf sect167) see Berger Jewish-ChristianDebate 154
63 QiṣṣaNestor sect80 and Milḥamot ha-Shem also contain longer quotations of Matthewrsquosgenealogy cf Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 168 114 and Levy ldquoChapterElevenrdquo 58ndash59 The former do not mention the four women in Matt 13 5 6 whereas Nizza-hon Vetus and Milḥamot ha-Shem include the women but do not discuss them (see 342) cfalso the discussion of Matthewrsquos genealogy in Even Bohan (see 641)
64 This argument also mentions that the names and the number of generations betweenMatthew and Lukersquos genealogy do not match see Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect154168
65 Berger notes here that he adopted the reading of MS Rome instead of Trsquos readingwhich states ldquoNor was she married for the purpose of having sexual relationsrdquo ibid 310The passage appears in MS Rome A2 (f 22r) Rosenthal ldquoA Religious Debaterdquo 65 See alsoYosef ha-Meqanne sect21 (see 452) Without further comments this argument is primarilyaimed at the perpetual virginity of Mary
66 For the Hebrew text see Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect154 106 [Hebr section]
182 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
ldquoSo-and-so begat Mary who gave birth to Jesusrdquo But [it seems] they did not know Maryrsquosgenealogy and [it follows that] she did not come from of a royal family If someone thenargues that she was a relative of Joseph you can find the respective answer in the aforemen-tioned discussion [sect88] of the passage ldquoAnd there shall come forth a rod out of the stem ofJesserdquo in Isaiah67
In sect88 which critiques the Christian exegesis of Isaiah 111ndash3 this secondaryChristian objection was already discussedHe [the Christian] might then tell you We have a tradition that the Jews always married theirrelatives thus Mary was a relative of Joseph and his genealogy is hers as well both of themhaving been descended from David You should then respond by telling him Have you cometo put together a puzzle and make a god through fabrication and by being evasive68 וכי)
אלוה ולעשות חידה לחוד בא אתה פין]י[ובעק בידוי בדברי )69
It is explicitly stated that the Christian responses to the Jewish objections areto be understood as an evasive maneuver (בעקיפין) which seeks to preservethe notion that Jesus is divine which is nevertheless a fabrication (בידוי) ThatMatthew (and also Luke) trace Jesusrsquo ancestry through Joseph consequentlydemonstrates Jesusrsquo exclusive humanity Accordingly the Christian confes-sion that Jesus is divine must be a later invention that the text does notsustain mdash although this does not take in to account the full context or inten-tion of Matthewrsquos gospel70 It was already seen in the discussion of Matthewrsquosgenealogy in Milḥamot ha-Shem that Matthewrsquos (and Lukersquos) authorial inten-tion is portrayed in contradiction to the creedal understanding of JesusRather Matthewrsquos genealogy has to be understood as an indication thatJoseph is Jesusrsquo natural father which is also explicitly argued in sect2871
67 Modified from Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect154 167 The argument continuesand turns to John 1 ldquoFurthermore it is written in the book of John that lsquoPhilip foundNathaniel an told him We have found that which is written in the Law and the Prophets inJesus son of Joseph of Nazarethrsquo And Nathaniel said to him lsquoCan a good thing come out ofNazarethrsquo So Philip told him lsquoCome and see Jesusrsquo [John 145ndash46] and when he camebefore him he said lsquoIndeed this is truly the son of Josephrsquordquo You see then that both Philipand Nathaniel testified that he was the son of Joseph and yet the Christians say that he had nofather although the above passage is written clearly in the Gospelsrdquo Berger Jewish ChristianDebate 169ndash70 The text is obviously not congruent with the canonical version of the Gospelof John in particular Nathanielrsquos response to Jesus in v 49 Comparative reversals were alsoobserved in Yosef ha-Meqanne sect11 and sect12 (related to the Gospel of John see 4510)
68 Modified from Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect88 10769 Ibid sect88 61 [Hebr section]70 In this instance the fact that Jesus is called the husband of Mary (Matt 116) is
overemphasized at the expense of statements that express the contrary or at least force amodification of this understanding (cf Matt 118 25) However this selective literalism is afeature of most ldquoexegetical polemicrdquo literature
71 Also in sect163 Nizzahon Vetus cites Matt 125 in Latin calling Jesus Josephrsquos firstbornldquoEt non cognovit eam done peperit filium suum primogenitum qui vocatur Jesusrdquo see BergerJewish Christian Debate 178 emphasis mine
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 183
Now if you say that Jesus was not the son of Joseph who was virum [of Mary] then he andJesus have nothing [in common] in this genealogy If however you trace his lineage throughJoseph then you must admit that he had a father But unless you trace his lineage throughhim how can you prove that he stemmed from Judah (and from David)72
The Jewish argument requires the Christian to choose between two unaccept-able positions either Jesus is only a man who was conceived by Joseph andMary (by natural conception) or he cannot be verified as the DavidicMessiah This is the same argument as in two manuscripts of Milḥamot ha-Shem and as discussed earlier the issue of Jesusrsquo Davidic lineage must havebeen used very early in the Jewish-Christian dispute73 With this NizzahonVetus perpetuates an argument that Christians had responded to much earlier(though their response is clearly rejected as too fantastic) and this is likewisethe case with the discussion of the birth of Jesus which is similar to what hasbeen seen in earlier polemical texts74 In fact Nizzahon Vetus also raises theissue of the inapproprietness of the idea of God being in the womb (in sect39sect62 sect128 sect143 and sect145)75 Since this was already examined earlier76 wemove on from Jesusrsquo genealogy and birth to a discussion of another aspect ofthe nativity the flight to Egypt
5 4 2 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Matt 213ndash14 (sect159)
As seen in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne the flight to Egypt is used to questionJesusrsquo divinity In Nizzahon Vetus sect39 after citing Matt 213ndash14 we readWhat was the reason for all this If he were God why should he have been afraid of the king( המלךמןיראהיהלמההואאלהיםאםלמהכךוכל )77 Do we not see from the angels of ourGod and his servants that they were not afraid of flesh and blood They carried out theirdivine missions openly and no man had the power to touch them or harm them at allhellip78
The argument is almost the same as in Yosef ha-Meqanne (and Origen Cels166)79 if Jesus was divine why should he run away from danger Even the
72 Modified from Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect28 6173 See the discussion under 34274 This is the same strategy seen in QiṣṣaNestor see 25275 In sect39 it is denied that something holy could come from something as reprehensible as
a womb [which is clearly related to QiṣṣaNestor cf 253 see also Nizzahon Vetus sect62] Insect128 it is questioned how Christians could claim that only the Son was in the womb of Marysince he is constantly united with and inseparable from the other two members of the TrinityIn sect143 Jesus is said to be wrapped in placenta and encompassed in the womb sect145 is dis-cussed in 5413 See again Bergerrsquos essay ldquoGod in the Womb and the Problem of the Incar-nationrdquo in Jewish-Christian Debate 350ndash54
76 See 25377 Berger Jewish Christian Debate sect159 111 [Hebr section]78 Modified from ibid sect159 173ndash7479 Cf Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne sect22 (see 453) The most striking difference between the
184 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
angels of God do not have to fear anything from men but Jesus in contrast isseen as acting out of fear In the following Jesus is then compared to Lot andElisha who both had been assisted by angels In contrast to them Jesus hasno angels that aid or protect him and he is told to escape rather than to remainin public He is as such powerless and does not appear to be in good standingwith God Where Elisharsquos prayer was heard Jesus may have presumed thatGod would not answer him It is hence not Jesusrsquo experience of the emotionof fear that is the issue but that he reputedly as a divine figure had to fleefrom Herod80 In this regard it is unbecoming for Jesus and incongruent forthe divine to be seen as escaping from the exigency of a human king
5 4 3 Jesusrsquo Baptism Matt 313 16ndash17 (sect160)
In Nizzahon Vetus sectsect160ndash161 the practice of baptism is questioned in and ofitself and as part of this discussion Jesusrsquo divinity is challenged After citingMatt 313 and 16ndash1781 the question is posed why Jesus needed to be baptizedWhat was the purpose of this What sort of God must be sanctified from impurity just likeflesh and blood ( ודםכבשרמטומאהלקדשושצריךאלוהישוכי )82 And moreover it is writ-ten for them already in another place that a spirit had originally entered Mary when shebecame pregnant ( לכתחילהאמובמריםנכנסשרוחאחרבמקוםלהםכתובשכברועוד(כשנתעברה Where then had that spirit gone If you will answer that the spirit becameimpure (נטמא) in her womb then it follows that she was impure like other women83
two is that Nizzahon Vetus has ldquofor Herod was about to seek the boyrdquo ( לבקשהורדוסעתידכיהנעראת ) whereas in Yosef ha-Meqanne it is ldquofor soon the cursed Jews are to seek the boyrdquo
( הנערלבקשיהודיםארוריםעתידים ) It is clear that this difference (HerodJews) is deli-berate as can be seen in the following question ldquoWhy was he afraid of the kingrdquo ( היהלמה
המלךמןירא ) which in Yosef ha-Meqanne is ldquoWhy was he afraid of any manrdquo ( היהלמהאדםמשוםירא ) Nizzahon Vetus is as such closer to the nativity account in Matthew which
is also very similar to MS Rome (A1) ff 14andash14b Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criticismrdquo 127(including the reference to Herod) According to Bergerrsquos notes Milḥemet Miṣvah also has asimilar argument idem Jewish Christian Debate 312ndash13
80 In Nizzahon Vetus sect205 Luke 21 7 is conflated with the flight to Egypt askingldquoNow why did he not protect himself Indeed why did he not reveal himself to those search-ing for him and tell them ldquoHere I am but there is nothing you can do to me for I have beenborn and shall live for thirty-three more yearsrdquo This is then related to an episode from Tole-doth Yeshu see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 203 and the note on p 328
81 Cf ibid sect160 111 [Hebr section] While the passage from Matthew follows thesyntax of the Vulgate it is worthwhile noting that the heavenly declaration the Bat Qol reads
נפשירצתהבובחיריבניזה which adds נפשי to the Latin ldquohic est Filius meus dilectus in quomihi conplacuirdquo In Milḥamot ha-Shem the declaration is מאדליישראשרנאהבבניזה cfLevy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 30
82 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect160 111 [Hebr section]83 Modified from ibid sect160 174 For the parallel section in MS Rome (A1) f 13v see
Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criticismrdquo 124
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 185
After this a second thrust follows which repeats the same argument inanother formFurthermore there is a warning in their Torah that a man should be baptized only once andone who does this more than once is considered a heretic 84(מין) And yet this one who Iwould think needed no further sanctity as his own divinity ought to make him holy this Jesuswas sanctified by the hands of a man ( אםכיאחרתלקדושהצריךהיהשלאסבורשהייתיוזה
אדםידיעלקדושנעשהוישוקדושהיהמאלוהותו )85 Indeed he was sanctified three timesInitially when he entered his motherrsquos womb there was a holy spirit ( הקודשרוחהייתה )then when he was baptized by John like [all other] men there was a holy spirit finally whenhe came out of the Jordan there was a holy spirit Thus there were three such occassions86
Berger has already summarized the two distinct arguments contained in theseparagraphs ldquo1 Why was the baptism necessary in the light of Jesusrsquopresumed purity 2 Why did a new spirit descend upon him if the holy spiritwas already within him The first question appears in Sefer Nestor HaKomer(hellip) and the second is found in Jacob ben Reubenrdquo87
The first line of argument has already been encountered and discussed inMilḥamot ha-Shem In Nizzahon Vetus the argument is heightened by theomission of Matt 314ndash1588 As the differences between Markrsquos andMatthewrsquos account of Jesusrsquo baptism indicate it is likely that alreadyMatthew perceived the need to further comment on the fact that Jesus wasbaptized by John the Baptist (cf Mark 19ndash11 Matt 313ndash17 Luke 321ndash22John 129ndash34)89 Accordingly John the Baptist is shown to object to Jesusrsquobaptism as something unnecessary But Jesusrsquo reply in Matt 315 that thisbaptism was meant to ldquofulfill all righteousnessrdquo (πληρῶσαι πᾶσανδικαιοσύνην) clearly explains the event as something that transcends therealm of purification90 This then indicates that the issue echoed in Jewish
84 Perhaps Ephesians 45 is referred to The author may have heard this arguments madeagainst the Cathar or perhaps Waldensian movements though that would of course depend onactual baptism practice of these groups Arguments made by these ldquohereticalrdquo movementsagainst the Catholic standpoint are known to appear in Jewish polemics cf David BergerldquoChristian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo HTR 68(1975) 287ndash303 Jesusrsquo repeated need to be purified therefore might even imply that he wasa heretic
85 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect160 112 [Hebr section]86 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect160 17487 Ibid 313 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect60 and sect114 (see 343)88 Milḥamot ha-Shem does not omit Matt 314ndash15 cf Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 30 אני
האמת למלאת לנו יאות כן כי לי הניחה לו ויאמר ענהו וישו אלי בא ואתה ממך להיות ראוי 89 See the discussion under 34390 The understanding of Matt 315 is a contended issue in Matthean scholarship Both
ldquofulfillrdquo (πληρόω) and ldquorighteousnessrdquo (δικαιοσύνη) are theologically charged and centralto the interpretation of Matthew esp since it is the first sentence Jesus is saying in the gospelFor a discussion of this verse and both related terms see Roland Deines Die Gerechtigkeitder Tora im Reich des Messias (WUNT I177 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2004) 127ndash32
186 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
medieval polemic was already perceived by the authors of the New Testamentitself However in Nizzahon Vetus this ldquohigherrdquo evaluation of Jesusrsquo baptismis inverted Where John the Baptist feels that Jesus is ldquotoo worthyrdquo thepolemicist argues the opposite by insinuating Jesusrsquo (repeated) need for purifi-cation On account of his alleged divinity and his divine purity he should nothave to undergo ritual cleansing of any kind Nevertheless the fact that hewas baptized puts in question his purity and with this also his alleged identity
The second argument is related and builds on the notion that baptism is aform of ritual purification though it is also based on the further assumptionthat baptism in some way endowed Jesus with the Holy Spirit Thus in threeseparate events Jesus is seen as coming in touch with the Holy Spirit he wasconceived by the Spirit the Spirit was present at the actual ritual of baptismand finally the Spirit came in form of a dove upon him After each of these itis said the Spirit was present ( הקודשרוחהייתה ) In Milḥamot ha-Shem onlythe birth of Jesus and the appearance of the dove were in view here baptismitself is understood as a means by which the Holy Spirit comes91 The fact thatit is questioned if the Spirit left Jesus ( הרוחאותוהלךלהיכן ) shows that theauthor did not think that Jesus was composed of the Holy Spirit The force ofthe argument lies on the assumption that the Spirit left Jesus at some pointreturning to him at his baptism This could be construed as an argumentagainst the Trinity but this is not done so The argument is essentially similarto the first since the most plausible reason for the Spirit leaving would be thatJesus had become impure which again would point to his human identity
The third argument which Berger left uncommented is the question ofagency The fact that John the Baptist is the one who baptizes Jesus is used toargue against Jesus divinity ( יוחנןידיעלכשנטבל ) John has to provide Jesuswith an alternate means of purification ( אחרתלקדושה ) which means Jesusrsquopurity (or holiness) is bestowed by a man ( אדםידיעלקדושנעשה ) This ofcourse is not what one would suspect if Jesus was divine as Godrsquos holinessand purity are assumed to be inherent to God The qualities of independence
91 The argument implies that the Spirit was present or even entered Jesus in the actualimmersion This would then reflect familiarity with the contemporary medieval (but also quiteearly) sacramental understanding of baptism whereby after the baptism the newly baptizedwas christened with oil which was understood as being anointed with and imparted with theHoly Spirit eg in Peter Lombardrsquos Sententiae 473 (45) See also Ferguson Baptism in theEarly Church 247 353ndash54 426ndash27 479ndash81 531 760ndash61 786 855 Peter Cramer Baptismand Change in the Early Middle Ages c 200ndash1150 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life ampThought Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993) 211ndash12 Bryan D Spinks Earlyand Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism From the New Testament to the Council ofTrent (Aldershot Ashgate 2006) 112ndash13 121ndash23 141 J D C Fisher Christian InitiationBaptism in the Medieval West (ACC 47 London SPCK 1965) 38ndash39 54ndash57 91ndash92 andLeonel L Mitchell Baptismal Anointing (ACC 48 London SPCK 1966)
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 187
and superiority as something ldquonativerdquo to the divine is also reflected in the fol-lowing discussion of the temptation
5 4 4 Jesusrsquo Temptation Matt 41ndash11a (sect162)
In sect162 Jesusrsquo temptation is recounted by citing Matt 41ndash11a92 We are thenpresented with a familiar but much more elaborate and sophisticated argu-ment parts of which were seen already in Milḥamot ha-Shem Various signifi-cant expansions and additions are evident93
Now why was he relating that he fasted forty days and forty nights What sort of praise ofGod is it to say that he needs food and drink Or do all of the angels of our God who servebefore him need food or drink Moreover Moses who was flesh and blood was nourishedby the glory of the divine presence ( שכינהמזיוניזוןהיהודםבשרשהיהמשה )94 forty daysand forty nights without eating bread or drinking water and so was Elijah And furthermorethe Jews were even unable to look upon the countenance of Moses until he placed a veil overhis face because he had approached his Creator but this one who called himself God howmuch more [ought it to be true] about him95
The initial question why Matthew relates the temptation story at all ( כךכלצםשהיהמספרשהואלמה ) which already appears in Milḥamot ha-Shem and
the added question how this would support the claim that Jesus is divine ומה)לאכילהצריךשהואלאלהיםזהיששבח ) implies already from the start that
even Matthew did not really think that Jesus was divine96 With this then firstthe intention (andor intelligence) of the gospel author is under scrutiny
Matthewrsquos allusion which relates Jesus to Mosesrsquo fast of forty days andforty nights (cf Exod 3428 Deut 99 11 18 25 1010)97 is then turned
92 As in Milḥamot ha-Shem the section quoted from Matthew stops after the first half ofv 11 omitting any mention of the angels which might indicate that the argument is not basedon the reading of the actual gospel text but was received by the compiler of Nizzahon Vetusas part of the polemical tradition The overall argument is of course more poignant withoutthe latter part of v 11
93 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) Berger and Breuer (following Posnanski) also refer-ence here Moses of Salernorsquos Talsquoanot cf Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 314 and BreuerSefer Niṣṣaḥon Yashan 136ndash37 What is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem in the above argumentis the question what achievement it is for a divine being to fast for forty days the initialcomparison to Moses the question of why Jesus responded with citing Deut 83 and whyJesus as God was not able to ldquofeed himselfrdquo The question of how God would be in need ofnourishment is added and the comparison with Moses is much more elaborate Further addi-tions are the question why Jesus if he was divine ever would need physcial nourishmentwhy he did not make bread after all and finally the temptation in and of itself is made anissue for how could Satan think he could tempt God
94 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect162 114 [Hebr section]95 Ibid sect162 17796 Alternatively it might imply that Matthew was not very sophisticated97 So already Irenaeus Haer 5212 see also Davies and Allison Matthew 1ndash7 358
188 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
around in Nizzahon Vetus Where Matthew seeks to draw a parallel98 thepolemic emphazises the disparity between Jesus on the one side and MosesElijah and the angels on the other side Jesus only fasts for forty days butMoses fasts much longer99 Whereas Moses the angels and Elijah were nour-ished by God himself (without mentioning that they were in any need) Jesusis said to be hungry (cf also sect181 and sect193)100 After Moses spent time withGod he was radiant Jesus in comparison lacked divine radiance101 The argu-ment continues
98 However Matthew not only relates Jesus to Moses he clearly portrays Jesus as some-body who greatly supersedes Moses After all Satanrsquos attacks are based on Jesusrsquo premisethat Jesus is indeed ldquothe Son of Godrdquo (εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ Mat 436) see Luz Matthew 1ndash7 151 n 32 Even if it is argued that this is not a claim to divinity or a divine title at least itdenotes Jesusrsquo superior identity over that of Moses (cf Matt 317 829 1616 175 21372663) On the presence of Moses typology in Matthew see Allison The New Moses esp165ndash72 267ndash70 He writes in his conclusion that Matthew ldquowrote a book in which Moseswhile remaining normative becomes a symbol for someone greater a promise awaiting fulfil-ment a book in which the exodus becomes history anticipating eschatologyrdquo (273) andldquosuperiority to Moses is not argued Rather it is simply assumedrdquo (274)
99 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect193 and Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 200100 The argument that Moses and the angels are nourished by the glory of God ( מזיוניזון
(שכינה is also mentioned in rabbinic midrash see esp Ira Chernus Mysticism in RabbinicJudaism (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 1982) 74ndash87 (ldquoNourished by the Splendor of the Shek-inahrdquo) Chernus notes that in an anonymous perhaps late midrash the term ניזון is also usedexplicitly linking Moses to angels who are both nourished by God cf ibid 85 In NizzahonVetus sect181 the same issue of Jesusrsquo hunger and Mosesrsquo divine nourishment is raised there ina discussion of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 1111ndash14) Cf also Cels 170
101 Moses is not infrequently compared to Jesus in the writings of the New Testament(eg in Hebrews 11ndash3 and 31ndash6 John 117 929 et al) In 2 Cor 37ndash18 the apostle Pauldiscusses the relationship of the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a similartype of dialectic comparison as encountered in Nizzahon Vetus Paul emphasizes that Mosesrsquobrilliance was fading (τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην v 7)whereas Jesusrsquo followers receive glory beyond glory (v 18) For an in-depth analysis seeOtfried Hofius ldquoGesetz und Evangelium nach 2 Korinther 3 Hartmut Gese zum 60 Geburts-tagrdquo in Paulusstudien (2nd ed WUNT I51 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1994) 75ndash120 esp86ndash107 Also Jesusrsquo transfiguration account (Matt 172ndash3 Mark 93ndash4 Luke 929ndash30 32)where Moses is depicted as conversing with a transfigured radiant Jesus (in Matthew 172 itis in particular Jesusrsquo face that is said to be shining as the sun [τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁἥλιος]) may have served as a counterpoint to show that Jesus is more ldquogloriousrdquo than MosesOn the transfiguration account as a comparison to Moses on Sinai see eg Bruce D ChiltonldquoThe Transfiguration Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Visionrdquo NTS 27 (1981) 115ndash24esp 121ndash23 and Jarl E Fossum ldquoAscensio Metamorphosis The lsquoTransfigurationrsquo of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospelsrdquo in The Image of the Invisible God Essays on the Influence ofJewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht1995) 71ndash94 This comparison and supersession is pushed to the extreme by A D A MosesMatthewrsquos Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (JSNTSup 122Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1996)
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 189
Also why did he become hungry If you say that it was ldquobecause of his fleshrdquo [and that] ldquotheflesh could not fast forty days and forty nights if [had] not [been] for the Holy Spiritrdquo את)
קדשמרוחאםכילילהומיוםמלצוםיכולהיאךהבשרהבשרמפני )102 Then [if] it was theHoly Spirit who gave him the strength to fast forty days and forty nights in that case why didhe not sustain him indefinitely ( הימיםכלפירנסולאלמה ) without food or drink and withouthunger or thirst
In response to the question why Jesus became hungry implying that thiswould be unnecessary and impossible if Jesus were God a Christian objectionis addressed If it was possible for Jesus to become hungry only in regard tohis human nature though he nevertheless needed to Spirit to sustain himduring his long fast why could he not have been (miraculously) sustained bythe Spirit indefinitely ( ובלאשתייהובלאאכילהבלאהימיםכלפירנסולאלמה
וצמארעב )103 The argument shows however that the only acceptable modeof incarnation precludes the limitations of humanity Jesus could perhaps beGod if he did not exhibit the physical exigency of human nature In otherwords the Jewish position reflected in this argument does not deem itconceivable that God could actually become human at most God couldappear in human form We then readIn addition when Satan told him ldquoSince you are God make these stones into bread and eatrdquowhy did he reply that it is because ldquoman shall not live by bread alonerdquo This reply is flawed( היאמשובשתזותשובה ) for Satan could have answered him ldquoIt is precisely because mandoes not live by bread alone but rather by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Godthat you should make bread out of these rocks for man lives by what proceeds out of themouth of God wether [it comes] from trees [ie plant produce] or wether from the stones( האבנים מן בין העצים מן בין האדם יהיה ה פי מוצא על שהרי )rdquo
Moreover why did Satan tempt him in all these ways After all everyone knows thatSatan is an evil angel who knows both manifest and hidden things just as any other angeldoes and if it had been true that Jesus was divine why should Satan have troubled him somuch and not [rather] been afraid of him104
These last two arguments use the actual temptation account in a more directfashion to reject Jesus divinity This is based 1) on account of Jesusrsquo answerand 2) on account of Satanrsquos superior knowledge
If Jesus was truly divine that is the Creator there should have been noneed for him to create food but if that need should ever arise it shoulddoubtlessly be possible for him Thus the argument takes Deut 83 to meanthat the divine word sustains reality in some form Jesus as God should con-sequently have been able to speak food into existence even from something
102 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 115 [Hebr section]103 It is perhaps possible that this argument was used by Christians in a debate but it
assumes that Christians believe that Jesusrsquo physical body needed to be sustained by the HolySpirit (or perhaps the divine aspect of Jesus) in order to operate (in this case fast 40 days)
104 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect162 177
190 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
inedible105 Further Satan as angel ie as super-human entity should havebeen aware that tempting God was an impossibility and an overall futileendeavor
This however misunderstands the temptation narrative in Matthew Thepoint of the pericope is that Satan attempts to coax Jesus into acting like nohuman could and that precisely under the presupposition that Jesus is theldquoSon of Godrdquo (Matt 43 6) It is not sensible to tempt an ordinary human tomiraculously create bread out of stones Thus the temptation as presented inMatthew operates under the premise that Jesus as Son of God is somehowable to follow Satanrsquos suggestion106 Instead Jesus chose to only behave like ahuman who has to depend on God The ldquotemptationrdquo for Jesus therefore isto remain fully human The objections raised in Nizzahon Vetus and othercomparable treatises ultimately do not do justice to Matthewrsquos text
5 4 5 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 820 96 2028 (sect188 sect168 sect215)
As in Yosef ha-Meqanne107 Matthew 8 and 9 provide the launchpad forseveral arguments which in Nizzahon Vetus are found in sect168 sect172 andsect188
In the latter two we encounter the by now familiar objection to Jesus sleep-ing in the boat (Matt 823ndash26) in sect172 after a critique of Jesusrsquo reply to thepetitioner who first wanted to bury his father before following Jesus (Matt821ndash22) it is questioned how Jesus as God could sleep in the boat ( אלהיםאם
ישןהיאךהוא )108 A few sections later in sect188 the same issue of Jesusrsquo sleepis raised again though neatly structured and directed against the TrinityYou have said that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one entity ( הקדשורוחובןאב
הואאחד )109 This might be granted [in regard to] the Father and the Holy Spirit for neitherone nor the other eats sleeps becomes fearful or gets tired But how is it ever possible forthe Son to be like the Father and the Holy Spirit when he ate and slept and grew tired andwas afraid He grew tired as it is written in their Torah ldquoAnd he came to Jacobrsquos well andwas tired and he asked the Samaritan woman for waterrdquo [John 45ndash7] He was afraid as it iswritten ldquoMy Lord my Lord why have you forsaken merdquo [Matt 2746] He slept as it is writ-ten in a passage which I have already discussed ldquoThe wind came accross the sea yet Jesuswas asleep His disciples came and awoke himrdquo [Matt 824ndash25]110
105 See also Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 314106 This would suggest that Matthew saw Jesus either as a human with ldquodivine powersrdquo
(who could turn stones into bread) or as a divine being that experienced hunger107 Cf Yosef ha-Meqanne sect7 and sectsect25ndash28 (see 456ndash9 15) also QiṣṣaNestor sect84 sect89
and sect91108 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect172 183 121 [Hebr section] cf Yosef ha-
Meqanne sect29 (see 455)109 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect188 131 [Hebr section]110 Modified from ibid sect188 193
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 191
The passage is very similar to Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne111 and QiṣṣaNestor112
and follows the same line of argumentation but appears in a more structuredform here
However Matthew 8 and 9 are also used to advance another argumentagainst the divinity of Jesus which is Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquoand again this is parallel to Yosef ha-Meqanne113 In sect168 three verses fromMatthew (Matt 96 820 and 2028) are used to demonstrate that the termldquoSon of Manrdquo ( אדםבן ) is to be understood as an indicator of his exclusivelyhuman identity The first two verse Matt 96 and 820 are followed by Num2319 Psalm 1463 Psalm 11611 and Jeremiah 175 which are cited todemonstrate that God is not a man nor a ldquoSon of Manrdquo This then is com-mented onIndeed all these passages are [applicable] to Jesus who was named ldquoSon of Manrdquo just asthey indicated in the gospels where in every place possible he himself called himself ldquoSon ofManrdquo mdash filii homo ( הומאפילי )114 In fact he lied and relented ( וניחםושיקרכזבוהוא ) as itis written in their Gospels how Jesus beseeched [God] and said ldquoMy father you can doeverything take away this cup from me nevertheless let it not be as I desire but as youdesirerdquo [Mark 1436 par Matt 2639] If he was God then he lied for who is able to cancelout his will [In this] he also relented (וניחם) inasmuch he came for the reason of undergoingsufferings as it is written in the gospels ldquoThe son of man came not to be served but to serveand to give his life as a ransom for manyrdquo [Matt 2028] afterwards however he said ldquoTakeaway this cup from merdquo [Matt 2639] and so it is clear that he relented ( שניחם הרי )115
This paragraph sets out two goals to show that Jesus lied ie to demonstratethat he is inconsistent and that he relented or changed his mind ( כזבוהוא
וניחםושיקר ) Both are seen to stand in contrast to the nature of God The addi-tional reference to the scene in Gethsemane (Matt 2639) reinforces that Jesusas God would have exhibited a change of mind (ניחם) but also that thischange of mind would effectively belie the purpose of undergoing sufferingaccording to Matt 2028 This then weaves together several strands of argu-mentations against the divinity of Jesus which nevertheless give somewhat of
111 See Yosef ha-Meqanne sect38 (see 4521) Notice esp the use of the Talmudic discourseterminology in Nizzahon Vetus להמשכחתהיכיhellipבשלמא (cf b Rosh HaShana 6b) whichis not in Yosef ha-Meqanne but appears in MS Rome (A1) f 17r see Rosenthal ldquoJewishCriticismrdquo 130 See the respective entries in Adin Steinsaltz The Talmud mdash The SteinsaltzEdition A Reference Guide (New York Random House 1989) 107 113 The argument alsooccurs in the anthology related to Talsquoanot see Berger 321 and Breuer Sefer NiṣṣaḥonYashan sect250 169
112 See QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512)113 Cf Yosef ha-Meqanne sectsect25ndash29 The topoi and the sequence of arguments and quota-
tions are very similar cf also MS Rome (A1) ff 13vndash14r see Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criti-cismrdquo 125 and QiṣṣaNestor (see 2511) see also Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 316
114 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect168 118 [Hebr section]115 Modified from ibid sect168 180ndash181 cf Horbury ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo 509 [256]
192 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
a convoluted and superficial impression116 Still the overall implication is thatthis is not congruent with what is believed about God for God does not lie orchange his mind Two related questions followMoreover if he performed this sign to make known his power and strength (when he healedthe demon possessed) why did he say ldquoin order that you may know that the lsquoSon of Manrsquorules on the earthrdquo[Matt 96] He should have said to him ldquoGod rules on earthrdquo
Moreover if he was God why did he answer that scribe with a lie when he said to himthat ldquohe had no ground where he could lay his headrdquo [Matt 820] Is it not written ldquoThe landshall not be sold forever for the land is minerdquo [Lev 2523] And it is also written ldquoThe earthis the Lordrsquos and the fullness thereof the world and they that dwell thereinrdquo [Psalm 241] Infact he himself told them elsewhere ldquoI was given dominion in heaven and in earthrdquo [Matt2818]117
Again Matt 96 and Matt 820 are used to buttress the argument that ldquoSon ofManrdquo has to be understood as a reference to Jesusrsquo humanity This then lieswithin the already observed trajectory of earlier polemic and does not advanceany different arguments (which is a common observation for many parts ofNizzahon Vetus)
In similar manner also Mark 1441 (par Matt 2645) which is parallel toQiṣṣaNestor sect39118 is used in Nizzahon Vetus to show that Jesus was only amanHere this is how one can prove to the heretics that Jesus the Nazarene was really (only) ahuman and not God ( אלוהולאממשאדםבןהיההנוצריישו )119 for it is written in thegospels that Jesus said to his disciples ldquoThe hour now nears when the son of man will bebetrayed into the hand of sinnersrdquo [Mark 1441]120
These passages then show that the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo in Nizzahon Vetus isnot only understood literally but that these verses were most likely selectedand cited to underline that Jesus used this term in situations where his humancharacteristics are evident in Matt 2028 as someone who serves in Matt820 as someone who is poor and in Mark 1441 (par Matt 2645) assomeone who is betrayed in the hands of humans Again this not differentfrom previous polemic works and is as such only a recapitulation
5 4 6 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Matt 1125ndash30 (sect170)
Jesusrsquo prayer in Matt 1125ndash30 is used in Nizzahon Vetus similar to earlierarguments though it is interpreted in a different direction
116 The arguments clearly were ldquoreceivedrdquo and taken from earlier sources as the parallelsin MS Rome and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne suggest
117 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect168 181118 See 2511119 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect215 146 [Hebr section]120 Modified from ibid sect215 209
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 193
Now did he have to say ldquoI give thanks before yourdquo If he was God what sort of thanks musthe give ( לוצריךהודאהמההואאלהיםאם )121 Is not everything that is hidden from all theworld known to him yet he says ldquoI give thanks before you helliprdquo122
On the same passage Jacob ben Reuben has already based a rather formidableattack on the Trinity123 Though the argument here is still based on Godrsquosomniscience it is not an attack on the Trinity the target is clearly Jesusrsquodivinity In Milḥamot ha-Shem Jesusrsquo prayer is understood as confession איך)
שקרעדותמעידזהנמצאhellipאביולפנימתודההיה ) here it is taken as a thanks-giving prayer to God It is as such questioned how Jesus if he were Godwould need to thank God ( לוצריךהודאהמההואאלהיםאם ) God does notneed to receive anything much less has to be grateful to someone for givingsomething Jesus in contrast is thankful to the Father As God however heshould not be in a position where he needs to receive any revelation at all asall things are known to God This argument then is a variation on what isfound in Milḥamot ha-Shem
5 4 7 Blasphemy against the Spirit Luke 1210 par Matt 1231ndash31 (sect223)
The passage on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which was seen inmost of the texts surveyed so far is also appropriated in Nizzahon Vetusalbeit with a polemical twist and based on LukeIt is written for them in the book of Lucas in the gospels ldquoWhoever sins against the fatherwill find forgiveness and [whoever sins] against the son will find forgiveness but [whoeversins] against the Impure Spirit ( הטומאהרוח )124 will not find forgiveness not in this world orin the world to comerdquo [Luke 1210] But if the three of them are one why should not theperson who sinned against the impure spirit ( הטומאה רוח ) find forgiveness125
It is evident that Nizzahon Vetus merely abbreviates this argument which isalready known from Milḥamot ha-Shem and Yosef ha-Meqanne126 That theHoly Spirit becomes the ldquoImpure Spiritrdquo ( הטומאהרוח )127 is of coursepolemic and shows that the compiler does not shrink from using morederogatory terms128 Nevertheless the argument remains essentially the same
121 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect170 119 [Hebr section]122 Modified from ibid sect170 182123 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 345)124 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect223 150 [Hebr section]125 Modified from ibid sect223 215126 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 349) and Yosef ha-Meqanne sect9 and sect41 (see 4513ndash
4514) The argument also occurs in MS Rome (A1) f 19v see Rosenthal ldquoJewish Criti-cismrdquo 135 there however in a discussion where the Christian is said to raise the issue of sinagainst the Holy Spirit ( הקודש רוח ) quoting Luke in Latin
127 In Yosef ha-Meqanne sect30 the term ldquoImpure Spiritrdquo ( הטומאהרוח ) is likewise used(see 4522)
128 In an earlier argument Peter is eg called a donkey ( חמורפיטר ) This is a pun based
194 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
that is that there must be a disparity within the Trinity Thus Luke 1210 (parMatt 1231ndash32) would appear to conflict with Christian doctrine ie the beliefin the Trinity
5 4 8 Jesusrsquo Statements of Being Sent Matt 1357 1218 (sect207)
Jesusrsquo sending statements were already used in QiṣṣaNestor to argue againstthe divinity of Jesus129 In Nizzahon Vetus a very similar discussion is encoun-tered in sect207 asserting among other things that Jesus is a prophet andmessengerIt is written in the book of Simon ben Cepha ie Peter that Jesus told Peter the ass ldquoSatanis engaged in seeking to kill you but I Jesus shall petition from God that he would refrainfrom shortening your daysrdquo [cf Luke 2231ndash32] Now if he himself were God why should hehave had to petition others for Peter Moreover he himself did not call himself God but onlylsquoprophetrsquo or lsquoservantrsquo or lsquohis messengerrsquo130
Each of the latter three identifications of Jesus are then supported by a NewTestament passages To show that Jesus understood himself as prophet a para-phrase of Matt 1357 is quotedThus he testifies about himself that he is a prophet and not a god for he clearly said ldquoAprophet is not held in contempt save in his own counryrdquo [Matt 1357]131
John 1249 is cited to show that Jesus was a messenger followed by Matt1218 which is meant to demonstrate that Jesus was simply a servantMoreover in the third book of Matthaeus he testified about himself that he was born from thewomb [just] like all men and that he is the servant of God as Isaiah said ldquoBehold my ser-
on Exodus 1313 ( חמורפטר ) see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 302 but it could alsorefer to b Šabb 116a see also 548 below We find the same also in sect197 ldquoIt is written forthem that Jesus said to Peter the ass lsquoPeter amongst us is one who will betray me this nightand I will be captured and brought to judgmentrsquo [cf Matt 2621] Peter then said to himlsquoSince you know the future you must be God why then did you not tell me [this] untilnowrsquo And Jesus said to him lsquoTell no man that I am God [cf Matt 1620] for from the timethat I have abandoned the Torah of my native land I have rebelled against my Creator andagainst his Torahrsquo modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect197 201 Of course theargument has more the character of a parody and is only very loosely based on Matt 1620ndash21and 2621 The argument certainly would not have been effective in an actual debate or dia-logue with Christians in particular high clergy It is interesting though that the convictionthat Jesus disobeyed Torah and rebelled against his Creator ( בוראינגדמריתי ) is put into themouth of Jesus himself which is incongruent with the discussions of Matt 517ndash19 in Nizza-hon Vetus which argues the opposite (cf sect71 sect157 sect158)
129 See 2516130 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect207 204131 Modified from ibid sect207 204 The same passage is mentioned sect167 however there
the fact that Jesus had siblings is discussed
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 195
vant I shall support himrdquo [Matt 1218 Isaiah 421] All this is explained above in its properplace in Isaiah132
It is as such argued that Jesus as prophet messenger and servant cannot beunderstood as God which occurs in similar form in QiṣṣaNestor133 More-over Jesus himself (עצמו) which is repeatedly stressed declared that he is aprophet messenger and a servant134 The argument is quite clear God is not aprophet he sends prophets God is not a messenger he sends messengersGod is not a servant he is served Jesus consequently understood himself asGodrsquos agent but not as God himself Thus Jesusrsquo self-understanding contra-dicts Christian belief135
5 4 9 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 Mt 1916ndash21 (sect184)
The the so-called ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo pericope is used in Nizzahon Vetus incontrast to previously surveyed sources only to emphasize that Jesusendorsed Torah that is at least in Wagenseilrsquos manuscript136 However this isnot how QiṣṣaNestor and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne have appropriated thispassage from Matthew since they employed this story in order to demonstratethat Jesus did not consider himself divine137 In Nizzahon Vetus after quotingMark 1017ndash21 we simply read
132 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect207 205 A discussion of Isaiah421 to which the reader is referred to in the text is not found in Nizzahon Vetus at least as itis available today This might indicate that the argument was cropped from another sourcethat contained such an argument or it might suggest that Nizzahon Vetus was originallylonger In fact the whole argument would appear to be derived from QiṣṣaNestor in particu-lar on account of the reference to the ldquothird book of Matthewrdquo which is reminiscent of QiṣṣaNestor sect57 (see esp Qiṣṣa) Moreover a discussion of Isaiah 42 actually follows in QiṣṣaNestor sect58 all which might demonstrate that Nizzahon Vetus is indebted to QiṣṣaNestor thatis at least in this particular argument
133 In Milḥamot ha-Shem we also find a terse recapitulation of Nestor sect55 and sect57 cfLevy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 54ndash55 78
134 See the discussion in 24 and cf the parallels in QiṣṣaNestor (see 2516)135 The question of Jesusrsquo self-understanding especially in relation to how he uses the
term ldquoSon of Manrdquo in regard to later doctrinal formulations has been a contended issue inrecent New Testament studies On this see eg James D G Dunn Jesus Remembered(Christianity in the Making 1 Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2002) 612ndash762 also NT WrightldquoJesusrsquo Self-Understandingrdquo in The Incarnation An Interdisciplinary Symposium on theIncarnation of the Son of God (ed Stephen T Davis Daniel Kendall and Gerald OrsquoCollinsOxford Oxford University Press 2002) 47ndash61 but cf Sigurd Grindheim Godrsquos EqualWhat Can We Know About Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding (LNTS 446 London TampT Clark2011)
136 Cf also Nizzahon Vetus sect172 (see 545)137 Cf the respective argument in QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514) and Yosef ha-Meqanne
sect33 (see 4516)
196 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
Now he did not say ldquoGo and be baptizedrdquo Rather he commanded him to observe theancient commandments and [it was] on [the basis of] those commandments [that] hepromised him life in the world to come138
MS Rome as Berger notes in his critical annotations raises the question whyJesus replied ldquoWhy do you call me goodrdquo139 This element is howevermissing in Wagenseilrsquos text140 If parallel texts like Yosef ha-Meqanne espe-cially MS Rome and older texts as Nestor contain this argument why wouldNizzahon Vetus which otherwise collated so many arguments not raise thispoint especially after quoting the whole New Testament passage It is there-fore conceivable that Wagenseil found the argument too potent and redacted itfrom his manuscript141
5 4 10 Cursing the Fig Tree Mark 1111ndash14a par Matt 2117ndash19a (sect181)
After recounting the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 1111ndash14a an intricateargument in the form of an imaginary dialogue is presented which anticipatespossible replies from the Christian partyAnd why was he hungry You may say that it is because of his flesh ( הבשרמפני )142 buthave we not seen that Moses may he rest in peace who was flesh and blood fasted forty daysand forty nights because he had drawn near to the Shekinah Why then did this one of whomyou say that he himself was God experience hunger in his flesh You may then say that thespirit was hungry but how could that be true since the spirit does not eat anything More-over [the fact] that Jesus went to see if there were any figs on the fig tree mdash did he not knowfrom the place from which he saw the tree whether there were figs or not You may say thathe said this in respect to his flesh ( זהדברהבשרכנגד )143 however does the flesh think orknow anything Does not the whole world know that it is not the flesh which knows or under-stands anything but [only] the spirit Consequently I am amazed at this ( מתמיהאניבזאת )if he was God and the spirit of God was in him ( בואלהיםורוחאלהיםהואאם ) why did henot know from that place that there was no fruit there Moreover even if he did not find anyfruit why did he curse the tree144
Three seperate points are discussed 1) Jesusrsquo hunger 2) his ignorance aboutthe absence of fruit and 3) the fact that he cursed the tree While these argu-ments are not new there is still a significant expansion of what is present inMilḥamot ha-Shem145 first Moses is compared to Jesus since Moses was not
138 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect184 191139 Ibid sect184 129 n 432 [Hebr section] ldquoNow he himself established on the basis of
this [reply] that that he is not Godrdquo ( אלוה היה שלא הכלל מן עצמו שהוציא עתה )140 Cf Tela Ignea Satanae (1681) 221141 Berger has noted that Wagenseil modified some of Nizzahon Vetusrsquos ldquoharsh-anti
Christianrdquo expressions see Jewish-Christian Debate 373142 Ibid sect181 126 [Hebr section]143 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect181 127 [Hebr section]144 Modified from ibid sect181 189145 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347)
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 197
hungry after 40 days (because he was nourished by the Shekinah)146 he issuperior to Jesus Jesus on the other hand was hungry after 40 days whichdemonstrates he did not draw near to the Shekinah and also implies that he isnot divine Then a distinction is made between Jesusrsquo flesh (בשר) and hisspirit (רוח) which is carried over into the next segment where Jesusrsquo igno-rance is discussed Accordingly if Jesus were God specifically on account ofthe Spirit in him he should have known that the tree had no fruit Since he didnot know about the absence of fruit he was not omnipotent and consequentlynot divine147 The distinction between flesh and spirit here is mostly anthropo-logical (and not christological) that is the flesh is understood as mindlessmatter whereas the spirit is understood as the mind or center of the humanperson The argument operates thus under the premise that Jesusrsquo divinity islocated in or is equal to his spirit which again is more similar to an Apollinar-ian or logos-sarx understanding of Christology and was already seen in Yosefha-Meqanne That Christians somehow distinguish Jesusrsquo humanity anddivinity is thus recognized but also misrepresented The argument continuesand juxtaposes Luke 627ndash89 arguing that Jesusrsquo harsh treatment of the tree isnot in line with his own dictum of love just as it is argued in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347)
5 4 11 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1324ndash34a par Mt 2429ndash33 36 (sect177 sect194)
After quoting Mark 1324ndash34a (par Matt 2429ndash33 36) we find the followingargumentNow it surprises me very much that he said that the Son does not know the day and hour hewill come If he is like his father who is able to hide any word or any deed from him More-over he himself would be coming without his own knowledge it is thus obvious that helacked his fatherrsquos knowledge
It is written for them in Marcus that when his students asked him when the end would behe answered that it is hidden from the angels and from the Son but the Father and the HolySpirit know [cf Mark 1332] If according to your words they are all equal both in powerand knowledge ( בדעתהןבכוחהןהםשויםשכולםכדבריכםואם )148 why is somethinghidden from one which is known to the others (חבירו) It must be because the Son is not asldquooldrdquo as [the] Father ( אב כמו קדם הבן שאין )149
146 See the discussion under 544147 Already Ephrem knew this argument (see 347)148 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect177 125 [Hebr section]149 Modified from ibid sect177 187 Berger translates אבכמוקדםהבןשאיןמפניאלא as
ldquoIt must be because the son is not preexistent like the fatherrdquo (emphasis mine) This seems abit too bold of a translation as it introduces Christrsquos pre-incarnate ontological existence intothe discussion which so far has not been part of the debate (though קדם ldquobeforerdquo could betranslated this way) It also would imply that Jesusrsquo pre-existence somehow became an issuethat was considered by Jewish polemicists
198 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
The New Testament passage comes (again) as a surprise to the author150
specifically that Jesus is depicted as someone with limited knowledge SinceJesus apparently ldquolacked his fatherrsquos knowledgerdquo he subsequently ought notto be understood as equal to God which both puts into question Jesusrsquo divin-ity and the Trinity The last line ldquothe son is not as lsquooldrsquo as [the] Fatherrdquo אין)
אבכמוקדםהבן ) is rather intriguing as it effectively supplies a reason forJesusrsquo ignorance that undermines the Trinity and perhaps might be a faintcritique of Jesusrsquo pre-existence In other words Jesus did not know the partic-ular day because it was determined before Jesus existed
The rest of the argument is similar to what was already encountered QiṣṣaNestor sect39151 here in Nizzahon Vetus sect177 the argument is however moredeveloped Nevertheless in Nizzahon Vetus sect194 the exact argument ofQiṣṣaNestor is givenNow here is [another] answer It is written for them in the fifth book of the book of Marcusthat Jesusrsquodisciples asked him about the day of the resurrection when that day would beJesus answered them ldquoNobody in all creation knows that day or hour not the angels abovenor any man but God alonerdquo [Mark 134 32] he thus excluded himself from the divine( האלוהות מן עצמו את והוציא )152
The last line ldquothus he excluded himself from the divinerdquo ( מןעצמואתוהוציא(האלוהות is the inversion of the last line of Qiṣṣa sect39 (which is not inNestor) ldquoWere he a God he would not have presented himself as a lsquoson ofmanrsquordquo153
5 4 12 Jesus in Gethsemane Mark 1432ndash42 par Matt 2636ndash46 (sect176)
Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane is also in Nizzahon Vetus an important key textAfter quoting Mark 1432ndash34 we read154
Now to whom was Jesus praying And for [what] was he in need of prayer and supplicationIs it not written ldquoHe speaks and carries out he decrees and fulfillsrdquo [Job 2228] Yet it says
150 A similar comment is made in Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410)151 See 2511152 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect194 200 and 138ndash39 [Hebr
section]153 Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 160 238154 The quotation is a conflation of Mark 1432ndash42 and Matthew 2636ndash46 and is more
elaborate in Nizzahon Vetus than in Milḥamot ha-Shem In Nizzahon Vetus Peter is also calledSimon Cephas which also occurs in QiṣṣaNestor sect141 Matt 2639 is also quoted in Latin inNizzahon Vetus sect168 but Berger beliefs this particular passage is a gloss see Jewish-Chris-tian Debate 316 (presumably because it is not found in MS Rome and Talsquoanot) Interest-ingly the argument assumes that Jesus prayed this after he was crucified cf Berger 180 Itmight be a coincidence but in Justin Martyrrsquos Dial 99 the Gethsemane passage is discussedafter Jesusrsquo cry on the cross
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 199
he began to be fearful and to tremble ( ולהחרדלהתפחדהתחיל )155 and that he told his disci-ples ldquoMy soul is sorrowful unto death ( מותעדנפשיעציבה )rdquo You may argue that he isreferring to the flesh which was fearful but it says ldquoMy soul is sorrowfulrdquo
Moreover in every place you say that this matter refers to the flesh ( הבשרנגדזהדבר )but is it really possible to say that The whole world knows after all that the flesh does notspeak [by itself] or knows anything at all it would be like a stone if it was not for the impe-tus of the spirit ( הרוח מכח )
Furthermore Jesus prayed that his father remove this cup from him in effect then he wassaying (כלומר) ldquoYou can remove it from me but not Irdquo He also said ldquoLet it not be as I willbut as you willrdquo If so then the wills are not equal and if they have two wills it is establishedthat Jesus is not God
You also say in every place that Jesus accepted all these troubles willingly in order toredeem his sons (ie followers) Now if that was his desire then why these supplications[On the other hand] if he did not wish to accept all this why did he not save his body Infact he told them ldquoThe spirit is ready but the flesh is weakrdquo ( הבשראבלקייםהרוח156(חלש It is written for them ldquoJesus said when he was crucified lsquoMy soul is as loathing[even] to death and the flesh is indignant and agitatedrsquo ( רוגזתוהבשרמותעדנפשיכאיבה157[cf Mark 1434] rdquo(ורוגשת
The above section contains several sophisticated points which are or the mostpart similar to the respective parallel section (source) in Milḥamot ha-Shem158
1) Jesusrsquo prayer in and of itself indicates that he was lesser than God159 2)Jesusrsquo divine or spiritual nature (spirit) ought to have controlled his humanity(flesh) nevertheless Jesus is depicted here as weak and fearful160 3) Jesusrsquowill and the Fatherrsquos will have to be seen as two seperate and independentwills (thus Jesus cannot be God)161 4) Jesusrsquo prayer contradicts the idea thatJesus really intended to bring about salvation and 5) Jesus was not able tosave himself162
Then the argument becomes again more anthropological and expands onMilḥamot ha-Shem
155 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect176 123 [Hebr section]156 Ibid sect176 124 [Hebr section]157 Ibid sect176 185ndash86158 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) and Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20)159 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect139ndash141 The same idea appears in a discussion of Psalm 316
(Luke 2346) in Nizzahon Vetus sect148 ldquoYou may then argue that he prayed and cried notbecause he wanted to be saved but because people normally pray when they are in troublethus he too prayed because he behaved like an ordinary mortal in every respectrdquo ( בנידרך
הארץכלכדרךנוהגהיהדרכיושבכללפיכןכמוהואגםהאדם ) see Berger Jewish-Chris-tian Debate sect148 157 [Hebr section]
160 This is less aggressively argued here than in Milḥamot ha-Shem cf the subsequentpoints and QiṣṣaNestor sect108
161 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect53 Berger notes that this argument occurs also in Milḥemet Miṣvah(MS Parma f 91a) Jewish-Christian Debate 319
162 This argument already occurs already in the gospels cf Matt 2742ndash43 Mark 1531and Luke 2335
200 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
Now tell me who [in a person] wills and who desires Obviously the soul They call thatdesire ratio in Latin and no one can be without these three things body soul and ratio and itis from the soul that ratio proceeds forth How then did Jesus say ldquoLet it not be as I will butas you willrdquo Did that soul not come from the father and did his father [in the end] not desire[for him to drink] that cup Do not dismiss me by saying that he was speaking [thus] onaccount of the flesh ( דיברהבשרכנגד )163 because the flesh does not know [what is] good ifit were not for the spirit And if you still dimiss me by saying that he was speaking [thus] onaccount of the flesh since the flesh is [naturally] fearful and that it is impossible to not actaccording to its [natural] manner and that the [natural] manner of the flesh is to have thoughtsof women to sleep to hunger mdash then how could the flesh ever fast forty days and fortynights And if you should say that no [impure] thought took control in him because of theHoly Spirit within that flesh then if so why did that same spirit not have the power to savethe flesh from fear and hunger Nevertheless we know that he was fearful hungry and sor-rowful for he clearly said ldquoMy soul is sorrowfulrdquo It is not written ldquomy fleshrdquo but rather ldquomysoulrdquo164
The Gethsemane pericope in Nizzahon Vetus like in Milḥamot ha-Shembefore is used as a major New Testament passage to argue against Christian-ity in particular against Jesusrsquo divinity The critique already voiced in thediscussion of Jesusrsquo temptation and the cursing of the fig tree resurfaces hereand is fused into a more wide-ranging anthropologic-christological argumentThe objections to Jesusrsquo divinity thus become more universal and lesssporadic and encompass several accounts in the gospels The basis of theargument is again the anthropological makeup of Jesus where Jesusrsquo spirit isunderstood to be the divine element that has to be fully aligned with Godboth in terms of will and power165 The expectation is that if Jesus weredivine and endowed with the divine spirit this should not result in the kind ofJesus seen in Gethsemane or in any of the other gospel narratives Specificallythe expression of Jesusrsquo will is an issue and in this the Jewish point of viewis comparable with that of the proponents of Monotheletism Jesus as isargued here ought to have one will which is exercised by the spirit or soulviz his divine nature nevertheless Jesusrsquo will is seen to be contrary to the willof God (as understood by Christians) This disparity consequently reveals thatJesus was not divine166 Because this argument is similar to Monotheletism itprobably would not impress Christian opponents since the doctrine of thetwo-natures of Christ as defined by Dyothelitism addressed this issue167
163 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect176 124 [Hebr section]164 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect176 186165 This particular understanding was already encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see
346) Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 (see 4519) and earlier in Nizzahon Vetus (see 544 and5410)
166 Cf this to a similar Muslim argument in Thomas Early Muslim Polemic AgainstChristianity 203ndash17
167 In the definition the Sixth Ecumenical CouncilConstantinople III (680ndash681) it isremarked ldquoWe likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 201
Dyothelitism precisely attempts to avoid the conclusion that the Jewishpolemicist is aiming at though the Jewish argument is really more Apollina-rian in nature Still the Jewish argument traces an issue that was taken up anddiscussed within Christendom much earlier though certainly not for the sametheological considerations that lead to the debate over Dyothelitism
Lastly and again similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem Jesus is compared toHananiah Mishael and Azariah who unlike Jesus fearlessly faced theirordeal in the furnaceAnd therefore I am amazed ( לינפלאת )168 since we see Hananiah Mishael and Azariahwho were human beings and were thrown into a burning furnance which is [by no means] aneasier death than that [of Jesus] that they were neither fearful nor sorrowful nor were theyharmed at all not in the flesh and not in the soul mdash not even their clothing [was affected] asit is written ldquohellip upon whose bodies the fire had no power nor was a hair of their headsinged neither were their garments changed nor had the smell of fire been passed on themrdquo[Dan 327] But as for him he did not save his soul and body not even from fear If you saythat this was in accordance with his will and desire if so then why these supplications169
The last line argues that Jesusrsquo prayer indicates that his crucifixion was notaccording to his will The further fact that Jesus did not save himself showsthat he did not have the power to alter his situation and that his will is conse-quently not Godrsquos will since God did not acquiesce to his request This ofcourse has not only ramifications for the claim that Jesus is divine but it alsofor soteriology
5 4 13 Jesus on the Cross Mk 1533ndash34 par Mt 2745ndash46 (sect178 sect145)
The next argument to be considered is related to above distinction betweenGodrsquos and Jesusrsquo will now based on Jesusrsquo prayer on the crossIt is written for them ldquoAnd in the sixth hour the world was darkened until the ninth hour andat the ninth hour he cried out lsquoMy Lord my Lord why have you forsaken mersquordquo [Mark1533ndash34] If he was God why did he cry out that way Were not all the tribulations thatcame upon him in out of his [own] will and according to what he considered right since heaccepted everything with love and [consequently] all these things happened to him accordingto his will170
indivisibly inconvertibly inseparably inconfusedly according to the teaching of the holyFathers And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid) as theimpious heretics assert but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant butrather as subject to his divine and omnipotent willrdquo (NPNF2 14345) emphasis mine
168 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect176 124 [Hebr section]169 Modified from ibid sect176 186ndash87 Berger notes that the reference to Hananiah
Mishael and Azariah also occurs in Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣvah (MS Parma f127b) idem 319
170 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect178 187ndash88
202 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
This argument links back to Gethsemane and the Christian conviction that theincarnation and suffering of Jesus was part of the purpose of Jesusrsquo comingThe fact that God presumably forsook Jesus is not an issue here but that Jesusexpressed his desperation which is seen contrary to his mission and planAccordingly Jesusrsquo prayer conveys a discrepancy between Jesus on the oneside and the assertion that Jesus as God had come to suffer death for thepurpose of saving mankind
Jesusrsquo prayer on the cross is also appropriated in a lengthy discussion ofPsalm 22 in Nizzahon Vetus sect145 which is also similar to QiṣṣaNestorsectsect53ndash54[According to] the hereticsrsquo interpretation Jesus said this psalm at the time of his hanging Intheir books [it says] ldquoMy God my God remember me why have you forsaken merdquo and it isalso written likewise in the books of the heretics ldquoMy God my God look at me Why haveyou forsaken me The words of my transgression are far from my salvationrdquo You see thenthat Jesus himself admits that he is a sinner and so how can you say he is a God171
Here Jesusrsquo outcry is understood as expressing his sinfulness172 The passagegoes on and further argues that Jesus could not have been righteous becauseGod forsook him (in contrast to Psalm 3725)We see also that Jesus was complaining that God forsook him ( עלמתלונןהיהשישונמצאגם
אלהיםשעזבומה )173 consequently he could not have been a righteous man for thus Eccle-siastes said ldquoI have never seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging for breadrdquo [Psalm3725]
Then the issue of Jesusrsquo relenting is also emphasized (cf 545)Ask the heretics who are saying that Jesus came to redeem the world by his death why hecried out for help Did he forget why he came to the world or did he change his mind andregret his descision when he experienced tribulations ( אםאולעולםבאלמהשכחוכי
ונתחרט ניחם הצרות כשהרגיש )
A Christian interpretation of the passage which understands the dual appella-tion as an indicator of the Trinity is also recalled
171 Modified from Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect145 150 The text seems to bebased on the Vulgate of Psalm 22 (21) The ldquobooks of the hereticsrdquo ( המיניםספרי ) appears torefer to the Septuagint or Jeromersquos translation of the Hebrew Bible
172 This is obviously very different from how Matt 2746 was interpreted by Christianssee Luz Matthew 21ndash28 545ndash51 though this passage was also difficult for the early churchinterpreters Origen et al interpreted Jesusrsquo cry soteriologically as referring to the sin Jesusassumed on behalf of those he came for ibid 545ndash46 See also Georges JouassardldquoLrsquoabandon du Christ drsquoapregraves saint Augustinrdquo RSPT 13 (1923) 310ndash26 idem ldquoLrsquoabandondu Christ en croix dans la tradition Greque des IV et V siegraveclesrdquo RevScRel 5 (1925) 609ndash33
173 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect145 94 [Hebr section]
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 203
ldquoMy God my God why have you forsaken merdquo The heretics say [that he addressed] twopowers ( רשויותשתי )174 mdash the Father and the Spirit mdash and that is why he cried out ldquoMyGod my Godrdquo when he was hanged as he explained beforehand If so then he was a wickedman since he was forsaken ( שנעזב כיון היה רשע אכ )
A a little further on in the discussion of Psalm 22 we then find an interestingparagraph which ties back into the ldquoanthropological argumentrdquoHow can you say that Jesus said ldquoMy God my God why have you forsaken merdquo After allit says in the Gospels that the spirit came from heaven entered Mary and took on flesh רוח)
בשרלוולקחבחריאונכנסהשמיםמןבא )175According to this when God left that bodywhat speech or spirit would remain within it If however you will say that Jesus had a bodyand a soul like ordinary men and also divinity [in addition] ( בוהיתהאלוהותוגם ) then whyshould the divinity have had to enter Mary in the filthy place The spirit could simply haveentered him after his birth If it is true that it entered after his birth then a similar phenome-non is found among other men as well such as Moses Elijah and other prophets Similarly itsays with regard to David ldquoDo not take your holy spirit from merdquo [Psalm 5113] Now shouldwe say that they were divine because they possessed the holy spirit If you then say that youaffirm Jesusrsquo divinity because of the public miracles he performed the we may point out thatMoses also performed many miracleshellip176
What becomes evident in this passage is that the Jewish debater (at least inthis argument) recognizes three potential paradigms for Jesus though all ofthem and in particular the ldquogenuine Christianrdquo paradigm are subsequentlyrejected for Jesus
The first was already observed in several instances In this ldquoApollinarianviewrdquo (or logos-sarx view) Jesus is understood as a human body enlivened bythe divine spirit and incarnation is understood as a divine spirit becomingldquoenfleshedrdquo ( בשרלולקח ) in the womb of Mary177 When the divine spirit left
174 A similar reference to the ldquotwo powersrdquo is already in Nizzahon Vetus sect142 where it isargued that ldquoJesus himself is responsible for the disbelief in him since no one saw him ascendfrom earth to heaven [that is from the tomb]hellip Indeed all of these verses would have to beexplained in reference to two powers ( רשויותשתי ) since the body most certainly did notescape the curse of Adamrdquo see Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 146 and 91 [Hebr section]Berger relates this passage to a similar discussion in Milḥemet Miṣvah idem 298 Cf alsoYosef ha-Meqanne sect41 (see 4514)
175 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect145 95 [Hebr section]176 Modified from ibid sect145 151 Cf the discussion of Jesusrsquo baptism in sectsect160ndash161
(see 543) and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 343)177 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect188 ldquoFurthermore with regard to all things he did and said
which are inappropriate for God you immediately put me off and try to say that he said thisin accordance with the flesh If so then the flesh and the holy spirit are not one thingrdquoBerger Jewish-Christian Debate 194 Here the Christian distinction between Jesusrsquo divineand human nature is also understood anthropologically as relating to Jesusrsquo spirit and theflesh The subsequent discussion in sect188 then argues that the spirit and flesh act together andcannot be considered separately which is done by means of a parable of a blind man (flesh)which is carried by a lame man (spirit) who collude to steal fruit One could not say only one
204 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
as Jesusrsquo words on the cross are interpreted Jesus should only have been alifeless shell178 Since this was not the case Jesus was merely human mdash so theimplication
The Christian response to this is then tackled Jesusrsquo divinity is somethingthat is additional to his human nature ( בוהיתהאלוהותוגם ) which is a rarerecognition of the more orthodox Christian understanding However this par-adigm is not further considered and rejected on account of the inappropriate-ness of the divine aspect of Jesus being united with Jesusrsquo humanity in thewomb of Mary179 Accordingly it would have been more becoming if thisdivine aspect had attached itself to Jesus after birth But this is hardly an ade-quate reason and does not take the Christian view seriously which becomesevident for in the second step the the argument quickly moves away from thisparadigm
The third view then envisions Jesus as a person that is endowed with theSpirit like David or other prophets In this paradigm however Jesus is hardlycomparable in particular to Moses and Elijah180 The result is that Jesuscannot be deemed divine according to any of these three paradigms he musttherefore simply be human
Like in the above discussion of Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane we see severalstrands of argumentation come together though the overall argument remainsapologetic-polemical Effectively there is no serious deliberation of theChristian view of Christology although this is also not necessary since theintended Jewish audience was meant to be encouraged in their resolve againstChristian attempts of proselytization
Jesusrsquo outcry on the cross is also mentioned and used in other sections insect5 sect96 and sect188 In sect5 after a discussion of Genesis 126 a parody is ap-pended in which Matt 2746 is used to express that God had abandoned Jesusbecause at creation the Son did not come to help the Father when he madeAdam and that God in turn left the Son to his own devices181 In sect96 it is said
of the sinned ie that only one is involved In other words the distinction between humanand divine nature (though clearly misunderstood) is not possible Jesusrsquo humanity and hisalleged divinity cannot be neatly separated
178 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect188 ldquohellipaccording to you the flesh died at the very momentwhen the holy spirit departed and you admit that after the flesh died he could not do good orevilhelliprdquo Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 193ndash94
179 The same objection would also have been applicable in the first paradigm discussed180 The same argument appears in Nizzahon Vetus sect188 ldquoIf you argue that the three are
considered one because the holy spirit that was in the flesh then the same should be said ofevery prophet who had the holy spiritrdquo Berger Jewish-Christian Debate 193
181 This is a response and a pun on the Christian interpretation that the plural of אלהיםpoints to at least two persons being involved in the creation to which it is replied that the sin-gular verb ברא then would indicate that one of these persons ie the Son rebelled andrefused to create Adam
54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus 205
that Psalm 221 (andor Matt 2746) ldquowas written so as to teach Israel how toanswer the the hereticsrdquo182 This could equally refer to Psalm 221 or to Matt2746 Since Psalm 221 only can be used polemically because it is used byJesus on the cross it would seem more sensible to say that the passagereferred to ( זופרשה ) is in fact Matt 2746 mdash which then would imply that thecommentator felt that the gospel of Matthew providentially included apassage that allowed polemicists to refute Christian claims which is perhapswhy Matt 2746 and Psalm 221 appear so frequently in Nizzahon Vetus183
5 4 14 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Matt 2816ndash20 (sect182)
Lastly we look at Jesusrsquo commission of the disciples at the end of the Gospelof Matthew After recounting Matt 2816ndash20 the following by now familiarargument is givenI am astounded ( מתמיהוהננו )184 what is this that he said ldquoAll power is given unto me inheaven and on earthrdquo [Matt 2818] Who gave it to him If you say that his father gave it tohim mdash are he and his father two then Are not the two of them part of one [entity] neitherbeing greater than the other not in rule nor in power nor in understanding ( חלקשניהםוהלא
בבינהולאבכחולאבממשלהלאמזהגדולזהלאהםאחד ) Moreover he said ldquoLo I amwith you all days until the end of the worldrdquo [Matt 2820] which is like saying lsquoUntil the endof the world I will be with you but I will not be with you in the world to comersquo185
This final argument has already been encountered in Milḥamot ha-Shem andYosef ha-Meqanne186 and also in sect168 where Matt 2818 was brieflymentioned187 Since the argument is identical no further discussion iswarranted This concludes the examination of the arguments in NizzahonVetus
5 5 Summary
Nizzahon Vetus presents an impressive number of arguments on variouspassages in the Hebrew Bible and also in the New Testament Many of thearguments in particular those who use the Gospel of Matthew have clearparallels in earlier and later polemical works However in comparison toQiṣṣaNestor Milḥamot ha-Shem and Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne the argu-
182 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect96 114 67 [Hebr section]183 Matt 2746 also appears in sect188 there to demonstrate that Jesus was afraid (see 545)184 Berger Jewish-Christian Debate sect182 127ndash28 [Hebr section]185 Modified from ibid sect182 190186 Cf the chapter on Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 348) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect30 (see 4522)187 See 545 This argument also appears in MS Rome (A2) f 22r and (B) f 56v see
Rosenthal ldquoA Religious Debaterdquo 67 see also Rembaum ldquoReevaluationrdquo 96
206 Chapter 5 Nizzahon Vetus
ments in Nizzahon Vetus are generally more extensive and bundle severalstrands of arguments into a more comprehensive rejection of Jesusrsquo divinity(see eg 5413) Since the work is clearly an anthology an overarchingcoherent argument is less evident and several individual arguments can lackin logical consistency188
The major passages that are used to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity are focus-ing on some key pericopes in the gospel in particular the temptation (544)the cursing of the fig tree (5410) Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane (5412) andhis prayer on the cross (see 5413) With this the author (or compiler) clearlysought to convey that Jesus can only be understood as a human Jesus is alsopotentially impure (543) changes his mind is inconsistent poor and asldquoSon of Manrdquo understands himself as belonging to humanity (545) He isfurthermore portrayed as someone who prays to God (546 5413) and sawhimself as a messenger and prophet (548) One ought to conclude that he isnot divine and hardly can be compared to other figures of Israelrsquos past
Next to the divinity of Jesus also the Trinity is rejected (see 547 and 11)though it is also evident that the genuine Christian understanding specificallyof Jesus is not taken into account As in Yosef ha-Meqanne the Christianview is seen along the lines of a logos-sarx trajectory189 and where the argu-ment approaches the genuine Christian view it is not sincerely considered(5413)
Likewise the overall intention and context of Matthew is rarely in viewalthough the gospel text is frequently quoted at length and the respectiveinterpretation of the passage is fixated on polemical exigency Yet Matthewrsquosauthorial intention is considered at one point (see 544) where it is questionedwhy the temptation account is related at all since it hardly can be used aspassage to support Jesusrsquo divinity At another point the author suggests thatthe Christian attempts to argue for the divinity of Jesus can only be judged asfabrications in light of the textual witness (see 541)
Overall the Gospel of Matthew was only considered in a more fragmentedmanner which for the most part was probably due to the unavailability of theentire Gospel of Matthew to Jewish apologists Eventually Jewish scholarsgot a hold of the entire gospel texts which will be considered in the nextchapter
188 See Cohen ldquoMedieval Jews on Christianityrdquo 82189 See 5410 5412 and 5413
55 Summary 207
Chapter 6
The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Even Boḥan
6 1 Introduction
A study of the use of the Gospel of Matthew by Jewish readers cannot omit adiscussion of Even Boḥan (ldquoTouchstonerdquo or ldquoApproved Stonerdquo)1 In it wehave the first clear evidence of a Jewish scholar engaging with the entirealthough somewhat peculiar text of the Gospel of Matthew
Even Boḥan is a late 14th century polemical treatise in which the authorthe prominent Spanish Rabbi Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭ provides asystematic and comprehensive treatment of Christianity2
Ibn Shapruṭrsquos tract was designed to be a manual of instruction for indecisive Jews whoseknowledge of Judaism was slackening to teach them that Judaism was viable vital and ratio-nal religion in no way inferior to Christianity In addition Ibn Shapruṭ intended to launch afull-scale counterassault against Christiansrsquo and especially apostatesrsquo attacks against Jewsand Judaism3
Shem Ṭov was a native of Tudela (in Navarre) He finished the first draft ofEven Boḥan most likely in 1384 which would make it one of the last greatpolemic works before the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 in Seville4 He revisedEven Boḥan in 1385 and again in 1405 among other things expanding it with
1 The title of the work is based on Isaiah 28162 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 168 241 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword
151ndash55 Norman (Nachman) E Frimer and Dov Schwartz The Life and Thought of Shem ṬovIbn Shaprut [ שפרוטאבןטובשםרשלהגותוכתביודמותוהאימהבצלהגות ] (JerusalemBen-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East 1992) [Hebr] and LoebldquoPoleacutemistes chreacutetiens et juifs en France et en Espagnerdquo 219ndash30
3 Libby Garshowitz review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ ldquoLa Piedra deToquerdquo (Eben Bohan) Una Obra de Controversia Judeo-Cristiana JQR 90 (2000) 457ndash65here 457
4 Shem Ṭov may even refer to the precursors of these riots in Even Boḥan He writes thatthe Jews ldquoare beaten and punished by the nationshellip they seize us and deprive us of ourmoneyhellip destroying by conversionshellip and acting malicously by spreading false accusa-tionshellip (folios 106vndash107r pages 366ndash373)rdquo Libby Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac IbnShaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone) chapters 2ndash10 based on Ms Plutei 217 (Florence Bib-lioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from other manuscriptsrdquo (2 vols PhD dissUniversity of Toronto 1974) 1vi
the ldquoRefutation of the Apostate Alfonsordquo (Alfonso de ValladolidAbner ofBurgos)5
In the first chapter Shem Ṭov discusses at length what he considers thebasic principles of the Jewish faith explaining on a more rational-philosophi-cal level the unity existence and incorporality of God Much like Jacob benReuben he proceeds to deal with the Christian exegesis of the Torahprophets and other writings filling altogether nine chapters Chapter elevendiscusses various passages from the Talmud and Midrash which Christianswere using eg to argue that Jesus is the expected Jewish Messiah Finallythe twelfth chapter contains a translation and critique of the Gospel ofMatthew6 Later revisions added further sections to the inital twelve chaptersIn fact the additional efforts by its author and the many extant manuscripts ofEven Boḥan coming from a wide period of time and places testify to its pop-ularity and need in a time when many Jews converted to Christianity7
Not much is known about Shem Ṭovrsquos personal life though he was recog-nized as scholar doctor and scientist In 1378 due to the war betweenEngland and Castile he fled Navarre and settle in Tarazona The king ofAragoacuten Pedro IV granted him the right to practise medicine but a few yearslater in 1391 Shem Ṭov had to leave Tarazona and return to Tudela overaccusations that arose from his money lending activities which even involvedthe royal court
During his stay in Tarazona in 1379 Shem Ṭov had a high-profile debatewith Cardinal Pedro de Luna in Pampelona the capital of Navarre whichprobably provided some of the impetus for the later composition of EvenBoḥan as recollections of the debate are included in the treatise8 Later Cardi-nal de Luna became the anti-pope Benedict XIII (1394ndash1417) who was inclose contact with the friar Vicente Ferrer9 and was also one of the principal
5 See Libby Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo in TheFrank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed Barry Walfish vol 1 Jewish History 6 Haifa HaifaUniversity Press 1993) 299ndash306 eadem review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob IbnŠapruṭ and Roth Conversos 188ndash91 On the complicated history of the two recensions of thefirst version of Even Boḥan see esp William Horbury ldquoThe Revision of Shem Tob IbnShaprutrsquos Eben Bohanrdquo Sefarad 43 (1983) 221ndash37 also Garshowitz 298 310 nn 2 and 3
6 See Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 1xndashxi7 See Garshowitz review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ 4588 See eg MS Laur Plutei 217 f 89r ( הקרדינאלשאל ) also Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan
(Touchstone)rdquo 1ivndashv9 See Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes (Albarraciacuten) ldquoLa disputa religiosa de D Pedro de Luna con el
Judiacuteo de Tudela D Shem Tob ibn Shaprut en Pamplona (1379) El contexto en la vida y lapredicacioacuten de Vicente Ferrerrdquo REJ 160 (2001) 409ndash33 esp 410ndash15 Friar Vicente Ferrer(c 1350ndash1419) was a highly successful and influential Dominican preacher who convertedthousands of Jews to Christianity see Roth Conversos 12 49ndash50 67 134 also HaimBeinart and Zvi Avneri ldquoFerrer Vicenterdquo EncJud (2007) 6764
210 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
characters of the infamous disputation in Tortosa from 1413ndash1410 The lasttime we hear of Shem Ṭov is in 1405 when he appears in the south in Lucenain Cordoba where he revised Even Boḥan11
6 2 The Historical Context of Even Boḥan
The history of Jews in Castile and Aragoacuten-Catalonia in the fourteenth andfifteenth century is complex and has been hotly debated12 Shem Ṭovrsquos andProfiat Duranrsquos life stories are directly influenced by the central currents ofSpanish history in particular the wave of conversions of Jews to Christianitywhich both sought to counteract
During the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century greatnumbers of Jews converted to Christianity in Spain13 Unfulfilled messianicexpectations a changing social structure the missionary campaigns of thefriars (especially those of Vicente Ferrer) a lack and crisis of leadership bythe rabbis (of whom many converted) the influence of speculative mysticism(qabalah) but also financial advantages lead to a majority of the Jewish popu-lation to convert14 While some of these conversions were under duress inparticular after the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 in Seville most conversos choseto follow Christianity voluntarily15 These converts subsequently became theprimary target of the so-called Spanish Inquisition(s)16 allegedly to assertain
10 See Maccoby Judaism on Trial 82ndash101 168ndash215 Krauss and Horbury Controversy169ndash76 See also and Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 1v
11 See Frimer and Schwartz Life and Thought 14ndash18 Garshowitz ldquo Even Bohan(Touchstone)rdquo 1indashiv and Joseacute Mariacutea Sanz Artibucilla ldquoLos Judios En Aragoacuten y NavarraNuevos datos biograacuteficos relativos a Sem Tob ben Ishaq Saprutrdquo Sefarad 5 (1945) 337ndash66
12 The subsequent brief overview is based mostly on Norman Rothrsquos position (rather thanon that of Baer Nethanyahu Beinart or others) as presented in his Conversos Inquisitionand the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain On this see also Eleazar Gutwirth ldquoConversions toChristianity amongst fifteenth-century Spanish Jews An alternative Explanationrdquo in ShlomoSimonsohn Jubilee Volume Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages andRenaissance Period (ed Daniel Capri et al Jerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen1993) 97ndash121
13 Roth has tentatively estimated that ldquothe overwhelming majority of the Jews in Spainconverted during the years of 1400ndash1490 Thus if there was a total of say 250000 Jews bythe end of the century there must have been at least three times that number of conversosThis would result in other words in a population of close to one million Jews at the end ofthe fourteenth century a figure not at all inconceivablerdquo Conversos 376 (emphasis original)
14 Ibid 10ndash13 32 318 382 n 1815 Roth Conversos 11ndash12 15ndash47 317 (et al) The term conversos refers to ethnic Jews
who have become Christians While this technically only should refer to the first generationof converts the term is usually used for subsequent generations as well
16 The inquisition(s) initially only had jurisprudence over various Christian heretics (eg
62 The Historical Context of Even Boḥan 211
the sincerity of their conversion although the real purpose was to eliminatethe political ecclesiastical and economical influence of the conversos whooften held some of the most prominent positions in the kingdoms of Iberia17
Understandably relations between conversos and Jews were often strained Attimes Jews even testified in inquisition trials against these ldquoapostatesrdquowhereas some prominent conversos also developed anti-Jewish attitudes18
Among these conversos were several scholars who very actively involvedin proselytizing their former coreligionists Abner of Burgos a former rabbiwho took on the Christian name Alfonso de Valladolid (ca 1270ndash1347)19 andduring Shem Ṭovrsquos lifetime another former rabbi Solomon ha-Levy whotook the name Pablo de Santa Mariacutea who even became the bishop of Carta-gena (1403ndash15) and Burgos Pablo had great success in converting Jews toChristianity and it is most likely that Shem Ṭov (and Profiat Duran) consid-ered him and Alfonso de Valladolid (that is his writings) as their most dan-gerous opponents20 Considering that Shem Ṭov wrote in Hebrew he musthave been more concerned with dissuading those Jews who were in danger ofbeing converted though recently converted Jews probably still could bereached through this medium21
The wave of conversions in Iberia certainly were part of what prompted thecomposition of Even Boḥan but Shem Ṭov also found inspiration in Jacobben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem which he erroneously attributed to benReubenrsquos contemporary Joseph Qimḥi the author of Sefer ha-Berit Heexplicitly informs his readers that he felt it necessary to include a discussionof the New Testament following the precedent set by Milḥamot ha-Shem
the Cathars) and later only over supposedly relapsed conversos (which was in most cases afalse charge) Jews were not the target of the inquisition though in some instances Jews werealso tried usually when ldquosuspectedrdquo of having been involved in reconverting conversos toJudaism
17 See eg Henry Kamen The Spanish Inquisition An Historical Revision (New HavenYale Univeristy Press 1998) The underlying reasons for the Spanish Inquisition and persecu-tion of Jews has been extensively debated Norman Roth has shown that the main reason forthe introduction of the Spanish Inquisition was due to the anti-semitism and politicalopportunism of a few ldquoold Christiansrdquo which was entirely unrelated to religious practice asmany of the conversos and their descendants had become full-fledged Christians This viewhas received mixed responses cf Roth Conversos xviindashxx (ldquoPreface to the PaperbackEditionrdquo) 317ndash59 (ldquoAfterwordrdquo) See also John Edwards ldquoNew Light on the ConversoDebate The Jewish Christianity of Alfonso de Cartagena and Juan de Torquemadardquo inCross Crescent and Conversion (ed Simon Barton and Peter Linehan The MedievalMediterranean 73 Leiden Brill 2008) 311ndash26
18 See Roth Conversos 188ndash198 212ndash1619 See ibid 188ndash91 and Chazan ldquoAlfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizingrdquo20 See Roth Conversos 136ndash42 and Joseph Kaplan ldquoPablo de Santa Mariardquo EncJud
(2007) 15562ndash63 also Williams Adversus Judaeos 244ndash48 259ndash7621 See also the discussion in 63
212 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
I also saw to it to transcribe and include here their books of the gospels so that we might beable to answer them And I have also seen an important book called Sefer Milḥamot ha-Shemwhich they say was composed by the sage R Joseph Qimḥihellip and the author of SeferMilḥamot ha-Shem became for me the foundation (or founder) upon which this book (isbuilt)22
ראיתיוהנהעליהםמתוכםלהשיבשלהםהאואנגיליושספריהנהולכתובלהעתיקראיתיגםמלחמותספרבעלhellipחברקמחייוסףרשהחכםואומריםיימלחמותספרנקראנכבדספר23עליו זה ספר מיסד להיותי יי
Shem Ṭov even followed the pattern of Milḥamot ha-Shem and fashionedEven Boḥan as a dialogue between the ldquoUnitarianrdquo (המיחד) and ldquoTrinitarianrdquo24(המשלש) His first draft even comprised twelve chapters (שערים) as benReubenrsquos treatise perhaps intending that Even Boḥan would become anupdated 14th century version of Milḥamot ha-Shem mdash and this it arguablywas In fact as Joshua Levy has already shown many of Shem Ṭovrsquoscomments on the Gospel of Matthew are taken from Milḥamot ha-Shem25
Even Boḥan stands as such in the tradition of defending and strenghteningthe Jewish faith against the considerable and deseperate changes for theIberian Jewry in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century
6 3 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan
The twelfth chapter of Even Boḥan includes the Gospel of Matthew in whichthe entire gospel text is given in Hebrew The gospel text is split into 116sections possibly reflecting the division of the Vorlage of the translation26
22 All translations are my own in fact no full translations of Even Boḥan exists to date23 Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 22ndash3 4ndash5 (ff 2rndash2v)24 That is the ldquoaffirmer of the Oneness of Godrdquo and the ldquoaffimer of the Trinityrdquo The
terms ldquoUnitarianrdquo and ldquoTrinitarianrdquo while technically appropriate are anachronistic and havethe potential to be misleading since they can be associated to the later post-reformationdispute amongst Protestants see chapter 8 and 31
25 Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 116ndash69 Levy has demonstrated that Shem Ṭov is wellaquainted with Milḥamot ha-Shem and presents many of his argument in an abridged formwhich is why he is also referred to as the ldquoabridgerrdquo of Milḥamot ha-Shem (144) see also6420
26 Nicloacutes has found the division of the gospel text to be similar to that of a Provenccedilal ver-nacular Bible MS Paris Franccedilais 6261 see Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes (Albaraciacuten) ldquoLrsquoEacutevangile enHeacutebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut Une traduction drsquoorigine judeacuteondashcatalane due agrave convertireplaceacutee dans son Sitz im Lebenrdquo RB 106 (1999) 358ndash407 see 391ndash93 This assessmenthowever appears to be based only on a footnote by Samuel Berger and not a comparison withthe actual manuscript cf Samuel Berger ldquoNouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provenccedilales etcatalanesrdquo Romania 19 (1890) 505ndash61 see 539 n 1 Also Horbury has suggested that the116 sections are a vestige of a medieval Christian division citing as an example the 132section version of the Vulgate Codex Cavensis see William Horbury ldquoThe Hebrew Text of
63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 213
Appended to half of these pericopes are 58 polemic remarks voicing ques-tions and points of critique on various issues mostly on Jesusrsquo disposition tothe Law and his divinity27
The gospel text itself has become a focus of study and intense debate pri-marily because it differs from the canonical text in places28 but also becauseit is the earliest available version of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew29 Inparticular Christian scholars were concerned and at times quite controver-sially with the textual origins of this Gospel of Matthew George Howard
Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Boḥanrdquo in Matthew 19ndash28 A Critical and Exege-tical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (W Davies and Dale CAllison ICC London TampT Clark 2004) 729ndash38 (here 735ndash36)
27 Other topics are the perpetual virginity of Mary baptism and contradictions with theHebrew Bible or other New Testament texts
28 The gospel text has unusual additions and omissions by which it ldquojudaizesrdquo and ldquode-christologizesrdquo (so Lapide) various passages see Pinchas Lapide ldquoDer laquoPruumlfsteinraquo aus Spa-nien Die einzige rabbinische Hebraisierung des Mt-Evangeliumsrdquo Sefarad 34 (1974) 227ndash72 See also George Howard ldquoShem Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthew A Literary Textual and Theo-logical Profilerdquo in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon Ga Mercer University Press 1995)177ndash234 idem ldquoThe Textual Nature of Shem-Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthewrdquo JBL 108 (1989)239ndash57 idem ldquoThe Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthewrdquo JBL 105 (1986)49ndash63 and esp Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo
29 Besides various partial translations given in Jewish polemics and a Hebrew translationof the second chapter of Matthew in Raymond Martinirsquos Pugio Fidei at least one more ldquopre-modernrdquo extant Hebrew versions of the entire Gospel of Matthew has been recognized Con-fiscated from the Jews of Rome and taken by Jean du Tillet Bishop of Brieux this version ofthe Gospel of Matthew was published by Martin Le Jeune with a Latin translation by JeanMercier in Paris in 1555 (Evangelium Matthaei ex Hebraeo fideliter redditum) subsequentlyre-edited and republished erroneously under the assumption it was Shem Ṭovrsquos version byAdolf Herbst in Goumlttingen in 1879 (Des Shemtob ben Schaprut hebraeische Uumlbersetzung desEvangliums Matthaei nach den Drucken des S Muumlnster und J Du Tillet-Mercier neu heraus-gegeben) Also Sebastian Muumlnster notes to have found a Hebrew version of the Gospel ofMatthew which he heavily emended and subsequently published in 1537 under the titleEvangelium secundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica cum vesione Latina atque succinctisannotationibus [ המשיחתורת ]) For further discussion see William Horbury ldquoThe HebrewMatthew and Hebrew Studyrdquo in Hebrew Study From Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed W HorburyEdinburgh TampT Clark 1999) 106ndash31 George Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 160ndash75 Lapide Hebrew in the Church 13ndash94 Hugh J Schonfield An Old Hebrew Text of StMatthewrsquos Gospel Translated with an Introduction Notes and Appendices (Edinburgh TampTClark 1927) 3ndash17 and Alexander Marx ldquoThe Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of theJewish Theological Seminary of America with Appendices on the Eben Bohan and on theEarlier Hebrew Translations of Matthewrdquo in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and RelatedSubjects In memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus 1867ndash1923 late Chief of the Jewish Divi-sion New York Public Library (New York The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation1929) 247ndash73 esp 270ndash73 repr in Bibliographical Studies and Notes on Rare Books andManuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (ed Menahem HSchmelzer New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1977) 444ndash71
214 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
Robert F Shedinger Thomas F McDaniel and James G Hewitt have tovarying degrees suspected that the provenance of this Matthew text predatesthe medieval period perhaps was even related to the various ldquolostrdquo gospelswritten in Hebrew mentioned by Papias Origen Irenaeus Epiphanius andJerome30 Others however most notably the late William Petersen31 but alsoPinchas Lapide William Horbury Libby Garshowitz and Joseacute-VicenteNicloacutes have identified the text as medieval The latter group has argued thatthis Hebrew gospel is in fact a medieval translation possibly related toTatianrsquos Diatessaron although the actual provenance of the text is far fromsure and a final conclusion has not been reached32 What is certain is that thetext is not Shem Ṭovrsquos own translation as initially assumed by Lapide33
However despite the great interest in the text Shem Ṭovrsquos use of theGospel of Matthew and his comments have been given little attention In factthe first (and so far only) publication omitted to present the polemic com-ments altogether34 The only available summary of the actual content of ShemṬovrsquos polemic on Matthewrsquos gospel has been given by Libby Garshowitz35
30 Cf Eusebius Hist eccl 3246 3255 3274 33916 5103 6254 Irenaeus Haer311 Epiphanius Pan 2994 3037 30131ndash224 and Jerome Comm Matt 21213Epist 205 1208 Pelag 32 Vir 3 See also Bauer Orthodoxy and Heresy 51ndash53 For acomprehensive list of the various citations and statements about this Hebrew Gospel ofMatthew by the church fathers see James R Edwards The Hebrew Gospel amp The Develop-ment of the Synoptic Tradition (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2009) 1ndash118 For an in-depthstudy of the possibility of a Hebrew language background to the Gospels see Guido BaltesHebraumlisches Evangelium und synoptische Uumlberlieferung Untersuchungen zum hebraumlischenHintergrund der Evangelien (WUNT II312 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011)
31 A rather heated exchange on this issue between Petersen and Howard can be found inthe online journal TC A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vols 3 and 4 Online httprosettareltechorgTCindexhtmlpage=home
32 The discussion over the provenance of the text is rather extensive and complicatedMore recently Nicloacutes has argued that the gospel text is a translation from a medieval Catalanvernacular Bible see idem ldquoLrsquoEacutevangile en Heacutebreurdquo cf Lapide ldquoPruumlfsteinrdquo 232ndash34 WilliamPetersen has argued that the text is related to a Western harmonized gospel tradition alsofound in the middle Dutch family of harmonies see idem ldquoThe Vorlage of Shem-TobrsquoslsquoHebrew Matthewrsquordquo NTS 44 (1998) 490ndash512 also Horbury ldquoThe Hebrew Text of Matthewin Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Boḥanrdquo
33 Cf Lapide ldquoPruumlfsteinrdquo 227ndash2834 George Howard The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text
(Macon Ga Mercer University Press 1987) and idem Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (MaconGa Mercer University Press 1995) But already in one of the first reviews of this bookShaye Cohen had urged the full publication of Shem Ṭovrsquos critique of the gospel for a com-prehensive understanding of the text see Shaye J D Cohen review of George Howard TheGospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text Bible Review 4 (June 1988) 8ndash9Howard nor anyone else has so far heeded this suggestion
35 Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo 307ndash309 Butsee Howardrsquos observations on the polemical comments Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 173ndash75
63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 215
who also intends to prepare and publish a critical edition of Even Boḥan basedon her doctoral thesis36 Nevertheless Shem Ṭovrsquos comments on the Gospelof Matthew have not yet become available as a critical text The basis for thefollowing must therefore be based on a manuscript MS BibliothecaMediceandashLaurenziana (Florence) Plutei 217 which Garshowitz has assessedto be the most reliable source and chosen as her main text37 However inorder to relate to Howardrsquos critical edition of the gospel text this manuscriptwill also be compared to MS British Library Add 26964 which was the prin-cipal manuscript for Howardrsquos edition of the Matthean text38
Shem Ṭov himself elaborates on the reason of including the Gospel ofMatthew in his polemicsI intended to complement this my treatise which I have entitled Even Boḥan by transcribing39(להעתיק) the gospels even though they belong to the books which are absolutely forbidden
36 Libby Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone)chapters 2ndash10 based on MS Plutei 217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with col-lations from other manuscriptsrdquo (2 vols PhD diss University of Toronto 1974)
37 Henceforth MS Plutei 217 available online at the Bibliotheca MediceandashLaurenzianaOnline httptecabmlonlineitTecaViewerindexjspRisIdr=TECA0000028127ampkeyworks=Plut0217 For a description and summary of this (first recension) manuscript see AntonioMaria Biscioni Bibliotheca Ebraicae Graecae Florentinae sive Bibliothecae Mediceo-Lau-rentianae Catalogus (Florence Ex Caesareo Typographio 1757) Tome II 218ndash228 [see alsoidem Bibliotheca Medio-Laurentiana Catalogus Tomus Primus Codices Orientales (Flo-rence Ex imperiali typographio 1752) 76ndash78] The actual description of the manuscript isvery short ldquoCod Hebr chart MS charactere Rabbinico faec circiter XVI in fol minConstat fol 199rdquo ibid 228 (78) accordingly the manuscript would be from the 16th centuryGarshowitz has described the manuscript in her dissertation as ldquowritten at the end of the fif-teenth century in North Africa in a Spanish rabbinic handrdquo eadem ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac IbnShaprutrsquos Even Bohanrdquo 1xlv further noting that it is ldquoDr Beit-Aryehrsquos opinion that MSPlut is the earliest manuscript copy of those which were collated for this [her] edition of theTouchstonerdquo ibid 1cxxxix n 28 (see also her description of the manuscript in 1xlvndashxlvi)The manuscript is in good condition and easy to read the writing is in semi-cursive Sephardicscript
38 Howardrsquos three principal sources for his critical edition of the Hebrew Matthew text areBritish Libary MS Add 26964 (= Margoliouth MS 1070 henceforth MS BL) for Matt 11ndash2322 Jewish Theological Seminary of America MS 2426 (= Marx 16 = Adler 1323) forMatt 2323ndashend and MS 2234 (= Marx 15) cf Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew xiindashxiiiand Marx ldquoPolemical Manuscriptsrdquo 252 (449) His choice of manuscripts is somewhatunfortunate because the latter two belong to later recensions of Even Boḥan (thus only MSBL was used for a comparison) on this see Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn ShapruṭrsquosGospel of Matthewrdquo 310 n 2 and pp 457ndash65 of her review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutesrsquo ŠemṬob Ibn Šapruṭ See also her dissertation 1lxiiindashcvii but esp Horbury ldquoThe Revision ofShem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Bohanrdquo also Frimer and Schwartz Life and Thought 34ndash38Besides some smaller differences the polemical comments in MS Plutei 217 appear to bemostly identical to those in MS BL See also Frimer and Schwartz Life and Thought 30ndash31
39 In the past it has been understood that Ibn Shapruṭ claimed he translated the gospelhimself but based on this and other passages this is doubtful In the heading of the chapter
216 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
for us to read lest the unexperienced students come under their sway Nevertheless I wantedto transcribe (and critique) them for two reasons
The first is (that I wanted) to answer the Christians from them but specifically the apos-tates 40(מומרים) who talk about their faith yet who do not know a thing about it They inter-pret passages of our Holy Torah regarding (their faith) contrary to the truth and contrary totheir (own) faith41 And through this (endeavor) praise will come to the Jew who debateswith them and catches them in their own trap
The second reason is (that I wanted) to show to the leaders of our exalted faith the short-comings of those books [that is the gospels] and the errors contained in them42
The Gospel of Matthew is singled out as the foremost of the Christiangospels but it would seem that the intention was to deal with all four gospelsI will begin with the book of Matthew since he is the first (or most fundamental) amongthem43
Then at the end of the chapter it is remarkedAnd with this the Gospel of Matthew is concluded after this shall follow the Gospel ofMark44
Shem Ṭov is called the author (המחבר) while in the rest of the text he refers to himself () asמעתיק as such he likens himself to those that are adjured in the latter part of the introductionnot to copy (transcribe) the gospel text without the critical annotations לכלמשביעוהנני
ההשגותמקוםבכליכתובלאאםהאונגיליושספרייעתיקלבלהעולםבחימעתיק On thetranslation of להעתיק see Garshowitzrsquos discussion in ldquoShem Ṭov ben Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospelof Matthewrdquo 298 and 312ndash3 note 31 cf especially the use of the verb in polemical com-ments sect13 (f 139r) sect14 (f 139r) sect26 (ff 144vndash145r) and sect34 (f 148v) in MS Plutei 217
40 The מומרים here are clearly not forced converts or non-practicing Jews but convertswho actively follow Christianity Perhaps Shem Ṭov even has specific people in mind egAlfonso de Valladolid or Pablo de Santa Mariacutea See Roth Conversos 5 and 188ndash91
41 Hebrew אמונתםבעניןשמדבריםלמומריםובפרטלנוצריםמתוכםלהשיבהאחתוהפךהאמתהפךזהבעניןהקדושהתורתנופסוקיומפרשיםממנהדבריודעיםואינם
אמונתם42 This and all other translations are my own all based on MS Plut 217 (here f 134r)
This passage is somewhat different to what is found in MS British Library MS Add 26964ldquo(I wanted) to show to the leaders of their faith proofhelliprdquo ( הראהאמונתםלבעלילהראות
ההםהספריםחסרון ) In MS Plutei 217 and also in MS Neofiti 172 (according to LapideldquoPruumlfsteinrdquo 232) the purpose of the chapter is to inform Jewish leaders about the content ofthe gospels However in the British Libary manuscript it is more focused on debating Chris-tians which appears to be a deliberate change as it is maintained in several other commentscf comments sect3 (f 178v) sect31 (f 194v) sect32 (f 196r) sect40 (f 202r) These two purposes ofcourse are not mutually exclusive the comments themselves are at times phrased as ques-tions directed to Christians (eg in comment sect26 לנוצרים לשאול יש ששית )
43 MS Plutei 217 (f 134r) בהם השרשי הוא אשר מאטיב בספר ואתחיל 44 MS Plutei 217 (f 162r) However it is possible that this line was part of the original
translation and not Shem Ṭovrsquos in particular since no further gospels were appended to eitherthe first or second recension of Even Boḥan Also the colophon that follows is distinctlyChristian and Shem Ṭov perhaps thought it was part of the gospel text (see next footnote)
63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 217
It is important to note here that Shem Ṭov although he perceives the readingof Christian texts as a danger includes an entire gospel text into his apolo-getic-polemical work This undertaking was perhaps less precarious if noteven necessary if the gospel had already become available in Hebrew throughthe proselytizing activity of the friars and conversos45 Whatever the case maybe the existence of du Tilletrsquos Gospel of Matthew and presumably alsoMuumlnsterrsquos Vorlage suggests that there was an interest in disseminating thecontent of the gospel within the Jewish community If the friars and conversoswere serious about converting Jews the existence of Hebrew translations ofthe gospels should perhaps be expected although the official church probablywould have not been pleased with their production (in particular after theCouncil of Valencia in 1229 outlawed vernacular gospels which howeverconfirms their wide-spread use) It is therefore not implausible that therecould have been ldquorogue translationsrdquo of which Shem Ṭovrsquos Hebrew Matthewmight be a an example Either way Shem Ṭov chose to include the Gospel of
45 Garshowitz and Nichloacutes have speculated that the gospel translation into Hebrew is theproduct of a Jewish convert See Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel ofMatthewrdquo 299ndash306 and Nicloacutes ldquoLrsquoEacutevangile en Heacutebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrdquo 367ndash70396ndash407 In fact the Hebrew gospel text in MS Plutei 217 (f 162r) has a suspiciously Chris-tian colophon which might corroborate this theory among other things the last line of thecolophon (and chapter) praises Jesus as ldquothe King of the Jewsrdquo ( יהודיםמלךנוצריישוע ) ThisChristian colophon when taken in context with the anti-Christian pecularities of the Hebrewtranslation nevertheless is a riddle It was either added to the initial gospel translation oralternatively to the Even Boḥan chapter at a later point The latter seems less likely for whywould a Christian colophon appear exactly on f 163r of MS Plutei 217 and not at end orbeginning of the entire manuscript However if the colophon was already part of the originaltranslation before Shem Ṭov received it then one still needs to decide whether it was writtenby the translator (in which case the translator was probably a proselyte or missionary) orwhether it was a later addition by a second hand The latter seems more probable because theabbreviation of the Tetragrammaton in the colophon is different from that in the main text ofthe chapter In the colophon we find two small lines and a backward slash that protrudesupwards [] or [] whereas in the gospel text and polemical comments it appears as [C] twoyod (or small vertical lines) and an Arabic medda encircling them similar to Tetragrammatonsubstitute no 21 in Jacob Z Lauterbach ldquoSubstitutes for the Tetragrammatonrdquo PAAJR 2(1930) 39ndash67 Besides other Christian liturgical elements the colophon also contains aversion of the pater noster different from what is translated in Matt 69ndash13 (ff 138vndash139r) itis therefore likely that the colophon was added at a later point The issue with any of thesepossibilities is that it is difficult to maintain that Shem Ṭov (or a later redactor) significantlyaltered the text by making the gospel text less Christian (eg by omitting the word ldquoMessiahrdquoin many places etc) while at the same time keeping such a blatantly (and superfluous) Chris-tian statement in the colophon If Shem Ṭov received and retained the colophon (and it wasnot a later addition to MS Plutei 217) then we must also assume that he himself did notaltered his Vorlage much in which case he already received the gospel text as a mishmash ofChristian and Jewish elements which was perhaps the result of an anti-christological (anti-messianic) and a Christian redaction
218 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
Matthew in Even Boḥan parts of which he himself deemed deceivinglyattractive Speaking about the Sermon on the Mount he writesKnow and understand that these teachings are altogether found in the books of the prophetsthe books of David and Solomon and in the books of the sages of blessed memory (חזל) and(also) in the books of the teachings of the philosophers And the authors of this book46 [theGospel of Matthew] put them in the beginning in order to attract with them the heart of thepeople and (in doing so) make them think that all their words are (in fact) words of the livingGod and that they would drink (more of) them (so as to cause a) thirsting after their wordsAnd if I had not wanted to avoid the extend (of work necessary) I would have listed for everymatter the place where it comes from in the works of the prophets and the sages and thephilosophers so (as to show) that they did no come up with even a single word by them-selves So understand these my words and may you pay attention to them let not thesmoothness of their tongues and that which is good in their sayings deceive you47
Shem Ṭov affirms here that the Sermon on the Mount is attractive to a Jewishaudience and he clearly seeks to diffuse this attraction by consistently ar-guing here (and elsewhere) that Jesusrsquo teachings have altogether Jewishorigins This is a significant departure from Jacob ben Reubenrsquos strategy whodenounces Jesusrsquo teaching It is also dissimilar to most other Jewish evalua-tions of Jesus seen so far and bears similarities to Profiat Duran48 Andalthough Shem Ṭov clearly felt that the Matthew was flawed and deceptiveeven dangerous nevertheless he presents the gospel in its entirety confidentthat it is useful in challenging the claims of Christianity To him it shows thatJesus is more Jewish than Christians and conversos may want to admit
6 4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan
As mentioned already there are a total of 58 comments interspersed through-out the gospel text of which twenty are to a greater or lesser degree related toJesusrsquo divinity Another twenty discuss Jesusrsquo teaching in regard to LawTorah adherence49 The remaining arguments are more random and discussfurther contradictions by comparing Matthew to passages from Hebrew BibleThe following table lists the twenty comments that are related to Jesusrsquodivinity50
46 Lit ldquothe founders of this bookrdquo ( הספרזהמיסדי ) Shem Ṭov distinguishes the gospelauthor(s) and the translator of his Vorlage see Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Sha-pruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo 312ndash3 n 31 and Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 173ndash75
47 This is comment sect17 which follows after Matt 724ndash29 (MS Plut 217 f 140r)48 See the discussion in 64249 Comments sectsect8ndash18 (Matt 51ndash84) sect21 (Matt 99ndash13) sect26 (Matt 121ndash8) sect34 (Matt
151ndash10) sect40 (Matt 1913ndash16) sectsect45ndash49 (Matt 2223ndash2425)50 An additional comment (sect3) which deals with the presence of the word ldquoEphratahrdquo in
Matt 26 although unrelated to the discussion of Jesusrsquo divinity is included in the discussion
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 219
Summary of the argument51MatthewComment
a) What about the other genealogy (Lk 323bndash25a 31bndash32a)b) Why mention the four flawed womenc) How can we know that Mary is from the family of Davidd) Why did Matthew present the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary
Matt 11ndash16(Jesusrsquo Genealogy)
sect1
a) How could God tell his son to fleeMatt 213ndash15(Flight to Egypt)
sect4
a) Has Jesus two spiritsMatt 313ndash17(Jesusrsquo Baptism)
sect6
a) How could God be temptedb) How could Satan rule over Godc) How could Satan think he could tempt Jesusd) How could God be hungrye) Jesus should have lived from his own wordsf) Jesus is wrong about not testing Godg) Jesus has a God over him that he does not want to testh) How could Satan offer the world to God
Matt 41ndash11(Temptation)
sect7
a) Elisharsquos miracle was greater than Jesusrsquo miraclesMatt 81ndash4(Jesusrsquo Healings)
sect18
a) Elijah and Elisha also performed resurrectionsMatt 918ndash26(Jesus raises a girl)
sect22
a) Miracles do not prove Jesusrsquo divinityb) Virgin birth is implausiblec) Adam is mor excellent than Jesus yet he is not Godd) Ascension does not make one divinee) Resurrection does not make one divinef) (Special) birth does not make one divineg) Post-natal virginity can be explained medicallyh) The nativity account is dubious and unverifiable
Matt 932ndash38(Jesusrsquo Miracles)
sect23
below because of its potential relevance for the issue of the authorship of the translation andorigins of the Hebrew gospel Additionally it may even indicate a relationship of dependenceof Kelimmath ha-Goyim on Even Boḥan see 642
51 Questions in italics are similar to the arguments in Milḥamot ha-Shem For a similar listsee Levy ldquoChapterrdquo 139ndash42
220 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
Summary of the argumentMatthewComment
a) How is it that John the Baptist has doubts about Jesusb) Jesus did not reveal his plans to him contrary to Amos 37c) Why did Jesus not perform great signs to convince alld) John the Baptist ought to be greater than Jesus
Matt 1111ndash15(Jesus amp John)
sect24
a) How can Jesus teach God if he had to learn himselfb) How is it that he needed to be taugth at allc) How is it that he needed to receive something if all is hisd) God and Jesus are two seperate entitiese) The Father knows more than the Son
Matt 1125ndash30(Jesusrsquo Prayer)
sect25
a) Jesusrsquo ldquotertium non daturrdquo argument challengedMatt 1222ndash29(Jesusrsquo Exorcism)
sect28
a) How can there be a difference in blaspheming the Trinityb) Where does a person who curses the Spirit go afterwards
Matt 1230ndash37(Blasphemy )
sect29
a) If Jesusrsquo miracles really happened why another signMatt 1238ndash45(Jesusrsquo Signs)
sect30
a) Why are the disciples so often describes as weak of faithb) Why did the disciples not recognize that Moses and Elijah did greater miracles
Matt 1529ndash38(Jesusrsquo feeds 4000)
sect3552
a) Who rules the ldquoSon of Manrdquo the ldquoSon of Godrdquo (or Peter)b) Why was Jesus amazed about Peterrsquos confessionc) Why could Jesus be mistaken for John if he was so well known on account of his miracles
Matt 1613ndash20(Peterrsquos Confession)
sect37
a) What need is there for Elijah to inform JesusMatt 171ndash8(Transfiguration)
sect38
a) Can God hungerb) Jesus did not know about the absence of fruitc) The tree was innocent why curse it
Matt 2110ndash22(Cursing the Fig Tree)
sect42
52 Although this argument is included in this list it is not discussed in-depth and onlybriefly touched on in the discussion of comment sect30 where Shem Ṭovrsquos argues against Jesusrsquoalleged performance of miracles see 6413 n 196 The lacking recognition of Jesus by thedisciples (and by the Pharisees which is an important benchmark for Shem Ṭov in his overallargument) however is a novel argument and an important link to Kelimmat ha-Goyim cf6414 and 733
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 221
Summary of the argumentMatthewComment
a) Jesus did not fulfill messianic expectationsb) Jesus was afraid of Caesar
Matt 2215ndash22(Paying Taxes)
sect44
a) That generation already passed awayb) Jesus does not know what the Father knows
Matt 2427ndash36(Jesusrsquo Ignorance)
sect50
a) How is it that Jesus was asking for a change of plans His and Godrsquos will are not equalb) The spirit has a creatorc) Jesus was afraidd) Jesus is unable to help himself or to alter his fatee) Jesus was in fact under (divine) compulsionf) Why persecute the Jews if Jesus fulfilled Godrsquos plan willingly The killers ought to be blameless
Matt 2631ndash44(Jesus in Gethsemane)
sect53
a) Who carried the cross Simeon or Jesusb) How is it that Jesus did not know he was given vinegarc) How is it that the hanging took so long Why are there thieves
Matt 2727ndash66(The Crucifixion)
sect56
a) To whom but God could Jesus have prayedMatt 2816ndash20(Words on the Cross)
sect5853
Most of above comments are rather short but three arguments are more elabo-rate Comment sect7 which is based on Jesusrsquo temptation (Matt 41ndash11)comment sect23 which follows Matt 932ndash38 and comment sect53 which is onJesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane (Matt 2631ndash44) With the first and the last ShemṬov stands well within his own polemical tradition which is not surprisingsince he wrote 200 years after Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem andover a 100 years after Christians had started to proselytize Jews in Europe54
In other words the repertoire of arguments is already centuries old in ShemṬovrsquos time Considering his own debate experience the arguments of theJewish-Christian exchange are by no means new to Shem Ṭov neither thoseof his own tradition nor those of his opponents Many of the arguments heemploys have parallels in earlier works But Shem Ṭov not only repeatsstandard arguments he also adds to them and innovates entirely new
53 Discussed together with comment sect56 see 642154 See the discussion under 32 42 53 and 62 For a fixed date for this activity one
could eg take Raymond Martinirsquos Pugio Fidei which was published in 1278 see Ina Willi-Plein and Thomas Willi Glaubensdolch und Messiasbeweis Die Begegnung von JudentumChristentum und Islam im 13 Jahrhundert in Spanien (Forschungen zum Juumldisch-Christlichen Dialog 2 Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag 1980) 16ndash18 23ndash27
222 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
approaches It is particularly here that we are able to get a glimpse of his ownarguments and thoughts
6 4 1 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Matt 11ndash16 (sect1)55
Shem Ṭovrsquos first comment follows Matthewrsquos genealogy (which excludesMatt 117)56 His remarks and questions throughout are arranged systematic-ally so that he assigns numbers to each argument as in much of the rest of thischapter Shem Ṭov the transcriber said There are four questions for us in this (section)
The first is that the Gospel of Mark chapter 3 traces concerning this matter another andaltogether different (or strange) genealogy to David which is ldquoJoseph the son of Eli son ofMatan son of Levi son of Melki son of Lamech son of Joseph son of Mattatah son of Pin-chas son of Nahum son of Eli etcrdquo through to ldquothe son of Nathan son of Davidrdquo which isnot through Solomon (as in Matthewrsquos genealogy)57
Second why did he include (all those) flawed women by name (He mentioned) Tamarand Ruth and Rahab and Bathsheba but he did not remember Sarah and Rebecca andRachel and Leah And as if that was not enough that he had to include them he (also)brought up Uriah so that he could bring up (the topic of) sin
Third what use is there to this kind of genealogy that is based on the husband of his [=Jesusrsquo] mother inasmuch as his mother could (very well) have been from another tribe Andif it was a matter of ldquono inheritance-estate may be passed from tribe to triberdquo (cf Num369)58 mdash this is (in the section) on a daughter who inherits land mdash (when it comes to) Marywho can tell us that this is in fact the case for her And even if she was a ldquodaughter who caninheritrdquo it would have been still possible for her to be from another family of the tribe ofJudah (and) not from the family of David for in the tribe of Judah there are many great and(also) inferior families
55 The headings always indicate the gospel passage in Matthew after which Shem Ṭovinserts his comments
56 If this omission of v 17 is not a transcription error the only plausible motive for omit-ting the verse would be Christian that is only a Christian would have an interest in passingover the potential embarrassment that the the last set of fourteens names only adds up to thir-teen That Jesus would thereby become the 41st person in the genealogy however may havebeen an intentional arrangement by Matthew as a sign for the dawn of a new age see Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer ldquoDer Stammbaum des Verheiszligenen Theologische Implikationen derNamen und Zahlen in Mt 11ndash17rdquo NTS 46 (2000) 175ndash92
57 The genealogy is not in Mark 3 but in Luke 323bndash25a 31bndash32a although with somedifferences when compared to the textus receptus In Shem Ṭovrsquos version we find Lamechinstead of Jannai (Ἰνναι) Pinchas instead of Amos (Ἀμώς) and Eli instead of (H)esli(Ἑσλί) The most peculiar difference is Pinchas Shem Ṭov mistakes Luke for Mark also incomment sect52 (f 158v) though in comment sect54 (f 160r) he attributes Mark correctly
58 In other words Mary would have been required to marry within her own tribe ThatJoseph is from the tribe of David should therefore indicate that she herself must have beenfrom the house of David which then would also be true of Jesus For the history of this argu-ment see the discussion under 342
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 223
Fourth and this is the most difficult (question) for there is no reply against it Why did hepresent (here) the genealogy of her husband (rather than) to trace her to her father or herbrother (that is) if she had any59
מונהגפרק61מרקשבאונגיליוהראשונה60שאלותדבזהלנוישהמעתיקטובשםאמרלמךבןמלכיבןלויבןמתןבןעליבןיוסףלשונווזהודודעדוכלמכלמשונהאחרבעניןהיחס
למהשניתשלמהעד64לאדודבןנתןבןעדוכועליבן63נחוםבןפנחסבן62מתתהבןיוסףבןולאה67ורחלורבקהשרהזכרולאשבעובתורחב66ורותתמרבשםהפגומות65הנשיםמנהבעלמצדלישויחסזהאישלישיתהעון68למזכרתאוריהאתשזכראלאאתהןשמנהדיולאזהומטהאלממטהנחלהתסובלאמשוםואיאחרמשבטלהיותיכולההיתהאמווהנהאמותהיהאפשריורשתבתתהיהואפיהיתהשכןלנוהגידמיומריםנחלהיורשתבבת
גדולותהמשפחותרבויהודהשבשבטדודממשפחת69לאיהודהמשבטאחרתממשפחהעדלהביאהלוהיהלבעלההיחסהביאלמהתשובהעליהשאיןהקשהוהיארבעיתופחותות
70לה היו אם אחיה או אביה
Joshua Levy who has compared Shem Ṭov to Milḥamot ha-Shem has shownthat many of Shem Ṭovrsquos arguments in Even Boḥan are an abbreviation andexpansion of Jacob ben Reubenrsquos critique71 Shem Ṭov appears to collect whathe considers the most pertinent arguments and arranges them systematicallywhich will be seen throughout the remainder of this chapter He does notexplicitly critique Maryrsquos perpetual virginity here the virgin birth is justassumed72 but he questions the overall purpose and use of the genealogy thatlinks Jesus to Joseph This is probably a better strategy than getting boggeddown in a long discussion of Isa 714 In fact only by assuming (at least forthe sake of argument) that Joseph is not Jesusrsquo biological father which is anoteworthy deviation from the general Jewish argument73 can he questionMatthewrsquos intention in linking Jesus to Joseph If Jesus were indeedconceived without Josephrsquos involvement why relate Josephrsquos genealogy at
59 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect154 here where it is argued that the Christians did not knowMaryrsquos genealogy see 541
60 MS BL שאלות רל תשובות 61 MS BL מארקו שבאוונגיילייו 62 MS BL מתתי63 MS BL נחם64 MS BL ולא65 MS BL נשים66 MS BL רות67 MS BL רחל רבקה 68 MS BL להזכיר69 MS BL ולא70 MS Plutei 217 f 134v71 Cf Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 139 143ndash44 and Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 342)72 But cf 648 649 and also comment sect2 (f 134vndash135r) where Maryrsquos virginity is
explicitly disputed73 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect73 sect74 sect77 sectsect78ndash80 sectsect99ndash100 sect107 sect152 (see 252) and Niz-
zahon Vetus sectsect197ndash200 sect217 sect232 sect235 but cf sect154 (see 541)
224 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
all And why not Maryrsquos Shem Ṭov did not just copy Milḥamot ha-Shem heexpanded and developed Jacob ben Reubenrsquos argument a process which wasalready observed in Nizzahon Vetus sect154 (see 541) As in Milḥamot ha-Shem he also raises the issue of Matthewrsquos intention by asking ldquoWhy did heinclude (all those) flawed women by namerdquo concluding that Matthewpurposely wanted to raise the issue of Jesusrsquo sinfulness Shem Ṭov does notexplicitly answer his questions but there is no doubt that he wanted hisreaders to understand that Matthewrsquos account of Jesusrsquo genealogy underminesthe claims of Christian theology
6 4 2 Bethlehem Ephratah Matt 21ndash12 (sect3)
Although comment sect3 is unrelated to the discussion of Jesusrsquo divinity it hasbeen included here because it clearly establishes that Shem Ṭov is not thetranslator of the Hebrew Gospel and it might even indicate that Profiat Duranis indebted to Shem Ṭovrsquos critique of the Gospel of Matthew
The translatorauthor of the gospel text in Even Boḥan is criticized here forerring about the addition ldquoEphratahrdquo that is Shem Ṭov notes that it is notpresent in what is considered the standard version of the Gospel of Matthew atthe time74 It is of course nonsensical to criticize differences to an authorita-tive version of Matthew if Shem Ṭov had translated the text himself Heclearly knows that there is another different version of Matthew He even canrefer to Jerome that is either the Vulgate or his commentary on Matthew toargue that ldquoEphratahrdquo is missing in what is considered the original text75
The transcriber said The translator 76(המגיד) wrote them ldquoand you Bethlehem-Ephrathardquo77
He erred (here) because it is not (written that way) (it is) thus (only) in our books It is alsonot in Jeromersquos translation [or commentary] And their opinion is that those astrologers who
74 The canonical Matthew reads ldquoBethlehem of Judeardquo (Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας) here(Matt 25) without mentioning ldquoEphratahrdquo For a discussion of Matthewrsquos intention in usingthis passage see Instone-Brewer ldquoBalaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotationsin Matthew 2rdquo
75 Cf Jerome Comm Matt 125 and 11 (CCSL 7713 FC 11764ndash65)76 Or author messenger announcer preacher (a friar) That המגיד should be the trans-
lator of the gospel text is not definite but notice the addition of להם (MS BL (לכם Cf alsocomment sect17 (f 140r) where the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew are called זהמיסדיsee 63 הספר
77 It would seem then that the original translatorauthor (המגיד) of Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthewtext changed his Vorlage here to the wording of the Masoretic text (Micah 52) unless ofcourse this was arleady present in the Vorlage Shem Ṭov has Matt 26 as ldquoAnd you Bethle-hem-Ephratah land of Judah you are not (too) young among the clans of Judahrdquo ( ביתואתה
יהודהבאלפיצעיראתהאיןיהודהארץאפרתהלחם ) Already Jerome suspected that thepassage contained a transmission error and it is not difficult to imagine that the translator fol-lowed Jerome and altered his text to clarify that Bethlehem-Ephratah was meant and notBethlehem in Galilee See esp Jerome Comm Matt 1211 (CCSL 7713 FC 11765)
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 225
were asking (Herod about the child) were three (in number) and they base this on the factthat they gave three things and (they also think) that they were kings because the gift wasimportant78
וגםשלנובספרים80כןאיננוכיטעהאפרתהלחםביתואתה79כתולהםהמגידהמעתיקאמרשנתנווהראיהשלשההיובכוכביםהחוזיםשאלואומרי82שהםודע81גרונימושבהעתקתלא
83חשוב היה שהדורון לפי מלכים והיו דברים שלשה
This strongly supports the assumption that Shem Ṭov is not the translator ofthe Hebrew Gospel and that he is aware that the translation in sua manudiffers from the Vulgate (or whatever text is considered authoritative)Depending on how one interprets the term המגיד and weighs the influence ofJerome Shem Ṭov is perhaps even aware that this translation came from aChristian (perhaps a convert andor friar)
Moreover in Profiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim there in a discussion oftextual corruptions and errors in the Gospel of Matthew we find the additio-nal ldquoEphratahrdquo (which is not in Matthew) as well which is then likewise fol-lowed by a critique of the three magi which is very similar to Shem Ṭovrsquosremarks84 This perhaps establishes a relationship of dependence of ProfiatDuran on Even Boḥan or his gospel version although Duran knows also theother three gospels and other New Testament writings85 And if this were
78 Shem Ṭov informs his readers here of what he himself has learnt or heard about theChristian interpretation of the nativity account The first to discuss the royal identity of themagi is Tertullian in Marc 3132 (CCSL 1524) Adv Jud 92 (CCSL 21365) cf Idol 91(CCSL 21107) Origen is the first to number the magi as three in Hom Gen 143 (PG12238) see Hugo Kehrer Die Heiligen drei Koumlnige in Literatur und Kunst Erster Teil(Leizpig E A Seeman 1908) 10ndash22 32ndash46
79 MS BL לכם כתב 80 MS BL וכן81 MS BL גיירונימוס יד בהעתקת 82 MS BL שם ודע 83 MS Plutei 217 f 135r84 In chapter 10 of Kelimmat ha-Goyim see Frank Talmage ed The Polemical Writings
of Profiat Duran The Reproach of the Gentiles and lsquoBe not like unto thy Fathersrsquo כתבי]באבותיךתהיאלואיגרתהגויםכלימתדוראןלפרופיטפולמוס ] (ldquoKuntresimrdquo Texts and
Studies 55 Jerusalem The Zalman Shazar Center and The Dinur Center 1981) 49ndash50 Butcf Posnanskirsquos version of Kelimmat ha-Goyim where the ldquoEphratahrdquo is not mentioned seeAdolf Posnanski ldquoThe Reproach of the Gentiles The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran ofPerpignan in the year 1397rdquo [ דוראןפרופייטמאישטרוחיבורוהגויםכלימתספר
הקנזבשנתמפירפינייאנו ] Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 4 (1915) 48 [Hebr] However inQeshet u-Magen which is relying on Kelimmat ha-Goyim Simeon ben Zemah Duranrsquos writesthat the Christians ldquosay that He was born in Bethlehem Ephratahrdquo see Murciano Simon benZemah Duran Keshet u-Magen 16
85 It is of course also possible that the ldquoEphratahrdquo may have simply slipped in (fromMicah 52) though the comment about the three magi makes the dependence of Kelimmat ha-Goyim on Even Boḥan (or another source common to both) more likely
226 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
indeed the case then Profiat Duran and Shem Ṭov both would have at least atone point incorporated each others writings in their respective polemic worksShem Ṭov added Profiat Duranrsquos ldquoPrinciples of the [Christian] Faithrdquo as a six-teenth chapter to Even Boḥan86 and Profiat Duran would have used theHebrew text and Shem Ṭovrsquos critique of Matthew as source material for hisown arguments
6 4 3 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Matt 213ndash15 (sect4)
The next comment is only a short sentence which follows Matt 215 Itsbrevity might indicate that the argument was either well known or that ShemṬov did not consider it too pertinentThe transcriber said Look at this (how could) God may he be praised (ever) tell his son toflee He did not do this to Moses who was raised by Pharaohrsquos daughter
87פרעה בת שגדלו למשה כן עשה לא בנו מבריח היה ית שהאל זה ראה המעתיק אמר
Shem Ṭov questions how Jesus should have to flee from Herod if Moses in acomparable situation was protected from any harm and even raised in thehouse of the hostile monarch The argument bears similarities to Yosef ha-Meqanne sect22 (see 453) Nizzahon Vetus sect39 (see 542) and also ContraCelsum 166 The argument however does not occur in Milḥamot ha-Shem88
6 4 4 Jesusrsquo Baptism Matt 313ndash17 (sect6)
With equal brevity Jesusrsquo baptism is questioned which again is similar toearlier polemic sourcesThe transcriber said Now did the first part (of Matthewrsquos gospel) not say that he was con-ceived by the Holy Spirit And if so why did this one come and from where did this otherSpirit come Second if this is so they are (in fact) four deities Father Son and two Spirits
האחרהרוחבאומאיןזהבאלמהאכהקודשמרוחשהורתואמאפרוהלאהמעתיקאמר89רוחות ושתי ובן אב הם אלוהות ארבעה כן אם שנית
The argument is reminiscent of what was seen in Milḥamot ha-Shem90
although with marked differences Shem Ṭov is mostly questioning theTrinity here while Jacob ben Reuben focuses on the incarnation and Jesusrsquo
86 See Garshowitz review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ ldquoLa Piedra deToquerdquo 458
87 MS Plutei 217 f 135v MS BL כןעשהלאבנומבריחשהשיתאפשראיךראשבביתו פרעה בת שגדלה למשה
88 Levy does not mention this comment at all cf Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 13989 MS Plutei 217 f 136r90 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 343) and Nizzahon Vetus sect160 (see 543) cf also Levy
ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 139 145ndash46
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 227
moral integrity However both essentially agree that the descent of the Spiritundermines how Christians understand Jesus ontologically Influenced byMilḥamot ha-Shem this exhibits a rather uncommon understanding of thearrival of the Holy Spirit in fact Shem Ṭov interprets the decent of the HolySpirit at Jesusrsquo baptism as a kind of second additional in-dwelling (or incar-nation) of Jesus Moreover the argument is based on the premise that theHoly Spirit became incarnate and that birth and baptism therefore wouldmean that there are two Holy Spirits that is two divine persons who becameincarnate in Jesus
6 4 5 Jesusrsquo Temptation Matt 41ndash11 (sect7)
One of the more extensive comments in Shem Ṭovrsquos gospel critique is basedon Jesusrsquo temptation which is arranged into eight questionsThe transcriber said I have eight questions about this (section)
The first If Jesus were (indeed) God what need does he have to be tempted And how(could) he (ever) be subject to temptation (anyway)
Second how could Satan ever rule over him if he (indeed) were GodThird how could Satan (ever) have thought that he might cause him to sin inasmuch as
Satan should have been already aware that he is the Son of GodFourth if he were (indeed) God how could he be hungry after fasting fourty days Did
not Moses peace be upon him who was a (in fact) a man not fast fourty days and fourtynights How is it that it was not necessary to say about him that he was experiencing anyhunger instead (it is even written that) a brilliance was added to his face (cf Exod 3429ndash35)
Fifth how is it that Jesus answered ldquoone does not live by bread alone etcrdquo He shouldhave (been able) to live on what comes out of his (own) mouth if he were God
Sixth how is it that he replies ldquois it written you shall not try (your God) etcrdquo (Deut 83)If he were God he should have been able to show his power and the might of his hand (cfDeut 817) just as we are told (in Isaiah 711) ldquoask a sign for yourselfrdquo and likewise ldquobringthe tithe to the treasuryhellip and test me in this etcrdquo (Mal 310) And also all of the prophetsperformed miracles in order to demonstrate His power and the might (that was in) their handJust as also Elisha said ldquoLet him come to me and he will know that there is a prophet inIsraelrdquo (2 Kings 58) And (also) Isaiah was angry about what was said to him ldquoI will not askand I will not test the Lordrdquo (Isa 712) and he said to him ldquoIs it not enough for you to treatmen as helpless that you also treat my God as helplessrdquo (Isa 713) as was also mentioned inchapter 1 section 2 (of Even Boḥan) In regard to when he said ldquoyou shall not tempt (yourGod)rdquo that (passage relates to) the testing (of faith) when one fails to believe in what wasexperienced (namely to believe) in the power of God may he be blessed (which is) similarto ldquothey have tempted me ten timesrdquo (Num 1422)
Seventh since he answered ldquoit is written you shall not test the Lord your Godrdquo (Deut 83)it would appear that there was a God over him whom he (himself) is careful (not) to testAlso it would appear that he is not (that) God
Eighth when Satan told him that he should worship him and that he would give to him allthe lands how is it that he did not reply that everything is his (already) and that he [Satan]has (in fact) nothing Also the benefit of this gift of (belonging) to God what is that (com-pared to) the benefit (that comes) from the kingdom of flesh and blood which is a defective
228 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
(lesser) kingdom which (by the way) is in its entirety his (already) And based on his wordsit appears that had it not been for him having to worship Satan it would have been beneficialfor him (to accept) Satanrsquos gift91 And also how is it that Satan said to him that he shouldserve him in order to (receive) as gift the kingdom knowing that he was God92 or that he (atleast) held himself to be such Moreover (he says) it is written ldquoyou shall pray to the Lordand him you shall worshiprdquo (but) this is nowhere in the Scriptures93
ואיךהנסיוןבוצורךמהאלוההואישואםהאחתשאלותשמנהבזהליישהמעתיקאמרלהטעותוהשטןחשבאיךשלישיתאלוההואאםהשטןבומשלאיךשניתנסיוןבחוקונופל
95שצםבעדירעבאיךאלוההואאםרביעיתאלהיםבןשהואיודעהיהכבר94שהשטן
שלאלומצריךואיךלילהוארבעיםיוםארבעיםצםאדםהיותועםעהמשהוהלאיוםארבעיםלחיותלוהיה97כוהלחםעללאכיישוהשיבאיךחמישיתפניובזיו96אליונוסףאבלנרעב
לוהיהאלוההיההואאםכותנסולא99כתוהשיבאיךששיתאלוההיהאםפיו98במוצאביתאלהמעשראתהביאווכן100שעוהכיאותלךשאלשמציכמוידוועוצםכחולהראותכמו101ידםועוצםכחולהראותכדיכלםנסיםעשוהנביאיםכלוכןכונאובחנוניכוהאוצרלא102אתושאמעללוחרהוישעיהבישראלנביאישכיוידעאלינאיבאאלישעשאמראשערכנזאלוהיאתגםתלאוכיאנשיםהלאותמכםהמעטלוואמאלאתאנסהולאאשאל
כמויתהשםבכחהמנסהאמונתחסרוןמצדכשהנסיוןהואתנסולאשאממהכי103בפר105שישיראהאלהיכםאלאתתנסולא104כתישהשיבכיוןשביעיתפעמיםעשרזהאותיוינסו
השטןלוכשאמשמינית106אלוהאיננושהואיראהואכלנסותונזהרהואאשרלוממעלאלוהבמתנתותועלתגכלוושאיןשלושהכל107השיבלאאיךהארצותכללוויתןלושישתחוהמדבריוונראהשלווהכלפגומהמלכותוהואודםבשרבמלכות108תועלתמהשלאלוה110שיעבדהולואמראיךגכהשטןועודהשטןבמתנתלוטובהיה109לשטןיעבדהולאשלולא
91 In other words the temptation account makes it look as if Satan had actually somethingto give
92 Shem Ṭov reads Matt 43 6 as ldquoIf you are the son of Godrdquo ( אתהאלהיםבןאם ) ShemṬov appears to assume here at least for the sake of argument that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is a claim todivinity
93 Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthew text (MS Plutei 27) reads לבדוואותוהתפללאלאתכתישכןתעבוד which is based on Deut 613 But and that is the force of the argument this is not pre-cisely what the Masoretic text says
94 MS BL והשטן אותו להטעות 95 MS BL omit96 MS BL נוסף אבל ברעב 97 MS BL וכו לבדו הלחם על לא כי ישו שהשיב מיד 98 MS BL במוצאי99 MS BL כתוב איך 100 MS BL אות לך שאל בישעיה שמצינו 101 MS BL ידו102 MS BL אתי שאמר 103 MS BL שני פרק ראשון שער כנזכר 104 MS BL omit105 MS BL adds לו106 MS BL אלוה איננו והוא אלוה שיש יראה ואכ 107 MS BL adds לו108 MS BL מתועלת אלוה של 109 MS BL יעבדוהו שלולי מדבריו ונראה 110 MS BL יעבדוהו
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 229
כתוכיועודבכךעצמומחזיקשהיהאואליהשהואיודע111בהיותוהממלכותמתנתבשביל112המקרא בכל איננו תעבוד ואותו תתפלל אליך אל את
The temptation account has already been used in a similar fashion inMilḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) and Nizzahon Vetus sect162 (see 544) The argu-ments based on this pericope apparently developed into a kind of standardpolemic to which more elements could be added as can bee seen with ShemṬov who presents a systematic eight point response to the account of Jesusrsquotemptation He must have considered this pericope to provide strong supportfor his argument against Jesusrsquo divinity Most of these points are in someform or another already mentioned in Nizzahon Vetus sect162 and althoughMilḥamot ha-Shem seems to have provided the blueprint for both113 what isunique to Even Boḥan is the first second seventh and eight point whichadopt at least for the sake of argument the notion that Jesus was divineAssuming the Christian position Shem Ṭov asks how Satan could actuallytempt God more so even dare to think that he could be successful And inany case what benefit could Jesus have gained from Satan where would havebeen the temptation The implication is that the context demands that Jesuswas human only specifically considering point seven ldquoIt would appear thatthere was a God over him whom he (himself) is careful (not) to test Also itwould appear that he is not (that) Godrdquo Jesus consequently acknowledgesthat he is not divine that is assuming that humanity and divinity are exclusiveto each other
6 4 6 Jesusrsquo Healings Matt 81ndash4 (sect18)
The next three comments (sect18 sect22 and sect23) are all related to accounts ofJesusrsquo miracles The former two are relatively brief while the latter sect23 ismuch more elaborate and interesting We begin with sect18 which follows Matt81ndash4The transcriber said Look what Elisha did to Naaman was greater than this for he did not(even) want to raise his hand rather he only said to him ldquoGo bathe and be cleanrdquo (2 Kings510)
לךלואמררקאליוידולהניףרצהשלאמזהיותרלנעמןאלישעעשהוהנההמעתיקאמר114וטהר ורחץ
111 MS BL בהיותו המלכות בשביל 112 MS Plutei 217 f 136v113 Specifically points 4ndash6 bear the marks of Jacob ben Reubenrsquos work cf here Levy
ldquoChaper 11rdquo 33ndash34 62ndash63 As already mentioned Milḥamot ha-Shem is likely the source forNizzahon Vetus which then probably is also the reason why the temptation pericope onlycomprises Matt 41ndash11a (omitting the angles) in both treatises Matt 411b is howeverincluded in Even Boḥan
114 MS Plutei 217 f 140v
230 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
This is in line with what was already observed in eg QiṣṣaNestor namelythat characters of the Hebrew Bible are at least equally deserving of divinestatus if one follows the Christian rationale115 The same argumentationappears in comments sectsect22ndash23 and it is noteworthy that Shem Ṭov and hispredecessors clearly felt the need to engage the notion that miracles point todivine identity However that Jesusrsquo touching of the leper which in his eyesis lesser than Elisharsquos healing of Naamanrsquos leprosy might point in anotherdirection is not entertained116
6 4 7 Jesusrsquo Raising of the Dead Matt 918ndash26 (sect22)
In comment sect22 Shem Ṭov compares Jesus with the raising of Lazarus to1 Kings 1717ndash24 and 2 Kings 48ndash37The transcriber said Look Elijah resurrected the son of the goldsmithrsquos (wife) (cf 1 Kings1717ndash24) and Elisha his student (raised) the Shunammitersquos son (cf 2 Kings 48ndash37) andEzekiel (raised) many dead (cf Ezekiel 371ndash14) and they (unlike Jesus) have not made theirvoice heard
רביםמתיםויחזקאלהשונמיתבןתלמידוואלישעהצרפיתבןהחיהאליהוהנההמעתיקאמר117קולם השמיעו ולא
Shem Ṭov again argues that the three aforementioned prophets did not presentthemselves as divine on account of their miracle activities Not only is thedemonstration of divine power not indicative of the divinity of the miracleworker the implication is that Jesus (andor Christians) are making too muchof his miracle activities This then leads to the much more extensive argumentin sect23 which is following Matt 932ndash38
6 4 8 Jesusrsquo Miracles Matt 932ndash38 (sect 23)
This comment represents Shem Ṭovrsquos key critique of the Gospel of Matthewand Jesusrsquo divinity It expresses a rather passionate appeal for his readers toremain true to the Jewish faith This argument is uniquely Shem Ṭovrsquos anddoes not occur in the same form in other previous polemic works In factMatt 932ndash38 is not used in any of the other surveyed texts in this manner It
115 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect9ndash24 (see 232)116 Jesusrsquo touch here can also be interpreted as a concious negation of uncleaness by
means of an ldquooffensiverdquo holiness or purity inherent to Jesus see eg NT Wrightrsquos ldquoFore-word to the New Editionrdquo in Marcus J Borg Conflict Holiness and Politics in the Teachingsof Jesus (2nd ed London Continuum 1989) xvndashxvi (see also 88ndash212) but esp TomHolmeacuten ldquoJesusrsquo Inverse Strategy of Ritual (Im)purity and the Ritual Purity of Early Chris-tiansrdquo in Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context Papers from theEABS-Meeting in PiliscsabaBudapest (ed Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu Contributionsto Biblical Exegesis amp Theology 54 Leuven Peeters 2010) 15ndash32
117 MS Plutei 217 f 141v
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 231
is also the by far most interesting comment and summarizes various reasonsShem Ṭov rejects the Christian claims He counters the Christian argumentspoint by point by relying both on the Hebrew Bible and reason The transcriber said Even if we were to admit and believe that Jesus did all these miracleswhat makes us the Jewish community unable to believe118 (is that) in all this there is not(really any) praise or exaltation for Jesus as if this should lead us to regard him as moredivine119 (After all) the prophets did much more than this Moses in Egypt and in (the midstof) the sea and in the desert (Or take) Joshua who caused the orb of the sun to stand still (cfJosh 1012ndash15)120 (or consider) Isaiah who caused the sun to turn back (cf Isa 387ndash8) (or)Elijah who stopped the heavens (from giving rain cf 1 Kings 171ndash7) and revived a deadperson (cf 1 Kings 1722) and caused fire to come down from heaven (cf 1 Kings 182436ndash38) (or take) Elisha who healed the leprosy of Naaman merely by speaking alone (cf 2Kings 51014) and even after his own death (he revived the dead cf 2 Kings 1321) and(consider) how many other miracles he himself recounts
And if you say that Jesus (ought to be considered) higher than the prophets since he wasthe son of a virgin who had not been joined to a man nobody can (seriously) hold to this(belief) Also (if his birth indeed had come about) by God why is it then that Adam was bornwithout the joining of male and female In addition (Adam ought to be reckoned) aboveJesus since he was (born even) without a female solely from the Spirit of God alone just asthe Scriptures say ldquoAnd he blew into his nostrils the breath of liferdquo (Gen 27) And if youshould say that he was created from the ground and Jesus (was created) from a woman andthat he was (therefore) more important I will answer you (this) Was not Eve created fromthe side of Adam (as) the one who is more eminent than the woman For it did not requireany menstruation-blood121 neither did she have to reside inside him for nine months unlikeJesus your God But if so we (then) ought to make Eve into a God And moreover theangels and the devils who were solely created out of the light of God (then also) ought to bemore worthy than him
And if you should say that he is more excellent than the prophets because he went up toheaven was he not preceded by Enoch and Moses and Elijah and much more so by theangels and devils But if so we ought to make them into divinities (And it is surely) notbecause he called himself ldquoSon of Godrdquo for has not (also) Israel been called by God ldquomy sonmy firstbornrdquo (Exod 422)
118 Lit ldquowhat is it (then) that we the Jewish community are not able to believerdquo119 Following MS BL here ( יותר לאלוה נחזיקהו שבזה עד )120 The phrase ולבנהחמהגלגל has been translated here as ldquoorb of the sunrdquo cf Bereshit
Rabbah 65 319121 Cf Wis 71 The second century Roman physician Galen who was reintroduced to the
Latin West in the 11th century taught in his medical tractate On Semen I chs 10 and 11 thatthe body of a fetus developed from female blood (red-stuff) and semen (white stuff bones)see Phillip De Lacy Galen On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 531 BerlinAkademie Verlag 1992) 99ndash107 Shem Ṭov most probably shared this view cf b Nidda31a and Vayyiqra Rabbah 146 and he clearly expresses that Adam was superior to Jesusbecause no human mother was involved in his creation For the rabbinic view on conceptionsee Menachem M Brayer The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature A Psychological Per-spective (New York Ktav 1986) 207ndash212 and Gwynn Kessler Conceiving Israel TheFetus in Rabbinic Narratives (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 2009)
232 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
And if you should say that he is more excellent since he went up to heaven and (also) camedown122 which is something that Enoch or Elijah did not do123 has not Moses gone up andcome down as it is written ldquoMoses went up to Godrdquo (Exod 193) and it is (likewise) writtenldquofrom the heavens He let you hear His voicerdquo (Deut 436) That (this) ascension of Moses was(an ascension) to God (that is all the way) to the heavens is quite clear And second to himis Elijah (since) he always appeared to the Talmudic sages as many have testified about himBut if you should say that you do not believe in their testimony (ie the Talmud) I will saythis Why do you rather believe in the testimonies about Jesus (ie the gospels) (in particular)that he came down (from heaven) Are they not both Jewish So why do you rather believe inthese than in those Much more so our sages were (certainly) greater and more capable andwiser but the testimonies of Jesus have the status of simple people fishermen and the like124
And if you should say that he is more excellent because he (was) resurrected after (his)death is that not (also the case with) the son of the goldsmithrsquos (wife) and the Shunammitersquosson and (all) the dead Ezekiel resurrected after (their) death (cf Eze 371ndash14) But if so we(also) ought to make them into divinities
And if you should say that (he is more excellent) because he was the son of a virginmaiden do virginsmaidens not give birth every day125 And if you should say that sheremained a virgin after birth would it not be possible for her to have been made (a virginagain) by their hands or (perhaps she became a virgin again) by means of a (medical) injuryin the mouth of the womb just as two fingers would (also) soon (heal and) fuse together inthis regard (that is if injured in a certain way)126 Moreover who witnessed to you aboutthose things (beyond) what the gospel already witnessed For when Mary was gripped bybirth pangs her husband Joseph left to bring a midwife to her but when he found no otherthan Salome he brought her127 and Mary gave birth and she took Jesus and wrapped him inrags and put him to sleep in a feeding troth for oxen in an inn But if so you do not have (anyother) witness for this [miraculous birth] except for Salome or Joseph And you say (further)that she did not have any more sexual relations afterwards then this matter would have come(to you only) through the testimony of one woman Who (then) will give (assurance) and
122 Or ldquowill come downrdquo (וירד)123 Or ldquowill not dordquo ( ירדו לא )124 The point that Peter and Paul were mere fishermen is mentioned already in Acts 413
and eg also in Lactantius Divinae Institutiones 52 ldquoHe [either the so-called ldquoBarbatusrdquo orHierocles both anti-Christian polemicists] chiefly however assailed Paul and Peter and theother disciples as disseminators of deceit whom at the same time he testified to have beenunskilled and unlearned For he says that some of them made gain by the craft of fishermenas though he took it ill that some Aristophanes or Aristarchus did not devise that subjectrdquo(ANF 7138) Also Celsus mentions that Jesusrsquo company included sailors [fishermen] andtax-collectors see Origen Cels 162 246
125 This argument is somewhat ambiguous it either could refer to the fact that youngwomen (בתולות) give birth to children all the time and hence Jesusrsquo birth is nothing specialor that virgins (בתולות) do not ever give birth depending on how one understands the wordin context (הלא) and the negative question בתולה
126 Shem Ṭovrsquos medical background becomes apparent here127 Shem Ṭov refers here to an apocryphal nativity account cf the Protoevangelium of
James 1414ndash21 or the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13 See also Richard BauckhamGospel Women Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids Eerdmans2002) 229ndash33
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 233
make known to me the things on which you have relied to convert (that is) to lsquothe pattern [iewitness] of (only one) personrsquo128
קהלאנחנו129נאמיןנוכלשלאמהישועשההפלאותאלושכלונאמיןנודהאפיהמעתיקאמרמזהויותר131יותרבאלהנחזיקהושבזהעד130בזהלישוומעלהשבחאיןזהכלעםהיהודים
ישעיהולבנהחמהגלגלשהעמידיהושעובמדברוביםבמצרים132משההנביאיםעשומןאשוהורידהמתוהחיה134השמיםאתשעצראליהולאחורהשמש133סבובשהשיבנסיםוכמהמותואחריואפיהמתיםוהחיהלבדבמאמרונעמןצרעתשרפאאלישעהשמיםאישחבורבלא135בתולהבןשהיההואהנביאיםעללישושהשבחואתמספרעצמואהרים
שהיהישועלונוסףונקבהזכר136חבורבלינולדאדםשהריבאלוהגכבזהלהחזיקואיןנוצרשהואואתחייםנשמתבאפיוויפחהכתושאמכמולבדהשםמרוחרקנקבה137מבלי
יותרשהואאדםמצלענבראתחוהוהלאאשיבך138יותרחשובהשהיהמאשהוישומאדמהואכאלהיךכישוחדשיםטבתוכונשתקעהולאהנידותדםנצטרכהלאכימהאשהנכבדואתממנונכבדיםיהיולבדהשםמאורשנבראווהשטניםהמלאכיםועודאלוהמחוהנעשה
המלאכיםוכש139ואליהומשהחנוךלוקדמווהלאלשמיםשעלהלפיהנביאיםעלשמעלתובניהאלקראהישראלוהלאאלוהבןעצמושקראמשוםואיאלוהותמהםנעשהואכוהשטניוירדעלהמשהוהלאואליהחנוךירדושלאמהוירדלשמיםשעלהלפישמעלתוואתבכוריאלמשהשעליתהריליסרךקולואתהשמיעךהשמיםמןוכתיהאלהיםאלעלהומשהדכתי
רביםעליוהעידוכאשרהתלמודלחכמיתמידנראהשהיהאליהומשנהולשמיםהיההאלהיםכולםוהלאשירדישועלבמעידיםיותרתאמיןולמהאשיבךבעדותםמאמיןשאינךואת
וחכמיםוכשריםגדוליםיותרהיושחכמינו140שכןוכלמאלויותרבאלותאמיןולמהיהודיםבןוהלאהמותאחרשחיהלפישמעלתוואתודומיהםדייגיםקליםאנשיםבחזקתהיוישוועדי
בןשהיהלפיואתאלוהותמהםנעשהאכהמותאחרחיויחזקאלומתיהשונמיתובןהצרפיתזהוהלאהלידהאחרבתולהשנשארהלפיואתבתולותיולדותיום141בכלוהלאבתולהאצבעותשנייתחברושכברכמוהרחםבפייקרה142נגעידיעלאוידיהםעללהעשותאיפשרחבלילמריםאחזוכאשרכי143באונגיליוהעידכברכיככהעללכםהעידמיועודזהבענין
ותקחמריםותלדויביאהשלומיתאםכימצאולאמילדתלהלהביאבעלהיוסףהלךהלידהכבפונדקהשוריםבאבוסותישנהובסמרטוטיםויחתלהוישואת אםכיזהעלעדלךאין144וא
כעודידעהשלאאומריםואתםיוסףאושלומית מיאחתאשהעדותפיעלבאהדבריהיהא145אדם בתבנית אל להמיר נסמכת מה על ותודיעני יתן
128 This is reminiscent of Isa 4413 perhaps implying that worshipping Jesus is idolatry129 MS BL להאמין130 MS BL מזה131 MS BL שיותר לאלוה 132 MS BL אשר133 MS BL סבות134 MS BL השמים שעצר זל אליה 135 MS BL בתולה בן שהיה על הנבאים על לישו 136 MS BL חבור בלא נולד הראשון אדם באלוה גכ 137 MS BL בלי138 MS BL חשובה יותר השהיא 139 MS BL ואליהו משה 140 MS BL וכש מבאלו יותר באלו תאמין ולמה 141 MS BL כל142 MS BL נגע עי או 143 MS BL באוונגייליון144 MS BL ואת145 MS Plutei 217 ff 142rndash142v
234 Chapter 6 Even Boḥan
The arguments that Shem Ṭov advances against Jesusrsquo divinity are quite clearand rational 1) the miracles the prophets performed were better than Jesusrsquomiracles yet that did not make the prophets divine 2) Virginal birth isimplausible therefore cannot prove Jesusrsquo divinity Besides ldquoAdamrsquos birthrdquois more excellent than Jesusrsquo birth nevertheless Adam is therefore not divine3) Likewise ascension does not make one divine146 4) resurrection does notmake one divine147 5) and neither does (special) birth furthermore 6) Maryrsquospost-natal virginity can be explained medically whereas the nativity accountis dubious and unverifiable
Most effort is spent on disproving that virgin birth demonstrates Jesusrsquo div-inity (paragraphs 2 and 6) which is done by applying arguments from reasonwithout resorting to the interpretation of Isaiah 714148 or by appealing to theimpropriety of believing that God was enclosed in the womb Shem Ṭov goesso far as to even entertain the notion that Mary was a post-natal virgin andsuggests two medical explanations to account for this possibility149
Shem Ṭovrsquos general strategy is to recite the Christian arguments in supportof Jesusrsquo divinity (ldquoIf you should say that he is more excellent becausehelliprdquo)which he doubtlessly had encountered in his own disputes with Christiansand then to refute them Jesus is thereby portrayed as less impressive thanother miracle working figures of the Hebrew Bible who have no claim to divi-nity on account of their miracle performance
Most interesting is Shem Ṭovrsquos argument against the trustworthiness of thegospel compared to the reliability of the rabbinic tradition Libby Garshowitzhas stated that the inclusion of the Gospel of Matthew ldquowas intended to helprefute Christianityrsquos claim that it was rooted and foreshadowed in Hebrewscriptures and rabbinic literaturerdquo150 However the argument that Jewish tradi-tion and the Gospel of Matthew (and their respective authors) are all Jewish( יהודיםכולםהלא ) would suggest that Shem Ṭovrsquos strategy was the oppo-
146 Shem Ṭov appeals here to the common belief that not only Enoch and Elijah ascendedto heaven but also Moses see eg Philo Mos 1158 Josephus Ant 4325ndash26 and b Yoma4a See Hindy Najman Seconding Sinai The Development of Mosaic Discourse in SecondTemple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77 Leiden Brill2003) 95ndash98 and Reneacutee Bloch ldquoQuelques aspects de la figure de Moiumlse dans la traditionrabbiniquerdquo in Moiumlse lrsquohomme de lrsquoalliance (ed H Cazelles Tournai Descleacutee de Brouwer1955) 93ndash167 The New Testament in contrast emphazises Jesusrsquo ascension (and the sendingof the Holy Spirit) as indicative of Jesus exalted divine position cf Matt 2664 Mark 14621619 Luke 2269 Acts 233 531 Eph 120ndash22 Heb 13 81 1 Pet 322
147 This is really the only time that Jesusrsquo resurrection is discussed with regard to the div-inity of Jesus
148 However Shem Ṭov compares Matt 118bndash25 to Isa 714 in sect2 (f 134vndash135r)149 Though in comment sect32 (f 147v) he also argues that Matt 1353ndash58 indicates that
Jesus had further brothers and sisters by Mary150 ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo 298 emphasis mine
64 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan 235