Jewish Polemic against Christianity

in the Second Century

 

Robert C. Newman

BiblicalTheological Seminary

September 22, 1976

 

Contents:

 

1. Introduction                                                                      2

 

2. Sources of PolemicalMaterials                                        2

            JewishSources (2)

            ChristianSources (4)

            PaganSources (9)

 

3. Very Well-Attested PolemicalMaterial                           10

            God is One (11)

            CertainPassages Messianic? (13)

            TheBirth of Jesus (15)

            Jesusa Magician (17)

            TheMosaic Covenant (18)

            Scripture(19)

 

4. Less Well-Attested PolemicalMaterial                            21

            Jesus Not the Messiah (21)

            JesusNot God (23)

            JesusHung as Accursed of God (24)

            JewishRejection of Jesus (25)

            DisciplesDisreputable (26)

            ChristianityWorse than Paganism (27)

            GospelEthics Not Practiced (28)

 

5. Slightly-Attested PolemicalMaterial                               29

            JesusCannot Be a True Prophet (29)

            JewsDo Not Need Christ (29)

            Jesus'Spectacular Baptism Poorly Attested (30)

            JesusHimself Gained Few Adherents (30)

            WhyPost-Resurrection Appearances to So Few? (31)

            OTGentile Prophecies Refer to Proselytes (31)

            OtherChristian Teachings Attacked (31)

 

6. Conclusions                                                                       32


¤1. Introduction

 

The rise of Christianity, from its very beginning until itcame to dominate the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century, is afascinating subject.  For thiswriter, in particular, the apologetic and polemic activity which accompaniedthis growth is especially interesting. In view of the mass of material available in this broad area, let usrestrict our discussion in this paper to the Jewish side of theChristian-Jewish polemic, and to one century only, the second.

 

The materials which come to us directly from Jewish handsrelevant to this restricted topic are rather scanty.  They are also rather obscure due to the severely concisestyle and technical vocabulary employed by the rabbis, and have been modifiedto some extent by later Christian censorship.  We also have some information on this subject fromChristians, which, though some may suspect it as being biased, is at least moreintelligible and extensive than the Jewish material.  It is also fortunate that we have information from a Pagansource which, while not free from bias either, does not seem to be eitherpro-Christian or pro-Jewish.

 

In the following section, the particular sources availablein each category – Jewish, Christian and Pagan – will be discussed,noting such matters as authorship, sources of information, date, problems ofinterpretation and reliability, and the types of Judaism involved.  In the succeeding sections, theinformation on Jewish polemic as derived from these sources will be presented,following an order of the decreasing breadth of attestation, namely (1)polemical material found in Jewish, Christian and Pagan sources (¤3), (2)materials in two such sources (¤4), and finally (3) materials found only in asingle such source (¤5).  A finalsection will attempt to summarize these findings, draw some tentativeconclusions, and make suggestions for further study.

 

¤2. Sources of Polemical Material

 

Jewish Sources. 

 

Apart from some apocalyptic literature which has been workedover by Christian hands, about the only extant Jewish literature from thesecond century is that transmitted, compiled and later written down by therabbis.  This material is principallycommentary (in the form of discussion) on the legal passages of the Torah(called halakah), with a smaller amountof hortatory, devotional and illustrative material (called haggadah) mixed in. These rabbinic discussions have been compiled in two different ways,topically and textually.

 

The oldest topical compilation of rabbinic material which isstill extant is the Mishnah, compiled byRabbi Judah the Prince about AD 200.[1]  Some similar materials left out of the Mishnah were collected in the same topic order early in thethird century under the title Tosefta.[2]

 

Later rabbis, both in Palestine and Mesopotamia, continueddiscussion on these legal topics and on the Mishnah itself, and eventually their work was compiled underthe title Gemara and added to theMishnah to form the Talmud.[3]  The Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud was completed early in the fifth century, but it isshorter than the Babylonian Talmudand, as far as Jewish religious obligation is concerned, is not considered asauthoritative.[4]  The Babylonian Talmud is about three times larger and was not completeduntil the middle of the sixth century.[5]  Both Talmuds contain some early material left out of the Mishnah and Tosefta, and this is designated Baraitha.[6]

 

The halakah and haggadah were also compiled textually, that is, groupedaccording to the location in Scripture to which they (more or less) refer.  Such a compilation is called a Midrash.  Theextant Midrashim are scatteredover many centuries, but the earliest are almost as old as the Mishnah, dating from the early third century.[7] Among the early Midrashim, which are mostly halakah, the most important are Mekilta on Exodus, Siphra on Leviticus, and Siphre on Numbers and Deuteronomy.[8]  Later Midrashim contain much more haggadah.  Themost important of these is the Midrash Rabbah, actually a collection of Midrashim on the Pentateuch and the Megilloth (the scrolls of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song ofSongs and Lamentations), dating from the fifth to the twelfth centuries.[9]

 

In extracting information from the rabbinic literature concerningJewish polemic against Christianity, it will be necessary to pay attention tothe age of the material. Information from the Mishnah and Tosefta, and any Baraitha from the Talmud, can reasonably be considered as from the second century.  Other material ascribed by name tosecond-century rabbis will be used also, but, since this material was probablytransmitted orally for a longer time, there is more danger of error.

 

Next we have the problem of recognizing references to Jesusand Christianity, since the former term appears only rarely and the latter notat all.  Several other terms arethought by some to refer to Jesus, namely "Balaam," "BenPantera," "Ben Stada," and "a certain person" (peloni).  Weshall examine these as they occur.

 

Christianity is certainly referred to occasionally in therabbinic literature under the name minuth,while an individual Christian is called a min (plural minim).  However, these terms(usually translated "heresy" and "heretic," respectively)are somewhat broader than "Christianity" and "Christian,"and are at first restricted to Jewish heretics.[10]  In earlier periods a min may be a Samaritan (Midrash Rabbah, Lev 13.5); through the first century AD, a Sadducee(Mishnah, Ber 9.5).[11]  According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanh 10.5), there were twenty-four different kindsof minim at the destruction ofthe temple (AD 70).  Broydesuggests that during the Christian era, minim were usually Jewish Christians or Gnostics, orperhaps even non-Jewish Christians.[12]  Sperber suggests that the term wasapplied to non-Jews in second century Palestine, namely "Bible-readingheathen," "antinomian Gnostics," and "heathenChristians."[13]  We shall attempt to discuss thisfurther as we look at the passages involved.

 

Christian Sources. 

 

Among Christian writings, there are three known works whichseem to fall in the second century and which present Jewish arguments againstChristianity.  Let us examine eachof these in what is probably the order of their composition.

 

Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus.  Thiswork, no longer extant, was known both to Celsus and to Origen, and thereforeit must have been written prior to Celsus' True Account, which is usually dated about AD 178.  The comments of Origen and Celsus,preserved in Origen's Against Celsus,are as follows (Origen speaking):

 

After this, from all works that containallegories and relations, respectable in style and phraseology, he [Celsus]picks out the inferior parts, that might increase the grace of faith in thesimple multitude but could not mover the more intelligent, and then observes,"Of this sort is a disputation between one Papiscus and Jason which I havemet with, worthy not so much of laughter as of pity and indignation."  It is no part of my plan to refutethings of this sort; anyone can see what they are, especially if he haspatience enough to listen to the books É. In it is described a Christian arguing with a Jew from Jewishscriptures, and showing that the prophecies concerning the Christ areapplicable to Jesus; the other replying to the argument vigorously and in a waysuitable to the character of a Jew.[14]

 

The Dialogue waslater translated into Latin by another Celsus, otherwise unknown.  Although his translation has also beenlost, a letter has been preserved under the title To theBishopVigilius concerning Jewish Incredulity(falsely ascribed to Cyprian) which describes the Dialogue:[15]

 

That noble, memorable and gloriousresult of the discussion between Jason, a Hebrew Christian, and Papiscus, anAlexandrian Jew, comes into my mind; how the obstinate hardness of the Jewishheart was softened by Hebrew admonition and gentle chiding; and the teaching ofJason, on the giving of the Holy Ghost, was victorious in the heart ofPapiscus.  Papiscus, therebybrought to a knowledge of the truth, and fashioned to the fear of the Lordthrough the mercy of the Lord Himself, both believed in Jesus Christ the Son ofGod, and entreated Jason that he might receive the sign [of baptism].[16]

 

Besides these references, Jerome mentions the Dialogue twice, each time indicating a point contained init.  In his Commentary onGalatians, he notes that it speaks of one who is hanged being accursed of God.[17]  In discussing the Hebrew of Genesis, henotes that this Dialogue citesGen 1:1 as reading in Hebrew "In the Son, God created the heaven and theearth."[18]

 

The only extant source giving an author for the Dialogue is Maximus the Confessor (7th century),who says:

 

I have also read the expression"seven heavens" in the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, which Clement ofAlexandria, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, says was written by St. Luke.[19]

 

As it appears from this that Clement in the third centurydid not know who wrote the Dialogue, itis unlikely that Maximus did four centuries later.  If Maximus should be right, however, then the Dialogue may have been written as early as the 130s, sinceAristo is mentioned by Eusebius, the Chronicon Pascale and Moses Chorensis as writing about Hadrian and BarKochba.[20]

 

Thus although the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus is not extant, we are told that it is an argumentbetween a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jews, in which the former usesthe Old Testament to argue that its Messianic prophecies apply to Jesus, andthat the Jew, though obstinate and arguing vigorously, is finally converted andasks for baptism.  The Dialogue mentions seven heavens, that one who is hanged isaccursed of God, and that Gen 1:1 in Hebrew is "In the Son" ratherthan our "In the beginning." This last point may indicate some knowledge of one of the Targumim, which reads "with (in) wisdom,"[21]and which could easily be understood by Christians as "in the Son."

 

Several scholars, using this sort of information, haveexamined later Christian works against the Jews and have suggested that some ofthese depend on this Dialogue to agreater or lesser extent.  Forinstance, Harnack once argued that the fifth century Latin Dialogueof Simon and Theophilus so depended, thoughhe later changed his mind.[22]  Conybeare agrees with Harnack's earlierview, and he also feels that the Greek Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus also depend on Jason and Papiscus, and that the former of these two is probably verysimilar.[23]  We shall continue our discussion of therelation of Jason and Papiscus toTimothy and Aquila below.

 

Dialogue with Trypho.  Moving onto more solid ground, let usconsider Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.  Herewe have a document with reasonably certain authorship and date.  Justin is mentioned as the author asearly as Eusebius,[24]and the Dialogue has a similarstyle to his Apologies eventhough the subject matter is different.[25]  As Justin was martyred when JuniusRusticus was prefect of Rome (163-67), [26]the Dialogue could not have beenwritten later than 167.  As Justinmakes reference to his (1st) Apology in Dialogue 120.5, the Dialogue musthave been written second.  But the Apology was almost certainly written between 151 and 155,[27]therefore the Dialogue must havebeen written between 151 and 167.

 

However, the actual debate pictured in the Dialogue, if genuine, must have occurred substantiallyearlier.  Justin describes himselfas arguing with a group of Jews led by Trypho.  This Trypho has fled the "war which broke out recently."[28]  Elsewhere Justin mentions the Jewsdiscussing the "war in Judaea,"[29]and twice he speaks as though Hadrian's edict forbidding Jews to approachJerusalem (AD 135) were already in force.[30]  Thus the discussion pictured in the Dialoguewith Trypho is set shortly after the BarKochba War (AD 132-35), surely no later than about AD 140.

 

Although it is possible to suggest that Justin's Trypho is apurely fictitious character, this does not seem to be necessary.  Of course, if one assumes that Tryphois supposed to be the Rabbi Tarphon seen in the Talmud, then it is certain that Justin never argued withhim, for Trypho does not know enough to be that sort of rabbi, nor is hesufficiently anti-Christian to match Tarphon's reputation.[31]  But Trypho is a rather common name forthe period, and it appears that this Trypho is a layman who has studied Greekphilosophy and is familiar with the Old Testament in Greek, but who does notknow Hebrew.[32]  Thus Trypho would be an educatedHellenistic Jew from Palestine.

 

Even if the reality of Trypho is denied, it is clear thatJustin has substantial knowledge of some variety of Hellenistic Judaism whichis closer to that of the rabbis than that of Philo.[33]  As Lukyn Williams says:

 

The more the Dialogue is studied the deeper becomes the impression of thegeneral accuracy of Justin's presentation of Judaism, as well as the width ofhis knowledge of it.  The treatisein fact implies a very much closer intercourse between Christians and Jews inthe middle of the second century than has been commonly accepted.[34]

 

Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.  Thisdialogue is known to us in two Greek manuscripts and a fragment, of which onehas been published by Conybeare.[35]  As yet no English translation has beenprinted.  The authorship and dateof this Dialogue are a matter ofdispute, but it appears that the work comes from Egypt while Greek was stillbeing spoken there.[36]

 

In its present form the Dialogue cannot be older than the fifth century, as it speaksof the debate having taken place before Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria(412-44).[37]  Likewise it contains references toDeity which suggest post-Nicene terminology.[38]

 

On the other hand, the Dialogue contains a twenty-two book Old Testament canon,which includes only one "unattached" apocryphal work (Judith), andthe writer explicitly rejects Tobit, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon asapocryphal.[39]  He does refer to Baruch and to Bel andthe Dragon, but apparently he considers these a part of Jeremiah and Daniel,respectively.[40]  This would seem to suggest an earlierstage than that represented by out extant Greek OT codices (4thcentury) and the Augustinian canonical lists.

 

The New Testament canon in Timothy and Aquila is also significant.  The Acts is grouped with the Catholic Epistles, there arefourteen Pauline epistles (presumably Hebrews is included) and the Revelationis not mentioned (unless grouped with the Catholic Epistles).[41]  Williams therefore suggests that thework comes from the eastern church, probably Egypt, and not later than about200.[42]

 

In quotations that appear to be from the Gospels, some ofthe readings have textual affinities with the Western family and the Old Syriacmanuscripts in particular.  Thislikewise favors the view that these materials are not likely to be much laterthan the second century.[43]

 

Williams also feels that the attitude expressed in the Dialogue toward the OT translation of Aquila (about 130)indicates that this translation has been made relatively recently.[44]  In all fairness, however, the Dialogue also makes reference by name to the translatorsSymmachus and Theodotion (both probably late second century).[45]  In summary, it appears save to say thatthe Dialogue contains asubstantial amount of material from the second century, but that it hasevidently been somewhat modified subsequently.

 

Just how these diverse elements are to be reconciled is alsoa matter of dispute.  Williams optsfor the basic work having been composed about 200, with the title and epilogueadded later, probably late in the fifth century.[46]  Similarities between Timothy andAquila, Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and Simon and Theophilus he reluctantly assigns to a hypothetical collectionof OT Messianic testimonies, with Anthanasius and Zacchaeus having possibly used an earlier form of Timothyand Aquila.  He is strongly opposed to deriving these from Jasonand Papiscus.[47]

 

Conybeare, on the other hand, feels that Timothy andAquila is rather close to Jasonand Papiscus (much closer than Athanasiusand Zacchaeus or Simon andTheophilus), perhaps shortened, with anintroduction and a few scattered details added later.  Thus the disputants thoughout Timothy and Aquila are merely called "the Christian" and"the Jew," in which Conybeare finds an echo of Origen's descriptionof Jason and Papiscus.[48]

 

The general description of Jason and Papiscus given by Origen and the two men named Celsus isconsistent with Timothy and Aquila.  Thus (see above, under Jasonand Papiscus) in both the Jew is evidentlyAlexandrian; the Christian uses the Old Testament to argue that the Messianicprophecies apply to Jesus; and the Jew, though obstinate and arguingvigorously, is finally convinced and seeks baptism from the Christian.  However, one might question whether thelater Celsus' representation of Papiscus as a Hebrew Christian fits theChristian in Timothy and Aquila.  For the latter says:

 

"And they shall call his nameEmmanuel, which is interpreted, God is with us," but that you may knowthis, that half is Syriac and half Hebrew.  For the "emma" means "with us" in Syriac,but the "nuel" means "God" [!][49]

 

Still, if Justin's Trypho is a real Palestinian Jew and doesnot know Hebrew, it is possible that Timothy may be Papiscus and a Hebrew(i.e., Judaeo-) Christian without knowing it either.

 

Turning to the specific details which were said to have beenin Jason and Papiscus, there are severalproblems.  First, there is noreference to seven heavens in Timothy and Aquila, nor is the interpretation "in the Son Godcreated" offered.  Still, Timothyand Aquila does start the argument with adiscussion of Genesis and creation, and it is possible that Timothyand Aquila is a shortened version of Jasonand Papiscus in which these particulardetails were in the material removed. Conybeare feels that the "drift of argument" in Timothyand Aquila still reflects some such view ofGen 1:1, and Williams is inclined to agree.[50]

 

The reference to "the one who is hanged is cursed ofGod" does occur in Timothy and Aquila,although this is a natural Jewish objection to the Christian claim that theMessiah has been crucified and therefore cannot bear too much weight.  A reference by Eusebius to Aristo ofPella speaking of Hadrian's decree banishing the Jews from Jerusalem[51]does not occur in Timothy and Aquila,but it is not clear that Eusebius was referring to the work Jason andPapiscus anyway.  Timothy and Aquila does make reference to other features of Hadrian's activities, so alonger Jason and Papiscus mighthave had such a reference also.

 

In any case, as Timothy and Aquila either (1) may itself be from the second century, or(2) may use a number of second century materials, we shall include it in theChristian sources of Jewish polemic.

 

Pagan Sources

 

The only pagan source from the second century whichexplicitly presents a Jewish polemic against Christianity is the AlethesLogos (we shall translate it TrueAccount) by a Middle Platonist name Celsus,usually thought to have been written about AD 178.[52]  This Celsus is otherwise unknown unlesshe is the Celsus to whom Lucian dedicated a work.[53]  As Smith and Wace list a dozen mennamed Celsus in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, this suggestion must remain speculative.

 

Celsus' True Accountis not extant in the usual sense of the word.  However his attack on Christianity was apparently sufficientlyeffective that the scholar Origen was prevailed upon to prepare an answer.  As a result, large sections of Celsus'work are preserved in Origen's refutation, Against Celsus.[54]

 

From Origen we learn that the True Account consisted of two main parts preceded by anintroduction.  Celsus' introductionattacks Christianity as encouraging secret associations which were illegal inthe Roman Empire at that time.  Healso condemns Christianity as dependent upon and inferior to Judaism, whichCelsus also considers contemptible. These attacks are presented and answered by Origen in book 1, chapters 1to 27.  The first main part ofCelsus' True Account is thatwhich concerns us – Jewish attacks upon Christianity.  Celsus presents these in dialogue form,first having a Jew argue successfully against Jesus Himself (AgainstCelsus 1.28-71) and then having the Jewargue with Jewish Christians (book 2). In the second main part, Celsus presents his own objections toChristianity, which are given and answered by Origen in books 3-8.

 

As Origen has taken the trouble to read and answer Celsus' TrueAccount for the benefit of a friendtroubled by it, it seems unlikely that he would distort Celsus' arguments, asthis might cause his work to fail in its purpose.  What parts of the True Account he may have ignored is a question which must awaitthe discovery of the work itself.

 

Equally important, however, is the question of theauthenticity of Celsus' Jew.  As heargues both with Jesus and Jewish Christians, it is hardly likely that theconfrontation is historical.  Butis the Jew even voicing authentic Jewish objections to Christianity?  Origen himself had some doubts on thisscore, and Origen had had some contacts with Jews himself.  For instance, Origen notes (1) thatCelsus' Jew uses the Gospel accounts (2.11, 34), (2) that he seems too wellversed in Greek literature (2.34), (3) that he equates the Logos with the Sonof God (2.31), (4) that he denies the resurrection (2.57, but cp. 2.77), and(5) that he seems rather ignorant of OT Messianic prophecy (2.79).

 

But the objections would not be conclusive unless we mustsuppose that the Jew is a well-trained representative of rabbinic Judaism.  As we shall see later, there is alsoevidence from both Jewish and Christian sources that some Jews were acquaintedwith the Gospels.  Certainly Philowas well-trained in Greek literature, and Trypho claims to have studied under aGreek philosopher (DT, 1.2), so objections (1) and (2) cannot bedecisivie.  But objection (3) wouldrule out Philo as a Jew; (4) would rule out the Sadducees; and (5) wouldprobably rule out many Jews who lived in the second century (It would certainlyrule out many Jews and Christians in this century!).  Therefore, while it is most likely that Celsus has inventedthis particular individual, he probably represents one or more Jews with whoCelsus has had contact.

 

Williams feels that hints in the True Account make it "almost certain" that the workcomes from Rome,[55] so perhapsCelsus' Jew is one who would have been found in second century Rome.  As regards the level of education ofsuch a Jew, Williams' conclusion is probably valid:

 

That indeed Celsus ever came intocontact with Jews of great learning may well be doubted.  The objections to Christianity which hequotes are quite ordinary, such as any Jew might have adduced.  But he puts them so well, and gives somany, that his treatise may will have served as a storehouse from which therank and file of educated, though not learned, Jews, drew argument against Christians.[56]

 

Thus, in the sources which we shall consider, we havepolemic against Christianity from Palestinian Jews, but also from Jewsscattered abroad in Egypt, Asia Minor and Rome.  We have polemic by Jews thoroughly trained in the OldTestament and in the oral traditions built up around it, but also by Jews witha more liberal or classical education. Probably, as we are dealing with literary materials only, the polemicwill be rather more informed than that of the average second century Jew.

 

¤3.  Very Well-AttestedPolemical Material

 

Let us now examine the particular Jewish arguments broughtforth against Christianity as they occur in the sources we have beendiscussing.  In this section weshall consider arguments found in all three sources – Jewish, Christianand Pagan.  Later we shall examinearguments attested by two or even by only one of these.

 

As it is difficult to decide how closely arguments shouldresemble one another to be identified, I have actually sorted the material intorather broad categories.  Thereader may see for himself the variety within each category while somesemblance of organization is preserved for the purpose of the presentation.

 

God is One.

 

A central concern of Jewish polemic against Christianityinvolved the concept of deity.  TheChristian claims that (1) God is not one in the strictest sense, (2) theMessiah is somehow God, and (3) God has become man, were rigorously opposed bythe Jews.  This general concernoccurs in all three sources, but the opposition to the specific claims usuallyoccurs only in two.  We shall seethis as the discussion proceeds.

 

Attacks on the Christian claim that God is not a unity inthe narrow sense do not occur in the extant Celsus.  It is not likely that he was unaware of such attacks, but theparticular Jew he pictures may have had a broader view of the matter than wefind in rabbinical Judaism.  Thus,at one point Celsus' Jews agrees that the Logos is the Son of God.[57]  This Jew, then, may have held somethinglike a Philonic theology, in which there are some sort of lesser beings calledGod.  However, we should notoverlook the fact that Celsus' theology (a Middle Platonism) is morepolytheistic than either rabbinical Judaism or traditional Christianity, andthat Celsus is seeking to show that Christianity is dependent on Judaism.  Therefore, references to the fact thatChristianity is closer to his own view than Judaism is might tent to weaken hisargument for Christianity's inferiority to Judaism.

 

The rabbinic literature has a number of passages arguing theunity of God against Scripture-quoting antagonists.  I think it is save to assume that many such opponents wereChristians, although the possibility that some were Jewish Gnostic (if such everexisted) or pagan polytheists cannot be ruled out.  A passage from the Gemara attributed to R. Johanan (mid 3rd century)[58]is a little late, but we cite it in full because of its interest and because itis partly paralleled in a Christian source:

 

In all the passages which the Minim have taken (as grounds) for their heresy, theirrefutation is found near at hand, thus: "Let us make man in our image (Gen 1:26) – "And God created (singular) man in Hisown image" (Gen 1:27); "Come, let us go down and their confound their language (Gen 11:7)– "And the Lord came down (singular) to see the city and the tower(Gen 11:5); "Because there were revealed (plural) to him God" (Gen35:7) – "Unto God who answereth (singular) me in the day of mydistress (Gen 35:3); "For what great nation is there that hath God so nigh(plural) unto it, as the Lord our God is (unto us) whensoever we call upon Him(singular)" (Deut 4:7); "And what one nation in the earth is like thypeople, Israel, whom God went (plural) to redeem for a people unto himself(singular)" (2 Sam 7:23); "Till thrones were placed and one that was ancient did sit" (Dan 7:9).[59]

 

The same argument is summarized in the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila:

The holy Scriptures teach us to worshipone God only É. And throughout all the prophets and in the historical books andin general everywhere it teaches us to worship one God and not two.[60]

 

Gen 1:26 is also dealt with in Timothy and Aquila, but in a slightly different way.  Here the Jew asserts that God isspeaking to the angels when He says "Let us make man in our image."[61]  Later the Jew alludes to God Almightyand the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1 and claims that these terms refer to one andthe same being, as may be seen in Deut 6:4, "the Lord is one," andIsa 44:6, "there is no God besides me."[62]

 

Earlier rabbinic sources also refer to the creation of manas evidencing the oneness of God. The Mishnah says man was created"solitary" so that the Minim "might not say there are several Powers in heaven.[63]  The Tosefta emphasizes that man was created last so that the Minim might not say there was a companion with Him in thework.[64]  This latter remark is similar to one inTimothy and Aquila, where theJews, speaking of Gen 1:26, says, "He wasn't speaking to the son, for hewas not yet around then."[65]

 

Another passage used in this controversy is seen in the Gemara:

 

A certain Min said to R. Ishmael ben R. Jose, "It is written(Gen 19:24), 'And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and firefrom the Lord.'  It ought to havebeen 'from himself.'"  Acertain fuller said (to R. Ishmael), "Let him alone; I will answerhim.  For it is written (Gen 4:23),'And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zilah, hear my voice, ye wives ofLamech.'  It ought to have been 'mywives.'  But the text reads so, andhere also the text reads so."  He (R. Ishmael) said, "Where did you getthat?"  "From the sayingof R. Meir."[66]

 

Although R. Ishmael lived on into the third century, R. Meiris definitely from the second.[67]  The passage used by the Min is also used by Justin in his Dialoguewith Trypho.[68]

 

As for the Christian contention that the Messiah is somehowGod, the rabbinic polemic against Minimoffers no response.  I have not hadan opportunity to examine all the rabbinic Messianic discussions, but R. Akibais rebuked by R. Jose the Galilean (early 2nd century)[69]for assigning one of the thrones in Dan 7:9 to David (probably the Messiah) andone to God.  Rather, one is forjustice and one for grace.[70]  Similarly, noting Nebuchadnezzar'sremark that the fourth person in the furnace looked like a son of God (Dan3:25), Reuben (probably ben Aristobolus, mid 2nd century)[71]said:

 

In that hour, an angel descended andstruck that wicked one upon his mouth, and said to him, "Amend thywords:  Hath He a son?"  He (Nebuchadnezzar) turned at said (Dan3:28), "Blessed by the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who"– it is not written, "hath sent his son," but –"hath sent his angel and hath delivered his servants who trusted inhim."[72]

 

We find somewhat more information on the Jewish polemicagainst a divine Messiah in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.  Tryphospeaks of Justin's claim – that the Messiah is divine and eternallypre-existent, yet became a real man and suffered – as "strange"and "foolish."[73]  Instead he says:

 

É all of us Jews expect that Messiahwill be man of merely human origin, and that Elijah will come and anoint him.[74]

 

He argues that the Messiah cannot be divine because Isa 42:8tells us that God will not give His glory to another, and because Isa 11:1-3indicates that the Messiah needs the Holy Spirit.[75]

 

Much of the above would also be thought to count against theidea of God becoming man, a point on which Celsus is more vocal.  Speaking to Jesus, Celsus' Jew says:

 

Such a body as yours could not havebelonged to God.  The body of Godwould not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were É.  The body of a god is not nourished withsuch food É does not make use of such a voice É nor employ such a method ofpersuasion.[76]

 

This is certainly not an exegetical polemic, as (more orless) is found in the previously cited sources.  To many, it would sound more like paganism than rabbinicalJudaism.  However, not only Celsus,but Philo (and presumably, other Jews) had adopted features of MiddlePlatonism.  But Justin and Tryphoseem to feel that the angels who visited Abraham (Genesis 18) must have eatenhis food in some peculiar way,[77]apparently reflecting a view similar to Celsus' that angels cannot have humanbodies.

 

Certain Passages Messianic?

 

In the rabbinic material we have no Minim arguing Messianic prophecy with the Jews.  However, there are a number of passagesin which the rabbis argue about the Messiah, which are conveniently collectedby Edersheim.[78]  One such is that involving R. Akiba andR. Jose, mentioned above (page 12). Another, mentioned by Herford,[79]involves a rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 110:

 

R. Zechariah said, in the name of R.Ishmael (2nd century), "The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought tocause the priesthood to go forth from Shem (rabbinic thought identified himwith Melchizedek).  For it is said(Gen 14:18), 'And he was priest of God Most High.'  As soon as he put the blessing of Abraham before theblessing of God (Gen 14:19), He caused it to go forth from Abraham É. Abrahamsaid to him (Melchizedek), 'Do they put the blessing of the servant before theblessing of his owner?' Immediately it was given to Abraham, as it is said (he cites Ps 110:4),'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek')."[80]

 

This could easily be a put-down for the type of argument wehave in the book of Hebrews. Justin, too, mentions this passage, but he says the Jews "dare toexpound this Psalm as spoken of King Hezekiah.[81]  So apparently some Jews referred it toAbraham, some to Hezekiah.

 

In the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, the Jew denies that there is any prophecy about a"son."[82]  He understands the second Psalm torefer to Solomon, pointing out that before his birth, God said, "I will beto him a Father and he will be to me a son." (2 Sam 7:14).[83]

 

Celsus' Jew, on the other hand, has no objection to a coming"Son of God" prophesied among the Jews.[84]  In fact, this is one of the points thatmakes Origen suspect that Celsus' Jew is a fake.  For in Origen's experience (Alexandria and Caesarea), he hasoften been opposed by Jews who maintain that there is no OT prophecy about a"Son of God."[85]  Here again, I suspect that we aredealing with varieties of Judaism rather than incompetence or deliberatefalsification on Celsus' part. Again, Celsus' emphasis is not exegetical.  The main thrust of his argument is that Jesus does notsatisfy the Messianic prophecies, a subject we shall postpone until the nextsection.

 

Isa 7:14 is mentioned in Justin and Timothy and Aquila.[86]  In both places the Jew argues that theproper translation is "young woman" rather than"virgin."  Quoting theremark of Trypho in full:

 

The passage is not "Behold thevirgin shall conceive and bear a son," but "Behold the young womanshall conceive and bear a son," and so on, as you said.  Further, the whole prophecy stands spokenof Hezekiah, with respect to whom events are proved to have taken place inaccordance with this prophecy.

The Birth of Jesus

 

The subject of Jesus' birth is a matter of polemic in allthree sources also, though here we encounter the problem of recognizing referencesto Jesus in the rabbinic literature. Consider the following remark by R. Simeon ben Azzai (early 2ndcentury):[87]

 

I have found a roll of pedigrees inJerusalem, and therein is written, "A certain person is illegitimate, bornof an adultress," to confirm the words of R. Joshua"[88](late 1st, early 2nd century).[89]

 

Herford claims that this refers to Jesus,[90]and cites also a Gemara associated withR. Eliezer (a contemporary of R. Joshua):[91]

 

They asked R. Eliezer, "What of acertain person as regards the world to come?"  He said to them, "Ye have only asked me concerning acertain person."  "Whatof the shepherd saving the sheep from the lion?"  He said to them, "Ye have only asked me concerning thesheep."  "What of savingthe shepherd from the lion?" He said, "Ye have only asked me concerning the shepherd."  "What of an illegitimate person,as to inheriting?  What of hisperforming the levirate duty?  Whatof his founding his house?  What offounding his sepulcher?" (They asked these questions) not because they differed on them butbecause he never said anything which he had not heard from his teacher from ofold.[92]

 

Here also Herford argues that Jesus is in view, pointing outthat this R. Eliezer was accused by a Roman court of Minuth (therefore probably of Christianity) early in thesecond century.[93]  At this distance, we cannot be certainwhether these passages are intended to refer to Jesus.

 

Celsus' Jew does charge Jesus with being illegitimate.  He was

 

É born in a certain Jewish village, ofa poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and whowas turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she wasconvicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, andwandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, anillegitimate child É[94]

 

Further on, Origen gives the citation from Celsus' TrueAccount in more detail:

 

When she was pregnant she was turnedout of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having beenguilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier namedPanthera.[95]

 

As for this name Panthera, there are definite rabbinicmaterials from the second century which call Jesus "Jeshu benPantiri" (or Pandira),[96]which suggests that Celsus' material here reflects an authentic Jewishoutlook.  Likewise there is afourth century rabbinic remark about Balaam which might also reflect Celsus'story.  Commenting on Joshua 13:22(the death of Balaam):

 

R. Johanan said, "At first he wasa prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer."  R. Papa observed, "This is what men say, 'She who was adescendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'"[97]

 

Another line of polemic was to compare Jesus' birth withpagan stories.  Both Trypho andCelsus use this tactic.  Tryphosays:

 

Among the tales of those whom we callGreeks it is said that Perseus has been born of Danae, still a virgin, by himthat they entitle Zeus flowing down upon her in the form of gold.  And in fact you (Christians) ought tobe ashamed of saying the same sort of things as they, and should rather saythat this Jesus was man of human origin É.  And do not dare to assert marvels, that you be not convictedof taking folly like the Greeks.[98]

 

Celsus' Jew, speaking to Jesus, says:

 

The old mythological fables, whichattributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos, werenot believed by us (Jews). Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, theyrepresented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and trulybeyond the power of man.  But whathave you done that is noble and wonderful either in deed or in word?  You have made no manifestation to us,although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakable signthat you were the Son of God.[99]

 

A third type of polemic against the virgin birth of Jesus isfound in only one source, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.  Therethe Jews claims that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew says Joseph begot Jesus.[100]  No Greek manuscripts preserve such areading, but the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript is similar, reading, "Josephto whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called theChrist,"[101]

 

 

Jesus a Magician

 

The claim that Jesus' miraculous activity was merely magicalis a widely reported Jewish polemic. Justin accuses the Jews of such a charge:

 

Yet when they saw these things come topass they said it was a display of magic art, for they even dared to say thatHe was a magician and deceiver of the people.[102]

 

Celsus brings up the subject several times.  The first time, the Jew only concedesfor the sake of argument that Jesus did miracles:

 

Well, let us believe that these(miracles) were actually wrought by you É (the Jew then compares Jesus'miracles to the tricks of magicians) É. Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessityconclude that they are "sons of God," or must we admit that they arethe proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?[103]

 

Later he argues against the Christians' claim that themiracles indicate Jesus' deity:

 

Jesus in your Gospels warns about thosewho will follow doing similar miracles but being wicked.  How then are his works evidence of hisdivinity?[104]

 

Elsewhere, however, Celsus' Jew seems to concede somespectacular works on Jesus' aprt, as he speaks of his teaching as that of"a wicked and God-hated sorcerer."[105]

 

The rabbinic materials also seem to picture Jesus as amagician, although only one early source is clear-cut.  A Baraita says:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshua washanged.  For forty days before theexecution, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going to be stonedbecause he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.  Anyone who can say anything in hisfavour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf."  But since nothing was brought forwardin his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover.[106]

 

Several other passages speak of a Ben Stada, who was amagician, who brought magic from Egypt, was tried, convicted, stoned and hungat Lydda on the eve of Passover.[107]  Herford follows later rabbinictradition in identifying Jesus with Ben Stada,[108]but the mention of Lydda suggests a possible confusion between Jesus andsomeone else.  Bruce suggests thatBen Stada may have been the Egyptian charlatan mentioned in the book of Acts(21:38) and by Josephus.[109]

 

The Mosiac Covenant

 

Polemics which can be classified under this heading arefound in all three sources, though the nature of the polemic is somewhatdiverse.  The rabbinic sources tendto emphasize the continuation of Israel as the covenant people in spite of thedisasters under the Romans:

 

R. Joshua b. Hanina (early 2ndcentury)[110] was onceat the court of Caesar (probably Hadrian).  A certain unbeliever (Epikuros, or in some mss, Min)showed him (by pantomime): "A people whose Lord has turned His face fromthem."  He (Joshua) showed him(in reply): "His hand is stretched out over us."[111]

 

When Caesar privately asks R. Joshua for an explanation ofboth signals, he responds correctly. The heretic, however, does not understand Joshua's reply, and he istaken out and killed.  A similarargument is reported between R. Gamaliel (late 1st, early 2ndcentury)[112] and a Min who claims that God has performed Halizah (cp. Ruth 4:7-8) against Israel, thus rejecting her.  Gamaliel responds that any Halizah in which the man removes the shoe from the woman isinvalid.[113]

 

Another rabbinic passage seems to answer a taunt thatChristians are now the new chosen people:

 

A certain Min said to Beruria (wife of R. Meir), "It is written(Isa 54:1), 'Sing O barren that didst not bear.'  Sing, because thou didst not bear."  She said to him, "Fool, look atthe end of the verse, for it is written, 'For more are the children of thedesolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.'  But what is meant by "O barrenthat didst not bear, sing'?  Thecongregation of Israel, which is like a woman who hath not borne children forGehenna, like you."[114]

 

Celsus, on the other hand, has his Jew attack the Christiansfor ceasing to observe the Mosaic Law. Origen summarizes the argument:

 

They have forsaken the law of theirfathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus É they havebecome deserters to another name and to another mode of life.[115]

 

Celsus' Jew later charges them with being "apostatesfrom the law of your fathers,"[116]although elsewhere he admits that a range of observance exists amongChristians:  some not keeping thelaw "under a pretense of explanations and allegories," some keepingthe laws but "interpreting them in a spiritual manner," and othersobserving the law of Moses "without any such interpretation."[117]

 

In addition, Celsus' Jew charges his Jewish Christians withinconsistency:

 

How is it that you take the beginningof your system from our worship, and when you have made some progress you treatit with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to show for yourdoctrines than our law?[118]

 

Our Christian sources mention both of these aspects foundseparately in the Jewish and pagan sources.  In Timothy and Aquilathe Jew says:

 

All the nations which are under heavenknow that the Lord God of our fathers established a covenant at Horeb by meansof blood:  And the Lord God said,"Whoever breaks this My covenant, he shall surely die, because he has brokenMy covenant." É Yet you say now that the Lord has broken His covenant?[119]

 

Most of the emphasis, however, is on the fact that theChristians are not keeping the law. Trypho says:

 

You, saying you worship God, andthinking yourselves superior to other people, separate from them in no respect,and do not make your life different from the heathen, in that you keep neitherthe feasts nor the Sabbaths, nor have circumcision, and moreover, though youset your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet hope to obtain some goodfrom God, though you do not do His commandments.[120]

 

The Jew in Timothy and Aquila likewise charges Christians with disobedience because they mix withGentiles.[121]  Other specific violations which Trypholists are violating the sabbath[122]and eating food offered to idols.[123]

 

Scripture

 

Another widespread charge of the Jews against Christians wasthat they distorted Scripture. There are three such charges: (1) that Christians misinterpret Scripture; (2) that they add falsebooks to what we would call the Old Testament; and (3) that they write they ownfalse books of Scripture.

 

In an implicit way, the first charge has already been amplyshown in the arguments over interpretation noted above.  Trypho makes this explicit as heresponds to Justin:

 

God's statements indeed are holy, butyour explanations are artificial, as is clear from those you have given, or,rather, are even blasphemous.[124]

 

Possibly, rabbinic references to Gilyon, which will be discussed below, indicate a Christianpractice of marginal notes which give their own interpretations of certain OTpassages.  If so, these may accountfor certain Old Testament readings not found in our extant manuscripts whichJustin charges have been deleted by the Jews.[125]

 

The charge that Christians add false books to what we callthe Old Testament only occurs in Timothy and Aquila in any explicit way:

 

As you have wished, you Christians havedistorted the Scriptures, for you have named many titles from different books,which are not contained in the Hebrew but in the Greek only, and therefore, Iwant to know why this is?  Have notyou Christians always truly, as you wished, distorted the Scriptures?[126]

 

The rabbinic materials make no such explicit claim, butthere are occasional references to books of the Minim.  In onesuch passage, R. Tarfon (early 2nd century)[127]says of them:

 

May I bury my son if I would not burnthem (the books) together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.  For even if one pursued me to slay me,or a snake pursued me to bit me, I would enter a heathen temple, but not thehouses of these (Minim), for the latterknow (of God) yet deny (Him), whereas the former are ignorant and deny (Him).[128]

 

That Christians write their own false Scriptures (NT) isclearly charged by Celsus' Jew, who speaks of "your Gospels."[129]  He claims that the Christians'"own books" are sufficient to refute Christianity, "you fallupon your own swords."[130]  He further charges that they havemultiplied such books in an attempt to answer objections to Christianity:

 

Certain of the Christian believers,like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves,have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity to a threefold, andfourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might beable to answer objections.[131]

 

A similar attitude is seen in the rabbinic literature.  R. Meir makes a pun on the Gospel(Greek, euangelion) by calling it AwenGilyon,[132]Hebrew for "book of falsehood."[133]  On the same page, we read:

 

The Gilyon and the books of the Minim may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burntin their place.[134]

 

It is not clear whether the compilers of the Talmud understood the term Gilyon.  Theword means "roll" or "scroll," but it is also used for themargins or unwritten portions of the scroll.  Some have suggested Gilyon is shorthand for "Gospel."[135]  In this passage, Gilyon might mean" (1) the margins of "good"books, which are used for heretical notations; (2) the margins of hereticalbooks, which happed to contain Scripture quotations; or (3) a special class ofheretical books, the Gospels.

 

¤4.  LessWell-Attested Polemical Material

 

Continuing our discussion of the Jewish polemical materials,we turn now to categories which are not attested in all three sources.  In some of these, only the paganattestation will be lacking, and it is probably safe to consider such materialvirtually as well-attested as that in the previous section, since bothantagonists are agreed.  Materiallacking Christian attestation is probably also real second-century polemic asCelsus' True Account has come to us onlythrough Christian hands and should be considered independent of the rabbinicalmaterial.

 

Material not having rabbinical attestation is moreproblematical, as one could claim that the other sources have seen Christiantampering.  However, we shouldremember that the rabbinic literature is not intended to preserve a record ofJewish-Christian debate, not to be read by non-Jews, nor (apparently) to serveas apologetic literature for Jews themselves.  On the other hand, the pagan and Christian sources arewritten in the form of Jewish-Christian debates and therefore may containmaterials accidentally missing from rabbinical literature.  Furthermore, the rabbinic literaturedoes not span the whole spectrum of Jewish theological diversity in the secondcentury, and therefore materials attested only by pagan and Christian sourcesmay give valuable anti-Christian argumentation by non-rabbinic Jews.

 

Jesus Not the Messiah

 

An important Jewish charge against Christianity which is notexplicitly mentioned in the rabbinic literature (though almost certainly a partof their response to Christianity) is that Jesus is not the Messiah predictedby the Old Testament prophets. This general charge may be subdivided into three particularattacks:  Jesus is not the Messiahbecause (1) Christian interpretations of OT passages are invalid; (2) Elijahhas not yet come; and (3) Messiah is a king but Jesus did not rule.

 

The first charge is found both in the Dialogue withTrypho and in Celsus' TrueAccount.  Commenting on Isa 40:1-17, which Justin alleges to have beenfulfilled by John the Baptist, Trypho responds:

 

All the words of the prophecy which,Sir, you adduce, are ambiguous, and contain nothing decisive in proof of yourargument.[136]

 

Celsus' Jew similarly charges that the "propheciesreferred to the events of his (Jesus') life may also suit other events aswell."[137]  Then he goes further and rebukes Jesus,claiming that other persons fit these predictions:

 

Why should it be you alone, rather thaninnumerable others, who existed after the prophecies were published, to whomthese predictions are applicable?[138]

 

Later he says "countless individuals will convict Jesusof falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken of him wereintended of them.[139]

 

The second charge, that Jesus is not the Messiah becauseElijah has not yet come, is found only in the Dialogue with Trypho, where Trypho says:

 

But Messiah, if indeed He has everbeen, and now exists anywhere, is unknown, and does not even know Himself (tobe Messiah) at all nor has any power until Elijah shall have come and anointedHim and shall have made Him manifest to all.  But you people, by receiving a worthless rumor, shape a kindof Messiah for yourselves, and for His sake are now blindly perishing.[140]

 

Further on, Trypho puts the charge more explicitly:

 

All of us Jews expect that Christ willbe man of merely human origin, and that Elijah will come and anoint Him.  But if this man (Jesus) seems to be theChrist, one must certainly acknowledge that He is man of merely humanorigin.  But as Elijah has not comeI declare that He is not even Christ.[141]

 

Although this charge is not given in the rabbinicliterature, several of these details concerning Messiah and Elijah arementioned there.[142]  Likewise the New Testament witnesses tothis very objections, "Why do the scribes say Elijah must firstcome?" (Mark 9:11; Matt 17:10).

 

The third charge is attested by both Justin and Celsus.  Trypho says:

 

These and suchlike passages ofscripture compel us to await One who is great and glorious and takes over theeverlasting kingdom from the Ancient of days as Son of man.  But this your so-called Christ iswithout honor and glory, so that He has even fallen into the uttermost cursethat is in the law of God, for He was crucified.[143]

 

Celsus' Jew speaks vigorously to the same point:

 

The prophets declare the coming one tobe a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies.  Nor did the prophets predict such apestilence (as Jesus).[144]

 

Elsewhere he says that if Herod had tried to kill the babyJesus to keep him from succeeding to the throne, why didn't Jesus reign when hegrew up?[145]  In a slightly different vein, the Jewpoints out that the "son of God" was to come "as the Judge ofthe righteous and punisher of the wicked,"[146]implying that Jesus has done nothing of the sort.

 

Jesus Not God

 

Again we consider a general line of polemic not explicit inthe rabbinic literature.  In viewof the rabbinic polemic regarding the oneness of God, it is clear that theywould agree that Jesus is not God. However, the arguments below are not cast in the rabbinic mold andprobably reflect other Jewish outlooks. These arguments are mostly from Celsus, though a brief sketch in Timothyand Aquila touches some of the ponts.  Basically, it is argued that Jesus isnot God because (1) God cannot and will not suffer; (2) God would not react toHis enemies as Jesus did; and (3) Jesus' divine foreknowledge is fictional.

 

The Jew in Timothy and Aquila puts the first charge as follows:  since Jesus was hungry and thirsted, since he was tempted bySatan, later betrayed, whipped, crucified and buried, he can hardly beGod.  "Would God indeed endurethese things from men?"[147]

 

The charges made by Celsus' Jew, which we listed above (page13), that God could not become man, are applicable here.  He agrees with the Jew in Timothyand Aquila that God would not suffer:

 

What god, or spirit, or prudent manwould not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him avoid them if hecould?  Whereas he (Jesus) threwhimself headlong into those things which he knew beforehand were to happen.[148]

 

Moreover, Celsus' Jew goes further and suggests that God cannot suffer:

 

If he had determined upon these things,and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that,being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeablyto his own decisions were neither painful nor distressing.[149]

 

Celsus (or his Jewish stand-in) seems to be unaware of Docetismas he remarks:

 

For you do not even allege this, thathe seemed to wicked men to suffer thispunishment, though not undergoing it in reality.  But on the contrary, you acknowledge that he openlysuffered.[150]

 

The second charge, that God would not react to His enemiesas Jesus did, the Jew in Celsus' True Account makes as follows:  IfJesus was a God, why did he flee his enemies, both as a baby in Egypt and laterduring his ministry?  Why did heallow his followers to desert and betray him?  Why did he allow himself to be taken prisoner?[151]  The Jew in Timothy and Aquila also alludes to Jesus fleeing when Herod killed Johnthe Baptist and to his allowing himself to be betrayed.[152]

 

Regarding the third charge, Celsus' Jew is suspicious thatJesus' foreknowledge is an invention of his disciples.[153]  Since Jesus is alleged to have known inadvance both of his betrayer and his denier, and since he revealed to each ofthem what they would do, why didn't they "fear him as a God and cease, theone from his intended treason and the other from his perjury?"[154]  Celsus' Jew also argues that Jesus'foreknowledge involves him in the guilt of the men who did such wicked actsagainst himself.[155]

 

Jesus Hung as Accursed of God

 

This charge is seen quite clearly in the Christian sources.  It may be alluded to in the rabbinicand pagan sources, but the case is not clear.  One of the few things that we know about the Dialogue ofJason and Papiscus is that Deut 21:23,"He who is hanged is accursed of God," was discussed therein,[156]although we do not know whether this was a Jewish charge.  However, Timothy and Aquila definitely has the remark in the mouth of the Jew:

 

You speak well, not wanting thetruth!  For Moses himselfsaid:  "Cursed is everyone whohangs on a tree."  See, then,who you are deifying![157]

 

So, too, the Dialogue with Trypho has the Jew allude to this verse several times.[158]  One of these is cited above (page23).  We give another here:

 

We doubt whether the Christ wascrucified with such dishonor, for he that is crucified is said in the Law to beaccursed, so that with regard to this it is hardly possible that I can bepersuaded.  It is clear that theScriptures proclaim that the Christ is liable to suffering, but whether it isto be by a form of suffering that is accursed by the Law É[159]

 

Celsus' Jew, as noted previously, seems to be of a Philonicsort, who has no objection to the Logos as Son of God.  However, he objects strenuously toidentifying this one with a "most degraded man, who was punished byscourging and crucifixion."[160]  Since the term "accursed" isnot used, all that can be said here is that this passage may reflect the Jewishview of crucifixion as a supreme curse.

 

The rabbis are certainly aware of the passage (Deut 21:23),but there is no real evidence that they apply it to Jesus.  We have noted above (page 17) thereference that says Jesus was hung on the eve of Passover.  There is another passage which citesDeut 21:23 and definitely connects it with crucifixion:

 

R. Meir (2nd century) usedto say, "What is the meaning of (Deut 21:23), 'For a curse of God is hethat is hung'?  (It is like thecase of) two brothers, twins, who resembled each other.  One ruled over the whole world, theother took to robbery.  After atime the one who took to robbery was caught and they crucified him on across.  And everyone who passed toand from said, 'It seems that the king is crucified.'  Therefore it is said, 'A curse of God is he that is hung.'"[161]

 

Jewish Rejection of Jesus

 

Another polemic against Christianity was that the Jews, whowere looking for the Messiah, had rejected the claims of Jesus.  This is not used in the rabbinicliterature, where no mention is made of Jesus' Messianic claims, but it appearsin both Christian and pagan sources. In Timothy and Aquila, the Jewremarks:

 

If our fathers had known and understoodconcerning this Jesus that he is God, would they have laid hands upon him?  They all knew him to be God, didn'tthey? É Look, from the divine Scriptures our fathers did not know him as God.[162]

 

Celsus' Jew also speaks strongly to this point:

 

How should we, who have made known toall men that there is to come from God one who is to punish the wicked, treathim with disregard when he came? É Why did we treat him, whom we announcedbeforehand, with dishonour?  Was itthat we might be chastised more than others?[163]

 

Further on, he resumes the objection:

 

What God that appeared among men isreceived with incredulity, and that, too, when appearing to those who expecthim?  Or why, pray, is he notrecognized by those who have been looking for him?[164]

 

He closes with a snide remark, "Did Jesus come into theworld for this purpose, that we should not believe him?"[165]

 

Disciples Disreputable

 

This charge is found in both rabbinical and pagan sources,but not in Christian.  A Baraitha in the Talmud gives a long word-play on the subject:

 

Jesus had five disciples –Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah. They brought Matthai (before the judges).  He said, "Must Matthai be killed?  For it is written (Ps 42:2),"Mathai shall (when shall I) come and appear before God.'"  They said to him, "Yes, Matthaimust be killed, for it is written (Ps 41:5), 'Mathai shall die and his nameperish.'"  They broughtNeqai.  He said to them, "MustNeqai be killed?  For it is written(Ex 23:7), 'The Naqi (innocent) and righteous thou shalt not slay.'"  They said to him, "Yes, Neqai mustbe killed, for it is written (Ps 10:8), 'In secret places doth he slayNaqi.'"  They broughtNetzer.  He said, "Must Netzerbe killed?  For it is written (Isa11:1), 'Netzer (a branch) shall spring from his roots.'"  They said to him, "Yes, Netzermust be killed, for it is written (Isa 14:19), 'Thou are cast forth out of thygrave like an abominable Netzer.'" They brought Buni.  He saidto them, "Must Buni be killed? For it is written (Ex 4:22), "B'ni (my son) thy first born,Israel.'"  They said to him,"Yes, Buni must be killed. For it is written (Ex 4:23), 'Behold I slay Bincha thy son) thy firstborn.'"  They broughtThodah.  He said to them,"Must Thodah be killed?  Forit is written (Ps 100:1), 'A Psalm for Thodah (thanksgiving).'"  They said to him, "Yes, Thodahmust be killed, for it is written (Ps 50:23), "Who sacrificeth Thodahhonoureth me.'"[166]

 

This passage does not actually state why the disciples aredisreputable, but it does picture them as convicted and put to death.  Except for Matthai, none of the namesare those of Jesus' disciples, though Thodah has been compared to Thaddeus,Neqai to Nicodemus, Buni to Boanerges, and Netzer to Nazarene.[167]  Some of the passages cited in favor ofthe disciples seem to be Messianic proof-texts, however.  Probably the names are those termsassociated with Jesus which most easily lend themselves to the word-game.

 

Celsus' Jew is more specific.  First he rebukes the disciples for their actions when Jesuswas crucified:

 

Those who were his associates whilealive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as theirteacher, on seeing him subjected to punishments and death, neither died withhim nor for him É but denied even that they were his disciples É[168]

 

Elsewhere he speaks of Jesus as "having gathered aroundhim ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the vary wickedest of taxgatherers and sailors."[169]

 

Christianity Worse than Paganism

 

In the rabbinic and Christian sources the Jews indicate thatChristianity is worse, or more dangerous, than paganism.  Earlier (page 20), we cited R. Tarfon'sremark that he would enter a pagan temple to escape death, but not the house ofa Min.[170]  In the Tosefta we are told:

 

Flesh which is found in the hand of aGentile is allowed for use, in the hand of a Min, it is forbidden for use É. Slaughtering by a Min isidolatry, their wine is wine offered (to idols), their fruits are not tithed,their books are books of witchcraft, and their sons are bastards.  One does not sell to them, or receivefrom them, or take from them, or give to them; one does not teach their sonstrades, and one does not obtain healing from them, either healing of propertyor healing of life.[171]

 

An illustration of this last extreme is found in the Talmud where R. Ishmael's nephew Ben Dama has been bittenby a snake and seeks to justify bringing in a Christian[172]healer, Jacob of Kefar Sekaniah. Ben Dama dies before he completes his argument, and his uncle rejoicesthat he died before he was able to sin, for the "teaching of Minim É draws, and one may be drawn after them."[173]

 

The Dialogue with Tryphoalso illustrates this charge. Trypho laments the fact that Justin has turned from Greek philosophy toChristianity:

 

I admire your zeal for the Divine, butit were better for you to continue to hold the philosophy of Plato or someother learned man, practicing the while endurance and self-control andtemperance, than to have been completely led away by false speech, and tofollow men of no account.  Forwhile you remained in that mode of philosophy and lived a blameless life, ahope was left you of a better fate, but when you have forsaken God, and placedyour hope on a man, what kind of salvation yet remains for you?[174]

 

Elsewhere he mentions the fact that "our teachers"have made a law that Jews should not argue or converse with Christians.[175]

 

It is not hard to see why this particular charge is notfound in Celsus.  For no matterwhat the Jews whom Celsus knew thought about the relative merits of paganismand Christianity, Celsus himself was a pagan, and a major thrust of his TrueAccount is to show Christianity worse thanJudaism!

 

Gospel Ethics Not Practised

 

Trypho speaks highly of the ethical principles found in Christianscripture, but he does not think they are capable of being observed:

 

I know too that the commands given youin what is called the Gospel are so admirable and great, that I suspect that noone can keep them.  For I took sometrouble to read them.[176]

 

Except for the commendation, the Talmud presents a similar charge, though more indirectly,through stories.  In the first:

 

A certain Min said to R. Haninah (probably early 3rdcentury),[177] "weare better than you.  Of you it iswritten, 'For Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cutoff every male in Edom' (1 Kings 11:16); whereas you have been with us manyyears, yet we have not done anything to you!"  Said he to him, "If you agree, a disciple will debateit with you."  Thereupon R. Oshaiadebated it with him and said to him, "The reason is because you do notknow how to act.  If you woulddestroy all, they are not among you (some Jews are outside the Roman Empire).  Should you destroy those who among you,then you will be called a murderous kingdom!"  Said he to him, "By the Capitol of Rome!  With this care we lie down and withthis we get up."[178]

 

Herford argues that this Min knows too much Old Testament for a pagan and is too anti-Semitic for aJewish-Christian; therefore he must be a Gentile Christian.[179]  I find this difficult to believe inview of the oath at the end of the quotation.

 

The other story obviously involves a Christian, and thecharacters lived early in the second century:

 

Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R.Gamaliel's sister.  Now a certainphilosopher lived in his vicinity, and he bore a reputation that he did notaccept bribes.  They wished toexpose him, so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, and said to him,"I desire a share be given me in my (deceased) father's estate."  "Divide," ordered he.  Said he (R. Gamaliel) to him, "Itis decreed for us, 'Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.'"  He replied, "Since the day thatyou were exiled form your land the Law of Moses has been superseded and anotherbook given, wherein it is written, "A son and a daughter inheritequally.'"  The next day, he(Gamaliel) brought to him a Lybian ass. Said he (presumably the philosopher-judge) to them, "Look at theend of the book, wherein it is written, 'I came not to destroy the Law of Mosesnor to add to the Law of Moses,' and it is written therein (Law of Moses) 'Adaughter does not inherit where there is a son.'"  Said she to him, "Let thy lightshine forth like a lamp!" Said R. Gamaliel to him, "An ass came and knocked the lambover!"[180]

 

 

¤5. Slightly-Attested Polemical Material

 

In this chapter we conclude our catalog of charges broughtagainst Christianity by second-century Jews.  Here we list polemics attested only by a single source (asbefore, counting the Christian sources as a single source for thispurpose).  As it happens, theexamples we find are from Christian or pagan rather than Jewish sources.

 

Jesus Cannot Be a True Prophet

 

One interesting charge, which occurs only in the Dialogueof Timothy and Aquila, is that Jesus cannotbe a true prophet because prophecy has ceased.  Citing Zechariah 13:3-4, the Jews claims that

 

The Lord God commanded throughZechariah concerning a prophet, that one should no longer prophesyÉ.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit having saidthrough the prophet that in those days there will be no prophet, how shall wesay concerning this Jesus, that he was a prophet?[181]

 

Jews Do Not Need Christ

 

In the Dialogue with Trypho, the following remark is made by Trypho.  It is probably intended to be ironic rather than serious:

 

Let Him be recognized of you who are ofthe Gentiles, as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures signify, seeingalso that you have acquired the name of Christians from Him.  But as for us, who are worshipers of theGod who made even Him – we do not need to confess Him or worship Him.[182]

 

Jesus' Spectacular Baptism Poorly Attested

 

Only Celsus mentions this charge.  When his Jew questions Jesus, he says:

 

When you were bathing beside John, yousay that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted uponyouÉ.  What credible witness beheldthis appearance?  Or who heard avoice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God?  What proof is there, save your own assertion, and thestatement of another of those individuals who have been punished along withyou?[183]

 

Origen, responding to Celsus' True Account, is especially suspicious of this last sentence:

 

The Jews do not connect John withJesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.  And by this instance, this man whoboasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he oughtto ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.[184]

 

Indeed, this charge looks more like someone arguing with theGospel account than one dealing with the historical events on the basis ofindependent testimony.  But thismay well be the case for Jews far removed from Palestine.

 

Jesus Himself Gained Few Adherents

 

Here again we have a charge from Celsus alone, though heseems to feel it is based on facts admitted by Christians:

 

Is it not the height of absurdity tomaintain that, if, while he himself was alive, he won over not a single personto his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain over such amultitude of individuals?[185]

 

Elsewhere Celsus' Jew is represented as saying that Jesusdid not even gain over his own disciples during his lifetime.[186]  Presumably, Celsus' attack againdepends on the Gospel account of the disciples' betrayal, flight and denialmentioned earlier (page 27).


Why Were the Post-Resurrection Appearances to So Few?

 

Another polemic found in Celsus alone deals with Jesus'post-resurrection appearances:

 

If Jesus desired to show that his powerwas really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him,and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universallyÉ.  For he had no longer occasion to fearany man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into theworld at all for the purpose of being hid.[187]

 

Earlier Celsus' Jew complains also about the quality of thepersons to whom Jesus made appearances:

 

Who beheld this?  A half-frantic woman, as you state, andsome other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system ofdelusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, orunder the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself anappearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberlessindividuals, or, which is more probable, one who desired to impress others withthis portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors likehimself.[188]

 

Old Testament Gentile Prophecies Refer to Proselytes

 

Only Christian sources mention this charge, though doubtlessit was a common Jewish interpretation. For Justin, citing Isa 42:6-7 as predicting the Gentiles who wouldbelieve in Christ, anticipates and receives a strong reaction from the Jews whohad come to listen to the second day of his dispute with Trypho.[189]  The Jew in Timothy and Aquila says about the same thing when the Christian citesPs 85:9-10 and Isa 2:2-3:

 

Haven't I also spoke thus, that theEgyptians, Ethiopians and the Sabaeans have followed its laws?  And look, even now you have said thesame thing:  "A law will goforth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.[190]

 

Other Christian Teachings Attacked

 

Celsus also has his Jew disparage certain other Christiandoctrines which we know were widely held by the Jews also, namely theresurrection of the dead, divine judgment beyond this life, rewards for thejust, and fire for the wicked.[191]  It is not necessary, however, to assumethat Celsus has misrepresented Judaism here.  It is possible that one of his informants agreed with theSadducees on these matters.


¤6. Conclusions

 

In this paper we have attempted to collect the Jewishpolemic materials against Christianity which were current in the secondcentury.  It would be quitepresumptuous to claim that we have located all such material, though it is tobe hoped that most of the extant material in second-century sources has beenlocated.  The following is a briefsummary of the materials recovered.

 

Among the best-attested material we have the claim that Godis strictly one, therefore he has no Son. Some Jews, however, seem to have been more open on this matter.  Less well-attested, but related, is theclaim that God cannot become man, and therefore the Messiah is not God.  Also well-attested are Jewish attackson the Messianic interpretation of various OT passages, in particular Psalm 2and 100, and Isaiah 7:14.  The birthof Jesus is seen as illegitimate or, at best, natural, and the story of thevirgin birth an invention similar to the pagan myths.  Jesus' miracles are dismissed as magic, either supernaturalbut demonic, or natural sleight-of-hand. The Christians are also attacked for claiming that the Mosaic covenanthas been abrogated and for living as though it is no longer binding.  They are further charged withdistorting Scripture, whether by misinterpretation, by acceptance of Jewishbooks that aid their case, or by writing books of their own.

 

Rather less well-attested are the following polemics.  Jesus cannot be the Messiah because hedoes not fit the OT prophecies, particularly because Elijah has not yet come,and because Jesus did not reign as the Messiah must.  Among those who are more open on the oneness of God, Jesuscannot be God because his suffering and behavior in general is inconsistentwith deity.  Also moderatelywell-attested is the charge that Jesus died under the curse of God since he washung.  Furthermore, Jesus wasrejected by those who were expecting the Messiah.  His own disciples were unsavory characters.  Christians cannot and do not keep theethical principles they teach.  Infact, Christianity is even worse than paganism, rejecting God in the face ofgreater knowledge.

 

The least well-attested polemics from this period are asfollows.  Jesus cannot be a trueprophet, for true prophecy has ceased. The Jews do not need Christ anyway; they worship the God who madehim.  The story of the descent ofthe Holy Spirit at Jesus' baptism is an invention, being attested only by Jesusand John the Baptist.  Jesushimself gained virtually no real adherents during his lifetime, and he was seenafter his resurrection only by a few biased or unstable persons.  The growth of Christianity among theGentiles is not a fulfillment of OT prophecy, for the prophecies adduced referto proselytes to Judaism. Christianity in any case depends upon those less-refined forms ofJudaism which believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead to a divinejudgment.

 

It appears, therefore, in spite of the fact that we have noreal accounts of Jewish-Christian debate written by Jews, that we may get afair idea of the sort of argumentation employed.  Naturally, one does not argue with an opponent concerningpoints on which both are agreed, so we see some different arguments used by therabbis than by a rather Philonic Roman Jew (if this is not Celsus' ownoutlook), and a Hellenistic Palestinian or Alexandrian, depending on whether ornot they share certain viewpoints with their Christian antagonists.  We also see a different style ofargumentation in the various sources, corresponding partly to the differentbackgrounds of the disputants. Justin and Trypho engage in a philosophical discussion, Timothy andAquila (Jason and Papiscus?) in a formal public debate.  Celsus' presentation shows the Romanpenchant for rhetoric, and one can almost picture his Jew addressing theSenate.  Most of the rabbinicarguments are cast as clever encounters with heretics, only the episode of R.Eliezer and Jacob of Kefar Sekaniah[192]resembling the sort of discussion carried on between rabbis.

 

There does not seem to be sufficient evidence for chargingeither Celsus or the Christians with distortion of the Jewish position.  The argument brought forth by them areas strong as anything in the rabbinic materials, excepting only that in theChristian sources the Jewish arguments are merely sketched.

 

Several lines for further study may be suggested at this point.  It is probable that more materialrelating to the Jewish-Christian confrontation can be quarried from therabbinic material, especially in the form of OT exegesis adopted in reaction toChristianity.  The Jewish Targumim and liturgical materials may also containanti-Christian polemical material.

 

From the Christian side, Tertullian wrote a work against theJews at the beginning of the third century, which therefore can be expected tocontain much material from the second century.  The Gnostic material and NT apocrypha which can be shown todate from this century ought also to be examined for evidences of Jewishpolemic.

 

More work could be done with the Jews pictured in Celsus' TrueAccount, Justin's Dialogue withTrypho, and Timothy and Aquila, seeking to fit them into the spectrum ofsecond-century Judaism.  It wouldalso be interesting (and worthwhile) to translate the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila into English, as itseems to contain some valuable material on text and canon of both the OT and NTin the second century, as well as a long section on Aquila the Bibletranslator, and some chronological material.

 

As in any area of scholarship, the more deeply one examinesa problem, the more branches it seems to put forth.  Truly, "of making many books there is no end."


[1] H. L.Strack, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia:  Jewish Publication Society, 1931;reprinted New York:  Atheneum,1969), 118; hereafter SITM.

[2] SITM, 75.

[3] SITM, 65-74.

[4] SITM, 65,68-69.

[5] SITM, 71.

[6] R. TraversHerford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash(London: 1903; reprint Clifton, NJ: Reference Book Publishers, 1966), 21; hereafter HCTM.

[7] SITM,206-09.

[8] HCTM, 24.

[9] See relevantarticles in the Encyclopaedia Judaica.

[10] IsaacBroyde, "Min," The Jewish Encyclopedia, 8:594.

[11] DanielSperber, "Min," Encyclopaedia Judaica, 12:1-3.

[12] Broyde, op.cit., 595.

[13] Sperber, op.cit., 3.

[14] Origin, AgainstCelsus 4.52; hereafter OAC.

[15] JohannesQuasten, Patrology (3 vols.;Westminster, MD:  Newman Press,1950-60), 1:196; Adolf Harnack, "Aristo of Pella," The NewSchaff0Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1:283.

[16] Cited inSpencer Mansel, "Aristo Pellaeus," Dictionary of ChristianBiography, ed. by William Smith and HenryWace (London:  John Murray, 1877),1:161.

[17] Jerome, Commentaryon Galatians, 2.3.13.

[18] Jerome, HebrewQuestions in Genesis, 2.507.

[19] Maximus,Comm. On Ps.-Dionysius, De mystica theologica, 1; see Mansel, op. cit.,and Emil SchŸrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes andF. Miller (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), 1:38.

[20] Mansel, op.cit.

[21] LouisGinzberg, "Aristo of Pella," The Jewish Encyclopedia, 2:95.

[22] A. LukynWilliams, Adversus Judaeos(Cambridge:  University Press,1935), 29-30.

[23] FrederickC. Conybeare, ed., The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothyand Aquila (oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1898), xxxix, lii,liii.

[24] Eusebius, ChurchHistory 4.18.6-8.

[25] Leslie W.Barnard, Justin Martyr:  HisLife and Thought (Cambridge:  University Press, 1967), 22.

[26] Ibid., 13.

[27] Ibid., 19.

[28] Dialoguewith Trypho 1.3; hereafter DT.

[29] DT, 9.3.

[30] DT, 16.2;92.2.

[31] A. LukynWilliams, ed., Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho(London:  SPCK, 1930), xxv.

[32] Ibid.,xxxi.

[33] Barnard, JustinMartyr, 52; see also Willis A. Shotwell, TheBiblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London:SPCK, 1965).

[34] Williams, Dialoguewith Trypho, viii.

[35] Conybeare, Dialogueof Timothy and Aquila.  We will abbreviate the Dialogue as TA.

[36] Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 71.

[37] Ibid., 67;TA, 75v.

[38] TA, 75v,107r. (r and v indicate recto and verso of the numbered sheet)

[39] TA, 77v.

[40] TA, 84r,95r.

[41] TA, 78r.

[42] Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 68.

[43] Ibid., 70.

[44] Ibid., 71;TA, 115v.

[45] TA, 77r.

[46] Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 71.

[47] Ibid., 117.

[48] Conybeare, Timothyand Aquila, liii.

[49] TA, 82v.

[50] Conybeare, Timothyand Aquila, lv; Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 73.

[51] Eusebius, ChurchHistory 4.6.

[52] M. R. P.McGuire, "Celsus," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 3:382.

[53] JohnRickards Mozley, "Celsus (1)" in A Dictionary of ChristianBiography, ed. William Smith and Henry Wace(4 vols.; London:  John Murray,1877), 1:435.

[54] Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 79, thinks almost 7/8ths arepreserved, and McGuire about 9/10ths, but this seems to be scarcelycredible.  Much of the TrueAccount is in the form of dialogue, yetOrigen mentions only the opposing side of the conversation;  moreover, it does not appear that hegives us all of that.

[55] Williams, AdversusJudaeos, 79n1.

[56] Ibid., 80.

[57] OAC, 2.31.

[58] HCTM,255ff.

[59] BT, Sanh.38b.

[60] TA, 76r.

[61] TA, 79r.

[62] TA, 80r.

[63] M, Sanh.4.5.

[64] T, Sanh.8.7.

[65] TA, 97v.

[66] BT, Sanh.38b.

[67] SITM, 112,117.

[68] DT, 56.12,127.5.

[69] SITM, 113.

[70] BT, Hag.14a.

[71] HCTM,302-03.

[72] JT, Shab.8b.

[73] DT, 48.1.

[74] DT, 49.1.

[75] DT, 65.1,87.1.

[76] OAC,1.69-70.

[77] DT, 57.

[78] AlfredEdersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (3rd ed., 2 vols.; New York:  Longmans, Green, 1886; reprinted GrandRapids:  Eerdmans, 1947), AppendixIX.

[79] HCTM, 338.

[80] BT, Ned.32b.

[81] DT, 33.1.

[82] TA, 79r,102v.

[83] TA, 83r.

[84] OAC, 1.49,50, 61.

[85] OAC, 1.49.

[86] DT, 67.1;TA 111r.

[87] SITM, 114.

[88] M, Yeb.4.13; BT, Yeb. 49b.

[89] SITM, 111.

[90] HCTM,43-45.

[91] SITM, 111.

[92] BT, Yom.66b.

[93] HCTM,46-47; BT, A. Z. 16b-17a.

[94] OAC, 1.28.

[95] OAC, 1.32.

[96] T, Hull.2.22-24; JT, A. Z. 40b-41a.

[97] BT, Sanh.106a.

[98] DT, 67.2.

[99] OAC, 1.67.

[100]TA, 93r.

[101]Krut Aland, et al, eds., The Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1968), 2n4.

[102]DT, 69.7.

[103]OAC, 1.68.

[104]OAC, 2.49.

[105]OAC, 1.71.

[106]BT, Sanh. 43a.

[107]T, Shab. 10.11, 11.15; JT, Sanh. 7.16; BT, Sanh. 67a, Shab. 104b.

[108]HCTM, 345.

[109]F. F. Bruch, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 58; Josephus, Jewish War 2.261; Antiquities 20.169ff.

[110]SITM, 111.

[111]BT, Hag. 5b.

[112]SITM, 110.

[113]BT, Yeb. 102b.

[114]BT, Ber. 10a.

[115]OAC, 2.1.

[116]OAC, 2.4.

[117]OAC, 2.3.

[118]OAC, 2.4.

[119]TA, 113v.

[120]DT, 10.3.

[121]TA, 114r.

[122]DT, 27.1.

[123]DT, 35.1.

[124]DT, 79.1.

[125]DT, 71.2.

[126]TA, 115v.

[127]SITM, 113.

[128]BT, Shab. 116a.

[129]OAC, 2.49.

[130]OAC, 2.74.

[131]OAC, 2.27.

[132]BT, Shab. 116a.

[133]HCTM, 163.

[134]BT, Shab. 116a.

[135]See HCTM, 115n1.

[136]DT, 51.1.

[137]OAC, 1.50.

[138]Ibid.

[139]OAC, 1.57.

[140]DT, 8.4.

[141]DT, 49.1.

[142]See Williams' notes at DT, 8.4.

[143]DT, 32.1.

[144]OAC, 2.29.

[145]OAC, 1.61.

[146]OAC, 1.49.

[147]TA, 80.

[148]OAC, 2.17.

[149]OAC, 2.23.

[150]OAC, 2.16.

[151]OAC, 1.66, 2.9.

[152]TA, 80.

[153]OAC, 2.13, 15.

[154]OAC, 2.18, 19.

[155]OAC, 2.20.

[156]Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2.3.13.

[157]TA, 100v.

[158]DT, 32.1, 89.1, 90.1.

[159]DR, 89.1.

[160]OAC, 2.31.

[161]T, Sanh. 9.7.

[162]TA, 132v.

[163]OAC, 2.8.

[164]OAC, 2.75.

[165]OAC, 2.78.

[166]BT, Sanh. 43a.

[167]HCTM, 92-93; Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 63.

[168]OAC, 2.45.

[169]OAC, 1.62.

[170]BT, Shab. 116a.

[171]T, Hul. 2.20-21.

[172]BT, A. Z. 17a.

[173]BT, A. Z. 27b

[174]DT, 8.3.

[175]DT, 38.1.

[176]DT, 10.2.

[177]SITM, 119-20.

[178]BT, Pes. 87b.

[179]HCTM, 249.

[180]BT, Shab. 116b.

[181]TA, 132v.

[182]DT, 64.1.

[183]OAC, 1.41.

[184]OAC, 1.48.

[185]OAC, 2.46.

[186]OAC, 2.39.

[187]OAC, 2.63, 67.

[188]OAC, 2.55.

[189]DT, 122.3-4.

[190]TA, 127v-128r.

[191]OAC, 2.5.

[192]BT, A. Z. 17a.